Printable View
I've recently bought a EOS 60D - but after reading some more i figured out that a 6D has higher quality because of the fullframe chip. But is the exchange really worth it. Anyone here who have maybe tried to go a step up and get the 6D.
Looking forward to hear from you
Best regards
Jesper
Hi, in general the EOS 6D is in many ways a better camera than the 60D. Still the 60D is able to take great high quality photos. I've never used either of them but I believe the IQ of the 60D is similar to the one of my 7D. The technical IQ of the 6D is better, the difference could be big or hardly noticeable depending on shooting conditions.
The main differences between full frame sensors and crop sensors is (simplified) that the larger light sensing surface of the FF sensor gives you better "signal/noise ratio". The full frame sensor will simply give you less noisy photos. This is especially showing up when using high ISO settings. At moderate ISO settings the difference isn't significant for typical use, but a large print of an image taken at ISO 3200 will look better if it's taken using a FF camera body.
The other significant difference is that you will have to use a longer focal length on an FF camera compared to the crop camera to get the same framing (the 1.6 crop factor). This could be good or bad depending on the situation. If you want the longest possible reach for telephoto shooting, the crop factor could be seen as an advantage. But on the other hand - if one is a sucker for narrow DOF, the longer focal length required by the FF sensor (for equal framing compared to a crop sensor) is an advantage.
Apart from these main general differences, the 6D is a more recent product which means it beats the 60D on some functional stuff. The main ones are GPS and WiFi.
So, 60D or 6D depends on your needs, shooting style, etc. It also depends on your budget since the 6D costs more than twice as much as the 60D. (And the lenses you need for the FF camera also cost more...)
My general advice regarding gear purchasing/upgrading is don't do it until you've grown out of what you already have - don't let the gear collecting take command over creating photos. Many of us - me included - have a tendency to dream of new gear thinking it will give us better photos. I believe other things than new gear makes more difference, e.g. training, training, reading some books, training and some more training.
Good luck with your choice!
I have the 7D (which is very similar in IQ to the 60D) and the 6D. If you shoot in good light and don't crop heavily, the only differences will be those caused by the crop factor (or lack thereof) that cls mentions above. If you shoot in low light, the 6D wins hands down. It handles high ISO (3200 and above) much better than the 7D. But as also mentioned above, the really big difference in IQ starts behind the camera. Learn your craft first. It took me a long time to even begin to consider things like how the light was really affecting my images and how shutter speed was so crucial to sharp images and how shooting wide open all the time wasn't allowing me to get the best image. I still struggle to remember to check my background for distractions and to try to make sure my camera is level. I still look at images from the folks on this board and think how much I still have to learn.
Another thing you may consider is your glass. If I separate out my best shots, they're almost always taken with my higher end glass. The exception there being some of my favorite shots that came from my Roki 8mm FE, which is a dirt cheap lens. All things being equal, a good lens on a 60D will trump a so-so lens on a 6D.
Thanks. I think ill start getting better lenses that will also work with a ff cam. But still i think my 60d shots are not always 100% sharp even on fast shutter like 1/500. So was thinking it might be the chips fault?
The 60D should be sharp, but of course that depends on the lens, and aperture selected (some lenses aren't sharp at fully open apertures).
Depending on what you're shooting, what lens you're shooting with, or your technique, 1/500s isn't fast.
For shooting running dogs I try to keep 1/1600s as a MINIMUM. I've got 1/2500s shots where I was panning with a dog running near the camera and the grass is blurred. The dog is sharp, because I was panning, but the grass isn't, even at 1/2500s.
A slight lens movement makes a bigger difference to a telephoto lens, leading to the rule of thumb of shoot at a minimum of 1/focal length if you have good technique, and no image stabilization. For example, a 85mm lens you need 1/85s. For a 300mm lens you'll need 1/300s. Because the crop factor of your sensor, and the high resolution of modern cameras you might want to apply a 2x multiplier on that, so 85mm = 1/170s, 300mm = 1/600s.
All of these assume you have good shooting technique. I've seen people who press the shutter and pretty much drop the camera to their side in one movement... and they complain about their soft images. Or people who hold a camera out, in one hand, as far as they can reach, with everything swaying around wildly. While these might be extreme cases of bad technique, it's a good habit to think about what *you* are doing, not just your subjects. Hold the camera with one hand. Firmly, but not with a death grip, as that will cause your hand to shake. Hold the lens steady from below with the other hand. Ensure YOU are steady. Perhaps place your feet further apart, lean against a wall, a fence, or a tree. Press the shutter gently... don't jab it quickly, you'll shake everything. Hold your pose until after the shutter noise...
If shooting with a tripod, you need a good solid one that won't move, and use a remote shutter or a timer to ensure you're not shaking things when you press the shutter button. A good test I read about on here was to put your camera with your heaviest lens on your tripod. Go into live view, 10x mode. Is the image rock solid, or shaky? I've got a cheapo low-end tripod, and I can see it shaking. I can use this tripod to hold a flash or something, but it's useless of the camera. Extending different segments of the tripod legs may dampen motion in different ways. When doing this test, setup the legs like you would in the field.
It's not the chip's fault. You can blame it for bad color, high noise, and a few other conditions, but non-100% sharp (an optical issue) won't be the chip's fault. It probably boils down to a combination of poor settings, poor technique, and/or poor glass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jespergb
If I look into my bucket of favorite shots and spin the time machine back to when I shot almost every one of them, I come up with this observation: give me the same lens and a Rebel camera, and I can replicate the shot. Give me a 1Dx and a junk lens, slim chance I can replicate the shot.
Sounds like you haven't had the 60D for long. Take a deep breath, buy a few books or take a few classes, and see how far you can grow. When you can articulate exactly why your 60D is insufficient for your skills, consider the upgrade. However, you'd better have good lenses in your bag, or you'll be utterly disappointed with the "upgrade".
The short answer is no for most people.
The 6D and full frame in general are great, but like the others said the 60D should produce good results too. There are 6D / full frame advantages, but unless you're finding yourself needing those advantages you're probably best off staying with what you have, especially if it is relatively new.
I don't say anything against those that go for 5D III or 6D early in their photographic hobby if they have the inclination and the money, but it's probably not the best idea for most people.
Dave
Hi Jesper,
At least for me, it is very normal to feel conflicted and second guess photography gear selections. There are some great options and no shortage of opinions as to what is "best." Overall, I enjoy that aspect analyzing everything. But I think you have been given some great advice in that you should identify a need or a reason to upgrade. I own the 7D (similar sensor to the 60D) and the 5DIII (again similar to the 6D). I shot very happily with the 7D for years. Honestly, had photography not become the hobby it has for me, I probably would have never considered upgraded. But I shot my 7D until a need developed. Unless you can identify a specific reason to upgrade right now, I would recommend that you shoot the 60D until the same happens for you, if it ever does.
I would consider upgrading the 60D:
- To the 70D if you plan to shoot a lot of video, the dual phase auto focus system should be great for autofocus in video. Also, if you plan on shooting action shots, the 19 pt AF system on the 70D should be better than the 9 pt AF system on the 60D. One other thing, the 70D has autofocus microadjustment (AFMA). This lets you fine tune the focus plane for each lens to match the body. The 60D doesn't have this feature. That said, if your images are sharp, then it is good enough.
- To the 7D, if you get a good price, and everything else above except the dual phase auto focus comments with video. The 7D doesn't have this.
- To the 6D, if and only if you plan on a lot of low light shots where you need >ISO 1600.
Overall, unless one of these jumps out at you, you will likely be better off investing in lenses and flashes. I would recommend the EFS 17-55 f/2.8 if you plan to do some low light photography or try to take pictures of kids running around the house or the EFS 15-85 for general purpose needs (that is what I shot on my 7D and thought it was great). You could also consider primes, the Sigma 35 mm f/1.4 A, Canon 40 mm f/2.8 STM, or Canon 50 mm f/1.4 would be a great place to start as those are all "normal view" to slightly telephoto on a crop sensor body. For a flash, the 600 EX RT or a used 580 EX II for ~$375 would both be very good options. The 600 EX RT, if you have the budget, may be better as it has the radio transmitting feature for when you want to take the flash off camera (but you'll need a radio transmitter for on camera to make this work).
Next thing to think of is a good tripod. Then filters...a high end CPL is a good place to start. No shortage of things to spend money on with photography. The body you use is only one element. ;)
Good Luck,
Brant
I thought I would chime in as another 60D user and a little further back in the learning process compared to the other responders. I think they all had great feedback and Brant summed it up nicely for you.
I have a 60D and have to admit I am always thinking about upgrading. And if I am not thinking about upgrading the body, I am probably thinking about another component I need.
I am sure FF would give me some better pictures, but usually my issues could be fixed with more practice, more time, and using flashes and tripods more often. There are certainly times where I wish I could have ISO > 1600, but I don't know if it is enough to justify the added cost.
So, I have spent my time expanding the rest of my kit. My lenses in order of most used: EF-S 17-55 f/2.8, 100 f/2.8L IS macro, 35mm f/1.4, and 70-200 f/4L IS. I have also added 2 flashes, triggers, softbox/umbrella, good tripod, CPL, ND filters, and other accessories. I guess my point is even with a 60D, you can end up spending a bunch of money, so keep everything you need in mind as you budget.
For me, I fall between wanting the 70D (better autofocus, better video, and AFMA) which would answer many of my 'desires'. I also think about the 5D3 for all of its features and that higher ISO capability. But that ISO capability comes at a cost and I find it hard to justify at this point even though I can afford it. Usually I fall back to that price difference buying me a few more lenses, which I might get more use out of compared to the ISO.
So keep shooting and learning. Think about all the peripherals you might need as you make your purchases. But as others have said, lenses and learning are great places to start.
Eric
Now i got the 24-105 EF-L lense - it is great - and i do see a quality upgrade. I think i'll stick to my 60D and try to improve my skills with that camera and buy some lenses instead. How is the sharpness on the "EFS 17-55 f/2.8"?