someone please advise me

[galwithawand]

I have had my mind set on a canon camera for the longest time. I am a first time DSLR buyer and I started off by eyeing on the 550D, then the 600D came out and I was like "shit, what am I going to do now" since the improvements/changes are minimal and I don't know whether to go with 550 with a lower price point or the 600D with that swivel screen which I don't really need.
THEN, the 60D rebates came and amazon price on this dipped. So I started researching extensively on this camera and I was sold. However just as I was about to place an order, I came across this article: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Our-publications/DxOMark-reviews/DxOMark-review-for-APS-C-camera-2010-who-takes-the-lead
..and it turns out, the 60D is the poorest performing one among all those cameras. so crap, another dilemma. i'm now stuck and lost and I need some really good advice and guidance on this.
TIA!

 

[EYEONE]

Re: someone please advice me

Ah, it's pointless. They're just nit picking at camera's.
For the price the 60D is a fantastic camera that will take fantastic pictures. If I was trying to decide on a 550D, 600D, or 60D I'd go with the 60D any day.

In my opinion the only other camera in that line up worth considering is the Nikon D7000, which is a great camera, but you are going to pay more for it.

 

[kubelik]

Re: someone please advice me

I'll start by addressing your last concern: you can pretty much ignore the DxOmark rankings. Yes, there's probably some very minor difference in the sensors. are you going to notice? no. will anybody notice? no. without knowing in advance which system a photo was shot with, it's very difficult to tell what was shot with what these days. take a look at this article on Luminous Landscape: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml it's an exaggeration on a couple of levels, but in many ways it's actually pretty close to the truth. at screenviewing or print sizes, I honestly can't tell the difference between images shot on an APS-C sensor versus a FF sensor, unless they are extremely low-light images. the difference between APS-C sensors across different brands is almost entirely negligible.

in terms of which of the 550D, 600D, and 60D you'd like ... first go to a store a pick them all up and try them out. to me the main reasons I'd pick a 60D over the others are: #1 larger viewfinder and #2 better-sized body. see if you feel like these matter to you.

if you like the viewfinder and the gripping position of the 60D better than the rebels, absolutely buy the 60D.

if you find you don't care much, then there's very little that separates the 600D from the 550D. they have (again) essentially the same sensor and image quality, same build quality ... I'd buy the 600D on the basis that it has a flash-commander built in, so you can use off-camera flash right away, which I think is awesome. but if you don't think you need that, then there's no reason not to save the dough and get the 550D.

good luck on the purchase; enjoy shooting

 

[Admin US West]

Re: someone please advice me

Any modern camera is going to do a excellent job. Its the photographer who makes 90 percent of the difference. You can make a bigger improvement for your dollar by learning than by buying. I know we all love fine tools, but the person that uses them makes the biggest difference.

 

[Stockshooter]

Re: someone please advice me

As it turns out I have access to both the 60d and the t2i and the 50d. The t2i is small, takes great pictures. The 60d is larger, takes great pictures. When I shoot outside my little studio, I grab my 50d. Also, takes great pictures. The reality is, as stated above, pick up and hold the cameras and the one that feels best, get. I don't use the t2i often, it doesn't have a control dial on the back and when I set exposure compensation, it's a bit of a pain with the t2i if you're used to more pro features. Other than that if I took the same picture with all three cameras, anyone would be hard pressed to pick which was which.

 

[distant.star]

Re: someone please advice me

Professional Advice:

1. You want someone to "advise" you, not "advice" you.

2. With the possible exception of Consumer Reports, all publications, review sites, etc. do not provide objective information. They all have financial interests related to advertiser, suppliers, etc. Often, they overreach to write something that appears to have validity -- and appeal to readers/consumers. This is where you get terms like "build quality" and "price point," which are meaningless jargon created by marketers and pretend journalists to sound credible and authoritative.


Amateur Advice:

From the standpoint of performance in the real world, I'll bet there isn't a pixel's worth of difference among any of those cameras. And what people here have already said rings true to me. First, your eye is your most effective photographic tool. I've seen magnificent images created by excellent photographers with awful photographic tools. I've also seen the finest equipment used to create rubbish -- more often the case.

So, as has been said here already, go to the store, handle the cameras and pick the one you like sticking your face into the best. Then make sure you learn how to use it and that you know the elements of a good image. Then have the greatest fun of your life!

 

[FatDaddyJones]

Re: someone please advice me

I've seen magnificent images created by excellent photographers with awful photographic tools. I've also seen the finest equipment used to create rubbish -- more often the case.

How true! How true! There are too many owners of pro- semi pro DSLRs who would be better served with a disposable camera. I can't figure out why someone would spend that much on equipment and not learn to use it properly. Anyone that uses only "full auto" mode on a SLR shouldn't have one, or needs to learn how to use one. Photography is art. A true artist can use any brush to create a masterpiece. Yet the finest camera in the world will never compose a shoot an excellent picture without the help of the one standing behind it.

End of rant.

 

[Admin US West]

Re: someone please advice me

I've seen magnificent images created by excellent photographers with awful photographic tools. I've also seen the finest equipment used to create rubbish -- more often the case.

How true! How true! There are too many owners of pro- semi pro DSLRs who would be better served with a disposable camera. I can't figure out why someone would spend that much on equipment and not learn to use it properly. Anyone that uses only "full auto" mode on a SLR shouldn't have one, or needs to learn how to use one. Photography is art. A true artist can use any brush to create a masterpiece. Yet the finest camera in the world will never compose a shoot an excellent picture without the help of the one standing behind it.

End of rant.

I will take exception to your comments. You claim that a person who uses full auto on a SLR shouldn't have one? In many cases, it is the best way to capture a image that is fleeting and will not hold still long enough for a photographer to adjust ISO, shutter speed, aperture, and then you probably expect them to manually focus as well. Sure, I normally like to control aperture or shutter speed, and am forced to manually set ISO until a better auto algorithm comes along, but I do not look down my nose at someone who uses the full auto setting.

Its the results, not the tools that count. Many distinguished professional photographers use full auto and get money shots. Some use AF, some manually focus. Why should I care? I look at the final image.

 

[galwithawand]

thank you soo much guys! This really helped me a lot.
But just today the price for 60D on amazon rose guess i'll just have to wait for it to drop again urgh should have gotten it yesterday

 

[Gothmoth]

i agree.... the camera body will have the least influence on how good your pictures are.

you will see NO difference between a 60D, 550D, 600D or 7D when it comes to image quality.
there are maybe people who tell you will.... but they can not prove it.

give them images from all three cameras and ask them which camera made wich picture and you shut them up in no time.

differences are in the handling and overall features but IQ is not a point to base a decision on (for this four camera models).

if you dont need the features of the 60D then i would grab the 550D any day and spend the money on GLAS. because GLAS is important.

 

[Flake]

It looks like there's an unusual amount of agreement on the thread for a change!

I'll not spoil it and agree that the DxO mark figures are missleading at best. If you want one of the best review sites try DPreview which does at least appear to be a little less partisan and more objective than the others. Following the conclusion you can compare the camera with others to get an idea of where they sit (the 60D comprehensively outperforms the 550D).

One recommendation about buying lenses - digital camera bodies depreciate - fast lenses hold their vaule much better (unless they have a bad reputation) so invest your money in the best lenses you can afford, in addition you'll get better image quality.

 

[tomscott]

I've seen magnificent images created by excellent photographers with awful photographic tools. I've also seen the finest equipment used to create rubbish -- more often the case.

How true! How true! There are too many owners of pro- semi pro DSLRs who would be better served with a disposable camera. I can't figure out why someone would spend that much on equipment and not learn to use it properly. Anyone that uses only "full auto" mode on a SLR shouldn't have one, or needs to learn how to use one. Photography is art. A true artist can use any brush to create a masterpiece. Yet the finest camera in the world will never compose a shoot an excellent picture without the help of the one standing behind it.

End of rant.

