Canon Announces EOS 60D

[unruled]

Hi,

60D just arrived in a web store for 1199 Euro (status in back order), 7D sells for just 40 Euro more (1239 Euro) at the same store.
Choices, choices, choices.

Well not for me, just having bought a 50D for half the price.

Michel

7d 40 euro more? wow. What bad price positioning. :/

 

[Neuron]

Here you go...Adorama still has for around $1,500: http://www.adorama.com/ICA7D.html

Thanks, but I should've clarified I am in Canada ;-)

 

[that1guy]

Here you go...Adorama still has for around $1,500: http://www.adorama.com/ICA7D.html

Thanks, but I should've clarified I am in Canada ;-)

Ahhh, gotcha No worries!

 

[Edwin Herdman]

60D just arrived in a web store for 1199 Euro (status in back order), 7D sells for just 40 Euro more (1239 Euro) at the same store.
Choices, choices, choices.

Not much of a choice, you're losing on exchange rate...you may lose domestic warranty work options buying an imported (US) "gray market" model, but that 1199 Euro price comes out to around $1546 US, which is slightly less than the US 7D price, compared to the $1099 price...save yourself a bundle, you could get a lens or two with the money.

Always felt it was a bit grubby of some companies to launch the same products at the same numerical price when the exchange rates are so skewed. Canon must love people who buy European releases though!

 

[NormanBates]

prices are always a bit higher here in Europe, but there's a reason: first, the seller has to charge 18% VAT or more; and second, the manufacturer is required by law to offer a minimum of 2 years of warranty (on the second year the burden of proof falls on the buyer, who is required to prove that it was the manufacturer's fault that the item is no longer working, but still...)

and of course on top of that we usually get a little bit ripped off, but not as much as it seems when you look at the exchange rates and make a fast conversion

in any case, he was comparing same-store prices for 60D and 7D, and they seem to be too close indeed

current calumetphoto preorder prices for 60D / 7D, body only:

US: 1.100 / 1.700 USD
UK: 1.100 / 1.200 GBP
DE: 1.150 / 1.330 EUR
NL: 1.150 / 1.280 EUR

I'd expect the 60D to fall a bit in price here in europe as a couple of months go by and stores find ways to sneak them in somehow (I don't know what they do with those 7D bodies, but that US-EUR price ratio is totally unusual, let's hope they can do the same with other models)

 

[Edwin Herdman]

Rocky, you ought to see this:

http://vimeo.com/groups/t2i/videos/9924959

As you can see the T2i is out of commission fairly quickly compared to the 7D.

Perhaps you will want to find some alternative explanation, but the magnesium alloy body of the 7D is the key difference between the two cameras with regard to heat dissipation. As you note, other than this the cameras are quite similar, i.e. in how the sensors are mounted.

Obviously, video is not important to all shooters, but overheating can affect live mode as well (perhaps not to the same extent - I haven't seen any evidence one way or another). It's another "pro" feature that 60D users are thought by Canon not to need or miss when it's gone - certainly, if you aren't running into overheating, the lighter weight of the stainless steel and engineering plastic bodies (not to mention the lower price) usually would be an advantage, especially in combination with lighter EF-S lenses.

 

[Son of Daguerre]

It's interesting to note that the new screens found on the T2i and 60D are marginally smaller than those found on the 640x480 models:

3:2 ratio is approx. 4.41 in²
4:3 ratio is approx. 4.45 in²

Does the difference matter? Nope, and I'd much rather have the 1040k screen with the native resolution of the sensor. But it's interesting to see.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

I suspect that if you divided the amount of pixels used for the preview (minus the bands that are mostly wasted on the 4:3 screens) by the area of each screen that the new models will still come out slightly ahead. You certainly get a larger number of pixels for the live view and preview with the new screen. Also, you mean native ratio of the sensor, not resolution...I'm just nitpicking though.

