# Any sense to upgrade from 60D to full frame for better image quality ?



## Ivo (Nov 23, 2013)

I am not a professional photographer, but very enthusiastic one. Apart from various type of photos (landscapes, macros, documentary etc.), I also like to do atmospheric photos of my music instruments (where I am a professional), product photos of them, studio videos etc. But in whatever I do (including this) I don't like to make compromises. I have very nice collection of lenses for my EOS 60D: Sigma 17-50, Canon 70-200, 2.8 IS II, Tokina 11-16, Sigma 35 1.4, Sigma 150 Macro etc. that I collected after I got enthusiastic about it. Sometimes I am thinking whether going to full frame would bring clearly better image quality (depth, colours etc.) or not and I am tempted to think to go for 6D or even 5D ... But the question is, would it be really worth to do this "upgrade" ? Sure, there are many extra features in 5D or 6D comparing to 60D, but I don't miss features on 60D for my purpose, I am thinking only in terms of image quality. Would the quality of the same shot look better with 6D or 5D comparing when made with 60D, using the same lenses compensated by the crop factor ? Or I better should be happy with what I have and apart from improving the skills I should think of some more beautiful lenses etc. ?  

Thank you for your opinion and sharing your experience.


----------



## Juga (Nov 23, 2013)

The 6D is a beautiful tool but honestly you should only upgrade if you are limited by your current camera body to capture the images you want.


----------



## KmH (Nov 23, 2013)

Image quality is almost entirely a function of photographer knowledge and skill.

Use of light is a area of expertise that significantly affects image quality.
Under $30 - Chasing the Light: Improving Your Photography with Available Light (Voices That Matter)

Camera Flash: Appearance
Camera Flash: Exposure


----------



## Ivo (Nov 24, 2013)

It is sure - but the question is, if within the same shot, same time, same angle, same lenses (apart from the crop factor) you would get photos of similar quality made by APS camera vs full frame or different quality ...


----------



## goodguy (Nov 24, 2013)

Ivo said:


> It is sure - but the question is, if within the same shot, same time, same angle, same lenses (apart from the crop factor) you would get photos of similar quality made by APS camera vs full frame or different quality ...


I don't think you will really see any noticeable difference, if you were a real pro then maybe but for most cases a good crop sensor camera is very close to a full frame in IQ, the biggest noticeable difference is in low light situations.


----------



## grafxman (Nov 24, 2013)

I "upgraded" to a 6D. I needed better low light/high ISO capabilities for museum photography. I immediately discovered that the selection of lenses for a full frame camera is extremely limited compared to my 7D. I have yet to find a lens the equal of my much loved Sigma 18-250mm macro. The few lenses available can be slightly soft (Canon's 24-105mm L lens) or don't like to focus in low light (Tamron 28-300mm macro). The Sigma 12-24mm however is excellent but is only good for wide angle. The 6D is absolutely terrific in low light but that's about it. If you need low light capabilities and can spring for new lenses then go for it. Otherwise it's probably not worth it.


----------



## Justman1020 (Nov 24, 2013)

I own a 6D now, I also own a canon t4i, I will always have atleast one crop sensor camera because of the lenses available on them, like mentioned above, going to a full frame only system would limit you, because of two things:: Price of lenses, (Even though you already have a wide variety) and the fact that you cant use the APS-C lenses, so, if you want the best of both worlds, buy a full frame, (Maybe a 6d? or older 5D?) and keep your 60D.


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (Nov 24, 2013)

Full frame DSLR: do you really need one? | Digital Camera World

John


----------



## bratkinson (Nov 24, 2013)

I upgraded from a 60D to 5D3 a year ago for two main reasons...High ISO capabilities for low light, no flash work, and absolute drop-dead sharp focusing...which took me a while to get used to. The extra quiet shutter mode is a nice 'freebie' as well, since I do a lot of my photography at non-wedding church events. Reason #4...the ability to MFA my lenses. Although none of my lenses were out by more than + or - 5, the improvement was noticeable, especially when pixel peeping. Being able to MFA each end of the zoom lens ranges surprised me, as I figured they'd be the same. 

