Old 12MP 5D or 60D for 16X24 prints

[bob_estremera]

<p>Looking for a little guidance/input from those more experienced.<br>

I shoot architectural details in New York City and doing the early research on the next step up for cameras, specifically as they relate to image sensors.<br>

My aim is to print sharp, non-pixelated 16X24's, larger if possible. My only frame of reference for quality is in printing 16X20's from my Bronica ETR medium format and that's the target.<br />For my work, I use tripods and base ISO's so the 60D high ISO advantage might not be that important. <br />But it would be nice.<br>

I can't spring for the 5D MkII but am considering the 60D versus the old 5D with 12MP because they are comparable in price right now.<br>

Is the full frame still the better output or have the new CMOS sensors like the 60D caught up to (or surpassed?) the older FF sensor?<br>

Thoughts please, thanks,<br>

Bob</p>

[diego_di_michele]

<p>I believe you will get better quality prints from the bigger sensor. Leaving out of the megapixel count, from 60d you need to enlarge 25x times to get to 16*24 (60cm/2.4cm), and from 5d you need to enlarge much less, 16.6x times.<br>

Unless the glass you are using is extremely sharp in order to make a full advantage over the 18Mpx of the 60d, I think the images from 5d classic absolutely will get better enlargements.<br>

That's my two cents.<br>

Best,<br />Diego.</p>

<p>I am owner of a 5D classic and have also had 20d,xsi,xt,5dmkii.</p>

[lornesunley]

<p>You could always cheat and use some panorama stitching software like Autopano. that would give you lots and lots of pixels.</p>

[markonestudios]

If shooting in a carefully controlled environment (tripod, MLU, base ISOs, etc as you allude to, then I think there will be very little between these two cameras. I am biased towards the FF though especially for architectural applications. When I had only a crop dSLR and a film SLR, I would often use my film camera for true wide angle benefits and I also found the results straight out of camera sharper from my film SLR. Having said that, I have successfully printed 20x30s from my humble 400D (XTi) for interior design clients.

<p>I have no experience with the 60D but from what I've read, and considering the advances in CMOS sensor technology, it has an impressive feature set and some features which may be especially useful for you (live view for example).

<p>An important question is: What lenses do you currently have?

[scott_ferris]

<p>What lenses are you using, better yet, what FOV are you looking for?</p>

[jimstrutz]

<p>I compared images from a 5D I owned for a while with a 50D. I used a 28-70 f/2.8L on both cameras. The 5D images were indeed better when blown up to the same sized prints. It was easy to see. I don't believe the extra 3MP of the 60D or other sensor improvements are significant enough to change the results. That said, high quality 16x24" prints are doable from either.</p>

<p>BTW, the 60D does not have a real high ISO advantage over the 5D. The 5D is limited to a lower ISO, but if you compare the images at that speed for noise and sharpness, I think you will find the 5D still wins. ----- But I sold the 5D and kept the 50D. It's more that adequate.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I don't own a 60D but shot a 5D for over 3 years and can say large prints look great assuming good technique. The design is over 5 years sold so you may miss a lot features you take for granted on newer cameras: LV, ISO always visible in VF, CMOS shaker, MA, tabbed menu system, quick control screen, IR remote, etc. The only thing that really bugged me about the 5D was the terrible LCD: dark, tiny and greenish in colorcast. Although many bitch 'n moan about 5D AF I rarely found it lacking for my travel, street and landscape images.</p>

[peter_e]

<p>The deciding aspect is what lenses you currently own, what lenses you would need to buy, and how much money you want to spend. If wideangle shots are important, you have more lens options with the FF camera. You could also look into a shift (maybe tilt-shift) adapter for your Bronica lenses on the 5D (if available). I have done this with Mamiya lenses. This generally does not work on cameras with built-in flash. Should you ever decide to invest in the Canon tilt-shift lenses, you don't lose any field of view on the FF camera. If you shoot more in the tele range, the crop camera could be considered more advantageous. The 5D has ample resolution (with room to uprez if needed to avoid pixilation) as long as you don't crop too much. That is where the 5Dii has room to spare. The limitation of the crop cameras (I have the 7D) is more noise even at low ISO compared to the FF cameras. It seems to me you would have more reasons to buy the 5D than the 60D.</p>

