6D vs. 60D

Started Jan 17, 2013 | Questions
McGlobal
New MemberPosts: 1
Like?
6D vs. 60D
Jan 17, 2013

I'm an enthusiast and had been looking at a 60D.  Then the 6D came along and now I'm struggling as to whether the additional features are worth the approximately $1300 price difference today.  Specifically, it seems that it boils down to full-frame vs. APS-C sensor.  The 6D also has a much higher ISO range.

So I'm looking for feedback and thoughts about these two cameras and whether it's worth the cost to step up to a full-frame camera.

Thanks.

ANSWER:
This question has not been answered yet.
Canon EOS 60D Canon EOS 6D
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Nigel Wilkins
Senior MemberPosts: 1,006
Like?
Re: 6D vs. 60D
In reply to McGlobal, Jan 17, 2013

First of all, why do you want full frame?

Personally, I want full frame so I can have a 24mm TS-E lens.  Others want shallow depth of field, which is easier to get with full frame.  If you don't have a good reason to go full frame, I wouldn't bother.  Don't forget, the cost of the camera body is quite a minor consideration when you start looking at good quality lenses to go with it.  Many of the quality benefits of a large sensor account for a very small percentage of my photos.  If I could get equivalent lenses for an APS sensor camera, that's the direction I'd go in...one day maybe, but not yet.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Pusseapa
Contributing MemberPosts: 719
Like?
Re: 6D vs. 60D
In reply to McGlobal, Jan 17, 2013

I have the 60d with a canon 17-55. It is awesome. To get the same IQ and AF speed on a 6d, I would have to get a quite expensive lens.

But I'm still debating perhaps getting a 6d in a cuple of months.....

For me, the viewfinder, High ISO, and DOF would be the thing I want. I might even sacrifice some AF speed for that. (I have a nice Tamron 28-75 lying around..)

-- hide signature --

.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Flying Fish
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,087Gear list
Like?
Re: 6D vs. 60D
In reply to McGlobal, Jan 17, 2013

As the other posters said, it depends what matters to you.  If it's very clean, detailed images even at fairly high ISOs, then it's the 6D.  If not, then the 60D, which is no slouch in the IQ department but no 6D.  Or maybe Wi-Fi and GPS make a big difference to you; then it's the 6D again.  Or maybe you love the vari-angle LCD screen; then it's the 60D.  Do keep in mind what the previous posters said about lenses, too.

FF

 Flying Fish's gear list:Flying Fish's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 7D Mark II
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John Sheehy
Forum ProPosts: 16,304
Like?
Re: 6D vs. 60D
In reply to McGlobal, Jan 17, 2013

McGlobal wrote:

I'm an enthusiast and had been looking at a 60D. Then the 6D came along and now I'm struggling as to whether the additional features are worth the approximately $1300 price difference today. Specifically, it seems that it boils down to full-frame vs. APS-C sensor. The 6D also has a much higher ISO range.

If you shoot RAW, there really is no top to the ISO range.  Cameras don't do any magic to get higher ISOs; they simply crank the gain or just expect the RAW data to have a weaker exposure, with the same gain as a lower ISO, and it rarely makes any difference, noise-wise, which way they do it for high ISOs.  The real issue is what the images look like at those high ISOs, and in this case, the 6D has cleaner readout electronics, and a bigger, but slightly less efficient sensor which more than doubles the light collected with the same exposure time and f-stop, combining for a significant advantage for the 6D.  There is only 1 camera you can buy right now with better high-ISO performance, and that is the 1Dx.  The Nikon D4, D3s, D800, D600, and 5D3 all have slightly more high-ISO noise.

So I'm looking for feedback and thoughts about these two cameras and whether it's worth the cost to step up to a full-frame camera.

The benefit I mentioned above can be limited in practice.  The fact is, you lose the advantage of the bigger sensor if you are shooting with your longest focal length and have to crop (which gives you less pixel resolution on the subject with the 6D), and even if you put a TC on the full-frame, you still have to use a higher ISO to get the same shutter speed, losing a lot of the advantage of the larger sensor.

Also, if you need a certain amount of depth of field, with a given field of view, the full-frame will require 1.6x the f-stop, so again, you will need a higher ISO.

However, the high-ISO electronic read noise of the 6D is low enough that there may be some benefit to using it instead of an APS-C, despite the loss of large-sensor benefit.  The next round of APS-C cameras could change this, too, with lower high-ISO read noise.

