New body... 60d or 600d
Discussion
I'm after some advice...
I've had my 1000d for about two years now and I'm now starting to get to the point where I'm comfortable enough with what I'm doing (but far from competent!) that I'm starting to realise the limitations of the body I'm using.
I feel I'm limited by the ISO in low light and also the burst rate when shooting RAW (even if I switch to JPEG it's not amazing).
Having looked at the current Canon EOS range I think the 60d is what would really be the best value for money, great ISO range, good burst rate and not as pricey as the 7d!
But... the 600d doesn't seem to be that much different, other than the fact the burst rate is lower (3.7 vs 5.3 fps) - in real life would I notice that much of a difference? I don't shoot a lot of fast paced stuff... but I do occasionally take some shots of wildlife (birds mainly, fnarr fnarr) and the odd thing at horsey eventing type stuff.
I'm thinking I could save a couple of hundred quid by getting the 600d and then put that money towards a decent prime lens, or am I better off getting the 60d?
What I want to avoid really is being in a situation where I want to upgrade again in another two years!
Any advice would be welcome!
I've had my 1000d for about two years now and I'm now starting to get to the point where I'm comfortable enough with what I'm doing (but far from competent!) that I'm starting to realise the limitations of the body I'm using.
I feel I'm limited by the ISO in low light and also the burst rate when shooting RAW (even if I switch to JPEG it's not amazing).
Having looked at the current Canon EOS range I think the 60d is what would really be the best value for money, great ISO range, good burst rate and not as pricey as the 7d!
But... the 600d doesn't seem to be that much different, other than the fact the burst rate is lower (3.7 vs 5.3 fps) - in real life would I notice that much of a difference? I don't shoot a lot of fast paced stuff... but I do occasionally take some shots of wildlife (birds mainly, fnarr fnarr) and the odd thing at horsey eventing type stuff.
I'm thinking I could save a couple of hundred quid by getting the 600d and then put that money towards a decent prime lens, or am I better off getting the 60d?
What I want to avoid really is being in a situation where I want to upgrade again in another two years!
Any advice would be welcome!
Mr Kitten said:
I'm after some advice...
I've had my 1000d for about two years now and I'm now starting to get to the point where I'm comfortable enough with what I'm doing (but far from competent!) that I'm starting to realise the limitations of the body I'm using.
I feel I'm limited by the ISO in low light and also the burst rate when shooting RAW (even if I switch to JPEG it's not amazing).
Having looked at the current Canon EOS range I think the 60d is what would really be the best value for money, great ISO range, good burst rate and not as pricey as the 7d!
But... the 600d doesn't seem to be that much different, other than the fact the burst rate is lower (3.7 vs 5.3 fps) - in real life would I notice that much of a difference? I don't shoot a lot of fast paced stuff... but I do occasionally take some shots of wildlife (birds mainly, fnarr fnarr) and the odd thing at horsey eventing type stuff.
I'm thinking I could save a couple of hundred quid by getting the 600d and then put that money towards a decent prime lens, or am I better off getting the 60d?
What I want to avoid really is being in a situation where I want to upgrade again in another two years!
Any advice would be welcome!
I've got a 550d which is almost the same as the 600d. The only thing I don't like about it is low light stuff, ISO 1600 is fine but once you get to 3200 it gets quite noisy. I've not tried the 60d so can't compare I'm afraid. However, for everything else its great, I don't find myself wanting an upgrade apart from low light stuff.I've had my 1000d for about two years now and I'm now starting to get to the point where I'm comfortable enough with what I'm doing (but far from competent!) that I'm starting to realise the limitations of the body I'm using.
I feel I'm limited by the ISO in low light and also the burst rate when shooting RAW (even if I switch to JPEG it's not amazing).
Having looked at the current Canon EOS range I think the 60d is what would really be the best value for money, great ISO range, good burst rate and not as pricey as the 7d!
But... the 600d doesn't seem to be that much different, other than the fact the burst rate is lower (3.7 vs 5.3 fps) - in real life would I notice that much of a difference? I don't shoot a lot of fast paced stuff... but I do occasionally take some shots of wildlife (birds mainly, fnarr fnarr) and the odd thing at horsey eventing type stuff.
I'm thinking I could save a couple of hundred quid by getting the 600d and then put that money towards a decent prime lens, or am I better off getting the 60d?
What I want to avoid really is being in a situation where I want to upgrade again in another two years!