 

[unexposure]

http://www.popphoto.com/canon/2010/08/hands-canon-eos-60d-dslr?page=0,4 another "Hands on" Preview of the 60D. Sounds pretty good to me. ;-)

 

[Son of Daguerre]

Truth be told, while I can understand the vitriol spewed at Uchida & Co., as many "50D+" waiters were disappointed, nevertheless, I think this will definitely sell well as a step-up camera. The LCD crushes all competition, with the dual-front attack of both the 3:2/1040k and the Vari-Angle rotation. As well, if I were not aiming for the 7D (surprise, surprise - I have never owned an SLR, but I'm not a noob as I've shot with a 20D and 7D and I know my stuff), I would go for this, as others probably will, because the Rebels are too plasticky (externally, that is - you can't deny that the 60D has a slightly better build than the T2i) and lack the heft. Plus, my atrophied muscles could probably do better with the 60D, which is a full 9 oz. lighter than the flagship APS-C (I'm stubborn). But for those who aren't stubborn, and want the scene modes (bleh! I'm a full-Manual guy on my SX10 IS), this will be a great cam.

The trapezoidal status LCD is a nice aesthetic touch, in my opinion.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

In terms of pixels on the wide side of the displayed picture:
3:2 ratio is 1249 pixel
4:3 ratio is 1107 pixel
So the T2i has a slightly sharper display than the T1i

Thanks for running those calculations, Rocky.

Truth be told, while I can understand the vitriol spewed at Uchida & Co., as many "50D+" waiters were disappointed, nevertheless, I think this will definitely sell well as a step-up camera.

Agreed. Secure Digital is a tangible benefit around this price point (you can easily insert the cards into the front panel of many commodity PCs for instance), and the other features of the camera will mostly sell themselves to people looking to step up. Canon simply doesn't see the need for a step down from the 7D. So in both categories they will be pulling customers into a higher category.

For my part, they may have a buyer in the 5D3 segment depending on when that releases and at what price.

 

[Son of Daguerre]

My calculation come up slightly different than yours.
3:2 ratio is approx. 4.13 in²
4:3 ratio is approx. 4.32 in²

9÷5=1.8

1.8×3=5.4
√5.4=2.3237900077244501311075592398694;
1.8×2=3.6
√3.6=1.8973665961010275991993361266596;
2.3237900077244501311075592398694× 1.8973665961010275991993361266596=4.4090815370097205767551113344698

Thus, 3”×3:2 ratio = approx. 4.41in2


9÷7=1.2857142857142857142857142857143

1.2857142857142857142857142857143×4=5.1428571428571428571428571428571
√5.1428571428571428571428571428571=2.2677868380553633632870992174051;
1.2857142857142857142857142857143×3=3.8571428571428571428571428571429
√3.8571428571428571428571428571429=1.9639610121239314313948773687406;
2.2677868380553633632870992174051× 1.9639610121239314313948773687406=4.4538449337485416119277191638721

Thus, 3”×4:3 ratio = approx. 4.45in2


My original calculation stands.

 

[Son of Daguerre]

My calculation come up slightly different than yours.
3:2 ratio is approx. 4.13 in²
4:3 ratio is approx. 4.32 in²

9÷5=1.8


9÷7=1.2857142857142857142857142857143

Both your starting line does not make sense.

Geometry rule : For right angle triangle, The sum of the square of 2 sides of the right angle equals the square of the side opposite of the triangle.
The LCD screen is a rectangle. The diagonal is 3"
For 3:2 ratio: (3X)^2+(2X)^2= 3X3 solve for X. X= 0.8321
(X is a "unit length", 3X is the width of the screen, 2x is the height of the screen)
screen area= (3*0.83)*(2*0.83)= 4.15 in 2
(my previous calculation rounded 0.83XXXX to 0.83)

For 4:3 ratio: (4Y)^2+(3Y)^2= 3X3 solve for Y. Y=0.6000
(Y is a "unit length", 4Y is the width of the screen, 3Y is the height of the screen)
screen area= (4*0.6000)*(3*0.6000)= 4.32 in 2

So my calculation is right and you are off.

