5d mk 1 or 60d?

[louis_webb]

<p>Noob here. I am in the process of selling my medium format film kit and I want to get an outfit that will give me as close to possible IQ as my Pentax 645n with Velvia did. I had the 45-85 (28-54 35mm equivalent) and 150 lenses. I used a tripod for most of the shots but I anticipate handholding more with the transition to digital (? roughly 50/50). The main subjects will be landscapes, nature, people/family (landscapes 70%). I have a 85mm filter set (3 filter HiTech-like Lee, super high quality, with a Helioplan 105 CPL), so having a filter thread that accomodates this is important.<br />I have several options available with my £1200-1300 budget (? around $1800-1900).<br />Used Canon 5d £699. This is from a local camera shop, has had 2 amateur former owners and appears to my eyes absolultely mint (both in condition and including the box and all the accessories plus an extra Canon battery; although I haven't looked inside the camera at the mirror etc.) It has a Canon voucher inside the box that is dated to end in 2006, I'm therefore guessing it's late 2005/early 2006 vintage. I would add a 24-105 l lens to this in all likelihood, though I may have to save up a bit more or take a punt on a grey import ('seen one on a couple of websites for £650!)<br />Canon 60d plus 17-85 lens. Would I miss something in IQ? I have plenty of concern about dust accumulation with the 5d, especially given my propensity to landscape skies at f11 to f22. Having only one lens will help I suppose as I won't have to change but is this a deal breaker? I really think that the bigger sensor/good glass=high IQ is what I'm looking for. I also don't need lots of the latest features (video, liveview, high iso) but dust removal on newer cameras sounds great and will a 60d plus good glass give me all I want IQ-wise anyway?<br />BTW, I have a Epson a4 printer and I don't plan printing bigger than this-being able to have nice clean large images on my 22" monitor is a must though (not sure about pixel size etc.)<br />Thanks for your replies in advance.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<blockquote>

<p>I am in the process of selling my medium format film kit and I want to get an outfit that will give me as close to possible IQ as my Pentax 645n with Velvia did.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You probably will be happier with a FF 5D, then a cropped 60D. That's just based on sensor size. From what one reads into your photography habits from the eqp. that you've been using, and your descriptions of how, I'd predict you'll be much more satisfied with the 5D. <br>

IMHO the 24-105 is a compromise lens though. I'd consider sticking w/ primes as you'll probably be much happier w/ their performance, or going w/ a 24-70. </p>

[jim_j2]

<p>Louis,<br>

Given a choice between a used 5D Mark I & a new 60D, . . . I think I would take the used 5D MkI just from what I've read about the two.<br>

If this is your first digital experience . . . I think you will enjoy the 5D MKI much more in the long run than the 60D.<br>

Don't let the sensor cleaning be such a worry, . . . it's not that hard and there are some good articles and input from folks here on PN.</p>

[William Michael]

<p> I haven’t used the EF-S 17 to 85, but my gut tells me I would be happier with a 5D and a 24 to 105 for the tasks you outline. I haven’t used a 60D either, but I think the 5D would be the better camera for the tasks too.</p>

<p>I have a distinct distaste for Varying Maximum Aperture Zooms, so that is one bias I bring to the discussion.</p>

<p>I agree, I can’t see any logic in the dust argument, if you only have one lens.</p>

<p>I would prefer three primes: 24, 50, 85, or four: 24, 35, 50, and 85. But I understand the zoom's leverage. </p>

<p>The 24 and 35 need not be the L series – the 50 and 85 certainly do not need to be L series.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>I have the 5D mk 1 and the 24-105mm. It's a fantastic combination, and although some of the difference is psychological rather than optical, the "full frame" (gee, I dislike that term) does seem to give some extra oomph to the images. On the other hand, I still have my ancient Canon EOS 20D and the EF-S 17-85mm IS lens (often much underrated) and frankly when I went on vacation to Vancouver last year, I took it instead of the 5D. I'm sure after medium format cameras, even the 5D would seem astonishingly light, but for that trip, mostly to see my daughter, I didn't want to be loaded down with equipment, especially as I was carrying her violin to her ( security people really want to know what's in that violin case, by the way).</p>

<p>I can't imagine personally <em>needing</em> more than the 12MP of the 5D, but it's like being rich -- it's hard to be too rich -- and you might want to think about going for the "more pixels" of the 5D mk ii. Here's where you need to look at the 60D. Smaller sensor, but each generation gets better and there are other improvements in each new camera, so it's a cheaper way of getting more pixels - something that can be nice when needed and especially at lower ISOs.</p>

[alwin_lai]

<p>60d is wonderful because of its articulating screen. It would come in handy for those overhead shots. No need to carry a ladder like that women did for Tom, Cathy & Suri shots.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Coming from medium format, I would get a 5D.</p>

[DickArnold]

I have a 5D and a 24-105 which I use a lot and like a lot. A couple of caveats about the 5D. If you get a serial number starting with one you may get a greenish LCD. Canon corrected this in the 2 series numbers. The body has a history of mirrors coming loose. Canon will correct this for free and have a mod when they replace the mirror consisting of two vertical metal strips down the sides of the mirror. I cannot see the lcd in bright sun. However, I find the picture quality great and the ISO performance good enough to regularly shoot swimming meets at ISO 1600. All my lenses are full frame mostly L. I think, for it's capability, the 60D is a good buy if you do not need a high frame rate, advanced AF or a metal frame.

[bueh]

<p>Another vote for the 5D. Great AF, large viewfinder and more (plus better and cheaper) wide angle options (i.e., primes). I come from 35mm film and medium format, too, and was never really 100% satisfied with the small-sensor cameras I had (20D, 40D).</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>The 60D provides superior image quality to the 5D mkI in every respect, not to mention a ton of better / newer features. That said, you're not going to see any real difference at A4 except maybe at high ISO. The print size is too small to illustrate the differences in resolution. If you ever print landscapes larger though you will see the difference.</p>

<p>Dust removal, the feature you're interested in, works very well on the newer cameras. You may not be thinking of this now, but battery life is also much better on the newer bodies which use the LP-E6 battery. I have a 7D and find I can go through a whole day of heavy shooting with an IS lens. I could not do that before with bodies which used the BP-511, even with a non-IS lens. Shooting speed, the user interface, and the LCD will also be much, much better on the 60D. And there's the level. I use this all the time when shooting tripod mounted landscapes.</p>

<p>The 17-85 is mid level. The crop equivalent to the 24-105L is the Canon 15-85. The optical performance with the 15-85 is the equal of the L and considerably better than the previous 17-85 model. If you can manage that combo I would say go with the 60D.</p>

<p>If you do go crop, keep in mind that you do not need to stop down past f/11 if you're using hyperfocal distances. f/22 kills detail and sharpness on crop or FF.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Another vote for the 5D. Great AF, large viewfinder and more (plus better and cheaper) wide angle options (i.e., primes).</em></p>

<p>If you want a fast prime, then the 5D has more options but they certainly are not cheaper. If f/2.8 is acceptable then the 60D has the cheaper wide angle option in the Tokina 11-16, which quite frankly edges out the 16-35L II and produces superb, sharp, detailed landscape prints at 30" print size.</p>

<p>Basically if you want and can afford the unique properties (shallow DoF and light gathering ability) of the 24L or 35L then you want full frame. There are no equivalents to those two lenses for crop. If you don't want or can't afford those lenses then crop has wide angle well covered.</p>

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>f you want a fast prime, then the 5D has more options but they certainly are not cheaper.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Okay, it's only f/3.5 but there is the (quite good) Tokina AT-X 17mm f/3.5 prime (available on the used market) -- dirt cheap. Plus the brand-new (full-frame) AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 (don't know about pricing but certainly less expensive than Canon's L zoom).</p>

[louis_webb]

<p>Many thanks for your responses so far.<br>

I went to have another look at the used 5d in my local camera store yesterday and the benefits of passing through my initial greedy thoughts of finding a boxed full-frame camera came into play. It is definitely one of the first models, having the serial number starting with a 1xxxxx. Also, the mirror has a small squarish area that looks like an image on it which the shop assistant says all dslr's have-is this something to do with the sensor or something else behind the mirror?<br>

Finally, the 5d I'm looking at doesn't include the cd with the Canon software. The guy in the shop said I could download it from either the U.k. or U.S.A. websites but when I looked at this, it seems only updates are available. On 'phoning Canon U.K., they said that the 5d's software is no longer available but with my O.S.'s (Win Xp and 7 64 bit), the s/w for the 450d would be an appropriate match. They then gave me a contact no. for a third party supplier of this s/w but when I rang them, the s/w was out of stock and they didn't know when they would get more. On checking xbay, the 450d software is around £25 (40 usd) but doesn't seem to support both Xp and 7 anyway!<br>

I know that a lot of people would point me in the direction of 3rd party software anyway but as I'm new to this digital malarky, I know hardly anything about digital processing and not having the original Canon software available feels very uncomfortable.<br>

Would this plus my concerns regarding having a 5d that may fail on me after a few more shots be big enough disadvantages to consider a new 60d instead, given that this plus a 15-85 would probably give me similar IQ to what a 5d and 24-105 would?</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Would this plus my concerns regarding having a 5d that may fail on me after a few more shots be big enough disadvantages to consider a new 60d instead, given that this plus a 15-85 would probably give me similar IQ to what a 5d and 24-105 would?</em></p>

