EOS 60D Notes [CR2]

[unfocused]

let the engineers produce a camera for once

Please god no! That would be the worst camera ever!

[silvershot77]

Plastic is preferred...lighter, just as tough.  cheaper.  Better AF is a must..too many gaps in the 9 pointer.  So light wt, prism vf, more AF, better IQ  ...that gets my dough. 

[silvershot77]

How come Nikon D95 can have 39 AF points for 1200$ while Canon 60D only has the same old 9 points ?   not even close, it this is what is coming .

[Shompis]

Because those 39 points are not cross type, while the 9 points are all cross type. 7D has 19 focus points, yet it is more versatile than the over 50 in the D300s.

[silvershot77]

I do think 39 regular sensors would outperform 9 cross type ..esp. without the annoying gaps...holes in between sensors. 

[Idahophoto]

Seems like the 60D won't be worth buying after all. Canon can just keep it

[silvershot77]

That may be if you don't have tons of experience with shooting.  But it's no comparison w carrying the thing for a long time..hands down.  Done it for way too long.

[dilbert]

Some member in this forum actually welcome the 60D with plastic body for the lighter weight. One member actualy suggest team up a light weight DSLR body with a light weight plastic lens (50mm f1.8 II).   It is a mistake. I am not against plastic body but I am against lightweight. It is just simple physics. 1. When we push the shutter release button, our hand do have the tendency to move. The heavier the camera, the less movement it will be. 2. After the shutter button is pushed. The mirror will flip up and the camera body will come down (conservation of momentum). The heavier the camera , the slower the camera movement. We know that any movement during the exposure will cause unsharpness of the picture. So  a heavier camera will have less and slower movement and hence a sharper picture. In the old film dates, people actually attach lead plate on the light weight SLR to minimize camera movement.

So let me translate this for everyone:
"I've never used a light weight camera plus light weight lens and I've never used a heavy camera plus heavy lens so let me make a guess about what happens based on an incorrect model I've built and applied some physics to."

Why don't you buy yourself a camera or two and a lens or two and go out and try the various combinations out for us and report back to us on the real world impact of the choices vs the predictions from physics?

[dilbert]

I do think 39 regular sensors would outperform 9 cross type ..esp. without the annoying gaps...holes in between sensors.

You "think". Why don't you walk into a store that has a 1D series camera that you can get a feel for, in-store, and try using all 45 (or is it 39?) of those auto-focus sensors. Try focusing on subjects of various sizes at various distances and report back to us on how many of those 45 (or 39) you really needed and what role they all played. There's a good reason that many pro's only use 1 autofocus sensor - the middle one.

[gkreis]

let the engineers produce a camera for once

Please god no! That would be the worst camera ever!

Sorry..  I meant to refer to the sensor and electronics.. not the functionality.  Specifically, do whatever is the right thing with it, not what marketing THINKS we want.

[dilbert]

Some member in this forum actually welcome the 60D with plastic body for the lighter weight. One member actualy suggest team up a light weight DSLR body with a light weight plastic lens (50mm f1.8 II).   It is a mistake. I am not against plastic body but I am against lightweight. It is just simple physics. 1. When we push the shutter release button, our hand do have the tendency to move. The heavier the camera, the less movement it will be. 2. After the shutter button is pushed. The mirror will flip up and the camera body will come down (conservation of momentum). The heavier the camera , the slower the camera movement. We know that any movement during the exposure will cause unsharpness of the picture. So  a heavier camera will have less and slower movement and hence a sharper picture. In the old film dates, people actually attach lead plate on the light weight SLR to minimize camera movement.

So let me translate this for everyone:
"I've never used a light weight camera plus light weight lens and I've never used a heavy camera plus heavy lens so let me make a guess about what happens based on an incorrect model I've built and applied some physics to."

Why don't you buy yourself a camera or two and a lens or two and go out and try the various combinations out for us and report back to us on the real world impact of the choices vs the predictions from physics?

I am speaking from my own experience. I have been a photographer for over 40 years. I do own and use light weight camera, Olympus Pen and Olympus Pen F. I did add lead plate at the bottom of both to help stablize them. I do own heavy and solid equipments, M4 with all solid brass lenses.  I have also own and used more tahn 10 film cameras that have various weight and form factors. So I know ahat I am talking about.  As for digital, I have 20D, 40D, and T1. I do own a few heavy L lens and 50a mm 1.8II and a 18-55mm kit lens. So I have been expereiment with them. My statement is based on oth experience and theory. Keep you mind open and you will learn more.
The forum is for people to voice their opinion and exchange information. Not aplace to pick on other people. Please look up the definition of FORUM in the dictionary.Just because someone do not agree with you, there is no reason why shall you be so mean and put word in someone mouth? At the same time accusing me making up information. Have your famiily ever teach you any manner? or are you getting men with your old age?

There is a point at which a camera/lens becomes too heavy to hold steady and/or the center of gravity moves too far away from the camera that the weight of the body is no longer as significant as it was. If you were to say that there is a sweet spot with respect to weight and it being steady, then I could agree to that. Perhaps your error was that you posted citing physics to back you up, rather than experience, thus sounding more like the arm-chair coach.

I would encourage you to obtain a 5D Mark2, activate "live preview" whilst mounted solidly in a tripod and zoom in as much as you can with a long lens telephoto, then touch the camera just lightly and observe.

[canonguy]

if this is true... then it only shows canon is running scared of nikon. they actualy stoop down to the level of degrading a successful xxD line just to compete with the d90/d95. the current xxD build is the reason why i didnt go for nikon back then. then comes the plastic 60D and the magnesium d95. what next??? canon will drop their MP and stick with 12MP then nikon will go for 18MP. im just so disapointed! ive been waiting for this camera for years and canon slaps me in the face with a plastic toy camera. its the quality that counts and not the extra weight reduction.

Buy the 7D.

i don't need the features. im very happy with my 40d. it gets the job done perfectly. if only theres a way to improve the LCD on my 40d then il go for it. the lcd is the only downside for me. you can have all the best gear in the world but for what??? why waste money when all i need is a xxD and it gets the job done.

my point is, the xxD was very successful, they should as much as possible keep it as it is... i welcome the improvements, but changing the body design is not an improvement IMO.

[gkreis]

if this is true... then it only shows canon is running scared of nikon. they actualy stoop down to the level of degrading a successful xxD line just to compete with the d90/d95. the current xxD build is the reason why i didnt go for nikon back then. then comes the plastic 60D and the magnesium d95. what next??? canon will drop their MP and stick with 12MP then nikon will go for 18MP. im just so disapointed! ive been waiting for this camera for years and canon slaps me in the face with a plastic toy camera. its the quality that counts and not the extra weight reduction.

Buy the 7D.

i don't need the features. im very happy with my 40d. it gets the job done perfectly. if only theres a way to improve the LCD on my 40d then il go for it. the lcd is the only downside for me. you can have all the best gear in the world but for what??? why waste money when all i need is a xxD and it gets the job done.

my point is, the xxD was very successful, they should as much as possible keep it as it is... i welcome the improvements, but changing the body design is not an improvement IMO.

I too would like the nicer LCD and the microfocus feature of the 50D for my 40D, but then I heard the issues it was having with the sensor and I decided to wait for the 60D. In good light, the 40D is fine, as you say. My problem is in lower light. I want something that is a stop better.  So if I could use 1600 as if 800 ISO and push to 3200 in a pinch, I'd be happier. An addiction to a CP filter is hard to shake...   ;-)

I am trying to reserve judgment....

[catchinglight]

so - people seem to worry more about the body material than the specs. Some believe they get more Pro-like because of that (but please keep the full-auto mode). Others need weight for the "physics" - LOL. Well, if this makes them feel better - fine. The body material of my 350D served my purposes for several years now, and a Magnesium, Alloy or Titanium body would not have served me better, maybe because I am not a Pro (at least not a Foto-Pro) and I do not drop my Camera every now an than, I do not throw it with 3 other bodies in the trunk of my car to head for the next shooting and I do not advertise my gear to friends to make them say "wow - magnesium body". Reasons to upgrade for me personal are a better monitor, improved autofocus and handling. Therefore, a swivel screen is very much welcome as it will avoid sometimes to crawl in mud or guess direction when shooting "over-head". The plasic body will help to keep cost in acceptable range, which I believe is important in the non-Pro price segment.

[dilbert]

Some member in this forum actually welcome the 60D with plastic body for the lighter weight. One member actualy suggest team up a light weight DSLR body with a light weight plastic lens (50mm f1.8 II).   It is a mistake. I am not against plastic body but I am against lightweight. It is just simple physics. 1. When we push the shutter release button, our hand do have the tendency to move. The heavier the camera, the less movement it will be. 2. After the shutter button is pushed. The mirror will flip up and the camera body will come down (conservation of momentum). The heavier the camera , the slower the camera movement. We know that any movement during the exposure will cause unsharpness of the picture. So  a heavier camera will have less and slower movement and hence a sharper picture. In the old film dates, people actually attach lead plate on the light weight SLR to minimize camera movement.

So let me translate this for everyone:
"I've never used a light weight camera plus light weight lens and I've never used a heavy camera plus heavy lens so let me make a guess about what happens based on an incorrect model I've built and applied some physics to."

Why don't you buy yourself a camera or two and a lens or two and go out and try the various combinations out for us and report back to us on the real world impact of the choices vs the predictions from physics?

I am speaking from my own experience. I have been a photographer for over 40 years. I do own and use light weight camera, Olympus Pen and Olympus Pen F. I did add lead plate at the bottom of both to help stablize them. I do own heavy and solid equipments, M4 with all solid brass lenses.  I have also own and used more tahn 10 film cameras that have various weight and form factors. So I know ahat I am talking about.  As for digital, I have 20D, 40D, and T1. I do own a few heavy L lens and 50a mm 1.8II and a 18-55mm kit lens. So I have been expereiment with them. My statement is based on oth experience and theory. Keep you mind open and you will learn more.
The forum is for people to voice their opinion and exchange information. Not aplace to pick on other people. Please look up the definition of FORUM in the dictionary.Just because someone do not agree with you, there is no reason why shall you be so mean and put word in someone mouth? At the same time accusing me making up information. Have your famiily ever teach you any manner? or are you getting men with your old age?

There is a point at which a camera/lens becomes too heavy to hold steady and/or the center of gravity moves too far away from the camera that the weight of the body is no longer as significant as it was. If you were to say that there is a sweet spot with respect to weight and it being steady, then I could agree to that. Perhaps your error was that you posted citing physics to back you up, rather than experience, thus sounding more like the arm-chair coach.

I would encourage you to obtain a 5D Mark2, activate "live preview" whilst mounted solidly in a tripod and zoom in as much as you can with a long lens telephoto, then touch the camera just lightly and observe.

Without the laws of physics, we will not have camera or DSLR. Therefore using physics to explain the camera shake due to mirror movement is not an error. Otherwise, how can you explain it. At the same time, everybody understand that if the camera is too heavy, it cannot be held steadily. Any reasonable photogrpher knows how to use the left hand to hold the lens to keep the camera/lens steady to take care of the center of gravity problem.The center of gravity will hardly be at the camera with the lens attached.  I do not want to insult people's intellegence by mentioning them. Experience can be misleading (people have a tendency to brain wash and mislead himself) and physics is the rule. Therefore I do not need to mention my experience and let the physics do the explaining.  If you cannot understand that. I feel sorry for you.  My comment deals with camera being hand held and got nothing to do with extremely long lens and tripod.  You just have a never say die attitude and will not admit you mistake and bad manner.

The consideration here is whether or not the blur from the moment of the mirror slap is greater than that from your hands. The mirror slap problem can be countered easily: hold the button and let the shutter close 2 or 3 times and review all frames for focus/blur. Often it is the 2nd or 3rd frame that is the best because the vibration from the slap is gone.

But if you cannot hold it still enough to take the photo without blur, then whether or not there is a slight increase in movement (and thus blur) from the mirror impact is irrelevant. The weight of the camera plus lens and the ability to hold both still is a 1st order problem, the mirror slap a 2nd order problem.