which one should i choose ? 600D or 60D?

[marc nee]

hi there
im a film student in london and wanna buy a new DSLR and try to learn photograpy now,
tbh, i know little about photography, and i have leanrt video camera for one year, and i just
want take some advices to buy a new camera as a beginner.

And i will choose one from 600D or 60D, still can not decide yet, and there are many reasons to buy either of them, and i just want to know, for me, i want to explore more about photography in the near future, and i love photography now and 60D here cost 900 quilds and 600D cost 700 qulids. Thx for ur advices. ;D

 

[c-law]

If you really want to learn about photography then you want to shoot manual so that you start to understand why to choose certain settings and what those settings mean for the end photograph. As such I'd recommend the 60D just because the extra dials help use manual mode efficiently.

Chris

 

[motorhead]

marc,

I think that either seem expensive as a first "toe in the water" camera. While the xxD range is obviously better than the xxx range, why not have a look at the earlier xx models which are much more reasonably priced?

 

[kirillica]

It's directly connected to your budged. Surely xxD is better than xxxD, but xD is a way better than xxD. Check your pocket and decide which one you can afford.

 

[dr croubie]

My advice (and i'd say almost everyone's advice) for a complete beginner would be to get the cheaper 600d. The kit lens 18-55 IS isn't too bad either.
not sure whether this link will work, but it's comparing the two on the canon website.

not sure how much you've researched, but:
same:
sensor, digic, 63-zone metering (although the 60d uses a smaller 'spot' size), ISO range (although 60d can do 1/3 stop, 600d is 1-stop), vari-lcd screen (although 600d is apparently 'anti-smudge', both take sd-sized cards

different:
60d has better AF (9 cross type vs 1 cross + 8 normal)
60d has top lcd, 600d uses the back screen for reference
60d has pentaprism (better quality), 600d has pentamirror (cheaper/lighter)
60d has a bigger viewfinder (try it out in a shop to see if/how annoying a smaller one is for you)
60d has the electronic level
60d has flash sync to 1/250s, +-3ev comp, 600d to 1/200s, +-2ev comp.
60d does 5.3 fps for 16/58 shots (raw/jpg), 600d does 3.7fps for 6/34 shots.
60d has fullsize raw/mraw/sraw (to save card space), 600d only has fullsize.
60d has weather sealing (at least, to some extent)
60d battery apparently lasts longer (1100 vs 400 shots)
60d is aluminium and polycarbonate (755g), 600d is steel + polycarb (570g)
and it doesn't say it on the canon website, but the 600d can do 1-3x digital zoom when filming (using 'clean' sensor crop), i think up to 10x (using 'dirty' old-school digital zoom).
plus a few small things, like 1/4000s vs 1/8000 shutter speed, interchangeable focussing screens, live-view face detection, more custom functions, data verification kit compatibility may or may not mean anything to you.
ergonomically, the 60d is a fair bit bigger, has a back wheel instead of buttons, and more quick-control buttons on the top near the lcd (the 600d has them doubled with the 4-way buttons on the back)


so which of all that matters? 60D's better AF, weather sealing, more fps for more shots, all those lean towards more action/wildlife.
the lcd and the digital level i find particularly useful, but they're not worth the €300 difference on their own. the bigger viewfinder you'll have to decide yourself if it makes a difference.

And the phrase you'll hear a lot around here is "what do you want to use it for?" if your answer is learning, being creative, filming, street photography, landscapes, travelling light, then all of those point to the 600d.
the only reason to go above that would be for sports/action, not jamming it in your bag at the first sight of rain (but then you need a better lens for full weather sealing), and just a more professional-looking and -handling camera. If you shoot RAW then you don't need any of the gimmiky in-camera effects either way, photoshop what you want later.

ergonomics may also factor. personally, i've got a 7D which has the select wheel and joystick on the back, and dial by the shutter. 60d has the wheel and dial, 600d has 4-way back buttons and the dial.

I'm so used to using the joystick (for selecting af point) and wheel (+-ev in Av mode or shutter speed in M mode) and dial (aperture in Av or M mode), and i can just reach all the buttons by the top lcd with one finger by memory, that i can take almost any picture in any style without even removing my eye from the viewfinder (ok, i've had 10,000 shots of practice).
I tried my sister's 550D the other day, and i couldn't figure out a damn thing. but she's almost as fast as me because she's used to the way her camera is set up. So basically my view ergonomics-wise is that whatever you buy you'll get used to it after a while (just don't buy a better body and downgrade, then you'll notice the difference).


also, another question i'm wondering is what your total budget is. is the 600/900 squid you said with lenses? if i'm spending the same anyway, i'd always go the lower body with more/better lenses and accessories. the niftyfifty (50mm f/1.8 ii) is a 100 euro steal, definitely helps bring out creativity and thoughts about framing and composure rather than just zooming where you want. (also, i'm a nutter for creative photography, research a lensbaby and/or skink pinhole if you really want photos that look different to everyone else).

so there's my (very long) 2c.

 

[marc nee]

thx for ur advice...it reli helps me.

tbh, i reli want to explore more about photography and this is just a good start and hope it goes well..

and could i start with 600D and standard lens and do u have some books to get started with?

Cheers

 

[Admin US West]

thx for ur advice...it reli helps me.

tbh, i reli want to explore more about photography and this is just a good start and hope it goes well..

and could i start with 600D and standard lens and do u have some books to get started with?

Cheers

I'd sugest some on-line training courses like those at creative live http://www.creativelive.com/courses

Courses are free if you signup and watch them live, you can purchase downloads of completed courses. Typically, you get a top professional giving real life training on how to use your camera, there are very simple and short courses as well as very thourough multi week training that covers everythiing.

Most of them have a free sample clip showing the first introductory session.

 

[Loswr]

For learning about photography, either camera will do fine. Generally, you get more bang for your creative buck (or pound, as the case may be) with lenses. Depending on your budget, I'd definitely get the EF 50mm f/1.8 II in addition to the kit lens - a prime lens with a wide aperture will teach you a lot about composition and depth of field that you won't learn as easily with a narrow aperture zoom lens.

One other suggestion - budget for a decent tripod. A tripod will force you to slow down, pay attention to composition, and allow you to use your kit lens at f/8 where it's performance is very good (probably one of the best price-to-performance ratios in the lineup). A cheap tripod is an exercise in frustration, don't go there. A decent tripod+head, e.g. the(e.g. Manfrotto 190XPROB and Manfrotto 498RC2 ballhead, will serve you for many years if you stick with this, and will support larger/heavier body+lens when you eventually get it.

I'm not sure about UK prices, but here in the US, one could get a 600D/T3i with 18-55mm IS kit lens, the 50/1.8, and the tripod mentioned above, all for a little less than the 60D with 18-135mm kit lens.

 

[stephan]

I used to have the same question a few weeks ago. Consequently, I went to a local electronics store and tried both, and left the store with the 60D because of better handling (much nicher Grip and more dials).
Best advice: go to a store and try both side by side. Try which body is compatible with your hand.

I don't reccomend the 50mm f1.8 for the extremely cheap build quality (Toy quality). Photographer friends of mine have it, but don't use it much thereof. My 50 1.4 is, except for a 70-200 2.8 L IS the only lens on my camera for about a year now. I didn't buy the kit lens.

 

[adamdoesmovies]

I used to have the same question a few weeks ago. Consequently, I went to a local electronics store and tried both, and left the store with the 60D because of better handling (much nicher Grip and more dials).
Best advice: go to a store and try both side by side. Try which body is compatible with your hand.

I don't reccomend the 50mm f1.8 for the extremely cheap build quality (Toy quality). Photographer friends of mine have it, but don't use it much thereof. My 50 1.4 is, except for a 70-200 2.8 L IS the only lens on my camera for about a year now. I didn't buy the kit lens.

While I agree that the 1.4 is built with marginally better quality, its features do not warrant the extra 350 dollar expenditure necessary to purchase one on a student budget. For the same 450 he could buy the 50mm 1.8, and then buy a 55-250 4-5.6 zoom with IS with 100 bucks left over to put towards a tripod.

 

[adamdoesmovies]

the 18 - 55 II lens is much better than the version I

the 55 - 250 II lens (just introduced) is better than the version I in image quality

as far as I know the new and the old versions of both lenses are pretty much the same, there are only some cosmetic changes, so it really puzzles me why you claim that the version II of the 18-55 is "much better"

I'm not sure what the numbers are but it has been pretty well established that the newer 18-55 is much better than the one that was included during the XTi era, in sharpness, contrast, build quality, and of course the introduction of IS.

Technically speaking, there have been something like 4 different iterations of this lens - the original one that came with the 300D-XTi (possibly XSi), then the 18-55 II, then the 18-55 IS, and I believe there's been minor revisions to one of those as well. The main difference optically, though, is between the original and the more modern-looking ones.

 

[Loswr]

the 18 - 55 II lens is much better than the version I which was better than the non-IS 18 - 55 - in fact it is as good in testing as the much more expensive 17 - 85; the 55 - 250 II lens (just introduced) is better than the version I in image quality

Regarding 18-55mm lenses, there have been several of them. Yes, the IS version is optically superior to the older, non-IS versions (both with and without USM). But, for the original, non-IS versions, only very slight cosmetic changes were made for the MkII designation - the major changes were the shape of the zoom ring rubber grip and the tapered area at the front of the lens. Similarly, for the 18-55mm IS original vs. MkII, there are no optical changes. The only changes are cosmetic and firmware (updated IS algorithms). The MTF curves provided by Canon are identical for the original and MkII versions of the 18-55mm IS.

Likewise, the new 55-250mm MkII is merely a cosmetic update to the original. Since Canon is selling kits with the 18-55 IS II, they want the 55-250mm in the two-lens kit to match (the lettering/font on the barrel and color of the ring with the focal length markings are different from original to the MkII).

Please check your facts before posting - your misinformation in this and other posts really doesn't help.

 

[dr croubie]

Regarding 18-55mm lenses, there have been several of them. Yes, the IS version is optically superior to the older, non-IS versions (both with and without USM). But, for the original, non-IS versions, only very slight cosmetic changes were made for the MkII designation - the major changes were the shape of the zoom ring rubber grip and the tapered area at the front of the lens. Similarly, for the 18-55mm IS original vs. MkII, there are no optical changes. The only changes are cosmetic and firmware (updated IS algorithms). The MTF curves provided by Canon are identical for the original and MkII versions of the 18-55mm IS.

Likewise, the new 55-250mm MkII is merely a cosmetic update to the original. Since Canon is selling kits with the 18-55 IS II, they want the 55-250mm in the two-lens kit to match (the lettering/font on the barrel and color of the ring with the focal length markings are different from original to the MkII).

Please check your facts before posting - your misinformation in this and other posts really doesn't help.

and for a bit more info, according to canon camera museum:
18-55 i - sept 2004
18-55 i usm - sept 2004 (from what i read somewhere, the usm was only in japan to start with, made it elsewhere later).
18-55 ii - march 2005
18-55 ii usm - march 2005
18-55 IS i - sept 2007
Also from here (presumably because the canon camera museum takes ages to update, the 70-300L isn't even on there yet)
18-55 iii - feb 2011
15-55 IS ii - feb 2011

read the reviews of the ii version compared to the IS version i. The block diagrams on the canon camera museum are the same, but the resolution figures between the two speak for themselves, really...

between the i-ii-ii and ISi-ISii, nothing more than cheaper manufacturing and a bit of cosmetics, as most have said...

...the 55 - 250 II lens (just introduced) is better than the version I in image quality...

I'd like to see a link to that having been reviewed already...