Any advice would be welcome!
600D:
Continuous Shooting and Buffering
The continuous shooting rate of the 600D is one of the biggest distinctions between it and the more expensive 60D (along with its smaller viewfinder and single dial control, etc). It attains a respectable, though not exactly blistering 3.6 fps in all its image modes, but can maintain this for just three frames in raw + jpeg mode, and 6 frames in raw only. Because it takes 8 seconds to fully clear its buffer in these modes, it's not terribly useful for shooting short bursts of action, since there's every chance the camera won't have recovered by the time you need another handful of shots. If you find yourself trying to shoot sports or action, you may find yourself better-off taking a metering and WB test shot then shooting JPEG, which gives a much more respectable 40 frame buffer.
JPEG: 3.6 fps for around 40 frames, then around 2.7 fps. 4.5 seconds to recover.
RAW: 3.6 fps for 6 frames, then around 0.77 fps. 8 seconds to recover.
RAW+JPEG 3.6 fps for 3 frames, then two slower frames followed by 0.5 fps. 8.5 seconds to recover.
60D:
Continuous Shooting and Buffering
The continuous shooting rate of the 60D isn't quite as fast as the 50D - there's more data to move around, and the 60D doesn't have the 7D's dual processors to help cope with that fact. The performance is still perfectly creditable though, and perfectly in keeping with what you'd expect to see at this level.
JPEG: 5.3 fps for 44 frames, then around 1 fps. 18 seconds to recover.
RAW: 5.3 fps for 16 frames, then around 0.66 fps. 21 seconds to recover.
RAW+JPEG 5.3 fps for 13 frames, then around 0.5 fps. 22 seconds to recover.
The 60d can shoot quicker for longer.
Hoenstly the viewfinder,af and controls are worth the 60d alone.
Continuous Shooting and Buffering
The continuous shooting rate of the 600D is one of the biggest distinctions between it and the more expensive 60D (along with its smaller viewfinder and single dial control, etc). It attains a respectable, though not exactly blistering 3.6 fps in all its image modes, but can maintain this for just three frames in raw + jpeg mode, and 6 frames in raw only. Because it takes 8 seconds to fully clear its buffer in these modes, it's not terribly useful for shooting short bursts of action, since there's every chance the camera won't have recovered by the time you need another handful of shots. If you find yourself trying to shoot sports or action, you may find yourself better-off taking a metering and WB test shot then shooting JPEG, which gives a much more respectable 40 frame buffer.
JPEG: 3.6 fps for around 40 frames, then around 2.7 fps. 4.5 seconds to recover.
RAW: 3.6 fps for 6 frames, then around 0.77 fps. 8 seconds to recover.
RAW+JPEG 3.6 fps for 3 frames, then two slower frames followed by 0.5 fps. 8.5 seconds to recover.
60D:
Continuous Shooting and Buffering
The continuous shooting rate of the 60D isn't quite as fast as the 50D - there's more data to move around, and the 60D doesn't have the 7D's dual processors to help cope with that fact. The performance is still perfectly creditable though, and perfectly in keeping with what you'd expect to see at this level.
JPEG: 5.3 fps for 44 frames, then around 1 fps. 18 seconds to recover.
RAW: 5.3 fps for 16 frames, then around 0.66 fps. 21 seconds to recover.
RAW+JPEG 5.3 fps for 13 frames, then around 0.5 fps. 22 seconds to recover.
The 60d can shoot quicker for longer.
Hoenstly the viewfinder,af and controls are worth the 60d alone.
The 550d/600d/650d/60d/7d all have the same sensor - so you'll get the same imporved high ISO performance whichever you choose - and it's a worthwhile upgrade for that reason alone, when I went from a 400d to a 7d I was delighted with how much more useable high ISO was.
The benefits of the additional control wheel on the back are considerable if you're looking to exploit the camera fully as it appears you are.
The benefits of the additional control wheel on the back are considerable if you're looking to exploit the camera fully as it appears you are.
Firstly I'm no expect, very far from it. But I did the exact same jump. I went from around 8 months with a 1000D to begin with then due to the majority of my photos being either motorsport I chose the 60D. Mainly for the faster fps rate. But then there were a few other things like the better AF and the small screen on the top of the camera. I'm aiming to keep the camera body for many years so justified the extra the 60D cost over the 600D.
One thing to bear in mind is the weight of the 60D, it's a lot heavier than the 1000D. If I was you I'd find a camera shop with both in stock and take one if your own lenses and have a play about.
