Canon 60D v. Nikon D7000

[anthony11]

The 5-shot thing is probably because most people with the 5D2 don't need/use bracketing because they prefer to "get the shot in one."

It's mainly championed by the HDR crowd.

You can't just "add" +/-1 EV because things like the LCD screen on top and electronic display inside the viewfinder have +2..-2 hard coded into the device.

I could live with it blanking at +/- 3. With bright backgrounds I find that +2 isn't always enough.

But we don't need 5 exposure bracketing, just the +/-3 ... It's not hard to set the camera to a certain combination of settings and then just turn the dial 2 or 3 notches after every shot.

Sounds like you should be shooting film with all-manual bodies. Turning the dial takes time, and can result in orientation changes. The HDR people really like being able to get five exposures in minimum time, without dicking with the rig in the middle.

 

[Osiris30]

Have you had a chance to play with high-iso on the 60D... I'm starting to really believe the rumours of a tweaked sensor. I was playing around at 6400 tonight and my mind is literally blown out the back of my skull.

Either my 60D is the 'golden copy' or Canon really did a few little things no one noticed to their core tech. The AF has been flawless some 4000 shots in now... I can count AF misses on one hand regardless of lens (even the troublesome 50 1.8).. well maybe two hands, but really some of them are most likely my fault for getting sloppy.

The 6400 iso stuff has a tonality to it that I can't believe (if I didn't see the EXIF and know what I shot it at I would have *sworn* it was 3200 iso tops). Man I can't wait for proper reviews... For all the b*tching, moaning and complaining this is one hell of a little body.

Okay here is a link to some quick reference shots taken with the 60D, nothing special I usually shoot leaves and ropes to get an idea of AF Accuracy and Clarity, plus I shot these with a Nifty Fifty 50mm 1.8 Canon Lens, and a Sigma 50-200mm HSM OS lens ($159.00 retail) to give you an idea of what options you might start off with.

http://picasaweb.google.com/dbharris3/Canon60DQuickReferenceShots#

 

[ageha]

The 6400 iso stuff has a tonality to it that I can't believe (if I didn't see the EXIF and know what I shot it at I would have *sworn* it was 3200 iso tops). Man I can't wait for proper reviews... For all the b*tching, moaning and complaining this is one hell of a little body.

I can only second that. So far I'm quite impressed too especially after I compared the results to a D700 side by side.

 

[unexposure]

I'm starting to really believe the rumours of a tweaked sensor....

These aren't Rumors, this is an official Canon-Statement.

 

[blufox]

Good to hear some positive impressions .

I am just waiting for 5dMKII successor, till then let me collect few more lenses.

Oh did I mention getting a 70-200 f4L IS tomorrow.. yay, bodies can be changed, lenses are the real thing to keep .

 

[anthony11]

If you're doing hand-held bracketing for HDR then unless your subject is evenly bright, you've got to shoot in "P" or shutter priority modes

Mind you, I don't shoot HDR (mostly my kinetic toddler), but I would think that Av would be in order for HDR bursts.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

You don't need 5 shots to do HDR, nor do you need +/-3. On the weekend, someone had me hold their iPhone with HDR software loaded that used 2 photos for HDR. Personally, I find that very very few HDR photos look ok. Some folks like to do HDR with 1 "negative."

I'm really tempted to say from this quote that you're seeing people doing it wrong, but you assume their methodology is right.

There's many different purposes for HDR, let's keep in mind. One is to really blow colors out and exploit the tone mapping, another is to map more tones to a picture to mimic the natural wide dynamic range that you would perceive with your eyes (a lot of the "stunning" HDR photos out there you'd need to let your eyes adjust when viewing in real life - like looking at backlit mesas in a desert scene, with bright opaque clouds behind them).

I've tried pulling extra detail out of single exposures in Canon Digital Photo Pro for single-exposure HDR; it didn't work (for that instance...clouds became clipped). I'm sure that'd work for some cases. That is starting to sound like what I (poorly) understand Ansel Adams's zone method to have been partly about. I think that you can get perfectly acceptable "HDR" photos that look natural with just an extra exposure, if the software is good enough and the scene is right. One for more shadowy parts of the image, another for highlights. I suppose people like midtones too.