I will take exception to your comments. You claim that a person who uses full auto on a SLR shouldn't have one? In many cases, it is the best way to capture a image that is fleeting and will not hold still long enough for a photographer to adjust ISO, shutter speed, aperture, and then you probably expect them to manually focus as well. Sure, I normally like to control aperture or shutter speed, and am forced to manually set ISO until a better auto algorithm comes along, but I do not look down my nose at someone who uses the full auto setting.

Its the results, not the tools that count. Many distinguished professional photographers use full auto and get money shots. Some use AF, some manually focus. Why should I care? I look at the final image.

I couldnt disagree with you more for the first 3 sentences. If you know how to use a camera, the photographer is in automatic mode not the camera it is second nature. I never ever used any of the auto modes, only av and m, i always get the shots i want. If you read any camera tutorial or even study photography the first thing you are taught to do is become one with your camera, therefore you are not fluttering with settings. That is the difference between an amateur, avid shooter and pro. Also manual focusing is not a full auto setting, you decide what the camera focuses on and this helps you speed up and make sure you dont miss the shots if you manually focused every situation yes you would miss alot! But the AF in cameras is so advanced, unless you are shooting still life or macro then AF is an obvious choice!

I would challenge you to even find one pro that uses auto mode. A. because the pro Cameras have no auto modes... just the green square full auto (which is awful to use!), like the 7D or 5D or the 1D's and B. generally the modes are set up to offer the same result so if your using the same lens all the time your images will look extremely similar. Also the auto modes are designed so you will definitely get the shot so usually pushes the settings to the extremes like ISO so anyone with a shaky hand will be fine. I was teaching a class not long ago with a student new to the world of DSLR's and his images were shot on full auto modes and on a slightly overcast day the camera had pushed his ISO to 800 where 200/320 would have been fine. So not only do you get the shot but you images are unnecessarily degraded. This is the difference as a photographer you know how far you can push your skill and your equipment, and it is automatic.

Also things like ISO and aperture are things that can be changed in a split second using semi pro DSLR's like the 60D because of the dual controls. Usually as a photographer before shooting you set up your camera loosly to make sure you are more likely to get the shots, like ISO. You make sure that the general settings suit the situation before you leap into it. Its all about experience and learning and like i said for any pro it is second nature thats how they make a living. If they miss the shot the breads not on the table.

For advice buy the 60D alot better, just because of handling. But if you are not quite ready for a bigger body then the 600/550D are very good also. Having used all three the quality is negligible, seen as tho they all use the same sensor. Future would be on my mind if you are really passionate and feel photography will become important to you that the camera will be used alot then get the 60D worth the extra £100

Tom Scott

 

[galwithawand]

speaking of which, does anyone have a good 60D guidance/tutorial book to recommend? there are so many on the market now i don't know which to pick
TIA!

 

[canonman]

There is no shame in using or desiring the automatic modes on the 60D. To get a good photo, you have to be an athlete and it takes work juggling around the different settings. Sometimes, like when you are on vacation, you dont want to mess with the settings and just take a picture like everyone else. The automatic settings will definately give you a better picture then on any compact digital camera. So those auto settings are there for your leisure when you dont want to put too much effort into it.

As for the 7D vs the 60D. Both will get you good pictures, but which tool is better for the job? If you are shooting mainly sports or fashion shows...moving objects...then the best tool is the 7D. The 60D is a more user friendly camera with the articulating screen and super battery life. One battery will give you 3000 shots on the 60D.

Then there is the ruggedness factor. Both are rugged cameras, but the 7D might be better suited for an extreme climate.

 

[kubelik]

speaking of which, does anyone have a good 60D guidance/tutorial book to recommend? there are so many on the market now i don't know which to pick
TIA!

the first book you should read is your owner's manual. it's a little dry but it's absolutely necessary to read if you're going to wring all of the potential from any camera. in terms of next steps, utilize online resources.

canon's website itself has a lot of great information at their online digital learning center, showing you how to use various functions of their DSLRs. beyond that, there are tons and tons of free websites that discuss photography technique which really apply to any and all digital photography.

start there, and just shoot a lot. you'll probably find that the only book you need is the book that comes in the box with your camera. everything else is accessible online (thanks to the wonderfully generous people who invest their time for the public good) and really 95% of being a better photographer is practice.

practice, practice, practice

 

[tomscott]

Check out Blue Crane Digital, Lynda or Kelby they usualy have a camera walk through guide. All video tutorials

http://bluecranedigital.com/Introduction-to-the-Canon-60D

http://www.kelbytraining.com/online/courses.html&category=photography&pg=2

I find that kelby, lynda and blue crane give a good learning experience, anyone that asks me about a crash course i send them that way, there is a huge number of subjects for creatives to get their teeth into. Although i find the camera ones abit obvious but i suppose if you haven't used these types of cameras it goes through things and explains and helps you become one with your camera.

