5D or 60d?

[dan_danilowicz]

<p>Would a 60d with its 18-megapixel sensor give me significantly better 13x19 prints than a 12-megapixel 5d (Mark1)? I'm aware of the crop factor that they don't share.</p>

[ricardo_gomez2]

<p>No. All you need to print 13x19 is 6MP. Any more pixels just allows you to print bigger formats.</p>

[dan_danilowicz]

<p>Thanks, Ricardo. What's the advantage of the higher pixel count then, less noise? Don't tell me that 6 mp is all I've ever needed.</p>

[brian_wallace5]

<p>More megapixels let you crop more and still have an image large enough for print. </p>

[dave404]

<p>The 5D MK1s Megapixel count is fine. On rare occasions it would be nice to have more pixels but, that is not the main issue, its the sensor size itself. If you invest in EF L series lenses the outer region of the light cone from the lens does not shine on the sensor and hence the crop. So its almost a waste of money to buy the big lenses for the cropped body, almost. If you have a lot invested in EOS lenses and do not contemplate a big upgrade the 60D would be fine. When you marry the full frame L series lenses with the full frame body you experience the big difference in depth of field is huge and the lenses actually act like what you would expect - at least those of us that grew up on film camera 35mm bodies. I did not like my 24-70 2.8L on the 20D with its 1.6 sensor. At weddings I would have to sit on the adjacent table to fit the table I was shooting in the picture. Is that a 24? No its a 24 X 1.6.<br>

Borrow, rent or go to a camera store like B&H and see the difference.<br>

Bigger pixels and lower pixel counts have less noise. The larger pixel is able to accumulate that many more photons and provide a better signal to noise ration relative to thermal noise. If I recall the Canon G12 reduced pixel count in favor of low light performance - i.e. less noise.<br>

I contemplate moving to the next 5D when it becomes available. I do not relish the increase in the pixel count, even if they have the SRAW modes. If you shoot a lot the file sizes become onerous. Of course Ansel Adams said that the best tool in the darkroom was the garbage can, I guess the delete key is another.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>No. All you need to print 13x19 is 6MP. Any more pixels just allows you to print bigger formats.</em></p>

<p>This is certainly not true with a challenging subject that has lots of fine detail. I have several 6 MP landscape images I would love to print to 19" or 24". They simply will not stretch that far. A few leave something to be desired even at 8x10 vs higher resolution bodies. Distant foliage can be mush at 6 MP.</p>

<p>At 13x19 a 60D and 5D will be pretty evenly matched. At 24" and 30" the 60D will produce better prints of subjects with lots of fine detail. Not dramatically better, but there will be a small discernible difference.</p>

<p>At 100% pixel peeping views the 5D will show smoother areas of continuous tone in some spots at low to mid ISO, but this will not be visible in print. At high ISO the 60D has superior noise characteristics (no color blotching at 3200), but again the differences are small.</p>

<p>The 60D has a superior feature set (except for the VF) and is new with warranty, so I would take the 60D any day at the same price. The 5D might be the better choice at a discount vs the 60D, and/or if you have certain lenses (i.e. 24 f/1.4L; T/S).</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>When you marry the full frame L series lenses with the full frame body you experience the big difference in depth of field is huge</em></p>

<p>A 1.6x difference (just over 1 stop) is not huge. In portrait situations a fast prime on crop leaves you with one eye in focus. On FF this might be part of one eye / one eyelash. Even at 50mm @ f/2.8 I find I have to be careful to get both eyes sharp on crop.</p>

<p>Something almost no one realizes is that blur near the plane of focus is controlled by DoF, but far away it's controlled by physical aperture size. Shoot a model at a park with distant trees for a backdrop, same lens and aperture, and you will get the same blur on either format. If you have to stop down more on FF to get sufficient DoF (i.e. group shot) then you will actually end up with a less diffused background where the background is in the far distance.</p>

<p>This situation can arise in low light as well. If you stop down another stop or so for sufficient DoF on FF, you just lost 1 stop of light vs. a crop camera.</p>

<p>The differences are small either way, but they can cut either way as well.</p>

[dave404]

<p>The difference in DOF is indirect, you don't have to back up to fit your subject in like you would shooting with a 1.6 crop body and hence you can get much closer, you are able to obtain more DOF. There are DOF calculators on line if you would like to plot the results.</p>

[jack_the_hat]

<p>To cut out all the crap and oneupmanship... just keep the 5D. It's the perfect camera for those print sizes. I'd take a 5D over a 60D any day.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>The difference in DOF is indirect, you don't have to back up to fit your subject in like you would shooting with a 1.6 crop body and hence you can get much closer, you are able to obtain more DOF.</em></p>

<p>That would be less DoF: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/digitaldof.html</p>

[dan_danilowicz]

Let me put it another way: Shoot the same

scene with a 60d / 17mm and an old 5d /

28mm and compare 13x19 prints. Will there

be an appreciable difference?