For five-shot bursts, I'd start to worry more about moving objects and camera movement. I have found that I've been able to do fairly well handholding even my T1i for three shot bursts with a heavy lens, but I wouldn't want to print the shadow tones too big (and thus the entire image's sharpness gets dragged down by that part of the image, though I suspect sharpness stands out more in highlights than shadows).

 

[Osiris30]

I'm starting to really believe the rumours of a tweaked sensor....

These aren't Rumors, this is an official Canon-Statement.

Do you have a link (it would help settle other debates I have elsewhere). TIA.

 

[unexposure]

Do you have a link (it would help settle other debates I have elsewhere). TIA.

It's stated on the announcement of 60D at heise.de, it's also stated in several Photography-Review-Magazines and it's stated by the press-person of canon who answered my e-mail. ;-)
I have already translated this (in my own words) somewhere in another thread in this forum. Here another Version, what Canon-Helpdesk said (in my own words regarding translation): "The sensor is an improvement over the 550D regarding light-sensivity. It has in addition received the improved filters used in 7D. Considering this, both, noise-behavior and light-sensivity should be improved when compared to 7D or 550D."
But, another thing worth mentioning is, in the german magazine "photo hits" they had reviewed a preprod model of 60D and say, that it has improved noise-behavior and light-sensivity but in exchange comes up with a slightly (pretty much not noticeable) loss in resolution when compared to 7D. Dunno whether it was because of the preproduction model or has another reason.

 

[kubelik]

unexposure ... so basically, Canon's applying even more noise reduction on the sensor ... not unexpected, but still a little disappointing. I'm still waiting for them to turn that corner. that being said, it also sounds like a pixel-peeping thing ... probably won't bother 90% of users

 

[Osiris30]

Not necessarily NR. Especially if light sensitivity is improved... it could be the AA filter they are talking about as the 550D and 7D could moire sometimes.. I haven't seen any sharpness hit (well nothing meaningful that's for sure.. all 18mp sensors are a bit 'mushy' in comparison to older 10mp sensors).

Osiris

unexposure ... so basically, Canon's applying even more noise reduction on the sensor ... not unexpected, but still a little disappointing. I'm still waiting for them to turn that corner. that being said, it also sounds like a pixel-peeping thing ... probably won't bother 90% of users

 

[CameraAddict]

Have you had a chance to play with high-iso on the 60D... I'm starting to really believe the rumours of a tweaked sensor. I was playing around at 6400 tonight and my mind is literally blown out the back of my skull.

Either my 60D is the 'golden copy' or Canon really did a few little things no one noticed to their core tech. The AF has been flawless some 4000 shots in now... I can count AF misses on one hand regardless of lens (even the troublesome 50 1.8).. well maybe two hands, but really some of them are most likely my fault for getting sloppy.

LOL, if they tweaked the sensor they'd be telling you, that's for sure. They wouldn't hide such a thing. It would be a marketing ++++. I don't know what camera you came from, but your results DON'T mirror those of Camera Labs, in their comparison of high iso on the 50D and 60D. They found that jpg was better on the 60D because the in-camera jpg processing increased sharpness and contrast, and probably did some noise reduction.

However, when raw shots were taken and processed in the same way, the two cameras were pretty equal.

 

[Osiris30]

Have you had a chance to play with high-iso on the 60D... I'm starting to really believe the rumours of a tweaked sensor. I was playing around at 6400 tonight and my mind is literally blown out the back of my skull.

Either my 60D is the 'golden copy' or Canon really did a few little things no one noticed to their core tech. The AF has been flawless some 4000 shots in now... I can count AF misses on one hand regardless of lens (even the troublesome 50 1.8).. well maybe two hands, but really some of them are most likely my fault for getting sloppy.

LOL, if they tweaked the sensor they'd be telling you, that's for sure. They wouldn't hide such a thing. It would be a marketing ++++. I don't know what camera you came from, but your results DON'T mirror those of Camera Labs, in their comparison of high iso on the 50D and 60D. They found that jpg was better on the 60D because the in-camera jpg processing increased sharpness and contrast, and probably did some noise reduction.

However, when raw shots were taken and processed in the same way, the two cameras were pretty equal.

