60D Basic Info Needed :)

[Arthur Morris]

Here is an e-mail exchange between myself and Cody Newman. I hope that Cody responds here and all are welcome to chip in with 60D info. Sometimes that cameras come so fast that it is difficult to keep up :)


Hi Cody,

re:

I was having a tuff time finding many reviews on the canon 60D. I was wondering what your thought were on this camera VS the 7d? I will use it only for wildlife photos.

I have never used it and have not even read about it. I loved the 50D and own and use a 7D. My # and #2 bodies however are EOS-1D Mark IVs.

Does the 60D have video? What does is cost? FPS? How many megapixels?

Also what lens would you recomend for either of these?

Where do you live? What is your budget? What do you like to photograph?

later and love, artie

All help is welcome.

[Cody Newman]

Canon 60D shoots full HD video, has swivel LCD screen shoots 5.3 FPS and has 18mp. I am looking at it for shooting large mammals such as deer, elk ect. That is the only thing I would use the lens for. Would like to stay under 2k on lens for starters then work up for something better later. Thanks

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks for getting back to us here Cody. And for the info. One last question for you: what focal length range are you looking for? (You budget will limit you to something in the 200mm to 400mm max range unless you go off-brand.)

For all, why the huge price price difference between the 60D and the7D?

[John Guastella]

For all, why the huge price price difference between the 60D and the7D?

DP Review has a preliminary discussion of the 60D, with a chart comparing its features with those of the 7D. Looks like the price difference may be due in part to body construction (plastic + Al vs. Mg alloy), single processor vs. dual processor, number of AF points. Chart is here (scroll down): 60D versus 7D.

John

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

Artie, Bob Atkins has nice comparison on his site that I had pasted in the post started by Cody.

http://bobatkins.com/photography/dig...omparison.html

Before 60D, there was a clear demarcation between xxD and Rebels. IMO, 60D falls in between the two...has rear-dial and pentaprism like the xxDs but has polycarbonate body like Rebels. It does not accept CF cards. The joystick to select AF points is integrated with the rear dial unlike 50D/7D. It is also smaller in size than 40D/50D/7D. It does not have ability to do microadjustments that even its so-called predecessor 50D has. It has less fps than 50D and 40D. But it has something that no other SLR has....the articulated LCD screen. It would be very good for shooting videos. Its a kinda unique camera that way.

Pricing wise, Canon has the top-end rebel at$ 700-odd, 60D at $1000-odd and 7D at$ 1500-odd, if I am not mistaken. It seems in line with all the bells and whistles available....although all have a 18MP 1.6x crop factor sensor.

[Cody Newman]

Thanks guys I looked at all the info that was provided :) I was just wondering if anybody had actually used one? Or will one see the diffrence in price/features for slower animals such as deer vs flying birds that most here shoot? Thanks

[Jeff Dyck]

I always find dpreview.com does a good job of laying out a "just the facts" set of camera specs and showing basic comparisons between new models and the ones they are replacing. They have posted a basic comparison of features between the 60D and the 50D and 7D here that may be of interest.

Edit: I would add - dpreview doesn't make it obvious, but there are actually 9 pages to that review (and not just 1) - you have to hit the small "Next >" at the bottom of the page in the middle to go to the next page.

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

Cody, what do you use right now? That will have a big say in whether you will be happy with 60D or not.

You are right....if you are not into shooting subjects that move very fast, you dont really "need" the 19-point configurable 7D AF. But then there is also the size difference that you should consider. It might be a good idea to go to the store and get a feel of both cameras....decide for yourself which one feels better in the hand. Whether you like the rear-dial of 60D with the integrated joystick ? Do you see a big benefit of the articulated LCD screen for what you intend to do? how much importance do you give to 100% viewfinder coverage of 7D? IQ is not going to be differentiating factor. So you will have to go through these other considerations and make the decision.

It will be good to get impressions from someone who has used it. But since its a new camera, I wont hold my breath. Most folks on BPN forums use the older xxD, 7D, 1D and 5D and none of them might have the 60D. yet.

