5D mkI vs 60D

[Scuba]

So I am in process of upgrading equipment and was originally thinking of getting the 60D because I can afford it and a good lens with it. However, someone mentioned a used 5D mkI which got me thinking. Full frame vs crop. Obviously we all want to be on a full frame. My question is the 5D being ~5 years old would it still be a better choice over a new 60D? I am not worried about the MP numbers I know the larger pixels of a full frame sensor are what matter and not the number of pixels. I don't know a whole lot about the original 5D. What are it's issues and common problems? It looks like a used 5D and a new 60D are about the same cost or maybe the 5D is a little less.

 

[Scuba]

Also, any ideas on what would happen to value when the 5D mkIII comes out?

 

[Big Mike]

The 'issue' with the original 5D, is that it's a great sensor in what is basically a 30D body....only with a slower frame rate (probably because of the larger mirror etc.).
So compared to something like a 40D, 50D, 60D, the 5D has (I think) an older/slower AF system. It even has the same AF array (points) that came from the 20D/30D...but on the larger frame, the points are clustered in the centre on the 5D.
So really, the 'issue' is that people who forked over $2500, wanted a better camera body to go with the great sensor.
But the image quality is great. Nice big sensor that is not crowded with photosites (pixels).

The 60D, is a bit of an odd ball. It has diverged from the path of it's predecessors (20D, 30D, 40D, 50D). The 60D is smaller than the 50D and is made with more plastic (less metal) and the ergonomics have changed (as per the smaller body). It makes sense, as the 60D now sits midway between the T3i (top rebel) and the 7D...where as the 40D & 50D were a littler more 'professional' feeling.
But if that's not an issue, the 60D has most of the modern features that Canon offers. Plenty of MP (maybe too much for that sensor), live view and HD movie recording, articulating LCD screen (only model with that, I think), the built-in flash can act as an E-TTL master etc.

So the 60D is obviously newer and has the latest technology, but in terms of pure image quality, I think that most would say that the 5D still beats it.

To add further confusion, the image quality of the top rebel (T3i) is probably as good as the 60D....and you might even prefer the Rebel body, especially considering the price difference.
And if body/build is a big issue for you (I personally don't like the Rebel bodies at all), then you might consider something like a used 40D or 50D.

 

[Big Mike]

Also, any ideas on what would happen to value when the 5D mkIII comes out?

Value of the 5D?
It is going down, as all old models do...but it's probably going to flatten out close to where it is now. There are still plenty of people shooting with Rebel, who would jump at the chance to get a good deal on a 5D, which should keep the price up around $800 (or wherever).

 

[Scuba]

Ok so after reading your opinion on the 60D it seems like it isn't worth getting because it would be much of an upgrade for what I am looking for. It seems that it really is a glorified Rebel. I see that your not the biggest fan of the 5D and make some great points. I am thinking that at this time, I am not needing a high frame rate and fast autofocus for what I am using it for. I can see the focus points being annoying for sure. From what I read there is no specific faults in the 5D? just older and lacking features and speed in a couple areas. I read something about dust being an issue with the original 5D? I think it was something like it doesn't have an auto clean like the newer models do?

So basically it looks like it comes down to most current features w/crop sensor vs pure image quality w/older full frame. I guess I should have included that I have a xsi currently and ask if the 60D sensor is even going to give an upgrade in image quality?

Should I wait a little bit and see what happens with the 5D III? Not to create a debate on this but is the 5D III going to be released by the end of this year?

 

[Big Mike]

It's not that I don't like the original 5D, that's just the prevailing opinion among internet gear heads.
If you want the best image quality for the lowest price (in terms of a camera body), your best bet is probably a used 5D. And really, all of those AF & speed issues, may be a complete non-issue for you (and most photographers really).
As for dust, sure the 5D doesn't have the new 'shake the dust off' feature that all the new cameras have...but I wouldn't make a big deal of that. It just means that you may have to clean your sensor more often. I have 20Ds and I really only clean their sensors two or three times a year.

As for the image quality of the XSi vs the 60D....I really don't know. I've heard complaints about the 60D and how it's image quality isn't any better than the 40D/50D, and may even be worse in some aspects. Probably a result of trying to cram so many pixels onto the smaller sensor. I hear that less about the 7D, which I think has the same sensor...but it's one reason I didn't upgrade to the 7D. There are plenty of resources for comparing the image quality of specific cameras (and lenses), so I don't think we need to discuss that too much here. (especially since I haven't used either one, besides seeing my students use them in class).

As for waiting for Canon to come out with a new model, to see what that will do to the market....good luck. They are very tight lipped and only leak info a couple weeks before they release the new model officially. I speculated in another thread that maybe a new model is on the way, because the local cameras stores in my city, are discounting the 5DmkII $700 off their list price. (now $1999). But really, nobody knows. It's typical that they make their big announcements around the time of the big international camera shows.

