60D owners...help, i need reassurance before i pull the trigger

[picturesbyme]

Pbase is a good source for photos... http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_100_28_macro_u

you can search for photos with a certain cam or lens at: http://www.pbase.com/cameras

 

[Marsu42]

Anyone have a picture with a non-L 100mm f2.8 macro lens? If possible, I might squeeze that lens into my price...

If you want to shoot macro (actual macro when your lens nearly hits the object, not "macro" in the sense of shooting a not-so-large flower) then the 100mm non-L is great, I used it a lot. I'd advise you to get the non-L used, there are lots floating around because it's older and some people upgrade to other macro lenses (100L, 180mm). The lens is at f5.6-f8 as sharp as the 100L, and this is a good aperture with a reasonable depth of field if you want to have background blur and are not at 1:1.

The advantage of the L is that it's sharper wide open, has a little better bokeh & flares and you can dual-use it for portraits and such (it has a limiter switch *not* to go to macro in addition to the non-L "macro only" - that tells all). But the biggest advantage of the L is sealing for water, dust & sand - if you use the non-L outdoors and near the ground, be on your toes it doesn't get dirty or the wind blows sand in your direction, I killed my lens twice and then switched.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Please, post your opinion and/or pictures with your 60D. Especially if its portraits, action shots, or macro. I'm gonna buy a 60D with the 18-200 lens before the end of June since that's when the rebates stop. My newborn son is growing fast and I'm missing a lot of memories from a slow p&s. I really just need reassurance that even if the 60D is 2 years old its still capable of awesome shots! I really can't afford to wait for a 70D nor afford the price. I'm just assuming a 70D is coming out and based on the rise in price of the new rebel. Please help me out!

If I were going to buy a new camera today, I'd pick a T4i or a refurb 7D over the 60D. The T4i actually autofocuses during video, has 6 fps, and has improved to the point of being better and cheaper than the 60D. I'd also stay far away from a 18-200mm zoom. I had one, its just OK, but superzooms are always a compromise.

 

[Marsu42]

I had one, its just OK, but superzooms are always a compromise.

Like the 28-300L ? ... well, ok, this might be a compromise due to the price tag.

 

[kubsztal]

Anyone have a picture with a non-L 100mm f2.8 macro lens?

http://www.motleypixel.com/reviews/index.htm?openfolder=Canon%20Primes/Canon%20EF%20100mm%20f2.8/
with macro bellows:
http://www.stopa.cso.pl/index.php?st=galeria/owady/wazki&nr=01

 

[PictoPete]

This is not the first time I've heard people saying the T4i gets 6fps. It does NOT. It gets 5fps. BIIIIG difference. I just needed to clarify that since it can be an important deal-maker/breaker for some people!

Hey, maybe the 70D will take the x0D line back up to 6.3fps or maybe 6.7 or 7.0??

 

[elflord]

Please, post your opinion and/or pictures with your 60D. Especially if its portraits, action shots, or macro. I'm gonna buy a 60D with the 18-200 lens before the end of June since that's when the rebates stop. My newborn son is growing fast and I'm missing a lot of memories from a slow p&s. I really just need reassurance that even if the 60D is 2 years old its still capable of awesome shots! I really can't afford to wait for a 70D nor afford the price. I'm just assuming a 70D is coming out and based on the rise in price of the new rebel. Please help me out!

While I don't own one of these, my nephew has one. I'd take an XXd over a newer XXXd for the better viewfinder and ergonomics (the rebel doesn't have the back wheel and doesn't have an easy way to select AF points). I'd even take a 50D over a T4i.

I own a 5D Mk II -- the model is 4 years old and just a year ago, it was the latest model. I've also owned a rebel. The 60D body feels closer to the 5DMkII than it does to the Rebel.

Changes in sensor technology are incremental, the older body won't set you back there. The difference in image quality between the 60D and 7D is negligible (the 7D has some nice stills features but sensor performance shouldn't be a whole lot different)

As far as image quality is concerned, glass is much more important. This is where I'd recommend against your current choice -- a super zoom will not give you optimal image quality. For taking pictures of a 2 year old, I'd recommend fast lenses -- the 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8, and an f/2.8 zoom (Tamron's 17-50 if you can't afford the Canon).

 

[elflord]

I had one, its just OK, but superzooms are always a compromise.

Like the 28-300L ? ... well, ok, this might be a compromise due to the price tag.

That and the weight. BTW, according to photozone's review, the 300mm f/4 and the 70-300L both leave it in the dust at 300mm.