You're right, I messed up my Theorem of Pythagoras.

 

[Son of Daguerre]

Both your starting line does not make sense.

Geometry rule : For right angle triangle, The sum of the square of 2 sides of the right angle equals the square of the side opposite of the triangle.
The LCD screen is a rectangle. The diagonal is 3"
For 3:2 ratio: (3X)^2+(2X)^2= 3X3 solve for X. X= 0.8321
(X is a "unit length", 3X is the width of the screen, 2x is the height of the screen)
screen area= (3*0.83)*(2*0.83)= 4.15 in 2
(my previous calculation rounded 0.83XXXX to 0.83)

For 4:3 ratio: (4Y)^2+(3Y)^2= 3X3 solve for Y. Y=0.6000
(Y is a "unit length", 4Y is the width of the screen, 3Y is the height of the screen)
screen area= (4*0.6000)*(3*0.6000)= 4.32 in 2

So my calculation is right and you are off.

Here's the simpler way:

3:2 ratio

9÷13 (bec. hypoteneuse2=32+22=13x) = 0.69230769230769230769230769230769
0.69230769230769230769230769230769×6=4.1538461538461538461538461538462

3”×3:2 = approx. 4.15in2;


4:3 ratio

9÷25 (bec. hypoteneuse2=42+32=25x) = 0.36
0.36×12=4.32

3”×4:3 = 4.32in2

 

[Son of Daguerre]

Here's the simpler way:

3:2 ratio

9÷13 (bec. hypotenuse2=32+22=13x) = 0.69230769230769230769230769230769
0.69230769230769230769230769230769×6=4.1538461538461538461538461538462

3”×3:2 = approx. 4.15in2;


4:3 ratio

9÷25 (bec. hypotenuse2=42+32=25x) = 0.36
0.36×12=4.32

3”×4:3 = 4.32in2

When you try to explain something, It needed to be clear, step by step and straight forward. Coming up with the right answer is only a minor sucess. The main thing is for people to be able to understand what you said.
How many people can understand even your first line???? Where is it coming from???

I'll elaborate:

3:2 ratio

3" is the diagonal of the screen. Since the Pythagorean Theorem states that the hypotenuse squared equals the sum of the other two sides in a right triangle, ergo, 3" squared (9) is 3 horizontal parts squared plus 2 vertical parts squared (32+22), which equals 13 divisions (9+4=13).

So... we divide 9 by 13 to get the GCF (Greatest Common Factor) of both the height and the width.

9÷13=0.69230769230769230769230769230769

Then, instead of multiplying this number by two and by three and multiplying the results by each other, we can just multiply by six, which is 3×2.

0.69230769230769230769230769230769×6=4.1538461538461538461538461538462

To the hundredth place estimate, that's 4.15.
Thus, a 3" screen with a 3:2 ratio has an area of approximately 4.15in2.

4:3 ratio

3" is the diagonal of the screen. Since this is a screen with four horizontal units and three vertical units, ergo, 3" squared (9) is 4 horizontal parts squared plus 3 vertical parts squared (42+32), which equals 25 divisions (16+9=25).

So... we divide 9 by 25 to get the GCF (Greatest Common Factor) of both the height and the width.

9÷25=0.36

Then, instead of multiplying this number by three and by four and multiplying the results by each other, we can just multiply by twelve, which is 4×3.

0.36×12=4.32

Thus, a 3" screen with a 4:3 ratio has an area of 4.32in2.

Now does my earlier post before?

 

[Son of Daguerre]

Actually, I think we're both wrong!

My new calculation is giving me

Approx. 2.88in2 for the T2i and 60D
Approx. 1.56in2 for the 40D and later

Somewhere, we're messing up...

 

[Son of Daguerre]

Actually, I think we're both wrong!

My new calculation is giving me

Approx. 2.88in2 for the T2i and 60D
Approx. 1.56in2 for the 40D and later

Somewhere, we're messing up...

I am right and you are wrong.

just take out your 40D or later model. Measure the screen. You will have the width of the screen with is about 2.4 in. and the height of the screen is about 1.8 in.

Truth be told, while I can understand the vitriol spewed at Uchida & Co., as many "50D+" waiters were disappointed, nevertheless, I think this will definitely sell well as a step-up camera. The LCD crushes all competition, with the dual-front attack of both the 3:2/1040k and the Vari-Angle rotation. As well, if I were not aiming for the 7D (surprise, surprise - I have never owned an SLR, but I'm not a noob as I've shot with a 20D and 7D and I know my stuff), I would go for this, as others probably will, because the Rebels are too plasticky (externally, that is - you can't deny that the 60D has a slightly better build than the T2i) and lack the heft. Plus, my atrophied muscles could probably do better with the 60D, which is a full 9 oz. lighter than the flagship APS-C (I'm stubborn). But for those who aren't stubborn, and want the scene modes (bleh! I'm a full-Manual guy on my SX10 IS), this will be a great cam.

The trapezoidal status LCD is a nice aesthetic touch, in my opinion.

I don't own one. Anyways, look at the post before that, then. The result is the same as yours.

 

[Son of Daguerre]

I'll elaborate:

3:2 ratio

3" is the diagonal of the screen. Since the Pythagorean Theorem states that the hypotenuse squared equals the sum of the other two sides in a right triangle, ergo, 3" squared (9) is 3 horizontal parts squared plus 2 vertical parts squared (32+22), which equals 13 divisions (9+4=13).

So... we divide 9 by 13 to get the GCF (Greatest Common Factor) of both the height and the width.

9÷13=0.69230769230769230769230769230769

Then, instead of multiplying this number by two and by three and multiplying the results by each other, we can just multiply by six, which is 3×2.

0.69230769230769230769230769230769×6=4.1538461538461538461538461538462

To the hundredth place estimate, that's 4.15.
Thus, a 3" screen with a 3:2 ratio has an area of approximately 4.15in2.

4:3 ratio

3" is the diagonal of the screen. Since this is a screen with four horizontal units and three vertical units, ergo, 3" squared (9) is 4 horizontal parts squared plus 3 vertical parts squared (42+32), which equals 25 divisions (16+9=25).

So... we divide 9 by 25 to get the GCF (Greatest Common Factor) of both the height and the width.

9÷25=0.36

Then, instead of multiplying this number by three and by four and multiplying the results by each other, we can just multiply by twelve, which is 4×3.

0.36×12=4.32

Thus, a 3" screen with a 4:3 ratio has an area of 4.32in2.

Now does my earlier post before?

 

[Son of Daguerre]

I don't own one. Anyways, look at the post before that, then. The result is the same as yours.

The post before that is done by me. It must be the same.

Your last calculation is wasting of time It is hard for others to understand, except yourself. GFC is not the term should be used in your calculation. All the posts by you after my calculation is just to try prove that you are better than me with the stupid and confusing way of calculation. You cannot even use Algebra. Let us stop the whole thing and not to waste people's time.

The post before that was not done by you, but whatever. If you can't be civil I am going to wash my hands of this conversation. And yes, I know how to do algebra.

(a+b)2=2(a2+b2)-(a-b)2

 

[Son of Daguerre]

Take another look, the post in front is done by me. I am the only one that have done the calculation after your wrong calculation. Your Algebric formula needed o be correcrted too. The formula should bea+b)^2=a^2+2ab+b^2
If your are so good, would you like to calcaulate the pixel count onthe width of the displayed picture on both the 3:2 and 4:3 LCD

Pardon, but this post was certainly written by moi.

The 3:2 width is obviously 720 pixels. The 4:3 is 639x426, I'm assuming?

And I'm aware that (a+b)2=a2+b2+2ab, but my formula works as well. Don't knock it 'till you try it, Rocky.