600D or 5DMkII

<p>Hello!<br>

I am thinking about replacing my 350D with a newer camera (the 350D would become my backup then). While I was initially considering the 5D MkII I now lean more towards the 600D which is only about one third in price.<br>

I have the following set of lenses: EF-S 10-22 / EF 20-35 / EF 24-105 / EF 70-200 / EF 100-300.<br>

I shoot mostly landscapes in bright daylight.<br>

So choosing the 5D and switching to FF would not be much more expensive camera wise but also mean that in the long run I would need a substitute for the 10-22 since the 20-35 is not a real substitute since 4mm on the wide end is quite a lot. And at the same time I would lose quite some reach on the long end. So going FF would cost me in the end at least 1500 EUR more than sticking with a 600D. And since I just shoot for fun and do not earn any money with shooting there is no chance that going the "professional" route will pay off.<br>

In the end for me it looks like the best solution is to stick with APS-C and delay switching to FF by a couple of years. Or did I miss something important in my considerations?</p>

 

<p>Get the 5D MKII for the better body. Simple decision, IMO.</p>

<p>I wouldn't discount the 60D or 7D, Matthias. They have pretty much the same sensor as the 600D, but in all other respects they are much better cameras. They have bigger, brighter viewfinders, and better AF and metering systems.</p>

<p>Unless you're planning on doing a lot of low light, high ISO shooting, I'd stick with a crop body, for the reasons that you yourself have mentioned. I bought a 5DII (my first DSLR) upon its release in 2008 because I was coming over from film SLR's and wanted to retain the "full frame" field of view. But this consideration is irrelevant in your case.</p>

<p>I should add that I recently picked up a used 50D to complement my 5DII, and have enjoyed its extra effective reach.</p>

<p>I have a 400D, and whereas I am personally looking to get a 50D, I had been thinking about the future and came to the conclusion that I would probably want to stay APS-C if I ever upgraded again. Sooooo - why not consider the 7D, which is 'top of the crops' and a blinding camera to boot.<br>

Just my opinion...hope it helps!</p>

<p>There's no doubt that going w/ the FF 5d2 is going to be a much more expensive route. If you can't say with certainty what Donald has said, then you've made the right choice. The 600D is not as capable as the 50D, 60D, 7D, or 5D2, but with care and proper use, in many cases, it can produce imagery just as good as the 60D, 50D, or 7D. </p>

<p>I would say that unless you absolutely <em>need</em> the FF capability (or limitations --depending on your viewpoint), or the stellar high ISO performance, you've made the right call -- for you.</p>

<p>For landscapes, the 5D2 and the 24-105mm is an excellent combo that's hard to beat. Add a 1.4x TC to the 70-200mm and you've basically covered everything but super-tele.</p>

<p>I own the 5D2 and the 7D and always chose the 5D2 for scenics, portraits, street shooting and night photography. The 7D is my wildlife go-to body.</p>

<p><em>I shoot mostly landscapes in bright daylight.</em></p>

<p>The 600D will suit you just fine. Full-frame mainly gets you shallow dof and better low-light capabilities. And that's not your main subject matter.</p>

<p>That said, the 5D2 has slightly more megapixels and will produce better prints when printing 18"x24" or larger. 5D2 also fits well with landscaping lenses such as 17/4 TS. Whether all this is worth the extra $$$ is up to you.</p>

<p>I have a 5D II and shot with a 7D for a while (sports) and can easily say the the 5D II produces better image quality. (the 7D and 60D are very similar in terms of image quality) There's more to the FF advantage than depth of field and low light. The sharpness at the pixel level is much better and you'll produce better prints as a result. Sell the current gear and the 10-22 and get the 5D II. Going forward, you may want to replace the 20-35, but only if you are disatisfied with its performance. You won't regret it.</p>

<p>I think the "FF advantage" is mostly psychological, not--mind you--entirely, but mostly.</p>

<p>Both the 7D and the 5D mk II are higher level bodies than the 600D or the 60D - tougher in general. I think either one of them is fine. If you get the 7D your 10-22mm lens will still work, as it will NOT on the 5D series.<br /> In any case keep your old camera as a lightweight spare for casual shooting.</p>

<p>5D Mark II</p>

Dear Matthias,

 

Your reasoning is sound. The other posters bring up valid points about different bodies (60D or 7D) and the

advantages of a 5Dii.

