Canon Announces EOS 60D

[ELK]

One point not brought up in this thread is that the US dollar has been dropping steadily since mid 2007 (from ~120 yen to 84 yen), and this isn't likely to reverse soon (why is another discussion entirely).  This amounts to the equivalent of a steady price drop in camera prices sold in the US -  as far as the money Canon brings in.  Rather than raise list prices on existing product (which is hard to do without negative backlash by consumers), Canon has been raising prices when brining new products to market.  Example is the EF 70-200 f/2.8L II.  Big price jump.

The 7D is your 50D successor, only with a price increase via a name change.  That is the camera the xxD guys wanted to see follow the 50D.  The problem is it isn't at the price point expected.  The 60D line is not dead, it has been renamed to 7D.  And unfortunately, has had a price increase partly due to exchange rates.

By naming this new camera a 60D instead of a 600D, Canon Marketing set expectations that it would be a clear advancement beyond a 50D, which it is not.  Therefore, xxD owners, and those planning to be, are appropriatly dissapointed as is understandable.

Canon built a new camera to hit a price point in their product line up.  The camera must be evaluated based upon what it offers for the price and the desires and behaivors of the consumers that purchase cameras at that price.  I'm sure the 60D name will be a branding bonus for those that now purchase this new camera.  Something a little above a Rebel.  Canon has repurposed/repositioned the 60D name.

Not withstanding the dissapointment by some - On its own merit, the 60D looks to be a good product and it will sell very well at the price point released.  (which will drop a bit once it gets to the market and all the channels have adequate inventory).

Nikon is a fine camera line as well.  Canon and Nikon will leap frog over the years.  If you don't have a lot of investment in lenses, then just go ahead and buy a Nikon if they have more of what you want at the price point you are looking at.

YES!

And Nikon is just unaware about that unwelcome dollar/ien rates.

Nikon's decision was very wise. For $300 less than 7D you can get D7000 with almost the same features. Some will argue about 19 cross-type sensors vs. 9 and 8 fps vs 6. If this is deal-breaker for you, then fine, otherwise D7000 is an excellent choice. I don't mention 60D here,  it will have to compete with D5000 successor, because 60d simply doesn't fit into this category.

In fact, Canon's 7D was D300s killer and it did that job perfectly.  Nikon's answer is more aggressive - they already killed the yet unborn 60D and are going to fight against 7D. Great war, where the customer is the winner.

We can expect that 7D price continue to drop. D300s sales will be dead waiting for it's successor. 60D needs to lose "weight" ASAP - at $800-900 it will become an attractive choice for upgrading from rebel. And this all will finally help me get T2i for $600

Switching from Canon to Nikon today seems to be right decision. But tomorrow one may want to come back hardly. Because Canon's answer won't be late. I love this war!

[dilbert]

Switching from Canon to Nikon today seems to be right decision. But tomorrow one may want to come back hardly. Because Canon's answer won't be late. I love this war!

I have a sneaking suspicion that changing camera manufacturers is about as effective as changing lanes in rush hour on the freeway because the other lane is now moving faster. More often than not you end up further behind with all the changing.

If you're going to change camera manufacturer, it needs to be a long term exercise - 10 to 15 years with a single vendor - so that you don't lose out on the cost of changing every time there is a small feature bump.

[neuroanatomist]

I have a sneaking suspicion that changing camera manufacturers is about as effective as changing lanes in rush hour on the freeway because the other lane is now moving faster. More often than not you end up further behind with all the changing.

Yeah, but there's a trick to that - experience.  For example, after driving the same freeway home for a couple of years, I know in a certain stretch, on average the far right lane moves the fastest, and on a different stretch, the #2 lane is the 'best'. 

Of course, I spend a lot more looking through a windshield than a viewfinder, so I have no idea how to translate that analogy back to dSLRs...

[kubelik]

Switching from Canon to Nikon today seems to be right decision. But tomorrow one may want to come back hardly. Because Canon's answer won't be late. I love this war!

I have a sneaking suspicion that changing camera manufacturers is about as effective as changing lanes in rush hour on the freeway because the other lane is now moving faster. More often than not you end up further behind with all the changing.

If you're going to change camera manufacturer, it needs to be a long term exercise - 10 to 15 years with a single vendor - so that you don't lose out on the cost of changing every time there is a small feature bump.

dilbert and elk, you guys have it right.  who's "in the lead" is always changing, and it makes little sense to jump ship back and forth as each body comes out, as you'll just end up wasting time and money and realize in the end you're getting the worst of both worlds rather than the best of both

[Rocky]

Part of the reason (may be problem) of people thinking about switch Camera maker (or even switch new body within the same band) is that cameras are relatively cheap. In the '60s, a good camera cost almost as much as one month wage and people stick to their camera for 10, 20 years. Nowadays people always want the newest model. I stress the point want, not need. Let us be honest to ourselves, does the 40D really give us a better picture than the 20D? Or does the 7D really give us a better picture than the 50D?? I am talking about prints, not pixel peeping. Especially now that the resolution of the sensor demands the best prime lens. Even that we need to beware of the diffraction effect. Granted that each newer model give us more feature that we want, but how many of them do we really need ?? Nowadays, camera makers try to out done each other. It becomes an endless chase for us.

[Rocky]

I should have a more detail on the diffraction effect before some one jumps on me. In reality, the diffraction effect is always there (from the size of the lens aperture). For the lower Mp sensor, It just cannot resolve the diffraction effect. For high Mp, the effect will show up due to higher resolution. We can down size the High Mp picture to "eliminate" the effect.  But then, we will end up with a lower Mp picture

[Edwin Herdman]

I have a sneaking suspicion that changing camera manufacturers is about as effective as changing lanes in rush hour on the freeway because the other lane is now moving faster. More often than not you end up further behind with all the changing.

Yeah, but there's a trick to that - experience.  For example, after driving the same freeway home for a couple of years, I know in a certain stretch, on average the far right lane moves the fastest, and on a different stretch, the #2 lane is the 'best'. 

Of course, I spend a lot more looking through a windshield than a viewfinder, so I have no idea how to translate that analogy back to dSLRs...

The problem with that analogy is that the stakes for roadway driving are - either you lose or gain a few seconds, or you die (I saw that result yesterday...), whereas for camera lenses and bodies, you lose money, and never make any (ignoring for a second the possibility that there is some niche lens for the system you switch to that lets you get more business - HD video obviously is the most recent "selling" feature of a DSLR and everybody already has it - so camera body features to me don't really sell a vendor switch, especially not a quarterly or yearly one where the improvements are small.  Moving up from a Rebel to a x0D, or better, is another matter).

I'm not going to fault anybody for going with the D700 right now, but even a few Canon lenses means the battle uphill to be satisfied with the new format is going to be a more protracted one.  It will take longer for it to make sense financially to switch vendors.

IMHO, people who are switching bodies on the basis of features must be using nothing but kit lenses, if they have that little attachment to the more expensive half of the system - the lenses.  I am rather jealous of the new 200-400mm, but I get a lot more mileage and a better utility to price (not to mention fun to price) ratio with the new wide angle TS-Es than I would have with Nikon's equivalents.  If you can switch every year, you are not taking full advantage of the lenses available, which can improve IQ at least as much as a new body bought a year later.  Seriously - would I move from a T1i with a 50mm f/1.4 for good portraits to a D7000 and have to buy the prime all over again as part of the yearly cyclical refresh?  Not likely, no matter how good the Nikon prime is, the investment has already been made.  And when the time comes around for Canon to release something to get people interested in it, I'll still have the 50mm from whichever system I choose - Nikon or Canon.  I think real wisdom comes in recognizing that the "advantages" of one body over another are relatively small and fleeting, with the exception of folks who NEED dynamic range, ISO, or shots in quick succession, where one manufacturer often "beats" the other for a period of time (for example, Nikon is still considered to be doing very well on the ISO front, though less so on sheer file size).