If, however, you always have the focal length you need, and like shooting at wide apertures without needed focus depth, then you will clearly get much less high-ISO noise with the 6D.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Wayne Larmon
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,280
Like?
What about low ISO noise?
In reply to John Sheehy, Jan 18, 2013

John Sheehy wrote:

Also, if you need a certain amount of depth of field, with a given field of view, the full-frame will require 1.6x the f-stop, so again, you will need a higher ISO.

What about noise at low ISO?  Right now my primary interest is "camera scanning" slides and negatives.   Right now I use a 60D and Canon 60mm macro lens and shoot at ISO 100, and at f/8.    When "scanning" slides and negatives, the deeper the DOF, the better.  (I think that diffraction effects start kicking in above f/8 on my 60D.)  I use a tripod and remote shutter release, so I don't much care about shutter speeds.

So would a 6D gain me much over my 60D?  For my purpose?

Wayne

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Donald Duck
Regular MemberPosts: 308
Like?
Re: 6D vs. 60D
In reply to Pusseapa, Jan 18, 2013

Pusseapa wrote:

I have the 60d with a canon 17-55. It is awesome. To get the same IQ and AF speed on a 6d, I would have to get a quite expensive lens.

Actually, you get a bit better IQ with a slightly cheaper lens: the 24-105.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3366054

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Noogy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,477Gear list
Like?
Re: 6D vs. 60D
In reply to Pusseapa, Jan 18, 2013

Pusseapa wrote:

I have the 60d with a canon 17-55. It is awesome. To get the same IQ and AF speed on a 6d, I would have to get a quite expensive lens.

But I'm still debating perhaps getting a 6d in a cuple of months.....

For me, the viewfinder, High ISO, and DOF would be the thing I want. I might even sacrifice some AF speed for that. (I have a nice Tamron 28-75 lying around..)

-- hide signature --

.

Show me unprocessed ISO3200 low-light photo on your 60D with your 17-55 please, and I will show you what I can do with the 6D using a cheaper lens, so that you can revisit your claim that for the 6D to get the same IQ and AF speed, expensive lenses are needed.

Please guys, go ahead sing praises for the 60D, it is a very good camera.  I still have my 7D which is a fantastic camera, and now I am using the 6D a lot.  There is just no comparison in image quality department on any ISO.

-- hide signature --

JCC
"Photography is therapeutic."
http://www.pbase.com/joshcruzphotos

 Noogy's gear list:Noogy's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Sony Alpha NEX-5 Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 100D Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Timbukto
Senior MemberPosts: 3,628Gear list
Like?
Don't want to dogpile
In reply to Pusseapa, Jan 18, 2013

but as others have said, you get a certain advantage shooting EF lenses for the area of focus they were originally meant for.  17-55 2.8 is a great lens for sure, but the 24-105 is IMO better built, has absolutely solid resale value, and comes with a bag and hood as well as even wider equivalent focal range (17-55 is like 27-88).  Even with the new 24-70 f4 IS (which IMO I find as a limiting focal range), I believe the 24-105L will remain rock solid in resale and longevity...the 17-55 f2.8 IS however will plummet if there ever is an improved version with perhaps improved range or build quality (my bet however is that Canon unfortunately neglects APS-C lenses).

And the standard zoom is not even the tip of the iceberg in taking advantage of EF lenses, I actually don't care to own the 24-105L...you *really* start to gain some advantages shooting those 50mm's, the 40mm f2.8 pancake, the 85mm's, the 100mm's, and the 135 primes...or how about that new Sigma 35?  I absolutely love my 40mm f2.8 pancake, my 85mm 1.8, and its sibling 100mm f2 on FF...the CA is reduced, they are extremely sharp via f2.8, and the DOF is very shallow.  For example shooting a 50mm 1.4 wide open on an APS-C sensor will get absolutely killed compared to an 85mm on FF at f2.0 in IQ and DOF.  Yet the price of the 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 are extremely comparable.  Same story, it'll cost more to replicate the DOF and IQ of 50mm on a FF using 35mm on APS-C.  For example shooting a 35mm f2 on APS-C would be similar to just stopping down any 50mm at f2.8, and we know 50mm's can get plenty sharp on FF stopped down to f2.8.  There is no real APS-C equivalent for something like the new Sigma 35mm 1.4 either.

