Canon 60D X 70D X 650D X 700D Dilemma

[mctiny]

I'm Looking at buying a new camera (Finally)... and need a little help from you guys in the know

I was originally looking at the 60D although now I see the 70D is out, or coming out soon. and this got me thinking if the 70D is worth the extra or is the 60D still a safe good camera, which no doubt be able to be had for a good price.

Then I noticed how much cheaper the xxxD range was and could see the 700D packing a similar punch to the 60D70D, albeit not as good, which in turn got me thinking to if I would actulally need/benefit from the xxD range...

Bottom line is :

60D for a good price?
70D ?
650D ? Not sure if worth it...
700D worth it?

 

[mctiny]

Depends how you're planning to use it and what for.

70D is out BTW, I bought it because of 19 Zone AF, 7fps, WiFi and proper live view AF. Those things might not be a priority for you.

60D is still perfectly good, and I would probably go for that, unless you're doing sports photography.

Well doing a bit of everything, first thing is holiday in the UK for 30 days...
then just the usual portraits and general usage.

Last camera was a canon powershot s2 and I always wanted to take the step up to DSLR, but now there are many options...

And not really looking at sports photography.

 

[mctiny]

if he is loaded he should get the 5D3

My bestie has the 60D and it is more than capable, some thing that i have learned is that only your bank roll has the deciding factor on your camera.

Its down to technique, vision, inspiration and implementation. The equipment comes second. Yes it will help to have better gear but at the end of the day its how you use it

**this is my opinion**
Glass to me is a big thing, you can stick good glass on a **** camera and take great quality images.

I would get the 60D and a good quality lens. What is your budget btw?

Interesting thoughts.... Money is a problem

The XXD range are very capable cameras, and very satisfying tools to use; they feel very good in the hand.

If it's your first SLR you'll have no lenses, so it seems to me that buying the 60D, for half the price of the 70D, would allow you to a) discover whether you enjoy using DSLR without committing too much money and b) give you a chunk of change, over what you might have spent, to turn into glass.

Of course if you're loaded, ignore that and just get the 70D

This is along the same lines of thinking as I'm having, maybe a 60D/xxxD and an extra lens/battery, etc...

 

[mctiny]

I own a 650D and don't really feel the need to upgrade the body. Glass on the other hand - you will however feel the need to upgrade glass quickly. That would be my priority especially if money is tight, go for a cheaper even consider second hand body and put money into the best glass you can buy.

I shoot 99% of the time with a single AF point anyhow, so AF points don't matter that much to me. A 60D/70D would make more sense for me for weather proofing and a small plus on the extra resolution.

In terms of budget think long term. Are you likely to be a single lens shooter? If so do you need a DSLR? If not think how much you are likely to spend on glass in the next 6 months / year or two.

Would buying a more expensive body would stop you from buying the lens(es) you want in your first 6-12 months. If you can afford it go for it! If not focus on glass first.


On that note the 70D has apparently much better video focusing capabilities. Plus a larger viewfinder coverage (95% vs 98%), double the shutter speed (1/4000 vs 1/8000), bigger burst buffer (5 vs 7 shots), top LCD display and wireless control. The 70D is slightly bigger and weights 200g more.

I'm thinking long term as my last camera was 6 years old before it died, if it didn't die I'd probably still be using it... Also I'm thinking of having one or two lenses now and just buy more glass when the time/needs come.

Narrowing the search a little towards the 650D/700D and the 60D, thinking the 70D is just a little too much right now...

650d/700D means lower body price, so I could get and extra lens, battery.
60D means sticking with a kit lens for while longer...


Is the 60D worth the price difference?

 

[mctiny]

Possibly have the chance of a "used" 60D with 18-250 Sgima lens... for around 700. sound good?

 

[mctiny]

I don't think I'd bother, bit of a jack of all trades, master of none lens.

FWIW.

I was thinking the same, I really like the idea of getting the 19-135 and nifty fifty

 

[mctiny]

There's a EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM up for £170 in the MM, that plus a 60d and 50 f/1.8 mkII would be a good combo and will stand you in for less than £700.

Would be good but I'm not going to be in the UK until October and I need to buy before or within the first day or two

 

[mctiny]

70D is way out of the budget now, so I'm really torn between a xxxD and a 60D but the 60D is still pushing the budget....

I've seen both the 700D and 60D with 18-135 for around 779, and a 650D with 18-135 for 719...

is the 18-55 still a very capable lens?

 

[mctiny]

You can take amazing photos with any lens.

Compared to a higher-end lens, the technical limitations are a restricted aperture, softness away from the centre and average build quality.

If budget allows, I'd look at the Tamron 17-50 f2.8- excellent sharpness across the frame and a fixed f2.8 aperture across the whole focal length range. The non-VC (non stabilised) version is cheaper and a bit sharper than the VC version.

Are you only look at buying new? £700 would buy you a secondhand xxD body, top-quality lens and probably leave enough for a bag and basic tripod.

Prefer new, like most people, and the fact that i'm not going to be back in the UK untill next month means i need to get here in Brazil now or wait until I arrive in the UK...

I notice the 60D & 18-55 is quite a bit cheaper...need to find comparison s of this and the 18-135.

 

[mctiny]

The quality of the 18-55 is very meh, it will still take better pictures than almost all compacts but won't give you the top quality images. What do you want out of the camera, if you are going to buy a nice camera and stick a kit lens on it, it's a bit of a waste.

Still a waste coming from a bridge camera and tight budget?


I see this ( my first DSLR) as a step up to real photography, I've always had a passion for photography but never had the chance to finally take the plunge.


Lenses will be changed and upgraded over time, and I at least thought that the kit lens would be good enough to start with

Otherwise I'll need a body, and "lens" but which brand/type of lens, some say sigma, other canon, or something else....


I's a mine field I tell you.

 

[mctiny]

Whilst not quite a minefield it isn't easy. You really need to think of a dSLR as a two part system, the lens and the camera. The former is by far the most important in determining image quality. A dslr is a step up, an expensive step up, and in many ways if you make a significant investment on a camera and then pair it with a kit lens you will not get the quality your investment deserves. To give you a quick analogy; say you buy an expensive sports car, and then you put £10 bargain bucket tyres on it. Whilst on paper the specifications of the car haven't changed you will find the real world performance you get out of it is a lot worse than a cheaper sports car but with tyres capable of providing the required performance.

I recently sold a 500D for around £200-250 I was using this with a canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L lens, and the pictures it took were no worse than I now take with my 7D (althought the better AF and FPS allow me to get pictures the 500D would have missed)
My point is this, you could buy, second hand a tamron 17-50mm f2.8 for circa £200, a Canon 24-105 f4 for under £500 either of these could be paired with a second hand body like the 500D which will take as good pictures as any canon aps-c camera. The end result is a system that will be miles ahead of a 60D plus kit lens.

I see where you are coming from...

but as always time and money are problems

 

[mctiny]

How much were you looking to spend?

At most 800.

 

[mctiny]

Good and bad are somewhat arbitrary here, a kit lens may compare favourably to a bridge camera but the quality is someway behind the lenses I recommended in terms of image quality, auto-focus speed and build quality. What I recommended will get the best possible image quality for £800. The OP hasn't given any indication that he needs or would benefit from the increased feature set of a xxD model.

I've always favoured the 60D since it's release, I see the xxD range as a serious entrance in to photography and something that the body probably won't need to be changed quite so soon.

 

[mctiny]

Generally you tend to change bodies every few years, lenses can last 10 years+ if they are good quality glass. What in particular do you want/need in the 60D or is it because you want people to perceive you as a better photographer because you have a better camera. They are both consumer level dSLRs that will take very similar pictures, the differentiating factor will be the lens.

Firstly it's not about perception...
Secondly I out grew my powershot s2, took some amazing shots with it and want to step up to something a lot more serious.

As for the difference between the xxxD & xxD ranges I'm not 100% sure of them, I will try out both ranges to finalize my choice.

Maybe you could help me with the differences?

 

[mctiny]

Canon EOS 60D Lens Kit (EF-S 17-85mm IS) for 799

Canon EOS 60D Lens Kit (EF-S 18-135mm IS) for 779

which would you guys says is the better choice?

 

[mctiny]

So, the decision has been made - 60D 18-135mm, and the best deal I find is out of stock and I arrive in London in a few days time...

Oh joy, any pointers?