[nathangardner]

<blockquote>

<p>so the 60D high ISO advantage might not be that important</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know you said it isn't important, but I doubt that the 60D has a high ISO advantage over the 5D. Even though the technology is newer, I would still bet an older 12MP FF sensor would handle noise much better than an 18MP APS-C sensor.</p>

[DickArnold]

Hi. I have owned a lot of Bronica ETR gear. I also own a 5D. I have only read about the 60D. As stated above the 5D high ISO performance is quite good. Although I own a 1.6 crop body when the light is really bad at the swimming meets I shoot I take out the 5D and get usable images at 3200 ISO. The 5D produces enlargements comparable to the ones I got with the ETRSi and excellent Bronica PE lenses. I don't have to struggle with scanning with the 5D. I have some big pictures from both the ETRSi and 5D on my walls. I defy you to tell which is which. The viewfinder on the 5d is large compared to a 1.6 crop. I think the 5d color and resolution are excellent. However, I cannot make out the 5D lcd in bright light and it is small in comparison with the 60D. Also early 5D lcds had a greenish tinge. Buy one with a serial number beginning with "2" or higher to avoid this. The 5D has had problems with the mirror falling out. Canon does a free mirror mod. You can distinguish one that has had the mod as there are two black metal strips running down the sides of the mirror. The 5D frame rate is slow compared to the 60D. The shutter has a clunk like the ETR. I kind of like it but some don't. I have an array of L lenses that work on a full frame so I will stick with full frame; however, if you have good AF-s lenses it would be better, I think, to go with the 60D. The software and sensor technology of the 60d are well advanced over the 5D but that would not justify my moving "up?" to the 60D. I see used 5Ds are going for about 1000 and so is the 60D new. It's a tough choice. I think the quality of enlargements the size you are talking about would be marginally better with the 5D than the 60d but from two feet away who can tell?

[hjoseph7]

<p>For architecture you definately need some wide angle lenses and I mean real wide angle such as 20mm-28mm. Canon does not offer many options for cropped cameras, so I would go with the 5D. A 20mm is the equivalent of a 32mm on a cropped camera, a 24mm is a 38mm on a crop. I would purchase the 5D with one of Canon's TS lenses. </p>

[jimstrutz]

<p>Harry, that is true if a prime is required, but if a zoom will do Canon's 10-22 is very good, and that is the equivalent of 16mm. There are also several good third party wide lenses for APS-C and some even some fisheyes if that scratches your itch. If the OP has a selection of good glass for one format or the other this could be an issue, but I don't think so otherwise.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Sorry to those spouting the "FF is better" meme here, but resolution is a verifiable physical quantity, and we know the quantities for both sensors. Canon's 18 MP APS-C sensor resolves more detail and is capable of larger prints, or finer detail for a given print size, than the 5D's 12 MP FF sensor. The difference in detail is relevant and noticeable at 16x24 and 20x30, though it may not stand out as much with architecture as it would with a landscape. I'm not saying the 5D can't do a 16x24 architecture print, I'm saying the 60D 16x24 will be better and even closer to MF (at its best at that size) than the 5D.</p>

<p>BTW, shooting from a tripod at low ISO the 60D is a hair away from the 5D mkII.</p>

<p>You can confirm what I'm saying by simply reviewing the resolution tests and sample images at dpreview and Imaging Resource.</p>

<p>The only question is the lenses. If you can afford and make use of the T/S lenses, you will probably want full frame despite the 60D resolution advantage. If not then you don't really have any better options on FF than on crop so you might as well go with the camera that can give you the best large print.</p>