2K is a good budget in the Canon world for intermediate teles. You have three good options to go to 400mm and all are well under 2K. 300 f/4 L IS with 1.4x, 100-400 IS and 400 f5.6( no IS).

[Cody Newman]

Thanks guys, Right now I have a rebel Xsi so this will be a BIG step up for me. Size of either and lay out does not really bother me as either would have a new learning curve. I think the 60D housing is fine as I due not travel alot and I am not real hard on my cameras. I dont think the FPS would be worth the diffrence in the price. So I think I have answered my own question. I just wanted to make sure there was not somthing I was overlooking as this is a huge investment for me so I want to make a good descion.

As for lens I think I will have to crop some no matter what, so I am thinking for overall sharpness. I have alot of good things about the 300 f/4 withe 1.4 converter so I think that is what I am leaning towards. Any thoughts?

[Arthur Morris]

Lots of great stuff above. Thanks all. To me, the D60 sounds a bit too much like a toy camera.... Unless you are married to video, a used 50D might be great for you. And the 300mm f/4L IS with the 1.4X II TC, sounds like a great choice. Let me know if you have any additional questions.

[Aidan Briggs]

I am thinking the same thing as Artie here. From the info so far, the older 50D seems like a much better camera than the 60D. I have and use (thanks to Artie) a 50D and it is a great camera. I used to use an XTi and it is a HUGE step up. I checked B&H and a used 50D would be in the $700-800 range.

[john jackson]

I am right now thinking of trading in my 40D for a 60D or 7D. As 50D is still available (and cheaper than the others) I have looked at that, too. All three of these cameras can and do produce excellent photos, no doubt. I think it is easy to get hung up on the plastic thing and what cards a camera uses; I consider plastic to be durable and cards are consumables that I will need to buy anyhow due to larger file sizes. Which leaves me with...

60D advantages (over 7D): smaller, lighter, cheaper, articulated screen (really handy for macro and stability in low light).
7D advantages (over 60D): better AF, faster processor, micro-adjust for lenses.

It seems there is no difference in image quality between 60D and 7D, which is an improvement over the 50D (so I have knocked that one off the list). If the buyer is OK with size and weight and considers an articulated screen less important than AF, the remaining consideration is money.

[Arthur Morris]

I could not use a camera with the tiny cards... I would lose them. And I am not understanding why a 60D is better than a 50D.... For me, image quality with the 50D was at least as good as with the 7D and even better in low light.... And you save ton with no video. For birds in flight I would rate the 7D a bit better but the 50D is excellent and a ton less money, especially for a good used one.

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

I am right now thinking of trading in my 40D for a 60D or 7D. As 50D is still available (and cheaper than the others) I have looked at that, too. All three of these cameras can and do produce excellent photos, no doubt. I think it is easy to get hung up on the plastic thing and what cards a camera uses; I consider plastic to be durable and cards are consumables that I will need to buy anyhow due to larger file sizes. Which leaves me with...

60D advantages (over 7D): smaller, lighter, cheaper, articulated screen (really handy for macro and stability in low light).
7D advantages (over 60D): better AF, faster processor, micro-adjust for lenses.

It seems there is no difference in image quality between 60D and 7D, which is an improvement over the 50D (so I have knocked that one off the list). If the buyer is OK with size and weight and considers an articulated screen less important than AF, the remaining consideration is money.

John, I use 40D and when the 60D was announced, I looked at the specs carefully and decided not to go for it. Why? Here are a few deal-breakers for me.

(a) I dont think I'd like the smaller size.
(b) I do a lot of BIF and definitely will not appreciated the lower fps. In many situations, I find even 6.3 less.
(c) I am used to selecting the AF point using the joystick by thumb without taking my eye off the viewfinder. With 60D, there is no joystick at that point. What they have is a selector that is inside the rear dial. I dont think thats very ergonomic. IMO, this is the biggest deal breaker.
(d) No button for flash exposure compensation. I'd hate to go through the menu to do that. My flash does not have the feature to do compensation from flash controls. Another biggie for me.
(e) Layout of buttons is very different. One can get used to it of course...but, say, 2 yrs down the line, if I want to upgrade to the 7D line, I'd need to get used to different layout again.