 

[FatDaddyJones]

I will take exception to your comments. You claim that a person who uses full auto on a SLR shouldn't have one?

No. Re-read what I said. I stated someone who ONLY uses full auto, implying they either cannot or will not use the manual features of an advanced camera. If the advanced capabilities of a DSLR would not be utilized, why would you recommend that a person buy one. This isn't a pretentious statement and I'm not looking down my nose at anyone.

There's nothing wrong with full auto mode. I shoot in "P" quite a bit. What I'm getting at is there is no reason for a person who either will not learn to use or feels no need to use anything more than full auto to go with anything more than a point and shoot.

 

[Admin US West]

I still disagree, if a person only uses full auto and gets good results, why do you think he's not talented enough to own a DSLR? The shallow depth of field, faster operation, and ability to use a huge variety of lenses is a big advantage even if you only use full auto.

Most people who buy DSLR's are moving up from P&S for the advantages of the large sensor, but still want to use full auto. Its a smaller but growing group of users that start using the creative settings.

These are the people who create the large sales volume that allows lower prices. If only enthusiasts or pro's bought DSLR's, the prices would be higher due to low production volumes.

 

[ronderick]

Quite an interesting turn in the discussion here 8)

I think everyone have their own opinion about what kind of people should use what "level" of camera equipments. If all grandma wants is something that takes pictures and easy to carry, there's no point of getting her a 1DsIII.

However, there are people in this world that buys camera for reasons other than taking pictures. In fact, I was actually in the camera shop the other day when someone came in and ask the shop owner to get him a camera that "looks good" and easy to carry, and pointed out that money was not an issue.

At the end, he walked out with a Leica X1... and all he did was simply press the shutter to check if the machine takes pictures. My hunch was that he bought it because Leica is a high-class brand :

The best part? The entire thing lasted slightly over 10 minutes.

Well, the guy got what he wanted, the store made money, and Leica sold its product. With the exception of us old patrons criticizing under our breath, there's nothing to complain about.

While there are people that do their homework, knowing precisely what they want and only go for it when the price is right, there are also those who buy cameras by impulse - and those filthy rich XXXXXXX that buy Leica by impulse. Don't think they deserve a Leica, but they sure have the money to buy one (or more).

I guess that's just how the world is *shrug*.

 

[Policar]

I still disagree, if a person only uses full auto and gets good results, why do you think he's not talented enough to own a DSLR?

This is absolutely true. Some of the most talented filmmakers and photographers I've met aren't at all technical beyond the minimum amount they need to be to get good work, either using assistants or highly automated workflows to get the technical stuff right.

It's relatively easy to make a technically good photograph (f-stops, color temperature, shutter speeds, ISO, contrast ratio, basic studio lighting, photoshop, etc. take a while to learn but it's really pretty simple and easy to teach); a great eye is extremely rare. I think Paul McCartney never learned to read music. Just saying.

As for the original question, based on my experience with the t2i, 7d, and d90 (but none of the cameras in question, so, heh) Nikons have cleaner sensors and a smoother "plastic" (but not in a bad way) look, especially at lower ISOs. There is a real difference, however small, although I suspect there's some on-chip noise reduction or something going on with newer Nikon cameras. Even the 5DII has a little noise at low ISOs. Canons have nice colors, though, and produce good images in general. The current sensor is very good and the small technical difference won't make or break anything. At 100% magnification on screen you'll find fault but prints, even up to huge sizes, will look great. A little noise reduction in raw developer will hide any difference, anyway. It's so minor.