 

How much you want to spend is up to you of course. A choice like this is in the realm of diminishing returns. The more

you spend the smaller the quality increase becomes.

 

I want to add one option: get a second hand 5D (classic) and see if you like it. If you don't, just sell it.

 

M.

<p>What problem(s) are you looking to solve by buying a new camera body?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What problem(s) are you looking to solve by buying a new camera body?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Last time I was on holidays I gathered some big piece of dust on the sensor and was not able to remove it in the hotel limiting shooting to f/5.6 or wider. This time I am going on a cruise and want to have a second body in case something like this happens again.</p>

<p>It seems that you've answered your own question.</p>

<p>I'd still ask yourself the question of what do you hope to gain by upgrading your 350D to a 600D or 5DMkII?</p>

<p>You do realize that the anti-dust systems in the new cameras does not mean 100% guaranteed dust-free, right? You can still have something stuck on the sensor and have to clean it manually. It's less likely, sure, but that hardly seems like a reason buy a whole new camera. Why not just bring your sensor cleaning tools? </p>

<p> </p>

Matthias

 

Here are my thoughts - photography as a hobby is as much about how you feel as it is about equipment. Generally

people replace their equipment if they feel it is holding back their results. It is also a diminishing return business ((I

know as I also shoot Leica!). There are two things you need to consider when you upgrade - one is the technical

performance and the other is the handling and feel. I shoot the 7D and 5DII (plus 1DIIN) in EOS digital and my kids

have a 300D I picked up cheap. For me the handling of the camera is very important - viewfinder size, body size and

controls, menu system etc... Here you get what you pay for. I have not used the 600D or 60D but I suspect for you

use the image quality differences between the 600D, 60D and 7D are negligible (unless you also shoot sports). The big

difference is handling - control layout, body size and viewfinder. Here the 7D will beat the 60D which in turn will better

the 600D. Thus I suggest you try all three too see what feels right to you. On the subject off the 5DII I love the camera

and use it a lot more than the 7D. Both the 5DII and the 7D are almost identical in handling (the 5DII has a bigger and

brighter viewfinder). The quality difference is there but is not that great (I can usually tell which body a shot was made

on but the rest of my family cannot - the subtle differences in DOF, contrast and sharpness are not noticed by them).

Even for me I think the reason I take the 5DII over the 7D is driven mainly by the angle off view of the lenses. As

someone who has shot full frame since 1980 the full frame 5DII feels right. I instinctively know what lens I need and

where I should stand as my body and mind have been conditioned over the years. With the 7D and 1DIIN it always

feels more clumsy. Interestingly with Medium format (I shoot 645 and 6x8) I never have an issue although this is a

slower and more deliberate approach to shooting.

 

 

Rather a ramble but do not underestimate how a camera feels. Cameras that feel right get used a lot while ones that

don't stay in the closet. When shooting professionally you use the best tool for the job (at least I did when I shot for

money) but as a hobby you should shoot for the experience. I have extensive collections of FD and EOS film bodies

from my years of shooting but when I shoot with a Canon film body I almost always take my technically inferior FD

bodies over my vastly superior EOS 1Vs and 1NRS. Somehow the F1s and T90s just feel better.

 

Go into a store and try them.

<p>Matthias - you seem to have all angles covered. If you do not intend to regularly print bigger than 18"x12" then the quality differences will be minimal in most cases.</p>

<p>For me, the advantage of the 60D/7D are that (compared to the 600D) the dual-wheel controls make it is easier to access and set some of the settings, especially exposure compensation which I use a lot. Then the 600D/60D have articulated LCDs which the 7D has not got.<br>

So if you don't need the fast autofocus of the 7D I would give serious thought to the 60D.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You do realize that the anti-dust systems in the new cameras does not mean 100% guaranteed dust-free, right? You can still have something stuck on the sensor and have to clean it manually.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, that's right. But if you have got a second body, you can switch to that and delay the cleaning to when you are at home.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So if you don't need the fast autofocus of the 7D I would give serious thought to the 60D.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I will have a look at the 60D.</p>

<p>[[you can switch to that and delay the cleaning to when you are at home.]]</p>

<p>What happens when the sensor on the backup gets dust on it? </p>

<p>They are totally different cameras. It's depends your budget. They are not 'comparable' per se, since they are different formats.</p>