One thing to bear in mind is the weight of the 60D, it's a lot heavier than the 1000D. If I was you I'd find a camera shop with both in stock and take one if your own lenses and have a play about.
Mr Kitten said:
I'm quite happy with the weight difference... if anything I find the 1000d to be a bit front heavy with a long lens on it and the heavier body should balance it out!
Get a battery grip for the extra balance.Got a 600D recently as a potential replacement for my old 400D in a requirement where small size and light weight trump, to some extent, fps and buffer size.
The image are very good. Better was the price form the Canon Outlet on eBay. £439.99 with Kit lens - Mk II IS version and, in my case, the little IR Remote and a second genuine Canon battery thrown in with the kit.
Just checked and the same deal is back on now. 9 available, 3 already sold today.
I have no doubt that the 60D is better over all, likewise the 7D. But at the price the 600D is good value. RAW buffer is full after 6 frames but I can live with that for this particular purpose.
And you will change the body long before you expect to, for one reason or another ...
S47 said:
60d everytime its well worth the extra £'s over the 600.
In general I would agree with although one would then be comparing prices on 60D and 7D at the moment.My criteria a founded on light weight (for use on a pneumatic mast) and that I have a load of manual old school lenses and one newer one (14mm) that are fully manual in operation. In which case many of the extra features of the 60D would not come into play. Some might - FPS and buffer most notably, maybe - but AF and metering not so much so often.
The files sizes are what I expected after trying out a 7D a couple of years ago - quite a bit larger than the 400D and for my use that is not necessarily a good thing. More SD cards required (maybe) and some lower capacity CF cards that really don't have a natural home any more are subsidiary aspects of the change.
However it does generate some cracking detail, especially with the 'right' lens fitted.
Anyway, at the price it seemed like a worthwhile experimental punt ...
Oh cack.
Someone has just thrown a spanner in the works and suggested I look at a Nikon D7000... on paper it looks superior to the 60D... (better AF, better body construction, faster burst rate and a larger buffer).
I don't really have much brand loyalty as such and as I only have a couple of lenses, it wouldn't be a huge problem to sell them and start afresh.
Does anyone have much to add to the Nikon vs. Canon argument? I realise that I'm opening a can of worms here though!
Someone has just thrown a spanner in the works and suggested I look at a Nikon D7000... on paper it looks superior to the 60D... (better AF, better body construction, faster burst rate and a larger buffer).
I don't really have much brand loyalty as such and as I only have a couple of lenses, it wouldn't be a huge problem to sell them and start afresh.
Does anyone have much to add to the Nikon vs. Canon argument? I realise that I'm opening a can of worms here though!
Mr Kitten said:
Oh cack.
Someone has just thrown a spanner in the works and suggested I look at a Nikon D7000... on paper it looks superior to the 60D... (better AF, better body construction, faster burst rate and a larger buffer).
I don't really have much brand loyalty as such and as I only have a couple of lenses, it wouldn't be a huge problem to sell them and start afresh.
Does anyone have much to add to the Nikon vs. Canon argument? I realise that I'm opening a can of worms here though!
Specification and price creeping - good to see things progressing as usual .... Someone has just thrown a spanner in the works and suggested I look at a Nikon D7000... on paper it looks superior to the 60D... (better AF, better body construction, faster burst rate and a larger buffer).
I don't really have much brand loyalty as such and as I only have a couple of lenses, it wouldn't be a huge problem to sell them and start afresh.
Does anyone have much to add to the Nikon vs. Canon argument? I realise that I'm opening a can of worms here though!
If you are going to consider a complete system change then you need to factor in the cost of lens replacement to the deal. This may not be a huge amount if you buy pre-loved of course but usually carries a premium if buying new.
Alternatively one could just settle for a little more investment creep and look at the Canon 7D - not necessarily new, there are many around on the used market that are accompanied by claims of 'hardly used' that are probably true - which should compare quite adequately based on the list of features that justify considering the D7000. Especially with the just announced firmware update.
Of course you will end up with a body that is great to use, compared to the smaller ones, but stays at home 'cos it's too big to cart around - allegedly. That seems to be the most common reason given for sales. 'It's so good that I hardly use it'. In days of yore, pre-eBay, these things probably found a niche existence in a cupboard somewhere and were never seen again. Now we get excuses for disposal decisions for all to see.
