60D or 1DMk3 ?

I want to move up from my 20D, but also have a 1DMk2 that is well used.
I shoot mostly scenics and wildlife,(birds in flight as well).
I was contemplating a used 1DMk3 or a loyalty program 60D. Yes the 1DMk3 is probably about twice the price.
My question is what the images will look like.I only shoot RAW.The images from the 1DMk2 are great, but sometimes a little cropping is needed, especially for birds in Flight using my 100-400.
Will the images really be that different ?

I'd say go for the 1D3.

I was in a situation similar to yours : I had a 40D, wanted to upgrade, I ended up selling the Mark II to fund a Mark III.

I'm not sure the IQ will be a lot better with the 60D, but you will loose so many things else (autofocus, battery length, build quality etc ...) that IMHO you should stick to the 1D series.

The battery the 60D, 7D and 5D ii uses is pretty stout, good for well over 1,000 (1,300 is probably a good number) shots without flash.

The 1Diii is a great camera for sure, but you should really read some of the comparisons between it and the 7D. I think you will be surprised how well the 7D stacks up to the 1Diii in IQ, AF, and other areas.

Well as for the battery, I just shot 5,500 shots in 3 days with only one battery, and there are still 7% of its capacity remaining ^^

I had the 1DMk2 and 1DMk2N, and when I got the 1DMk3, I was quite happy with the improvement. I've never shot a 7D, but I would imagine you can get good results with either, so there probably isn't a bad choice with the 7D or 1DMk3. I would stay away from the 60D though.. to me it was an attempt to drop a body between the Rebels and the xxD bodies.

The 1d series are great but the 9 cross point af on the 60d is also very good. You would have about 1.2 times more reach and 18 mp to crop from if required. Don't rule out the 60d just yet

I'd go with the 60D if you already have good fast glass as that's more important than any body. Full frame glass will be significantly more expensive....cheap glass with a mkiii would make no sense.

60D has a really good AF system (better than mkii) and it's only $200 more expensive than the t4i yet is prosumer quality, better build quality, better ergonomics, and just a general all around better body.

The 7D is significantly more expensive than a 60D and is really better if shooting fast moving subjects is on your high priority list.......

So I'd go with a 60D and fast glass.

MKiii with fast glass will cost you WAY more and a 7D is about 2X the price of the 60D while you really only get a better AF system and possibly worse high iso use due to using an older processor.

T4i is also a good choice but the body isn't as rugged as the 60D and it lacks a lot of the features that make the 60D prosumer quality and even though this might sound stupid I'd rather be caught dead vs shooting weddings or professional portraits with a camera that has the word rebel on it unless it was being used as a backup......

If you don't have fast glass save the money you would use on a mkiii and get a 60D, Tamron/Sigma/or Canon 17-50(55) 2.8 IS or no IS (doesn't manner much at short focal ranges), a Canon 85 1.8 if portraiture is high up on your list or a Sigma 70-200 2.8 if event, wedding, and portraiture is all important to you and you'd be good to go.

With a mkiii you'd want a 24-70L, 70-200 2.8, which will run you around $6,000 if buying everything brand new vs a 60D with 17-50 2.8 & Sigma 70-200 2.8 which will run you around $2,300 brand new......if you're being paid to shoot expensive weddings (5K+) than that's the only way I'd go the mkiii route.......

I would go with the 1d MKIII just for the build quality alone. Plus once you shoot a 1d body do you really want to shoot with anything else??

Brandon Anderson Photos wrote in post #15247053
I would go with the 1d MKIII just for the build quality alone. Plus once you shoot a 1d body do you really want to shoot with anything else??

THIS ! You are going to loose so much that I'd bet you'll regret it half a year later ...

60D

Brandon Anderson Photos wrote in post #15247053
I would go with the 1d MKIII just for the build quality alone. Plus once you shoot a 1d body do you really want to shoot with anything else??

I agree. I don't believe that the IQ will be better on the 60D. My 1D3 images have a lot more pop to them than my T2i images (same sensor as 60D). I really can't believe that is a lower resolution sensor -- I think it handles crops better than the sensor on my T2i.

That 18MP sensor on my T2i has just always seemed to have a softness to it. I've compared RAWs from both bodies, same lens, same settings for swim photos, and there really is something better about those off the 1D3. I have shared the RAWs with others, and they found the same to be true.

The 1D3 is an amazing machine, and a great value, IMO.

Before you make a final decision, you should probably go into a shop and handle a 60D. The 60D is not the successor to the 20D-30D-40D-50D lineage. The next step in that path is the 7D. The 60D was an attempt to reestablish a body in between the xxxD consumer bodies and the new xD prosumer bodies. If you have been shooting with a 20D and 1D, I can't imagine you'd be happy with the handling of the 60D being that its smaller than even the 20D. I would go with a good used 50D over the 60D unless you have a huge desire to do video.

As I mentioned before, I had both a 20D and 1D2/1D2N... and upgraded to 50D and 1D3. I was extremely happy with the move in both cases. They are both similar handling to the two bodies you have, yet better in almost every way. That said, a happy medium, which you haven't mentioned, could be to go with a 7D. I know a lot of birders like it... and its more similar to the 1D2 performance, but more the size of the 20D. To me, unless you want to go more in the consumer DSLR direction (smaller, lighter, etc.), the 60D shouldn't even be on your list.

As a bird guy I can tell you that the 60d does very well.
I shoot the 60d with a 100-400 and I do a good job. Check my flickr in my sig.

However, a faster AF lens will do you more good than a new body. Get a 400 5.6 and enjoy.

The AF is really fast on that no matter what body you use.

I will say that a 60d with a 400 5.6 will be better than a 1d3 and 100-400.
The lens makes the difference.

I really like my lens too but for BIF the 400 cant be beat for the price.

I picked up the 1DMk2 as a good buy very cheap, it does a fairly good job, especially on autofocus, way better than my 20D. I'm really hoping the 60D is better than the 20D, and close to the 1DMk2,
But noise on my 20D is fairly high anything above ISO 400.
I tried higher ISO on my 1DMk2 as high as ISO160, and didn't see too much noise at all.
With the 100-400, I need as much light as possible. Those shots of the birds are very good with the 60D

I have a 7D and have actually thought about a "side grade" to a 1D III. AF on the 7D is very good but I suspect that the 1D is better. IQ wise, you are comparing a clean sharp 10MP APS-h sensor with a fussy, somewhat soft 18MP APS-c sensor. This is a bit tough of a comparison to make as there would be substantial downsizing and cropping to be done to keep it fair.

Having 18MP gives the impression that you have more cropping latitude. But, if your original is soft or the focus is off then cropping is only going to make it worse. I often downsize to 10MP to get my shots tack sharp (for stock submission) so being "limited" to that resolution isn't a big deal. You will lose the benefit of the 1.6 crop with your long lens though but not as much as if you go full frame.

All in all, I suspect that you would be very happy with the 1D 3. The 60D will be no slouch either and if you nail the shot the results may actually look better on a big print (or a minor crop) but your keeper rate might be lower.

Flip a coin really. Or start saving for a 1D IV.