Since, I am not into video, only advantage would be increased resolution....but for me, that does not trump the above-mentioned issues. But again, thats just me and if someone really needs 18Mp+video for 1k, 60D should be a very very capable device. Whenever I do upgrade, its going to be to the 7D line because I see the xxD line going into a different direction now.

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks KD. Unless $$ was a huge issue any choice between a 60D and a 7D should go to the 7D...

[john jackson]

...image quality with the 50D was at least as good as with the 7D and even better in low light.... For birds in flight I would rate the 7D a bit better but the 50D is excellent...

Arthur

I have used neither the 50D nor the 7D so I have no personal opinion on them. I would much rather spend my hard-earned on travelling and using my cameras than buying a new model, yet up to now I have been tempted by what I have heard about the 7D in two vital areas:

1) The AF of the 7D is a big improvement on past models in the XXD range and rivals the 1DIII.

2) The 18MP sensor has improved resolution and improved high ISO image quality.

Thanks

John

Have I got it right that in your experience improvement in the 7D is limited to the AF being a bit better for moving targets and there is no advantage in the new sensor, which is in some situations worse than the previous one? If that is the case why do you think so many people are raving about the 7D?

[john jackson]

Kaustubh

Well considered and practical reasons. Although (as a fellow 40D user) I am thinking that the resolution upgrade looks considerable now as opposed to previous incremental rises; 18MP adds a fair bit to image size versus 10MP.

John

[Arthur Morris]

JJ,

re:

I have used neither the 50D nor the 7D so I have no personal opinion on them. I would much rather spend my hard-earned on travelling and using my cameras than buying a new mode...

Ah, you are not an avid fan of BAA or our Bulletins. I have written often (here also) that folks should learn to make great images with the equipment they already own rather than lusting after every new lens and camera body. Our gear is simply our tools; if you don't know how to use your tools, it does not matter how expensive they are :) Good photographers make good images with whatever they have in their hands.

l, yet up to now I have been tempted by what I have heard about the 7D in two vital areas:

1) The AF of the 7D is a big improvement on past models in the XXD range and rivals the 1DIII.

IMO AF with the 7D is far better than with the MIII as far as AI Servo tracking accuracy. I do not know what you mean by XXD.

2) The 18MP sensor has improved resolution and improved high ISO image quality.

Yes to the former but I do not agree with the latter. Smaller pixels = more noise. Exposing to the right helps reduce noise with all cameras.

Have I got it right that in your experience improvement in the 7D is limited to the AF being a bit better for moving targets and there is no advantage in the new sensor, which is in some situations worse than the previous one?

Not exactly. AF is great. IQ is great in the sun. I am not a huge fan of 7D images made in cloudy or low light conditions.

If that is the case why do you think so many people are raving about the 7D?

I think it's a great camera if you know its limitations. BTW, Denise Ippolito who knows her way around a good image far preferred her old 40D to the 7D for image quality.....

[john jackson]

We agree over the value of familiar tools, hence my continued use of the 40D. But, the 40D has limitations in AF on moving targets and partly hidden targets that would make the 7D an upgrade. If dull light conditions do not suit the 7D I would have an issue with it as I live in northern England and on trips I often frequent forest areas.

By XXD I mean 40D, 50D etc.

"Smaller pixels = more noise" is only part of the story. Smaller pixels also make smaller noise that is less obvious in a picture. Hence, smaller pixel cameras = less noisy pictures. When I used a 6MP 10D my high ISO pictures were noisier than with my 10MP 40D.

Thank you for your time and thoughts.