Right, I'm off to the circle seats to keep Beano company and snaffle some of his popcorn.
LongQ said:
Specification and price creeping - good to see things progressing as usual ....
.... <snip> Alternatively one could just settle for a little more investment creep and look at the Canon 7D </snip>
Yes... I always knew this was going to happen. If I'm looking at spending £650 on a 60d, then why not £750 on a D7000... but then again there are 7D's to be had at around the £800 mark..... <snip> Alternatively one could just settle for a little more investment creep and look at the Canon 7D </snip>
Dammit. I did get a chance to look at a 7D on Saturday... it does indeed look fairly large. I guess a wander down into Jessops is in order to cop a feel!
andrewrob said:
Another thing worth considering is what your friends have. All of my friends have canon gear and we are constantly swapping lenses, cameras and flash guns.
I have no photographer friends... so no chance of swapping kit!Edited by Mr Kitten on Monday 2nd July 15:10
Mr Kitten said:
LongQ said:
Specification and price creeping - good to see things progressing as usual ....
.... <snip> Alternatively one could just settle for a little more investment creep and look at the Canon 7D </snip>
Yes... I always knew this was going to happen. If I'm looking at spending £650 on a 60d, then why not £750 on a D7000... but then again there are 7D's to be had at around the £800 mark..... <snip> Alternatively one could just settle for a little more investment creep and look at the Canon 7D </snip>
Dammit. I did get a chance to look at a 7D on Saturday... it does indeed look fairly large. I guess a wander down into Jessops is in order to cop a feel!
I have a 1D3. Fantastic, solid thing that, whilst not light, is very well balanced in the hand expecially with a large lens fitted. Lighter bodies feel less well balanced with the same lenses.
It sounds solid in operation as well, gives me up to a card filling 10fps (at somewhere around 1Mb per RAW file) and 1100-1200 shots per 16Gb card plus around 2000 frames or so per battery charge depending on what I'm doing.
I rented a 7D (with battery grip) before buying the 1D3. The net weight and balance was about the same as I recall. It also sounded quite solid, but not like the 1D3. I bought the 1D3 because it was a good price even though little used and offered serious weatherproofing. Plus the RAW files are typically about half the size of the 7D RAW files saving a fortune on memory cards at the time! It also saves hours of file copying and editing and investment in storage capacity and ever more powerful computers for processing - at least for a while. Had the 1D3 deal not been available at just the right time I'm fairly sure I would have bought 7D.
I was basically taking the same journey as you - my first DSLR being a 400D used mainly with some old fully manual lenses from the pre-EOS era. So fancy AF and stuff was of no concern with those!
My daily carry camera is a pocketable S90. It used to be a Pentax Optio S5i and sometime still is. I donl't think anyone hase every made anything worth having smaller or lighter than the Pentax. It has also stood up well to some accidental abuse form time to time. I still use it but now carry the S90 for its RAW capability.
If I'm heading out by car on a serious shoot I take all the kit. If I'm flying I usually just take the S90, a G11 I also own and the 400D with wide angle and a 70-300 DO lens which is a fairly compact size to fit in a carry on travel bag situation (although it is quite heavy). I have a substantial tripod for the 1D3 and a lighter travel tripod for the rest. Each camera fulfills a slightly different role in its own way.
The 400D may be retiring soon, replaced with a 600D to take advantage of the additional resolution and the articulated screen. Maybe also to play with video using the manual lenses from the old days.
Why do I mention all of this?
Well simply because I have come to the conclusion that having a selection of devices that eash cover different requirements without much compromise is likely to be better and more productive than trying to find one system to fulfill all requirements. If you have a decent quality (not necessarily expensive) pocketable device for ever-present carrying then a larger device that is only taken out for the 'serious' stuff is quite acceptable. You don't need to compromise on desirable features vs. 'size to lug about' as when choosing a single device. Bought carefully it does not have to cost a lot more either and so makes your photography that much more enjoyable and cost justifiable. Maybe.
The firmware upgrade for the 7D seems to suggest it may be around for a while as a current model (but then again ....). If you do go for a serious look at it and the alternatives be sure to try them out for more than just 'feel'. Handling, sound and the impression they give whan working (shutter sounds, vibration (or lack of), solidity and so on) all add to the satisfaction level for the purchase just as much as the image quality that may be achieved! If it feels good you will want to use it. (Well, at least pick it up and play with it ....!)
Edited by LongQ on Monday 2nd July 22:23
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff