Canon 60D X 70D X 650D X 700D Dilemma
- Thread starter mctiny
- Start date
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?
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?
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.
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.
I got just that combination recently. The Tamron 17-50 and the 60d. Nice and versatile. Decent in low light. A few quid saved means you have more budget for a decent memory card, case and whatever else.
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.
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 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.
At most 800.
Thats a decent amount to spend and can get you something which will take excellent images.
I would start with a 600D camera Something like this
You then have a choice of two excellent lenses, the canon 17-55mm f2.8 and the 24-105mm f4 both offer excellent image quality, on a crop sensor I would say the 17-55 (27-88mm 35mm equivalent) is a more useful walkabout range than the 24-105mm (36-168mm 35 mm equivalent). You also have to think which would you rather, f2.8 and more wide end, or having only f4 but more reach and full frame compatibility.
24-105mm
Canon 17-55mm both £470 second hand
You could also get a 60D and good, but not as good tamron 17-50mm f2.8 for about the same price (500ish for a 60D and 220 for the lens)
I would start with a 600D camera Something like this
You then have a choice of two excellent lenses, the canon 17-55mm f2.8 and the 24-105mm f4 both offer excellent image quality, on a crop sensor I would say the 17-55 (27-88mm 35mm equivalent) is a more useful walkabout range than the 24-105mm (36-168mm 35 mm equivalent). You also have to think which would you rather, f2.8 and more wide end, or having only f4 but more reach and full frame compatibility.
24-105mm
Canon 17-55mm both £470 second hand
You could also get a 60D and good, but not as good tamron 17-50mm f2.8 for about the same price (500ish for a 60D and 220 for the lens)
I wouldn't get too hung up about the kit lens. A friend borrowed my 70-200 the other day at a party and I used his kit 18-55 for a while on my body. I was surprised at how good it was to be honest, much better than I remember- I suspect it's my technique that has improved. As long as you're aware of its limitations, particularly in aperture, it wont hold you back, or at least it wont be more important than framing and technique.
If you're really not sure, drop £100 on a 20D or 350D and kit lens and see how you get on. You'd only lose £30 or so trading it in for a better model if you decide to move up (or keep it as a backup).
Spending £800 though, if it were me I'd go for an xxD model.
If you're really not sure, drop £100 on a 20D or 350D and kit lens and see how you get on. You'd only lose £30 or so trading it in for a better model if you decide to move up (or keep it as a backup).
Spending £800 though, if it were me I'd go for an xxD model.
Last edited:
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.
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?