My only sort-of complaints about the 5D3 is the loss of the swivel screen and the somewhat unexpected size & weight differential compared to the 60D. 

As for IQ, I had no complaints with the 60D.  My only issue was noise at ISO 3200 and up.  Shooting with all L lenses on the 60D has the advantage of using only the center area of the projected images from the lens...less distortion, CA, etc.  I -did- notice, however, my 16-35 f2.8L gets a lot less use with the 5D3 than the 60D as the 24mm end of the 24-105 is 'wide enough' on the 5D3, where as I needed the 16mm end of the 16-35 to get an FOV of a theoretical 25mm lens.

The first shot was with my 60D - 24-105 f4L at 70mm, f4, 1/100, ISO 1600. 



This one's with the 5D3, same 24-105 f4L at 105mm, f4, ISO 3200, 1/40th


And lastly, 5D3 with 135 f2L wide open (what else?), ISO 3200 at 1/320


I am more than satisfied with what I can do with the 5D3 that the 60D couldn't. Now all I have to do is finish paying off the credit cards!


----------



## jsecordphoto (Nov 24, 2013)

I have a 60D now and dream of upgrading to a 6D or 5D for the low light performance. I really am getting into shooting the stars and such at night and the noise at iso3200 with the 60D is pretty foul


----------



## Ivo (Nov 25, 2013)

Thank you for all your replies. So it seems that the main advantage of full frame would be better IQ at low light and in normal condition the difference in picture quality (at the same conditions) may not be that dramatic (if I am correct). I was looking at used 5D Mark II, that are sold often here for OK price, but maybe it is already a bit obsolete ? (to keep both 60D and 5DII). I like Tokina 11-16, Sigma 17-50, which cannot be used with full frame. 

On the other hand, sometimes I cannot get close enough with my flagship lens Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II because of the APS crop factor ... so full frame would be an advantage to use this marvellous lens at normal distance ... or maybe better to wait a year or so, till 5DMKIV is introduced and MKIII prices fall down a bit ?  I read everything about 6D and while 60D is one of the best APS cameras, 6D is at the bottom among full frame cameras .. so not sure if this "upgrade" would be worth it ...

But still - if there is a choice between 5D MKII and 6D (for a similar price), what would be better choice in terms of image quality ?


----------



## Juga (Nov 25, 2013)

6D hands down.


----------



## weepete (Nov 25, 2013)

By the sound of it you should focus on your skills more before considering an upgrade. The 60D is still a perfectly capable camera and can produce some brilliant results if used in the right way. 

A full frame camera won't get you closer to the action for the same focal length, you'll have a wider field of view so it will appear that you are further away given you are in the same spot and using the same focal length. 

While the 6D or the 5Ds are better cameras and there is nothing wrong with wanting a better camera I don't know if you will see the kind of results you are thinking of just by switching bodies. Mibbies you could post a few of your photos you think need improvement and we may be able to give you a better idea of what the issues are and whither upgrading would help?


----------



## Ivo (Nov 26, 2013)

Here are links to some of my (Facebook compressed) photos:

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/...073741843.100003538211394&type=1&l=95e0c7c7ba

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/...073741839.100003538211394&type=1&l=11c770e821

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/...073741838.100003538211394&type=1&l=dfe3dd3f68

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/...073741842.100003538211394&type=1&l=bb587b5e11

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/...073741849.249133978519493&type=1&l=cb289e88c6

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/...073741852.249133978519493&type=1&l=141fa62a1b

etc


----------



## Overread (Nov 26, 2013)

Ivo said:


> On the other hand, sometimes I cannot get close enough with my flagship lens Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II because of the APS crop factor ... so full frame would be an advantage to use this marvellous lens at normal distance ...



If you can't get close enough to the subject at 200mm with a crop sensor then the fullframe will be a disadvantage because you'll be capturing more edge, so the 200mm will feel like a shorter focal length on the fullframe.

The 5DMIV is unlikely to land next year; I'd expect a good few years between 5D releases (rebel camera bodies come out each year with slow upgrades but always behind the others - the higher up bodies upgrade slower because the tech is pushing closer to the limits of what, at the time, is possible).


----------



## Ivo (Nov 26, 2013)

Overread said:


> Ivo said:
> 
> 
> > On the other hand, sometimes I cannot get close enough with my flagship lens Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II because of the APS crop factor ... so full frame would be an advantage to use this marvellous lens at normal distance ...
> ...



I meant it opposite - I have to go sometimes rather far from the object to be able to capture it with 70-200 (I cannot get very close sometimes)


----------



## Overread (Nov 26, 2013)

Ahhhh gotcha! Sounds like you need a 24-70mm then 
Or one of those 50-150mm lenses. 

I will admit when I have the 70-200mm on my camera (7D so crop sensor too) I do sometimes feel that 70mm is just a touch long; esp when out with family and the like. A 24-70mm or a 24-105mm would be a likely more suitable choice.


----------



## Ivo (Nov 26, 2013)

I have Tokina 11-16 + Sigma 17-50, so I am taken care even in those ranges  But often I like the masterly touch of Canon 70-200 and for that I have to step backwards a bit


----------



## Overread (Nov 26, 2013)

It is a great lens I won't argue against that


----------



## shaylou (Nov 26, 2013)

I went from a 600D to a 5DmrkIII and saw the image quality jump way up. I shot the same thing and put the two images next to each other . The 5D was much sharper but mostly the colors were much more vivid.


----------



## Ivo (Nov 28, 2013)

Would 70D be a step up from 60D ?

Edit: I studied all the info, reviews, comparisons etc and just ordered D70 and put D60 on sale


----------



## goodguy (Nov 28, 2013)

Ivo said:


> Would 70D be a step up from 60D ?
> 
> Edit: I studied all the info, reviews, comparisons etc and just ordered D70 a put D60 on sale



Yes I think it will be a fairly big step up.
The 60D while old is still a good camera but the 70D is brand new using new technology and overall I think you will se an improvement in performance.
Congratulation on your new camera and enjoy it


----------



## Ivo (Nov 28, 2013)

I think so ... especially for videos (which I often do) , it is a big upgrade. One day I will certainly buy 5D mark III, but it would also mean getting 24-70 new lens etc., while I have already quite great collection of lens now ... I will refer tomorrow how I feel about 70D


----------



## goodguy (Nov 28, 2013)

Ivo said:


> I think so ... especially for videos (which I often do) , it is a big upgrade. One day I will certainly buy 5D mark III, but it would also mean getting 24-70 new lens etc., while I have already quite great collection of lens now ... I will refer tomorrow how I feel about 70D



Yes I would like to hear how you like your new camera.
And for new lenses, well consider buying the lenses used, it will help cut costs and still get you the glass you want.


----------



## Ivo (Dec 1, 2013)

So I have 70D for 3 days already and I must say I am happy with this upgrade. It is in all the respects better than 60D. I really enjoy it ...


----------



## shaylou (Feb 5, 2014)

I went from a crop to 5DIII and one of the first shots I took blew me away. It was of a place I shoot at all the time. See for yourself. If you follow my flickr link and scroll down the page till you come to a pic of a amusement park on a peer over the water. It's a night shot and the colors are reflecting in the water. Then go down a little more and look at the same pic with the crop camera. You will know what I'm talking about as soon as you see it. Yes the crop shot is a better shot but we are talking about iq. Sorry for not posting them here but it's very late and I do not have time.  So I think this answers your question.


----------



## shaylou (Feb 5, 2014)

KmH said:


> Image quality is almost entirely a function of photographer knowledge and skill.  Use of light is a area of expertise that significantly affects image quality.
> 
> I totally disagree. Given the same controlled lighting situation the image quality has nothing to do with the photographer if the shot is in focus. You take one pro photographer and give him a entry level and a pro body and you are saying that the I.q will be the same from both bodies because the photographer was the same. Sorry but that's not even close to being acurate .