[danielleetaylor]

<p>At 13x19? Not really.</p>

[plangereis]

<p>I say go for a used 5D. I don't have any experience with the 60D, but I moved from a 40D to the 5D because of the shallower depth of field, and I am loving the 5D way more. I also like that you are shooting the true focal length of the lens with full frame, so as many posters have mentioned already, you don't have to be as concerned about how close you are to your subject, depending on the lens you are using. I like shooting with my 70-200 f4 IS lens, and found that I did not use it nearly as much as I do now because I can get closer to my subject. For portrait work this is invaluable for me. I also find the image quality on the 5D more film-like than the 40D. Like I said earlier, I do not have any experience with the 60D, but I would not go back to a crop camera now that I have experienced a full frame camera. I find prices are getting really cheap for used 5Ds as well. I was at my local camera store, and they had a body on sale for $850 Canadian! I paid a little over a grand, but I am okay with that because the body I got was in amazing condition. Good luck.</p>

[dave404]

<p>Daniel Daniel,<br>

From that article.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you use the <strong>same</strong> lens on a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera and a 35mm full frame body, then shoot from <strong>different distances</strong> so that the <strong>view is the same</strong>, the Canon APS-C crop sensor camera image will have 1.6x <strong>MORE</strong> DOF then the full frame image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess you do not understand, or perhaps I was not explicit, i want <strong>LESS </strong>DOF and can always up the F stop if I want more in focus. I want separation. I want the background to blur. Its much easier than post process in Photoshop lens filter with a depth of field mask. My G12 is a nice camera but I can't separate subjects from the background like my 5D or even the 20D.<br>

This is a good calculator and there is one for android http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html</p>

 

[danielleetaylor]

<p>David - <em>I guess you do not understand, or perhaps I was not explicit, i want <strong>LESS </strong>DOF</em></p>

<p>Then why did you say "more DOF"? From your post: <em>The difference in DOF is indirect, you don't have to back up to fit your subject in like you would shooting with a 1.6 crop body and hence you can get much closer, you are able to <strong>obtain more</strong> DOF. </em>(Emphasis mine.)<em><br /></em></p>

<p><em>I want the background to blur. Its much easier than post process in Photoshop lens filter with a depth of field mask.</em></p>

<p>There's not much difference between FF and crop, despite all the fluffy claims and hand wringing. And, again, it can cut both ways. Just got done shooting some friends playing at a local club. The tension was between capturing some of the ambient light (wide aperture) and getting sufficient DoF while shooting the band (narrow aperture). I would have had to stop down more with FF, kicking up ISO and thereby eliminating any high ISO advantage (assuming a body like the 5D2) over my crop 7D. In the end the shots would have been the same from either body.</p>

<p>Too often people ask about these formats and someone jumps in with "OMG FF DoF is SOOO SHALLOW!" Not really, no. There's a difference, it's just much smaller than it's made out to be, just like a lot of the other differences between the two formats.</p>

[dave404]

<p>Perhaps its the Liberty School Cabernet I was drinking that night.</p>

 

[JeffOwen]

<p>I moved from a 40D to the 60D to get more pixels for cropping etc. but was surprised that the image 'quality' did not improve in the ratio of the pixel count. In fact in retrospect I think the overall IQ of the 40D (10Mb) was better than the 60D (18Mb).</p>

[dan_danilowicz]

<p>Jeff,<br>

Going from 10 to 18 megapixels <em>hurt</em> your image quality? Say it ain't so! Did you do side-by-side image comparisons? You gained nothing by moving up?</p>

[Mark Keefer]

If you are looking at individual pixels it

may seem so, try taking the same shot

with both cameras, resize them to the

same size and compare. Looking at

the shots at 100% on the computer

screen looks different than on a 12 inch

print. I had a similar reaction when I

first moved from 7 megapixel Rebel XT

to the 40D and then when I moved to

the 7D I knew what was going. And as

you get used to working with the 60D

you are going to appreciate the lower

noise and higher ISO. Also shooting

with liveview and doing manual focus

with good glass you will really get

some great shots. I just takes a little

getting used to working with the new

camera.