 

[elflord]

Right on! I'm glad you are considering my recommendation! The Canon 50mm f1.8 is a beautiful and cheap lens but FYI: you need a lot of room to back up and get the shot. That's why I've still got my 18-135mm kit. It's nice to be able zoom back to 18mm for when you are shooting in small rooms or crowded areas. However, I must say the 50mm F1.8 makes people at ease when you are shooting portraits. People won't realize how close up the shot is even though you are standing 10-15 feet away! It tends to make people more comfortable when you're not shooting up close.

If you are looking for a long zoom lens the 70mm-200mm and the 70-300mm zoom lenses are great for shooting sporting events. Be sure to get one with at LEAST an auto focus and at BEST an Image Stabilizer too. (However, most people on here will probably say that an Image Stabilizer is absolutely necessary.) Keep in mind that if the 50mm f 1.8 means you gotta stand 10 feet away to take a portrait, a 70-300mm means you gotta stand at least 15-25 feet.

I suppose it depends on what you call a portrait, but I took some pictures of my baby girl at close to minimum focus distance (about 1.5 feet) with a 50mm lens on a crop. That will give you a very tight (slightly cropped) head shot on an APS-C camera. About 4 feet or so is far enough for a head and shoulders portrait.

You do need to stand back quite a bit to get a group shot, but it is also good for that if you have room. Using the wide end of your zoom to "zoom back to 18mm" is risky business if you're taking pictures of people -- the perspective distortion from the wide angle has an impact on proportions (it makes whatever is closer to the camera look bigger) which can produce very unflattering pictures if used indiscriminately. Used carefully on the other hand, you can get some really interesting shots, especially with a small child.

IS is only important on longer lenses (e.g. 70-200mm).

 

[wickidwombat]

I had one, its just OK, but superzooms are always a compromise.

Like the 28-300L ? ... well, ok, this might be a compromise due to the price tag.

yeah they compromised on the weight too

but I think from what I've seen of EF-S lenses the 15-85 would be my choice with your budget constraints especially if you go the CLP route then also as others have said the 100 f2.8 Macro (which can also be used for stunning portraits) its pretty long on a crop and the 50 f1.8
I dont think i've heard many people say bad things about the 15-85 and that 3 mm extra at the wide end will be quite noticeable

 

[alan_k]

I have a 60D and love it. I moved up from a T2i for the ergonomics. Some of that can be overcome with a grip (and I ended up getting a 3rd party grip for my 60D). That helps with balance and overall handling, although the mode wheel lock, back wheel, etc make a big difference if you fiddle with the controls. If you shoot on auto-everything mode, then they probably won't be that much of an advantage, and I'd go for the t4i for the newer sensor and hybrid AF.

For my "kit" lens, I have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC. Very good image quality, but it is not a USM AF, so don't get if you want full time MF and/or a quiet autofocus. Also no IS, but that is not usually too big of a deal unless you plan to shoot a lot of video.

I also have the 100mm nonL Macro. AWESOME lens- but I've used it mainly for critters. Can not speak to it as a portrait lens. I have a ring flash, but now shoot more with a diffused 430EX on an adjustable flash bracket.

I'm in love with the 70-300L- if you don't shoot wildlife, probably one of the 70-200L might be a good purchase.

I've only run into AF problems in extreme situations (e.g. shooting flying birds). I could see an argument for a better AF camera if you were shooting a ton of fast sports, but in most cases the center point is good enough (I keep my AF on center point, use back-button focus, and recompose or crop for composition).

I have the nifty fifty, which is hard to turn down given the price, but to be honest I don't use it very much.

I also recently got the Sigma 8-16, but that's really not a lens you want to use with people for the most part (in my experience).

If you want more examples-
here's a BBQ I took photos at last weekend
Most of these albums were with the 60D

 

[Deleted member 7828]

I, too, moved up to the 60D from a T2i a year ago. My T2i's AF was all over the place; the 60D's, while not perfect, is better.

Unless you're a heavy-duty sports shooter (in which case a 7D or 5D3 may be better) it will do what you want it to do and more. The lens you put on it can make all the difference in the world, however.

I have used the 60D for some action photography- I'm really not a sports shooter but I've gotten a decent hit rate. I do find myself sometimes wanting something a bit more than the 9 focus points but it's MUCH better than what I was using before (P&S).