***OK, I just did a quick read over at the Canon Rumors web site. They're saying that the recent discounts are not a harbinger of replacement models...but that 2012 will be a big year. 25th anniversary of EOS cameras, Olympics in London, etc. Possible replacements for the 5DmkII and 7D. Maybe as early as Jan or Feb...but again, Canon is tight lipped and these are only rumors.

 

[Scuba]

man this whole mkIII thing is killer and the rumors for next year. I think the 5D sounds like the better choice for me. I don't think it really matters if the mkIII comes out or not if the price isn't going to plummit on the original. I just didn't want to buy it and have the MKIII come out and the camera I just bought significantly drop in value.

Any advice for glass since I am going from a crop to a full frame? I looked through some of my favorites and they were pretty much all taken at 28-50mm (45-80mm equivalent) and I know many times I wished I could get wider but that was what the 28-200mm lens could do. I have been considering the canon 17-40mm f/4 as a starting point.

 

[Big Mike]

The usual 'normal' range for film or full frame is about 24-70mm. So you could look at the Canon 24-70mm F2.8 L. It's big, heavy and pricy though. Sigma offers a similar lens for a little less, and Tamron has a 28-75mm that is easier on the wallet. I'm considering the Tamron myself.

For a wider lens, the 17-40mm F4 L would be a great lens. It's certainly on my must-get list. I have a 10-22mm that I used a lot on my crop cameras...and I loved it.

 

[Scuba]

Yeah the 24-70mm is well out of my price range right now. Working with about $1500. So 5D body about $850-950 then ~550-650 for glass. Do you think the 50mm 1.4 and a 35mm f/2 combo would be a better start? I imagine the primes are still sharper then the 17-40L? a little more limiting but would probably improve my composition etc by getting me to move more.

 

[Big Mike]

The 50mm F1.4 has a great reputation. I's certainly suggest that one. The 35mm F2 gets much less publicity, which leads me to think that it's not the gem that the 50mm F1.4 and 85mm F1.8 are.

 

[Scuba]

Yeah I hear ya on the 35mm. I have never seen it in person but by the pictures it seems to be almost built like the 50mm 1.8. Plastic casing etc. I don't know if I am considering the 17-40 just because it is the L glass or if it is really what I will be happy with. It certainly won't give me any advantage in low light over my previous equipment which was a secondary reason to upgrade. It was pretty difficult to shoot in any low light with max iso of 1600 and f3.5-5.6, even with a speedlite. I am thinking it may be the smartest move to get the 50 1.4 to start and then go from there. Then I can figure out more what I will want/need with a full frame sensor. I know for sure the 50 1.4 will be sharp all around and good in low light. Plus maybe by that time I can scrape together some more bucks to get more glass.

 

[Magellan]

I have the 35mm f/2. It's a great general-purpose lens for a crop body, and the one that stays on my camera most. The reason it gets less publicity is because it's an old lens...it was originally released in 1990, and in fact, it's not sold anymore in the U.S., if I recall correctly. I wouldn't worry about build quality, it's built much better than, say, the 50mm 1.8 / II, or the EF-S lenses. Yes it's plastic, but it's sturdy plastic. And it has a metal mount instead of a plastic one. IQ is great for the price, too...I mean, it's no L lens, but you won't find a lens in a similar focal length that performs as well at that price point. The only downside of it is that the focus motor is very noisy. It's also prone to focus hunting occasionally.

P.S. - Non L primes are probably not sharper than an L zoom, though I've never used the 17-40. I'd go for the primes simply because of the wider aperture. If you're like me, you will want that extra stop or two. And, yes, I'd say primes will certainly improve your composition. They force you to re-examine your frame instead of just turning a knob.

 

[Scuba]

Good to hear from someone who has the 35mm. It doesn't seem to be that popular of a lens. I don't think too many primes are as it seems most are stuck on the zooms. I think I will def check it out then. I think I like the idea of the primes because I feel that is where photography got started and all people had for a long time.

 

[Scuba]

Big Mike...do you have an opinion on the Sigma 50mm 1.4 vs the canon 50mm 1.4? I have read the image quality is better on the sigma.

 

[Big Mike]

I haven't tried them, but I've also heard that the Sigma is pretty good. One concern might be that Sigma prime lenses aren't known for their focus accuracy....might have something to do with quality control. The 50mm F1.4 is a fairly new model, so maybe it's better.
Anther issue is the size & weight. I'm not one to shy away from big heavy lenses (I use my 70-200mm F2.8 L IS more often than not) but the Sigma 50mm is huge compared to the Canon 50mm F1.4. If the Sigma was loads better than the Canon, then the choice would be easy, but I think that the Canon is still a very good option considering that it's half the size and $130 less expensive.

But that being said, the image quality of the Sigma might just be worth the extra cost & size. You'll have to do the research yourself to decide that one.