<p>I stand by my assertion that if you ever make, say, a 24" print you'll get more detail out of the 60D combo. That plus features plus new with warranty...I'm not sure why you wouldn't go that route.</p>

<p>About the only 5D advantage I can think of would be the viewfinder. The 60D's VF isn't bad, but the 5D's VF is naturally larger.</p>

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>Also, the mirror has a small squarish area that looks like an image on it which the shop assistant says all dslr's have-is this something to do with the sensor or something else behind the mirror?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is normal. But check that the common "mirror issue" has been already fixed by inserting those "<a href="http://robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-9884-9892"><strong>braces</strong></a>" -- else you should give it to a Canon repair center which will do this at no charge.</p>

[louis_webb]

<p>BTW, is the 24-105 l <em>really </em>considered to be a compromise for the Eos users who have this lens? My 45-85 Pentax 645n lens is variable f-stop at different lengths but I don't think you could describe it as a compromise! Isn't the l lens series supposed to be Canon's finest?</p>

[jim_mcdonald3]

<p>Louis<br>

I came from crops and eventually bought a 5D1 to complement my 40D and am delighted with the smoothness of tones and performance up to ISO800. If it helps, I could post you the Canon software. The "mirror fix" is easy though I confess I haven't had mine done yet as I never feel like parting with the camera.</p>

[louis_webb]

<p>Thankyou very much for the offer Jim but I've just come back from the shop again (they must be getting tired of me!) and they've said that they will run me off a copy of the software from another Canon camera's cd, as they say it's the same whatever eos camera you use. I had to take them at face value, as I have no idea about software but they are a trustworthy bunch I think, having been established and trading for many years.<br>

The camera also comes with a 6 month warranty so that allays my fears about it breaking soon after I purchase it. I've just got to wait for my medium format gear to finish at auction on xbay in just over 24 hours and then I'll pounce!</p>

[jim_mcdonald3]

<p>You're welcome Louis. I doubt you'll have a problem with the software but the offer stands if you do so firther down the line. I hope you enjoy your new purchase very much.</p>

[DickArnold]

I came from medium format about eight years ago. I have pictures hanging in my house. Some are 645 scanned from transarencies and a couple of color 645 prints I made in my darkroom. Four or five were taken by a 6MP Canon D60, some by an XTi, and some by the 5D. The pictures are 13x19 and 18x24. No one who views them can accurately tell which came from what camera. The prints are excellent and three of the 6MP pictures have placed highly in shows. I think you would be fine with either camera but you would probably have to purchase lenses specific to either the full frame crop factor or the 1.6 crop. I absolutely refuse to join discussions about which body is better because I have found them all, 1.6, full frame, and medium format more than adequate for what I do and have done over the past twenty years. I have used a friends D60. It has a great viewfinder IMO, it is properly priced IMO. I very much like the feel of the body. I have a sizeable investment over the years L lenses over the years and really like wide angle landscapes with the 17-40 f4L. I have found, in actual practice that the 24-105 f4 IS is my most used lens by far. Both of those lenses exhibit barrel distortion wide and wide open. It can be corrected in LR or PS. The IS really helps. There is a river gorge in the fall that I mistakenly shot at F20 and 1/20th. It was a mistake but it made a great commented upon enlargement becase of the IS. If I did not have all of this hardware I could easily adapt the 60D as I very much liked the feel and handling of the body. There are pluses and minuses on both sides to what you propose Louis. I know it is not de regeur to use a 5D for sports but I shoot in sometimes dimly lit arenas and need to go to high ISOs like 1600 and 3200 to stop action and get usable pictures. I just did a group that I shot at BU pool at the least minute at 3200. It's enlarged, looks good, is reasonably sharp, and is in use. The colors are not highly vivid but are accurate. Louis I miss MF but not enough to go back to my smelly, hot, claustrophobic darkroom.

[louis_webb]

<p>Dick,<br>

Many thanks for your observations of the various formats over the years, this is most illuminating. I've been taking a good look at hundreds of pictures on different forums including the Photography On The Net Canon Digital Photography website-many of the 5d shots there far surpass the quality of anything that I could do, so a 5d should be fine for me. I just need to save for a 24-105 now, I'm maybe a couple of hundred uk pounds short of getting this....</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"BTW, is the 24-105 l really considered to be a compromise for the Eos users who have this lens? My 45-85 Pentax 645n lens is variable f-stop at different lengths but I don't think you could describe it as a compromise! Isn't the l lens series supposed to be Canon's finest?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Your Pentax 645 45-85 is f/4.5, <em>constant</em> at all lengths. Confusing, but conventional jargon is:</p>