John

[Robert Amoruso]

Lots of great stuff above. Thanks all. To me, the D60 sounds a bit too much like a toy camera.... Unless you are married to video, a used 50D might be great for you. And the 300mm f/4L IS with the 1.4X II TC, sounds like a great choice. Let me know if you have any additional questions.

I agree with this having own and sold the 50D when I got the 7D. 7D is superior to the 50D and I do not see anything with the 60D to make me think it is better then a 50D. Used 50D a better buy IMO unless you can opt for the 7D.

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

Kaustubh

Well considered and practical reasons. Although (as a fellow 40D user) I am thinking that the resolution upgrade looks considerable now as opposed to previous incremental rises; 18MP adds a fair bit to image size versus 10MP.

John

John, I agree that jump from 10MP to 18Mp is huge. Hence, I have decided to wait and buy the 7D line. If I was in your shoes, I'd try out 60D in a shop....check out the ergonomics. I havent done that, but from the pictures, it looks like, to use the new focus point selector( without taking eye off the viewfinder), one would have to contort the thumb in a wierd way. If 60D was exactly like 50D with 18mp better sensor, then I'd have given it a serious thought. Canon is a smart company. They have a popular product in 7D and dont want the 60D to hurt its sales...hence the dumbing down.

[Arthur Morris]

I agree with this having own and sold the 50D when I got the 7D. 7D is superior to the 50D and I do not see anything with the 60D to make me think it is better then a 50D. Used 50D a better buy IMO unless you can opt for the 7D.

Except for slighty better AI Servo AF I am not sure that the 7D is all that much better than the 50D for nature photography.

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

"Smaller pixels = more noise" is only part of the story. Smaller pixels also make smaller noise that is less obvious in a picture. Hence, smaller pixel cameras = less noisy pictures. When I used a 6MP 10D my high ISO pictures were noisier than with my 10MP 40D.

John

John, I respectfully disagree. If high ISO performance on 40d is better than 10d, its because 40D's sensor is much more advanced...not because pixels are smaller. 10D was released in 2003 and 40D in 2007, if I am not mistaken.

If you compare sensors from the same generation( say, 7D, 1D markIV and 5D mark II, all within an year of each other), its no secret that 'bigger the pixels, better highISO noise performance'. Bigger the pixel, better it is at catching light.

In recent years, there have been advances in microlens design and distance between microlens and photodiode being reduced....which helps in focussing light on the photodiode. Perhaps, that is why 7D is supposed to have better highISO perf. than 50D...but due to differences in MP, it is, I guess hard to compare easilly. I havent used either, BTW.

Sorry for digressing from the main topic. As I said earlier, between 60D and 7d, its not the IQ that is the differentiating factor as the sensors are pretty similar, from what I have read so far.

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks KD for chiming in.

From where I sit, the image quality of my MIV files appears to be far superior (especially in terms of fine detail) to my 7D image files (regardless of the ISO). (That said, I have many 7D images that I love....)

#1: What are the possible pixel/sensor related reasons for my great preference for MIV image files?

#2: Do others who have used both cameras agree? (Doug Brown, are you there?) :)

[john jackson]

Take a crop from a 5DII to match the 7D sensor size and you have an 8MP image. Would the cropped 8MP picture match an 18MP one from a 7D in detail and noise if both were used to print at the same size? I would like to see the prints to prove it (and I wish I had the cameras to do the comparison!), but my money would be on the 7D for both detail and noise despite the smaller pixels.

I maintain that Arthur's comment "Smaller pixels = more noise" comment is only part of the story. It is a true statement, but not the whole truth. It is also the case that more and smaller pixels can exhibit less visible noise when the whole picture is viewed at the same size.

[Flavio Rose]

I believe based on DXOmark's "Print" data that to first approximation smaller pixels do not produce more noise in a final image of fixed size (say 8x12 inches printed, or 1024x683 pixels). In contrast, smaller sensors do. Thus looking at the full image at fixed size, the 1.3 crop 1D4 should have less noise than the 1.6 crop 7D.

The reasoning is set out here.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Our-publications/DxOMark-Insights/More-pixels-offset-noise!

[Cody Newman]

wow, you guys kinda lost me at the end there? LOL, I bought a 7D and fist let me say it is a big learning curve for me but, I did get some great pics the 1st day out :) I am no expert not by a long shot.....but, from what I have seen and read on hear the noise seems to be very little to not even noticble from what I have seen so far. Thanks agian all for your great help, even if I can't understand some of it yet.

[Roger Clark]

I believe based on DXOmark's "Print" data that to first approximation smaller pixels do not produce more noise in a final image of fixed size (say 8x12 inches printed, or 1024x683 pixels). In contrast, smaller sensors do. Thus looking at the full image at fixed size, the 1.3 crop 1D4 should have less noise than the 1.6 crop 7D.

The reasoning is set out here.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Our-publications/DxOMark-Insights/More-pixels-offset-noise!

Where to start--so much discussion in this thread.

Let me address the above dxomark link first. It is a misleading article because they forgot an important factor: read noise. They completely left
out the read noise effects in their equations. They also didn't
consider real-world sensors that must have a dead space separating pixels.
And don't get me started on their incorrect use of the term sensitivity.

I'll refer people to my own sensor analyses and point you to two figures:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...mance.summary/

For given print/viewed image size, the signal and noise per unit area is
what controls perception. Look at Figures 10 and 11 on the above page.
Figure 10 shows signal density and figure 11 shows read noise density.
In both cases, the models show that signal per unit area decreases
with pixel size and read noise per unit area increases as pixel size decreases.
Remember noise in mid-tones and highlights is proportional to the
square root of the signal. So less signal per unit area means
signal-to-noise ratio decreases with smaller pixels. Then add read noise
and read noise per unit area increases with smaller pixels.
Both of those trends are saying that apparent noise one sees in images
increases with smaller pixels, even on a constant print size.

The actual sensor data plotted on Figures 10 and 11 bucks the model
trends because of technology improvements. Once the actual camera
data starts following the direction of the model lines, the
technology will be mature. I believe we are close, but there is
still room for small improvements.

Second, for bird photography, where the subject is small in the frame, the
above does not apply. Then it is pixels on subject and larger pixels
fed by a larger lens wins. But for a focal length limited situation
where you want more pixels on a subject, smaller pixels are nice if
you have enough light. The constant debates we see where one person
says the &D is noisy and another says it is fine, affected by
people's different tolerance for noise and differing light conditions.

There are so many compromises in photography and no one tool does the
best job all the time.

Regarding some of the other points in this thread, e.g. 40D versus 10D
versus 50D, etc, there is a fair amount of data on my web page above.
For example, one can see in Figure 2 that the 10D and 40D have the same
signal-to-noise ratio on an 18% gray card, but Figure 3 shows the
10D has much higher read noise. Thus images with the 10D will look
noisier at higher ISO and in the shadows, but have similar noise
(per pixel) in mid and highlights at low ISO compared to the 40D.

One thing that has not been mentioned, and is not on my web page
is sensor quality. By this I mean the number of dead, or hot pixels.
From my web page above, it should be obvious that I have analyzed
a fair number of sensors. It is my growing impression based on these
analyses that manufacturers are selecting and sorting sensors.
For example, Canon has 3 series: low end DSLRs, "prosumer" and pro
lines. It seems that for a given sensor, (e.g. 18 megapixels,
currently in the Canon T2i, 60D and 7D), that sensors with the most
dead/hot pixels go in the bottom end cameras, those with less go in the
mid-level cameras, and those with the fewest dead/hot pixels go in the
top end cameras. So it appears that buying a higher end camera
gets you a better sensor.

I'll close with a comparison image of the Moon from a 7D and 1D Mark IV,
both with a 300 f/2.8 L IS lens with the same exposure and f/stop.
It is obvious that the 7D image has more detail, but in this case
the there was plenty of light so noise per pixel was not a factor.
These are out-of-camera jpegs.

Roger