550d v.s. 60d?

Ksanti

Ksanti

Ksanti

Soldato
Joined
10 Feb 2010
Posts
3,248
Hey guys,

I've been looking at getting the 550d as my first DSLR (after using a D5000 for about half a year), and I've been saving up for a while, and I'm close to reaching the £500 I need (50mm 1.8+Kiss X4). Last week though I remembered that I have £250 lying around, that I may save up, but I was considering splashing out the extra and getting a 60D body.

I'm pretty sure I'll be using this body for a fair few years and instead spending on glass, but I'm not sure if I'll be limited by the 550d before long. This body will have to last me, but I'm not sure how much mileage I'll get out of the 550d?

I imagine I'll be shooting as much as possible over the coming years, what are the key differences between the 60d and the 550d, beyond the tilty screen and fps?

Obviously the 60d is a superior body, but it comes down to whether the difference in distance I can go with each camera is significant enough to justify the extra money; if neither can act as a serious camera then I'll be replacing it anyway and may as well put the money towards a 1.4 instead of the 1.8.

Opinions please? For reference, I don't feel like the D5000 is limiting me yet, though that screen /is/ awful, and I know that neither of these cameras would limit me now, but would both be adequate for a photography course at Uni?
 
The Nikon is my old man's, and I won't be able to take the lenses with me when I leave home. He has a couple of old Sigma EF lenses gathering dust from his EOS 600, so as long as they'll work with a 550d/60d (will test that next time I go to a jessops), it makes sense to get some use out of those lenses as I'll be able to take those with me and he's willing to give them to me, whereas it might be a little harder to pry the Nikkor/Tamron lenses out of his hands :D
 
Ksanti said:
He has a couple of old Sigma EF lenses gathering dust from his EOS 600, so as long as they'll work with a 550d/60d (will test that next time I go to a jessops)
Click to expand...
There's quite a high probability that they won't work and will need to go off to Sigma to be re-chipped.

There's a list of incompatible lenses floating around the web somewhere but I'll be damned if I can find it right at this moment in time.
 
glitch said:
There's quite a high probability that they won't work and will need to go off to Sigma to be re-chipped.

There's a list of incompatible lenses floating around the web somewhere but I'll be damned if I can find it right at this moment in time.
Click to expand...

AtticusFinch said:
The crop factor of 1.6 means that the 70-200 is an effective focal length of 112 - 320, on the 24-70 the effective focal length will be 38 - 112 so you will have wide angle through to telephoto covered.

The lenses will physically fit, but occasionally, depending on the age fo the Sigma lenses in question, they do not focus properly etc with the newer Canon bodies.

These problems are rare, but they do crop up and you're basically stuffed (they can be altered but it is pricey and a faff). I suggest taking the lenses with you to a camera shop and whacking them on a body before you buy, otherwise you've shot yourself in the foot.
Click to expand...

Alright now I'm confused :D

Let me know if you find the links?
 
Ksanti said:
Alright now I'm confused :D
Click to expand...
We're both right. Well, he's more right than I am, but I'm still technically correct.

Some lenses will be so old that there's nothing Sigma can do to get them working. Some of the 'less' old lenses will need re-chipping. All of the current lenses in production will work perfectly.

Easiest way to tell? Take them into your local camera emporium and try them out.

Ksanti said:
Let me know if you find the links?
Click to expand...
I've trawled through all my Bookmark archives and I still can't find the damn thing. This list looks vaguely familiar, but I don't think it was the one I was trying to find.
 
I haven't been able to identify the lenses yet, all I've got from him is that they're 28-70 and 70-200mm lenses branded AF, but if I remember correctly, at least one of them had a push-zoom (as opposed to rotate) zoom ring, if that helps anyone?

How much do Sigma charge for the re-chipping?
 
Ksanti said:
I haven't been able to identify the lenses yet, all I've got from him is that they're 28-70 and 70-200mm lenses branded AF, but if I remember correctly, at least one of them had a push-zoom (as opposed to rotate) zoom ring, if that helps anyone?
Click to expand...
Give them a call on 01707 329 999 or email [email protected] and ask if they have a list of lenses they can chip. They're usually pretty helpful.

Ksanti said:
How much do Sigma charge for the re-chipping?
Click to expand...
It used to be roughly £5 if you had proof of purchase for the lens or £30 if you didn't, assuming it could be chipped in the first place.

That was a good few years ago though, so prices will no doubt have shot up.
 
I'll get shot for this, but I don't see the 550D as a viable camera for serious use. It's too bloody small and it's too bloody fiddly to use and I absolutely hate using the XXXD series for those reasons.

Yes, you can put a battery grip on to make it larger, but that's utterly pointless in my view and I'd rather have the larger camera in the first place. And given that the larger camera is the better choice, the 60D should be a complete no-brainer for you.

But do you really want to go with Canon just for the sake of two Sigma lenses that might not even work? Nikon have some truly excellent DSLR bodies available and the only real selling point of the 60D is that flip-out video screen. If you really want to go Canon and want a serious camera, you might as well shell out for the 7D which is a stunning piece of kit.

Otherwise I'd be looking at Nikon and saving up for either a D300s or D7000 or spending what I had on a D90, which I think handles a lot better than the 550D.

But you might also want to consider what sort of glass you're planning on investing in over the coming years as that's going to affect your choice of system.
 
What do you mean by "serious camera", what is your main field of photography that you prioritise? If you're into sports, then a fast focussing, fast fps, quick buffer clearing camera is going to be where you end up. If low light performance is required, a high ISO performing full frame will most likely be in your future. etc. etc.

The 60D and 550D will handle differently, go and try them out if you can, this may make your decision much easier. Either will be adequate for a photography course I should imagine.
 
Good ISO performance is the main one for me; the body will be used for sports photography, but only on holiday, nothing serious. Obviously the ISO performance will be nothing like what you'll get from a 5D etc. but I really can't justify waiting long enough to save up for something like that.

Another option would be to buy Nikkon lenses for my dad's D5000, then save up for when I leave home, so I can buy a camera then and take the lenses I've bought with me?
 
Rojin said:
I've got say, that sounds like a plan!
Click to expand...

The only problem with it is that if I get limited by the D5000 (which would happen before the 550D or 60D would limit me), I'm kind of stuffed, and I won't have quite the same freedom with the D5000 as I won't be able to take it out whenever I want etc. which won't matter for planned shoots, but if I'm going away and Dad isn't it might cause problems.

I reckon I'll consider going down the Nikon route, but before I do I'll see how the Sigma lenses are working first. Regarding that, would a camera shop be ok with me testing the lenses on their body with my own SD card in, then taking those shots to look at on my monitor at home?
 
Why not save for a little longer and pick up a 7D, slightly under £1K now if you shop around and a much better camera than either the 550D or 60D.
 
And said:
Why not save for a little longer and pick up a 7D, slightly under £1K now if you shop around and a much better camera than either the 550D or 60D.
Click to expand...

Really? The 7D has higher fps than the 60D, more focus points, the potential for more flashes, marginally better viewfinder and better build, but none of those really make a difference to my shooting and it's missing the articulated screen, which actually does make a difference to my shooting, and while the 7D can burst faster, the 60D can burst for longer (in RAW).

The 60D seems like it's worth saving up for over the 550d for me, but the 7D doesn't really look like it is, if I had the money for a 7D I'd rather go with a 60D and the Sigma 50mm 1.4 tbh :)
 
It's the burst rate that matters for sports, I find 8fps slow now after using the 1D. I only ever tend to take 3 shot bursts, sometimes longer as a player sprints through a gap. I used to have the 1D set to 10fps (fast) and 6fps (slow). Whilst the 60D states 16 RAW in the buffer, I don't know how quickly it clears the buffer. In the 7D you can top 20+ easy before it starts to lag in clearing the buffer (15 shot buffer stated). If sports is only occasional, and you'll get more creative use out of the 60D swivel screen, go for the 60D.

A camera shop may get funny about someone wanting to try out old lenses on a camera to see if they work, you can only ask :) Taking your own SD card shouldn't be an issue.
 
If your dad has a good collection of Nikon lenses and you have experience using a Nikon body, I see little point in going to a Canon setup - unless you have loads of close Canon friends.
 
I'd normally recommend saving the cash on the body and putting it towards better glass but, since the 60D seems to be about £190 more than the 550D, which won't buy you a significant glass upgrade, I'd actually say spend the extra and get the 60D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom