Your thoughts on the philosophy of upgrading...

[Disastrous]

I’m wrestling with a decision and looking for some opinions...

I have two bodies at the moment. My ‘big’ camera, a 60D and my travel one, an EOS M3 (which I love).

The problem is, the IQ of the M is slightly better than the 60D, so apart from stuff like AF and burst mode and the screen, there’s very little that makes me take the 60D out with me. It hardly gets used so I’m of a mind to sell it.

The problem is, I’d like to keep a bigger SLR body around, as sometimes the extra features are useful (remote shutter especially).

This makes me think I should trade the 60D in against something a bit newer which also creates a bit of distance between it and the M3.

Options are (given my arbitrary budget of £800ish):

1). Get an 80D. Better for video (my day job), logical upgrade to the 60D and same sensor as M3, albeit with a better processor, so definitely ‘better’. But not by much.

2). Get a 6D mk1. FF so MUCH better for stills (my passion, rather than job), with better dynamic range and bit depth. Against it is the fact that I don’t have much EF glass (my best lenses are EF-S) so would kind of need to start from scratch, and the fact that the 6D is pretty old technology now.

3). Keep my 60D and M3 and buy a really nice EF lens for the same money (realistically, a good L series zoom, despite fitting on the M3, would be unwieldy, so it would probably stay on the 60D and it would be that which makes it my go to for ‘serious’ shooting).

To give you some background, I tend to shoot (in order of frequency):

1). Landscapes
2). Travel/Cities
3). Video
4). Nature
4). People (in the street)

I’d like to do a bit of star photography so that’s a thing too. I don’t really care about super fast AF and millions of points, but do care about DoF, low light performance and dynamic range.

What say ye?

[checkmate91]

I'm in a similar dilemma. Bought a 7D in 2011for action and sports plus holiday snaps and hi-brow arty stuff. Subsequently realised that it is now woefully short of capability compared to the opposition for indoor sports (fencing in sports halls usually, lighting adequate but green walls etc cause havoc with AWB and the std ef-s lenses aren't really fast enough). Next step for me is new 5d mk4 or Canon half-price 5d mk3 at £1,700, can't decide. I have a number of ef lenses so no prob there and the 7D is still perfectly adequate in good light but I'm doing a lot of indoor now and know I could achieve better results than I am currently getting. All for social media and the recipients love them anyway but they're not a critical audience. Just my thoughts...

Edited by checkmate91 on Thursday 18th January 21:17

[Simpo Two]

Disastrous said:

This makes me think I should trade the 60D in against something new, shiny and more expensive...

EFA

If you have to analyse something that thoroughly then you don't really need it

Would I like a D800? Yes. Do I need it? No. Money stays in bank.

Then again:

Would I like a convertible Jaguar? Yes. Do I need it? No. Fukkit, here's my debit card!

[Disastrous]

Simpo Two said:

Disastrous said:

This makes me think I should trade the 60D in against something new, shiny and more expensive...

EFA

If you have to analyse something that thoroughly then you don't really need it

Would I like a D800? Yes. Do I need it? No. Money stays in bank.

Then again:

Would I like a convertible Jaguar? Yes. Do I need it? No. Fukkit, here's my debit card!

A fair point!

I suppose it’s more I feel that the 60D is wasted at the moment as despite being a better camera than the M3, the IQ is definitely inferior. I’ve had a few instances where I would have preferred to use a full size body but have persevered with the M (particularly in challenging lighting) on the basis that I would be annoyed with the result being ‘inferior’ on the 60D.

[checkmate91]

Mr Simpo hasn't helped with his "man maths" there and your dilemma is not dissimilar to mine - 60D/7D great instruments which take suboptimal pics (in some conditions) compared to their 2018 counterparts. Now, there are folks out there who would say that they'd rather a sharp grainy pic than a slow clean one but I think we're both hankering for a sharp clean one

[Disastrous]

checkmate91 said:

Mr Simpo hasn't helped with his "man maths" there and your dilemma is not dissimilar to mine - 60D/7D great instruments which take suboptimal pics (in some conditions) compared to their 2018 counterparts. Now, there are folks out there who would say that they'd rather a sharp grainy pic than a slow clean one but I think we're both hankering for a sharp clean one

Agreed also.

Honestly, if I didn’t have the M3 (which fills a very specific role as a take everywhere camera) I would be fine with the 60D I think.

I just mentally reach for the 60D and then think I’ll just be annoyed with the fact that the wee camera has a better sensor.

Though I have to say, I’m seeing towards a lens after serious mulling over of it.

It’s worth mentioning, I’d assumed the 60D was broadly worthless these days but discovering I would get about £200 for it in a trade has made me consider shifting it before it is.

[Simpo Two]

On a slightly serious note, if low light is a problem, what about fast glass? A camera body is only as good as the lump of glass strapped on the front of it.

NB Note that noise can be partly/wholly overcome by correct exposure/processing.

[Disastrous]

Simpo Two said:

On a slightly serious note, if low light is a problem, what about fast glass? A camera body is only as good as the lump of glass strapped on the front of it.

NB Note that noise can be partly/wholly overcome by correct exposure/processing.

Yeah, this is true also.

But do you think you’d bother when you can just use another body where you don’t have to?

It sort of irritates that the 60D has all these high ISO settings that are pretty much useless because they’re so st.

[singlecoil]

It's good to get opinions from other people, but in the end only you can decide on what you value most. My car is 16 years old and only cost £5,000 when I bought it 5 years ago. My cameras and lenses are the best that Canon and Sony can offer at the moment. Which do you like most, swings or roundabouts?

[steveatesh]

For me this is about want not need.
If you want a shiny thing, and can afford it without causing problems elsewhere, then get it.

Life’s too short.

[Tony1963]

Used 5D2 within budget? Or for a "little" more, a used 5D3?

Edited by Tony1963 on Monday 22 January 19:13

[Simpo Two]

Disastrous said:

It sort of irritates that the 60D has all these high ISO settings that are pretty much useless because they’re so st.

They probably are on all cameras. The marketing people put them on because they know that if it says 'ISO one bazilliion' people will buy it.

Slightly in their defence, a grainy sharp picture is usually more useful than a less noisy blurred one. But I learned my craft when the fastest thing was 400. We managed. Anything more is a bonus

[Disastrous]

Tony1963 said:

Used 5D2 witching budget? Or for a "little" more, a used 5D3?

5D2 is doable, but I’m thinking pretty old now, and probably not as good as a 6D?

I’ve been mulling it overnight and I think the question is really:

What will make the biggest difference to differentiate my big camera from my wee one so I use it more?

The answer is, I think, a good chunky EF lens for the 60D, keep going with that and then upgrade it to FF as time allows.

Ultimately, I think some decent L glass will make a bigger difference than a newer body.

[C&C]

I had a similar issue.
Was using a 40D and 5Dmark1.
Got an EOS-M when Currys were selling them really cheaply before the new model came out.

I had been very happy with the SLRs but the EOS-M was markedly better for low light at high ISO.
I know it's not within your budget, but I ended up going for a 5Dmark3 and couldn't be happier with the results.
It's also pretty good for video with Magic Lantern firmware installed.

Having said that, it's always nice to get a new lens, which you could also use with the EOS-M if you have the adapter....

[sgrimshaw]

steveatesh said:

For me this is about want not need.
If you want a shiny thing, and can afford it without causing problems elsewhere, then get it.

Life’s too short.

Absolutely +1

"You're a long time dead!"

[JatHanspal]

Disastrous said:

5D2 is doable, but I’m thinking pretty old now, and probably not as good as a 6D?

I’ve been mulling it overnight and I think the question is really:

What will make the biggest difference to differentiate my big camera from my wee one so I use it more?

The answer is, I think, a good chunky EF lens for the 60D, keep going with that and then upgrade it to FF as time allows.

Ultimately, I think some decent L glass will make a bigger difference than a newer body.

Whilst a great camera for the money, the 5D2 is a bit dated now. I have a 7D, and then added a used 5D2 to the bundle recently (great price and very little use). I shoot a range of different things, and in good light either of these two are good. What I find surprising is that in lower light, despite the ISO benefit the 5D2 has, it lags behind on focus ability compared to the 7D. As such, I would advise you to also consider focus systems when looking to upgrade, and I would think the 5D2 is not much better than the 60D. The bug bear for me is now the focus system, and so I need to look for a newer model. Glass will come and go, I never concern myself with that as good lenses hold their value and can be sold at any time. Camera bodies depreciate much more, so find a body you really like and then grow the glass around it. That's my £0.02 worth. I know people will say invest in glass first, but your dilemma is not about improving your glass but changing your camera.

[sticks090460]

My vote would be to go for the 80d, but then I have one so I'm inevitably biassed. One thing to remember when buying EF lenses for crop sensor cameras is that, when looking at the max aperture, and the depth of field you'll get as a result, you have to multiply the max f by the crop factor, so an f2.8 becomes an f4.5 on a crop. I've seen disappointment when someone has affixed a very expensive L-series lens to their semi-pro crop camera and expecting full-frame results. If you're wanting to isolate subjects with a very narrow depth of field, it won't happen unless you go full frame, or get a really fast lens like an f1.2 (which even then is still only an f2 equivalent of course.) None of that affects the amount of light admitted by the way, it's just the depth of field.

[JatHanspal]

sticks090460 said:

My vote would be to go for the 80d, but then I have one so I'm inevitably biassed. One thing to remember when buying EF lenses for crop sensor cameras is that, when looking at the max aperture, and the depth of field you'll get as a result, you have to multiply the max f by the crop factor, so an f2.8 becomes an f4.5 on a crop. I've seen disappointment when someone has affixed a very expensive L-series lens to their semi-pro crop camera and expecting full-frame results. If you're wanting to isolate subjects with a very narrow depth of field, it won't happen unless you go full frame, or get a really fast lens like an f1.2 (which even then is still only an f2 equivalent of course.) None of that affects the amount of light admitted by the way, it's just the depth of field.

Does the same apply to EF-S lenses. Does an EF-S f2.8 also become a f4.5? Or is this just for EF lenses?

[ashleyman]

Not exactly the same dilemma as you but a similar one.

I wasn't planning to upgrade from my 5D3 but then was on a job trying to tether via USB to a mac so client could review. It just wasn't happening, in the end I had to set the camera to do all sorts of crazy, utilise EOS utility and then Lightroom and it wasn't happy at all. Really made me realise how much more I needed from the 5D3 when not renting a Phase One and using Capture.

Anyway...

The SD write speed in the 5D3 crippled the camera when trying to use the SD slot as it only recorded up to 133x.
The Canon 5D3 also used USB 2.0 which meant trying to tether wasn't great when trying to pull RAW from camera to Mac.

I bought the 5D4 when it came out as it specifically fixed those 2 issues for me. It allowed me to use the SD as a backup slot with an SD and the USB 3.0 also made tethering a bit faster too. Having had the camera for 8 months or so and using it on a few professional shoots I've not needed to tether at all so that was a bit of a waste but the SD slot is a nice safety to have in case there's a problem with a CF card.

I find the actual RAW files are cleaner, sharper and just better than the old 5D3. The extra resolution is nice but I never needed more with the 3 anyway. I've also found the 4 seems a bit sharper at 100% when using some specific Canon L Series prime lenses. The 4 also seems to focus better without needing help.

I use my iPhone a lot more than my DSLR and also have an EOS-M10 with an adapter so I can use my Canon lenses with it when I want.

I'd always say buy EF lenses, not EF-S if you think you may go FF in the future. EF-S won't work will Full Frame bodies so you could save for the body without needing to buy all new lenses. I had a few EF-S lenses and the original 70-200 L USM lens and I had to re-buy when going full frame, I have a nice collection now but it was tough at the start as all I had was the original 70-200L. Eventually I got 50 1.8 and then a 17-40 F4. It's now 4 years later and I'm spoilt for choice and own 8 Canon EF L series lenses but hardly use anything except the 50 F1.2L and the 70-200 F2.8L II, the rest just fill space in my case and make it heavier!

Edited by ashleyman on Friday 19th January 14:58

[Tony1963]

JatHanspal said:

Does the same apply to EF-S lenses. Does an EF-S f2.8 also become a f4.5? Or is this just for EF lenses?

Just as the focal length of a lens is a measure of a physical thing, so is the aperture. So f/4.0 is the same on a 60D whether its with an EF or EF-S lens. (in other words, nothing like f/4.0 on a full frame body.