<ul>

<li><em>Constant</em> = same <em>maximum</em> aperture for all focal lengths</li>

<li><em>Fixed</em> = single, non-adjustable aperture, typically mirror lenses might offer only a single aperture setting like f/8. </li>

<li><em>Variable</em> means that the <em>maximum</em> aperture varies by focal length</li>

</ul>

<p>Canon's EF 15-85/3.5-5.6 and 17-85/4-5.6 are <em>variable</em>-aperture, 15/3.5 and 17/4, respectively, gradually slowing to f/5.6 at 85mm. This sort of variable aperture design is interpreted by many as a compromise to save on cost and weight/bulk at the expense of absolute performance.</p>

<p>Even though the 24-105/4 is 'L' glass, and represents Canon's top grade of optics there are inherent compromises when designing >4x zooms with image stabilization in terms of peak performance at any part of the range, distortion, CA, etc. More conservative designs like primes or shorter-ranged zooms (note that your excellent Pentax 645 45-85/4.5 is < 2x, and the typical 'pro' fast zoom might be 24-70/2.8 -- 2.9x) tend to be better absolute performers, if sometimes less convenient.</p>

<p>If you end up going with a 60D, you might also consider the 17-40/4 L. This lens is roughly what you'd have been used to with your Pentax; equivalent 28-60mm or so.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>BTW, is the 24-105 l <em>really </em>considered to be a compromise for the Eos users who have this lens? My 45-85 Pentax 645n lens is variable f-stop at different lengths but I don't think you could describe it as a compromise!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Louis,<br>

My first post might have been confusing, sorry if it was so.<br /><br />When I referenced my not liking “Varying Maximum Aperture Zooms” <strong>I was referring to the EF-S zoom </strong>you mentioned, as it is a Varying Maximum Aperture Zoom.<br>

<br />When I referenced preferring Primes to the 24 to 105, I was not alluding to the maximum aperture or the aperture function of that zoom. The 24 to 105 has a Constant Maximum Aperture throughout its zoom range. I mentioned I would prefer Primes, because of the compromises in manufacture inherent in any zoom (as Andrew mentioned above). Though it could be argued that the 24 to 105 would be pretty comparable at F/8, for example, to most prosumer primes I mentioned.<br>

<br />Further, I also made my suggestion for the 5D, based a lot on the fact of your using 645 format and how the new rig <strong><em>would feel for you</em></strong>. In this regard I suggest you should play with both cameras. The 5D is “old” and only you can choose of the warranty is worth it, or not.<br>

<br />I agree with Andrew about considering the 17 to 40 for the 60D – and (if my mental arithmetic is close) a 50/1.4 (or 1.8) would give you close to the 105mm you had in 645. Also the 85/1.8 would be a good, longer telephoto. The three primes are relatively inexpensive for the quality they produce.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>An explanation:<br /><br />Why I prefer to use “Varying” in the description of the Zoom, and not “Variable”.<br />It is the Zooming of the lens which decides the aperture – hence “varying” as we zoom.<br />All (as far as I know?) zoom lenses have a “Variable” aperture – i.e. “can be varied by the user”.</p>

<p> </p>

[triciakennedy]

<p>From my own experience of owning a 5DmkI, I can tell you it is a fantastic camera and the image quality is excellent. Interestingly, I recently looked back at some of my landscape shots from that camera and noticed how many more dust spots there were in the skies - a problem I hardly have with the MkII. When I bought the MkII I thought I would never use Live View (which wasn't a feature of the MkI) but I use Live View most of the time for my landscapes - it helps with both composition and focussing. I have no experience of the 60D but, if I couldn't buy the 5DmkII, then I would definitely go for the 60D for the newer features such as auto dust removal and live view and then choose lenses accordingly. I hope that helps. </p>

[dogbert]

<p>I have both the 5D mark 1 and a 60D. I would not bother trying to choose between them based on image quality. The 5D has a bigger viewfinder and allows FF lenses to work as they should, for example the Canon 15 mm fisheye. This can also be a disavantage. I probably like my 24-105 f4 L better on my 60D than 5D because it is a lens that vignettes a lot on the 5D and works in the sweet spot on the 60D.</p>

<p>The 60D gives you access to both FF and EF-S lenses, some of which there is no FF equivalent such as the 17-55 f2.8 IS.</p>

<p>The 60D benefits from a much better LCD, more firmware driven features, most of which you will probably never use, and the anti dust thingy. The 60D is better sorted for general shooting, such as snapshots.</p>

<p>If I was forced to choose between one, I would choose based on how you want to build your lens collection, rather than camera features or image quality.</p>