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

<p>Hmm 12MP vs. 18MP. That's a linear resolution difference of sqrt(18/12) in favor of the 60D. That's a 22% advantage, which will be noticeable on prints _if and only if_ you put 1.6 x 1.22 more resolution on the sensor (crop factor times improved pixel resolution, = 1.95x). So you need twice the resolution from your lenses to actually get that advantage. The good news is that most of the time (i.e. primes and quality zooms at f/8) you actually can provide that resolution. Just don't stop down below f/8. Still, the numbers are a bit frightening. As a rule of thumb, you need 50% MTF at 50 lp/mm for the 5D, and 50% MTF at 100 lp/mm for the 60D.</p>

[miles_hecker]

<p>See http://wyofoto.com/EOS_IQ_shootout_2008/EOS_shootout_2008.html</p>

<p>The 60D is not much different than the 50D...</p>

[danbliss]

<p>I own and shoot with a 5d classic (I saw that above, and I like it better than the old 5d). While the 5d has the advantage of greater area per pixel, the 60d is much newer and thus more efficient catching photons. The edge might go to the 60d there, but only slightly. However, if you are doing architectural work, I am guessing that you will end up with a full frame camera eventually. It is nice to have access to access to all those lenses with wider fields of view. It might be nice to get used to it and the lenses with the 5d. Still, either is probably a good choice.</p>

[bob_estremera]

<p>Wow. Just got back from dinner on the town and thank everyone for your insights.<br />I have the 450D now and using the 18-55 kit, EF-S 55-250 and occasionally the EF 50mm 1.8.<br />Oddly, much of the architecture shooting I do will actually require as much or more telephoto as wide angle. That because I love architectural details, doors, windows, moldings, capitals, etc. that are usually up high and away. For instance, I'm usually grabbing my EF-S 55-250 as often, or more, than the 18-55 IS lens that I have now. This is New York and the buildings, and beautiful details are very high.<br>

It seems that these replies are kind of split on the two camera's. For CMOS, there is a good wide angle option with the EF-S 10-22 so that is covered and that lens tests very high and with minimal distortions. <br />I've just read so many posts and forums that describe FF as the best option for printing large.<br />I would research and begin collecting the necessary glass if I pursued the FF route.<br>

Maybe my next step should be to download the sample images from each camera and just send them to Adorama for 16X24 prints and see how that comes out.<br>

Let me know if I'm missing any other considerations.<br>

Thanks, Bob</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Maybe my next step should be to download the sample images from each camera and just send them to Adorama for 16X24 prints and see how that comes out.</em></p>

<p>You should do this. But you should also apply optimum sharpening to each before sending them off. Crop sensors produce softer images out of camera because the details are recorded at a lower portion of the lens MTF curve. But the difference is small enough to be eliminated in software, either a higher sharpness setting in camera or higher USM in post. It doesn't have to be a lot higher, but in my experience different format/sensor/lens/print size combinations require slightly different USM settings to look their best. Even subject matter is actually a factor. (I don't have a table or anything for all combinations, I just judge it as I'm working on a particular image.)</p>

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

<p><em>But you should also apply optimum sharpening to each before sending them off.</em></p>

<p>Careful there! That's correct, but with the caveat that the sharpening should be done after upsampling*. If you do anything more than absolute minimal sharpening in raw conversions, you'll get horrible halos in the upsampled image. Note that this means that you need to find the raw files for the sample images, since the jpeg files of the sample images will be sharpened at the native resolution.</p>

<p>*: You'll need to upsample to get to 300 ppi for 16x24, of course. IMHO, Photoshop's bicubic resampling should be fine, but there are fancier algorithms that some people prefer.</p>

 

[John Crowe]

<p>There are two upgrades that you can make from your 450D and 55-250, each of which will give you similar increases in enlargement performance.</p>

<p>One is the camera body which you are now researching. Traditional architectural photography would point to a full frame body, no matter what the resolution, but I have done the type of architectural detail you specifically seem to be addressing and for this a crop body would be more appropriate. I recommend making the decision not specifically on MP count but on what lenses you would primarily use. If there is any chance that you would get involved in the future with wideangle and superwideangle architectural photography then full frame is the only way to go.</p>

<p>Two is replacing your consumer grade lens. The seven choices that come to mind are, all Canon EF, 200/2.8 L, 300/4 L, 70-200/4 L, 70-200/4 L IS, 70-200/2.8 L, 70-200/2.8 L IS (either version). I recommend buying used lenses since you are on a tight budget. Consider keh.com, adorama.com, and bhphotovideo.com.</p>

<p>While enlargements from either of these cameras may be comparable to enlargements <strong>scanned </strong>from 120 film, they cannot compare to traditional high quality darkroom enlargements from 120 films like Velvia 50/100, E100, and other 100 ISO print/transparency films. Obviously traditional methods are much slower and more expensive, but I just wanted to be sure you were aware of this. </p>

[g dan mitchell]

I used the 5D for a couple years, and I print. It is capable of producing excellent quality at 16x24, and "pixelated images"

will not be an issue at all.

 

Dan

[g dan mitchell]

Someone wrote: "Sorry to those spouting the "FF is better" meme here, but resolution is a verifiable physical quantity, and

we know the quantities for both sensors."

 

A common misconception is that more megapixels equals better resolution regardless of sensor format. There are a few

issues to think about here.

 

1. If we consider lens resolution in terms of line pairs per millimeter, the larger format can potentially resolve more line

pairs per frame width.

 

2. Pixel resolution is unlikely to be a limiting factor at the print size mentioned in the original post.

 

3. It is common to overestimate the effect of a particular increase in photo sites. For example, some used to imagine that

going from, say 8 MP to 10 MP would make a significant difference. It didn't.

 

4. There are other factors besides these that might argue for one format or the other.

 

I am not claiming that one format is generally "better" than the other, but I am suggesting that being "better" in one

measureable parameter is not enough to draw overall conclusions.

 

I would also suggest that the OP determine what factors other than the capabilities of the current camera might be limiting resolution. With the right lenses, optimal shooting technique, and skillful post-processunfpg and printing, excellent 16 x 24 prints are possible with the current camera.

 

Dan

[macmoss]

<p>The 5D is a terrific workhorse camera, and I agree with those that favor FF. <br /><br />However, not to be a spoiler, but the upgrade to the 5D Mark ii is huge. If you are comparing to a Bronica MF then the Mark ii really comes much closer to the kind of quality you are looking for, IMHO, and more comparable to the MF Digital cameras against which you are competing.<br /><br />There have been some great sales on the Mark ii, and it has been around long enough now so that you might find a used one more affordable than you think, and well worth it. Just an opinion.<br /><br />Also for architectural photography done from a tripod, stitching in Photoshop CS5 is wondrously easy at this point, and would help you accommodate your obvious desire for high technical quality.</p>

[markonestudios]

After having your additional explanation, I would look at upgrading your glass first before your 450D. Do a quick exercise: check your EXIF data and see what focal lengths you mostly end up shooting at. If you can get a prime in that focal length, you will have more than likely solved sharpness challenges (assuming proper technique). Or consider an 'L' zoom that covers that particular focal length range.

[mauro_franic]

<p>It depends on the lens and aperture.</p>

<p>Using a 35mm lens the 60D ignores/discards 60% of the image projected by the sensor. Then the 60D captures just 40% of the image projected (the 5D captures it all) but with a much higher pixel density than the 5D.</p>

<p>Results will vary depending on the lens and aperture used. Diffraction, lens resolution and aberrations may become the bottleneck for quality on the 60D more quickly.</p>

<p>That said, 12MP is not (to my standards) enough detail for a good 16x20 print. For this reason I would personally choose the 60D and work within its limitations - or preferably, get the 5D and print smaller.</p>