CameraAddict,

I'm going to be honest, based on their test I couldn't tell much of anything the samples were tiny. I can tell you my iso 6400 is definitely usable and then some. I'm not talking luminance noise, but chroma performance. None of that ugly high-iso color weirdness (i.e. shifting, washed out, etc.). There have been things that have been said by Canon people as well regarding the sensor.

Finally, if they did, they might not want to scream it too loudly.. it would be bad for the 7D..

I'm looking to see a few more places run raws and do comparisons with some graphs and charts that I can look at.. ya it's measurbating, but we're talking minor differences really.

Osiris

 

[kmyers1us]

Only you can decide this. It depends on what you want out of a camera.

But, you should definitely NOT decide solely on the basis of one or two minor features on the latest camera models. When you buy an SLR, you are buying into a complete system and you need to consider everything: lenses, flash, accessories, etc., but most especially the lenses. Even if you are just starting out with a single lens, you will eventually want to add to that collection. (And surreptitiously sneak it into the house when your spouse isn't looking. ) Traditionally, Canon has held a slight price advantage over Nikon in lenses, but there are plenty of exceptions.

Technology is changing rapidly and camera bodies seem to be running on about a two-year cycle these days, so eventually you will replace the body itself but you won't want to have to start all over again with a lens system.

Read reviews as they come out and take EVERYTHING you read on this site with a grain of salt. No one here is objective and many of the discussions center around esoteric technical points that don't have much relevance to the average person. This site has a comment history, that will enable you to see what axe the commenter has to grind. There are also some very knowledgeable people contributing to this forum (folks that have far more technological knowledge than I do or care to have). You can identify them from the comment history as well.

Remember that anything you read here about the 60D is based on a camera that hasn't even been released. If you care about the technical details, watch sites like dpreview.com. In my opinion they do a very good job. Others may disagree. You can read the photography press as well, although you'll find that they tend to be advocates, rather than critics (don't want to offend the advertisers, you know.) Still their reviews are generally reasonable.

Ultimately, the camera is just a tool and you'll be able to take great pictures with either one.

I agree that you need to take the total system into consideration.
I am a newcomer to Canon with my new 7d. I had an Olympus system
and stopped investing in it NOT because of the deficiencies in their new E-5,
but because they have essentially halted production on the lens system.

It's all about the lenses and Canon shines here above all others. Also
I like the fact that Canon more accurately describes their lenses. In
particular I am referring to weather sealing. Its well stated here but
in Nikon its poorly documented.

Also I agree that the camera is a tool but the Photographer is the
success, BUT you must have the tools you need to accomplish your
personal goals. Take all things into consideration.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

Finally, if they did, they might not want to scream it too loudly.. it would be bad for the 7D..

Maybe, maybe not. It may be the case that the sensor changes add up to nicer-looking JPEGs straight out of the camera, but 7D images are meant to be processed from RAW, so any hit to sharpness wouldn't be a good tradeoff.

Wholly speculation, but it could have been intended that the 7D is meant to be used with a more professional workflow in the case the user is really interested in IQ.

I think it's more likely that the 60D is simply a newer product, of course.

 

[jouster]

This is an interesting post with a lot of varying opinions, but I'd say you should really try both camera's hands on before making a choice. If you purely go by spec's the new Nikon might seem like the clear winner, but feature don't always make for a great product.

I admit I was a bit disappointed with the announced spec's of the 60D, but I have invested in canon for a few years now (meaning I have lenses and such) so I thought I'd give the 60D a try. I recieved it this Wednesday and I have to say it's a really nice camera, it's solidly built even though it's not like my 7D it's not a Rebel either. The Camera is very well balanced even with heavy lenses, and feels really good in hand. It's also a very accurate camera, I shot a wedding with it yesterday and must say I'm really impressed with the way it handled and the pictures I got even in lowlight. It seems like Canon tweaked the AF system from the 40D and 50D I've shot both and the 60D is a lot better, it's actually pretty close to the 7D, and maybe a little brighter.

Anyway as I said earlier the only real way to know which one is right for you is to go play with them both, and what ever you decide you'll have a great camera and a real upgrade from your S3

I'm curious about your decision to buy a 60D when you already own a 7D. What was the reason? Was it simply to have a backup body? Or a second body to make switching between lenses easy?

