600D vs 5D Mk.I Worth Upgrad(?)ing?

brians1209 wrote:

I am currently using a 600D, a crop sensor DSLR, and I am willing to buy a affordable full-frame DSLR.

I've found a used original 5D to be quite cheap, and I am wondering if it is worth upgrad(?)ing (Can I consider it an 'ugrade'?)

For me, a big NO.

The 5d (the first one) is ca 2005 or so. AF is slow. The 9 AF points is clustered in the middle and is not useful with a large frame/sensor where you may have to focus outside it. It is a big step back in AF, and in other areas vs your 600d.

The 5D is about 6 years older and it has less megapixels than the 600D (18MP v 12.8MP), which is still usable (I think), but the most important part is that it has a full frame sensor, and apart from performance I heard that it has that 'film' look from its sensor, and not to mention its satisfying shutter sound

About 5 years ago, I bought a 5D ii, for about U$650. Sold it again in 6 months. Though the images it produced was amazing, the AF was atrocious. It's even worse with less lighted scenes/subjects. Mind you, that is already the 2009 mark II !

There is more to the 35FF sensor than the sensor size advantage alone!

I find my 600D to be quite noisy (ISO above 1600 is unusable most times, and I am always forced to use noise reduction at relatively low ISOs when editing my images), which I find very annoying, and I wonder if the older 5D will be able to be an noticable upgrade in that.

With the 5d ii, it was usable up to iso 3200 on a 20mp sensor. The 5d at 12mp, may be the same. You may get to go up to 3200, but in other areas, like AF, good video (or better video), etc. you are 5-6 years behind. Actually, based on the today's dslr standards, the 5d mark 1 is about 15 years behind!

Also the AF system, I think it is the same..? 9 AF points and one cross point at the center for both the 5D and the 600D.

I'm hoping maybe the 5D has a slightly better AF performance than the 600D as the 5D is a higher end model, but I also do realise it is much older too.

I don't think so. It may be a couple or 3x steps behind.

I've heard about the 5DMII's AF problems and I wonder if the original 5D had the same problem too?

My 600D isn't good at AF either, I find a lens aperture larger than f/2.8 almost unusable to take a sharp image with my 600D.

Maybe I am asking for too much for such a old DSLR?

You are expecting it to be better just because it is a 35FF. An 800d or 77d would serve you much better in all areas.

If you insist on a 35FF body, maybe opt for a 6d. IF you can get a 6d ii, even better. That's how good as it goes. The 6d is still hobbled by 9 AF points which is going to make accurate AF on such a large sensor. Best to go for the 6d ii if you can. 45 AF points with a more larger area of coverage.

In reality, it's going to hard (and expensive) to get dozens, much less hundreds of AF points with good coverage in a DSLR. You are talking of 5d iii or iv class and higher. And that will no longer fit your expected budget. Your best bet is still the 6d ii.

Or, like me, I just bought a used 77D for U$530 used last week + kit lens. It's very usable at iso 3200, and maybe up to 6400. 45 cross point AF in optical/slr mode, 62 AF points in live view mode. Fast accurate AF, 1080-60p video, time lapse, etc. etc. Got this as my 20d which I kept for sentimental reasons is not really useful or can keep up with today's shooting conditions. A 20d and 5d is basically the same tech FYI !!! So, don't expect too much from a 5D to improve or be better than your 600d!

To summarize, your best bet is still to go a higher model rebel. I highly recommend the 77d, 800d, or even the 250d. Or you can go for the newer 850d, though that is going to be expensive and outside your budget. I'd go for 2 or more generations than your 600d. So, a 700d or 750d/760d is minimum. Though I'd still recommend better the 77d/800d/250d if your budget permits.

For 35FF, try to stick with the 6d ii if you can.