And if nothing else, Nikon's market positioning seems opaque.  I'm told that the D7000 is better than the D3000 / D3100 (no surprise, the D3000 is an unlovely camera, in my opinion), but also better than the D300 (in many areas).  Hmm?  Laugh as we will at "T1i" and "Rebel," Canon does more to differentiate their segments than throw a random string of zeroes after the D and the first letter.

[Daviii]

Switching from Canon to Nikon today seems to be right decision. But tomorrow one may want to come back hardly. Because Canon's answer won't be late. I love this war!

Switching from Canon to Nikon today because D7000 is better than 60D, or because it's cheaper than 7D is just A NO SENSE.

New customers are the target, for those the D7000 is great, also for Nikon D90 users.
Canon customers with a lens collection wont have a single reason to switch (Just buy a damn 7D which is even better), and those Nikon new customers won't have a reason to switch in the future either, that's the point of the D7000, to build a consumer base.

It's much cheaper to buy a 7D, even it's $300 more expensive, than changing an entire collection of lens. "Switching" should be for professionals only, in a whole different level, for a whole different reasons. And even pros won't switch their brand just for a damn second body, mainly because Nikon's still better in wideangle and Canon's still better in telephoto, so switching should imply changing style reasons, or something "serious enough".

Both Canon 17-55 f2.8 and 15-85 lenses are BETTER than Nikon's 17-55 and 16-85 counterparts, and second hand lenses are much cheaper and easy to find, and those two reasons alone are WAY more decisive, in my opinion, for an advanced amateur than camera features.

Don't get me wrong. Nikon have impressive lenses for the professionals. 14-24 is unbelievable and canon does not come even close, but for the advanced amateur in an APS-C body, Canon's lens lineup is quite more adequate.

To sum up my opinion: Once you've chosen a brand it's basically stupid to switch, since no brand offers much better quality in ANY aspect. You may switch to Nikon from Canon, or Canon from Nikon, but your photography is not gonna improve. Your wallet is gonna get slimmer though.

[Q5Driver]

I also like the new angled top info screen.  That's pretty cool. :-)  Engadget photo gallery:

http://www.engadget.com/photos/canon-60d-press-shots/#3299046
[/quote]

Yes but unfortunately no "eye" sensor (as on T2i) to switch off the display.
This could be irritating when taking multiple exposures, also the display does switch off when pressing shutter release halfway.

[Jan]

Yes but unfortunately no "eye" sensor (as on T2i) to switch off the display.
This could be irritating when taking multiple exposures, also the display does switch off when pressing shutter release halfway.

Not unfortunately. Unlike as on T2i, the 60D's RGB-LCD is off by default. All necessary information is on the monochrome LCD.

[jouster]

Part of the reason (may be problem) of people thinking about switch Camera maker (or even switch new body within the same band) is that cameras are relatively cheap. In the '60s, a good camera cost almost as much as one month wage and people stick to their camera for 10, 20 years. Nowadays people always want the newest model. I stress the point want, not need. Let us be honest to ourselves, does the 40D really give us a better picture than the 20D? Or does the 7D really give us a better picture than the 50D?? I am talking about prints, not pixel peeping. Especially now that the resolution of the sensor demands the best prime lens. Even that we need to beware of the diffraction effect. Granted that each newer model give us more feature that we want, but how many of them do we really need ?? Nowadays, camera makers try to out done each other. It becomes an endless chase for us.

There was less need to change, as all 35mm film fit all cameras. You can't change sensors (ok...except for that weird Ricoh system) so you buy a new camera. Do you need it? Only you can decide that, and the perception equals the fact: if you wake up in 2020 deciding you need the 5D mark 7 and you have the cash then you have the reason to buy. Need does not have to equate to your profession, or to some system metric; it is decided solely by you.