 

[Big E]

I'm enjoying my 60d
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ericfdavis/7206971252/#

 

[kriptikracing]

Ok so if I went with the clp...it'll be $640 for the 60D body. I forgot to ask the guy about a discount on a refurb lens. But canons website has a refurb 15-85mm for $640. Those two would put me at $1280. Plus I like the 50mm f1.8 so that's another $100. At $1380...well just say $1400...is that a good start? Should I look at another combination? Maybe the 60d with the 18-135 for $840, the 50mm for $100, and non-L 100mm macro for $560...that's exactly $1500. Decisions decisions AAAHHH!!!!!! Might be over complicating things though.

 

[Marsu42]

and non-L 100mm macro for $560...that's exactly $1500

As I wrote before, there is really no need to get this new, I'd even say it's overpriced new in comparison to the versatility of the L. And the L even includes a FREE lens hood . And note that there a Canon cash-back rebates that'll chop some $$$ of your purchases.

 

[noncho]

I've got 60D from about a year and I'm pleased with the performance. It's a great camera that can be used in so many situations. You should get fast prime(like cheap canon 50 1.8) and a good zoom and check what are your need further.

Good luck!

 

[Dylan777]

I have 60D about a year ago. I do miss the swivel screen for video shooting. I have two kids, 3.5yrs and 1.5yrs. Been there done that

DO NOT buy kit lens and use it 60D. With newborn - you will be shooting alot indoor first couple years - this is where you need fast lens, f2.8 or bigger. With 60D, try to keep your ISO below 800, otherwise your pics will look very noisy.

With the budget of $1500, try one of these lenses:
1. 28mm f1.8
2. 50 f1.4 or f1.8 (might not be wide enough for indoor)
3. 17-55 f2.8 IS (little pricy, but this is the BEST lens for crop sensor)

Here are some pix I took last year with 60D + 28mm and 50mm prime. JPEG without PP. straight from camera.
http://s1195.photobucket.com/albums/aa384/fifo_warehouse/60D%20Pix/?albumview=slideshow

 

[Beautor]

Personally, for someone on a budget I'd seriously recommend (or second alan_k's recommendation) that you consider the 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC for a basic/fast kit zoom lens. The Canon 17-55 F2.8 is a bit nicer lens with IS, but it costs at least 3 times as much. The images we get from our Tamron are much sharper than when we had the Canon 18-135, although you lose the long zoom end. For indoor shots the faster aperture of the Tamron made it MUCH more useable than the 18-135 or 18-200 without having to break out the flash for active kids. I got mine used for less than $300. For the difference I saved over the Canon 17-55 F2.8 I bought a Canon 70-200 F4L to cover the long end. The only thing I don't like about the Tamron lens is that the AF is a little noisy; but then when I'm comparing it to L series lenses its a little unfair.

I love prime lenses, and wish I had the money to get another one, but for a casual photographer looking to capture those unforgettable family moments, it's really hard to beat the versatility of a zoom lens.

 

[DianeK]

I am surprised no one here has pointed out that the 60D lacks the AF micro-adjustment feature. I have a 60D and really like it but was unaware it lacked that feature when I bought it. At the time I chose it over the 7D because ergonomically it just felt better in my hand. I had the 60D + 18-200 when I went to Africa last year and was very happy with that combo (perhaps I lucked out and got a very good copy of that lens). But as I started to accumulate lenses, not all of them played nice with the 60D and I had no way to adjust for that. I got so frustrated that I bought a used 7D, calibrated my lenses and now my 60D stays at home unless my husband takes it out. So just be aware of this. I will say that the 60D is a great camera to learn on because it is less complicated than the 7D, but for me the 7D wins.

 

[AJ]

I think the 60D plus 18-135 might be a good move. The 60D is an awesome camera. The 18-135 isn't exactly optically perfect, but it's a very user-friendly lens capable of nice photos. The incremental cost makes it great value. You can always upgrade in the future, if you wish.

With the money freed up, I suggest buying a hotshoe flash. Hotshoe flash is so much nicer than pop-up flash or ghoulish tungsten and fluorescent "natural" lighting. There's a bit of a learning curve, but it's something that I do recommend. Good lighting trumps minor flaws in lens optics IMO.

50/1.8 might be a good move too. I've shot some real keepers of my nephews with this lens. This'll be your lens for more "serious" photography - i.e. stuff you're gonna print and frame, rather than on-screen display or 4"x6" prints.

As for a macro lens, I suggest holding off just a little bit until you're really sure what focal length you like. 100/2.8 non-L is a wonderful lens but there's other great choices out there: e.g. Canon 60/2.8, Sigma 70/2.8, Tamron 90/2.8 Each of these is insanely sharp and produces wonderful bokeh. I own the Tamron and it's a superb lens - cheaper too than Canon 100/2.8 and it often has good rebates.