Please note that I'm not being critical; just curious. The 7D and 60D seem very similar to me. (I hope to have a nice second body myself at some point, but if the CFO approves it will be a a 5D3....if they ever exist).

 

[urkel]

After a week with a 60D of my own then here's some quick impressions. (Before the Canon defense force jumps on me, I've waited a year for this camera and currently own it.

Pro:
+ Pictures look just as good as the 7D
+ ISO Limiter (A major problem I've had w/7D is how auto ISO blows out photos)
+ Toy Camera filter. Most other Toy Camera filters look cheesy but I love the way this one looks for some reason. I have to learn how to replicate this in Aperture

Con:
- MicroAdjustments. This is a big deal and a serious omission that makes this a pure consumer cam
- Button lock for mode wheel. This would be fine if there were 4 modes. But with all the consumer options there's a dozen stops which makes this obnoxious
- Video Mode location. It's Waaaay at the end of the dial which makes quick vids very tough
- 9 Focus Points. I don't shoot wild birds but I do photograph kids and my baby. 9 points with a 1.4 lens simply gets in the way of a great photo.

Neutral
- Plastic Shell. It feels much better than 550D but it still feels cheap compared to 7D
- Creative Filters. I like the Toy Camera but its a novelty and the others were pretty disappointing.
- Articulating Screen. This was a major selling point and I find myself not caring as much. I'm glad it's there but it's not nearly the dealbreaker I thought it would be.
- Price. I thought saving $400 over the 7D would be great but the more I use this the more I feel the $400 is worth it.

Overall my impression is that this is a fantastic upgrade for Rebel users and beginners, but far too limiting for those who aspire to do more. Due to the lack of essential "pro" features then I wouldnt even recommend this as a 2nd body. As much as I wanted to love the 60D then I'm reluctantly going to move on to the 7D or D7000. They're both fantastic cameras but both also will cost me more than I budgeted so hopefully I make the right decision in the next 2 weeks.

 

[unfocused]

As much as I wanted to love the 60D then I'm reluctantly going to move on to the 7D or D7000.

Interesting. This could be my own personal bias as a 7D owner, but it seems like there are very few people on this forum who actually own a 7D that have any buyer's remorse or "camera envy." Not thinking of people who might want to eventually upgrade to full frame, but rather people who own the 7D and, now a year later, are seeing other models released by Canon, Nikon and others.

I had a lot of qualms when I bought the 7D. (Was I spending too much? Would a 60D come out that had everything the 7D had for less? Would it, in short, meet or exceed my expectations?) Of course most people, myself included, are loathe to admit they made a buying mistake, but I have to say that I really have no regrets. In fact, I'm not even sure I would switch to full frame if given the choice.

 

[urkel]

I had a lot of qualms when I bought the 7D. (Was I spending too much? Would a 60D come out that had everything the 7D had for less? Would it, in short, meet or exceed my expectations?)

Its funny because when I decided NOT to buy a 7D for myself last year. At the time all I needed was an updated 50D and a 7D was overkill. But as it turned out, I got better with my photography and now a 7D/D7000 fits my needs pretty well.

Of course most people, myself included, are loathe to admit they made a buying mistake, but I have to say that I really have no regrets. In fact, I'm not even sure I would switch to full frame if given the choice.

Thats a good point. What makes the 7D so much different than the 60D is that the 7D is a perfect backup/2nd camera for pros, but the 60D lacks key features that make it too "low end" for professional work. So even though the initial cost of the 7D is higher than the 60D, in the end then it's probably a better investment.

 

[Rocky]

Overall my impression is that this is a fantastic upgrade for Rebel users and beginners, but far too limiting for those who aspire to do more. Due to the lack of essential "pro" features then I wouldnt even recommend this as a 2nd body. As much as I wanted to love the 60D then I'm reluctantly going to move on to the 7D or D7000. They're both fantastic cameras but both also will cost me more than I budgeted so hopefully I make the right decision in the next 2 weeks.

very nice summary. I am still torn between the 60D and the 7D. can you tell me what are the "por feature" that is missing on the 60D?? I know that 7D has the micro focus adjustment, more auto focus points with grouping, and the metal body that the 60D lacks. On the other hand, I like the tilt screen of the 60D. I do not care about any video related feature. Thanks for the advice in advance.