How about telephoto where range is an advantage on crop?  Can you believe that the cheap old 70-300 IS USM (non-L) on a FF sensor is very comparable to the venerable 70-200 f4 IS L on a 7D?  Look up the goofy perceptual Mpix or sharpness ratings on DxOMark between the two.  Granted I don't believe you should buy lenses based on graphs and figures, however to my eyes they agree with DxOMark here in that you get a rather significant resolution boost shooting EF lenses on FF and reduced CA as an added bonus.  There is rather nothing compelling or special shooting a 70-300 IS USM non-L on APS-C...but on FF the rather *average* optics for APS-C is more forgiving on the FF sensor and gives it qualities that weighs in above the price I paid for it ($200).

So in a way FF does cost more, but it gives a new lease of life on many EF lenses (or conversely it just shoots EF lenses the way they were originally spec'd for).  If you consider cost however as something you might recoup in selling the body as long as you keep shutter counts and condition reasonable, you'll find that the cost of use for FF is not much higher than APS-C!  The 5DMKII can be had for really cheap used with low usage, or even had cheap new or refurbished.

 Timbukto's gear list:Timbukto's gear list
Canon EOS M Sony a6000 Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ASR45
Forum ProPosts: 32,922Gear list
Like?
Re: 6D vs. 60D
In reply to Noogy, Jan 18, 2013

Noogy wrote:

Pusseapa wrote:

I have the 60d with a canon 17-55. It is awesome. To get the same IQ and AF speed on a 6d, I would have to get a quite expensive lens.

But I'm still debating perhaps getting a 6d in a cuple of months.....

For me, the viewfinder, High ISO, and DOF would be the thing I want. I might even sacrifice some AF speed for that. (I have a nice Tamron 28-75 lying around..)

-- hide signature --

.

Show me unprocessed ISO3200 low-light photo on your 60D with your 17-55 please, and I will show you what I can do with the 6D using a cheaper lens, so that you can revisit your claim that for the 6D to get the same IQ and AF speed, expensive lenses are needed.

Please guys, go ahead sing praises for the 60D, it is a very good camera. I still have my 7D which is a fantastic camera, and now I am using the 6D a lot. There is just no comparison in image quality department on any ISO.

-- hide signature --

JCC
"Photography is therapeutic."
http://www.pbase.com/joshcruzphotos

I concur, i had the the 60D its an excellent camera, but the 6D goes some steps further, the high ISO blew me pants down when i first used it at ISO 25600, its incredible to think of that only a few years ago.    

-- hide signature --

Alan.

 ASR45's gear list:ASR45's gear list
Canon PowerShot G16 Canon PowerShot G12 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 7D Mark II +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Francis Carver
Senior MemberPosts: 1,093
Like?
5D Mark II Bargain Galore + EOS 60D vs. 60Da Shootout
In reply to Timbukto, Jan 19, 2013

Timbukto wrote:

The 5DMKII can be had for really cheap used with low usage, or even had cheap new or refurbished.

Good one! First camera store I went to yesterday did NOT have any Canon EOS 6Ds. So, chap tried to unload two USED 5D Mark  IIs on me, allegedly with "little use" and "only 17,999 clicks" or whatever.

Funny thing, you go in asking for a NEW camera, they want to sell you the used 5Ds for $1,500. I am sure that 5D Mark II was a great camera in its time -- but this here is January 2013, so let's get with the program.

Personally, I would like to get the 60D for $725 -- well, preferably the pricier list priced 60Da for the same money. Anybody knows if there REALLY is any significant difference between the 2 models of D60s?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Timbukto
Senior MemberPosts: 3,628Gear list
Like?
Re: 5D Mark II Bargain Galore + EOS 60D vs. 60Da Shootout
In reply to Francis Carver, Jan 19, 2013

60DA just has IR filter adjusted for astrology shots...it's worth it if that is the type of shooting you do I suppose.

I know someone who got a 60D + 18-135 for $600 on CL

 Timbukto's gear list:Timbukto's gear list
Canon EOS M Sony a6000 Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Francis Carver
Senior MemberPosts: 1,093
Like?
EOS 60D vs. 60Da Shootout
In reply to Timbukto, Jan 19, 2013

Timbukto wrote:

60DA just has IR filter adjusted for astrology shots...it's worth it if that is the type of shooting you do I suppose.

MY TAKE: Thanx a whole bunch for that useful knowledge and for passing it on my way, Timbukto, I guess I don't need that then, since I am more of a "down to Earth" person.

I know someone who got a 60D + 18-135 for $600 on CL

I know I should know what CL thanks for -- unfortunately, I do not.

Well, Canon still lists it for $999, B&H has it for $699, and then there are the "kit lens bundles" with 18-135mm and 18-200mm Canon KIT LENSES, are these any good or to be avoided like the plague?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=canon+eos+60d&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=

Same kit (60D camera + lens) that you had mentioned is US$999 on B&H, and $1,099 with the 18-200mm kit lens. Like I said, I have no clue if these kit lenses are any good (usually they aren't), but if they are, "your price" of $600 definitely sounds a whole lot better for my ears than "my price" at B&H of $999.

And I just "love" that little "AC adapter" gizmo that takes about $3.50 to produce, yet even B&H sells if for a mind-twitching $119. Thanks, Canon!!!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Pusseapa
Contributing MemberPosts: 719
Like?
Re: Don't want to dogpile
In reply to Timbukto, Jan 22, 2013

Timbukto wrote:

but as others have said, you get a certain advantage shooting EF lenses for the area of focus they were originally meant for. 17-55 2.8 is a great lens for sure, but the 24-105 is IMO better built, has absolutely solid resale value, and comes with a bag and hood as well as even wider equivalent focal range (17-55 is like 27-88). Even with the new 24-70 f4 IS (which IMO I find as a limiting focal range), I believe the 24-105L will remain rock solid in resale and longevity...the 17-55 f2.8 IS however will plummet if there ever is an improved version with perhaps improved range or build quality (my bet however is that Canon unfortunately neglects APS-C lenses).

And the standard zoom is not even the tip of the iceberg in taking advantage of EF lenses, I actually don't care to own the 24-105L...you *really* start to gain some advantages shooting those 50mm's, the 40mm f2.8 pancake, the 85mm's, the 100mm's, and the 135 primes...or how about that new Sigma 35? I absolutely love my 40mm f2.8 pancake, my 85mm 1.8, and its sibling 100mm f2 on FF...the CA is reduced, they are extremely sharp via f2.8, and the DOF is very shallow. For example shooting a 50mm 1.4 wide open on an APS-C sensor will get absolutely killed compared to an 85mm on FF at f2.0 in IQ and DOF. Yet the price of the 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 are extremely comparable. Same story, it'll cost more to replicate the DOF and IQ of 50mm on a FF using 35mm on APS-C. For example shooting a 35mm f2 on APS-C would be similar to just stopping down any 50mm at f2.8, and we know 50mm's can get plenty sharp on FF stopped down to f2.8. There is no real APS-C equivalent for something like the new Sigma 35mm 1.4 either.

How about telephoto where range is an advantage on crop? Can you believe that the cheap old 70-300 IS USM (non-L) on a FF sensor is very comparable to the venerable 70-200 f4 IS L on a 7D? Look up the goofy perceptual Mpix or sharpness ratings on DxOMark between the two. Granted I don't believe you should buy lenses based on graphs and figures, however to my eyes they agree with DxOMark here in that you get a rather significant resolution boost shooting EF lenses on FF and reduced CA as an added bonus. There is rather nothing compelling or special shooting a 70-300 IS USM non-L on APS-C...but on FF the rather *average* optics for APS-C is more forgiving on the FF sensor and gives it qualities that weighs in above the price I paid for it ($200).

So in a way FF does cost more, but it gives a new lease of life on many EF lenses (or conversely it just shoots EF lenses the way they were originally spec'd for). If you consider cost however as something you might recoup in selling the body as long as you keep shutter counts and condition reasonable, you'll find that the cost of use for FF is not much higher than APS-C! The 5DMKII can be had for really cheap used with low usage, or even had cheap new or refurbished.

Great answer, thanks.

I have an old Tamron 28-75 f2.8 lying around. If I sell my 60d+17-55, do you think it would go well with a new 6d?

cheers

-- hide signature --

.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
toyak
Regular MemberPosts: 130
Like?
Re: tamron 28-75mm
In reply to Pusseapa, Jan 22, 2013

I have the 6d along with the tamron 28-75mm 2.8 and it consistently underexposes betwen one to two stops. My canon 50mm 1.8 and canon 70-200 f4 are fine so it is the lens. To make it even more interesting the tamron lens works fine on my wife's t-2 so I suspect it is an interface issue with older non canon equipment.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Wayne Larmon
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,280
Like?
Anybody?
In reply to Wayne Larmon, Jan 22, 2013

Wayne Larmon wrote:

John Sheehy wrote:

Also, if you need a certain amount of depth of field, with a given field of view, the full-frame will require 1.6x the f-stop, so again, you will need a higher ISO.