----------



## shaylou (Feb 5, 2014)

I went from a crop to a full frame and I see a lot of difference in the I.q . What cameras did y'all use to compare that you are not seeing the difference?


----------



## shaylou (Feb 5, 2014)

bratkinson said:


> I upgraded from a 60D to 5D3 a year ago for two main reasons...High ISO capabilities for low light, no flash work, and absolute drop-dead sharp focusing...which took me a while to get used to. The extra quiet shutter mode is a nice 'freebie' as well, since I do a lot of my photography at non-wedding church events. Reason #4...the ability to MFA my lenses. Although none of my lenses were out by more than + or - 5, the improvement was noticeable, especially when pixel peeping. Being able to MFA each end of the zoom lens ranges surprised me, as I figured they'd be the same.  My only sort-of complaints about the 5D3 is the loss of the swivel screen and the somewhat unexpected size & weight differential compared to the 60D.  As for IQ, I had no complaints with the 60D.  My only issue was noise at ISO 3200 and up.  Shooting with all L lenses on the 60D has the advantage of using only the center area of the projected images from the lens...less distortion, CA, etc.  I -did- notice, however, my 16-35 f2.8L gets a lot less use with the 5D3 than the 60D as the 24mm end of the 24-105 is 'wide enough' on the 5D3, where as I needed the 16mm end of the 16-35 to get an FOV of a theoretical 25mm lens.  The first shot was with my 60D - 24-105 f4L at 70mm, f4, 1/100, ISO 1600. <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=60916"/>  This one's with the 5D3, same 24-105 f4L at 105mm, f4, ISO 3200, 1/40th <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=60917"/>  And lastly, 5D3 with 135 f2L wide open (what else?), ISO 3200 at 1/320 <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=60918"/>  I am more than satisfied with what I can do with the 5D3 that the 60D couldn't. Now all I have to do is finish paying off the credit cards!



Agreed. I upgraded from a t3i and couldn't be happier. I recently came across a  7d that was never used and so cheap I had to buy it. Great camera but the other day I walked into a bar with a band and of course the light was low. I had the 7d set up on a wide angle so I grabbed it. The iso was getting to 3200 and above and I could see the drop in image quality from the camera. I switched to my 5D3 and at the same iso the iq was great. Not to mention how much easier it was to lock focus. I would say you need to actually try it in a real situation to see the Difference


----------



## fokker (Feb 5, 2014)

I bought a 5D2 a few years back because I thought I 'needed' it. No question it's been an awesome camera, but after picking up a cheap used 60D recently as a spare body I was surprised to find myself using the 60D more often than the 5D lately, due to the small size, swivel screen (handy!) and the different lens options it gives me. Outright image quality, I don't really know the 5D is probably better, but pixel peeping is a waste of time as far as I'm concerned, I'm a big picture guy to hell with a little bit of noise here and there.


----------



## Pav10566 (Feb 5, 2014)

Greetings Ivo, I bought a second hand Canon EOS 5D a couple of years ago....why, because I wanted to have a full frame sensor and I'm glad I did. Why a full frame: the bigger the sensor, the more light it catches and the more details you will get. With a good lens (Tokina Pro 28-70 2.8 or a 50mm 1.4 in my case) you will get razor sharp images and details that will astonish you. It is only a 5D mark 1....but I honestly don't need anything else and I haven't even bothered looking at reviews of other new full frame cameras. If ever my 5D lets me down I will definitly go for another full frame camera again...6D or 5D again, probably second hand as my budget is relatively "measured". It's a personal choice one makes for him or herself. Modern day cameras are great with great add-ons....but the lens, sensor and the processor, just like computers, can make the difference to my opinion ... you're not going to get a EOS XD mark Y and use a cheap lens either.


----------