What about noise at low ISO? Right now my primary interest is "camera scanning" slides and negatives. Right now I use a 60D and Canon 60mm macro lens and shoot at ISO 100, and at f/8. When "scanning" slides and negatives, the deeper the DOF, the better. (I think that diffraction effects start kicking in above f/8 on my 60D.) I use a tripod and remote shutter release, so I don't much care about shutter speeds.

So would a 6D gain me much over my 60D? For my purpose?

I still on the fence about getting a 6D.  Does anybody know if the 6D will gain me much compared to my 60D at low ISOs?

Wayne

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John Sheehy
Forum ProPosts: 16,304
Like?
Re: Anybody?
In reply to Wayne Larmon, Jan 23, 2013

Wayne Larmon wrote:

Wayne Larmon wrote:

John Sheehy wrote:

Also, if you need a certain amount of depth of field, with a given field of view, the full-frame will require 1.6x the f-stop, so again, you will need a higher ISO.

What about noise at low ISO? Right now my primary interest is "camera scanning" slides and negatives. Right now I use a 60D and Canon 60mm macro lens and shoot at ISO 100, and at f/8. When "scanning" slides and negatives, the deeper the DOF, the better. (I think that diffraction effects start kicking in above f/8 on my 60D.) I use a tripod and remote shutter release, so I don't much care about shutter speeds.

So would a 6D gain me much over my 60D? For my purpose?

I still on the fence about getting a 6D. Does anybody know if the 6D will gain me much compared to my 60D at low ISOs?

I thought that I wrote a reply to you a few days ago; I don't know what happened to it, as it is not here.

Basically, what I said was that noise-wise, you will not see a big benefit from the full-frame at the same FOV and DOF at base-ISO, but that optically, you can possibly get better performance with the full-frame, if the lens has good corner performance.  I don't know how the color separation compares between the two cameras; that could be a factor, too.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Wayne Larmon
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,280
Like?
Re: Anybody?
In reply to John Sheehy, Jan 23, 2013

John Sheehy wrote:

Basically, what I said was that noise-wise, you will not see a big benefit from the full-frame at the same FOV and DOF at base-ISO, but that optically, you can possibly get better performance with the full-frame, if the lens has good corner performance. I don't know how the color separation compares between the two cameras; that could be a factor, too.

I'm not sure about lenses.  The EF-S 60mm lens I use on my 60D seems pretty decent in the corners when shooting film at 1:2 (if I expressed the ratio correctly.  A frame of 35mm film is larger then my 60D sensor.  But some of my film is half frame, so in those cases I am doing 1:1 on my 60D.  Which would be 2:1 if shot on a FF DSLR?  Or am I expressing the ratios backwards?)  The Canon non-L EF 100mm macro has been reported to work decently for camera scanning (for FF 35mm film),  but I don't think anybody tests lenses for suitability for camera scanning circumstances (field flatness at 1:1.)

How is the 6D with pattern noise?  When raising shadows?  Is it better than older Canon sensors?  I do shoot normal stuff and am well aware of the difficulty of digging detail out of the shadows with my older Canon sensors.

Wayne

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ASR45
Forum ProPosts: 32,922Gear list
Like?
Re: Anybody?
In reply to Wayne Larmon, Jan 23, 2013

I had the 60D, and i can say hand on heart it out performs my 60D, what really grabs me is the high ISO performance low light ect, no regrets what so ever.  

-- hide signature --

Alan.

 ASR45's gear list:ASR45's gear list
Canon PowerShot G16 Canon PowerShot G12 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 7D Mark II +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MAC
MAC
Forum ProPosts: 12,419Gear list
Like?
Re: Anybody?
In reply to ASR45, Jan 23, 2013

ASR45 wrote:

I had the 60D, and i can say hand on heart it out performs my 60D, what really grabs me is the high ISO performance low light ect, no regrets what so ever.

your 60d outperforms your 60d?  hmm..

well I have 60d and 5d

what I'd say is 60d does just fine when the priority is iso100 - 400 shots with f2.8 and above

FF sings with primes f1.2-f2 and high iso

otherwise, don't discount crop for reach, lighter weight, fps, features, fine crop lenses 15-85, 17-55, 60 macro, video, touch screen, etc

-- hide signature --

Alan.

 MAC's gear list:MAC's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 650D Canon EOS 100D Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads