So, it's just been announced, and I've been reading forums where most people are unhappy with its lack of features formerly present in 50D (mostly AF Micro Adjust and Alloy body).
As a matter of fact, Canon has repositioned its XXD line to fit the gap between XXXD and XD, so, in spite of its name, it seems to me that 60D is not to be considered as the new, upgraded, 50D; it is a "lsser" model in theri line-up, between 7D and 550D.

In any case, I am considering to buy my first DSLR camera.

I've been using in the last month my gf's 550D (T2i in US), and I am leaning towards buying my own reflex.
Do you guys think this 60D is a good one, regardless of not being a real 50D upgrade? I am assuming street-price that local price in EU will be E 1000 circa.
To me, it looks a very promising camera, and I expecially like the tilt screen - I own a G11 and I love it.
I am essentially new in the DSLR world, but not completely. So, I believe 60D will have more features and power than I can actually use for a while. However, I wonder if there's any reason I should stay away from it in particular?

I guess I am just looking for your opinions, which is always better conceived, reasonable, and solid than that I find on any other forum

Ignore the people who are getting upset. If Canon had released it named to fit into the range above the other plastic bodied SLRs then those same people would be raving about what a great upgrade to the Rebel/550D it is.

It looks like it is going to be a great camera, not that there are any bad DSLRs nowadays.

DSLRs are frustratingly durable. I've got a Canon 10D that I bought in 2003. I'd love to replace it with a 7D and thought for a few seconds earlier this year that I had the perfect chance. I dropped my camera while running down a solid wood floor corridor.

It hit the floor hard and rolled for 30 feet. The cheap plastic 50mm lens on it broke, but the camera was completely unharmed.

Whether the plastic bodied ones are as robust I'm not sure, I've only ever owned this one.

Yes, it really seem to be an entirely naming issue...

Also, do you think Autofocus Micro Adjust is at all useful? I've been reading completely different opinions on that. Some people say it should be on every SLR camera as most lenses will need calibration to properly work on a body, others say it is an emergency measure just in case you are unlucky to end up with a non-calibratet lens and don't have time to have it serviced.

I don't know much about the 60D, in specific, but generally speaking I'd encourage you to get a new camera rather than an older one. Time marches on, and sensors just keep getting better.

Since you're starting from scratch, you should give some serious consideration to your alternatives, including the various Micro 4/3 cameras, the new Sony NEX cameras, etc. For standard D-SLRs, as always, it's between Nikon and Canon. Both are quite good.

Do not underestimate the importance of the user interface and general camera layout. Evaluate different cameras to see how they feel in your hand and to make sure they have the controls you want easily accessible.

I'd also wait until after Photokina to buy anything.

Thanks for all recommendations!

I own a G11 and while I understand that Micro 4/3 are indeed a step-up, I feel like going towards a DSLR directly instead.
I've been using one (550D) quite extensively in the last month, while improving my knowledge on aperture, exposure, focal length, and experimenting, and I really enjoyed it.

Finally, I really would not know what to chose between Canon and Nikon, as I understand all depends on your tastes and subjective likes and dislikes. Which, as a beginner in the DSLR, I don't have yet But, my gf has Canon body and lenses (which I'd be able to use), so I guess in my particular case Canon is the way to go. Also, I became somewhat familiar with the 550D user interface. I've always had Canon compact cameras, and I see a lot of the G11 user interface logic in the 550D, which makes it all easier.
I think I would not mind a slightly larger body than the 55D, and the 60D does have that. In terms of camera weight, I also tend to like plastic over metal. But, I wouldn't mind a resistent body that can survive longer. But, I guess, can't have all.

As a side note, all my friends owning a DSLR are using Canon. That per se is not affecting my choice (my gf having Canon is, in fact), but I am curious if Canon does have a larger mkt share in the XXXD XXD segments?

Bruno, when is Photokina?

Photokina is a photographic trade show/fair which is run every September in Cologne Germany. It's one of the traditional reasons you will see a lot of announcements from camera manufacturers at this time, leading up to the event. It's also traditionally an event at which many manufacturers make their announcements and signifies the end of the camera announcements for the year.

With the way the internet is now operating usually there will be rumors or leaks before the show, so there are fewer surprises, but you never know what else may be announced.

If your friends have lots of Canon gear, that's definitely a factor worth considering. Nikon, of course, also has a lot of market share and seems to be making serious inroads into Canon's entry-level market with low-priced camera kits. Also, the brand new Nikon D3100 (?) has 1080p video, which has been a checkbox feature that Canon has been touting. Really, you can't go wrong either way.

Personally, I find the Nikon UI to be faster to use, and I find Nikon cameras fit better in my hand. The low-end Canon D-SLRs seem designed for people with tiny hands. The more expensive Canon's fix this, but once you get into pricier camera bodies, then really it's a totally different discussion.

Interestingly, Canon 60D body size is in between the small XXXD and the full size XD (which is also same size as the 50D and previous ones):

http://a.img-dpreview.com/previews/CanonEOS60D/images/compared-back.jpg

Bruno, ok, Photokina is in mid/end of September: definitely worth waiting to see what's being announced. I was not planning to buy tomorrow anyway. 60D looks interesting to me, and I doubt it will be available sooner than October, I think.

I just picked up my first DSLR a month ago. Being my first I was hesitant to spend too much, so I picked up a 550D (T2i). So far I've been loving it. I'm still a complete novice in controlling the camera, but I'm learning a lot. It has all the features and more than I need now. Perhaps in a few years there will be features that I'll really want on a new body, but I should be fine for a few years at least.

As for the size of it, to fit my average hands I added a battery grip. At the advice of a "prosumer", as Canon likes to call them, I bought a generic one from Amazon, with 4 generic batteries for $65 US. Definitely makes my hands fit better on the body.

Canon's quality control can be quite poor at times --> that's why the AF microadjust feature is so highly valued, because it provides a way to correct for Canon's crap. The alternative is shipping the body and lenses to Canon for recalibration, which may or may not be done well, and which can take months.

Cheers

Mark,

That is interesting. So, in this respect, it would be actually good to have AF microadjust.
I can find 7D body for 1200 Euros, shipping included. 550D body can be found at 700 Euros all included. I am guessing 60D will be available at 900-1000 Euros price range.

I wonded if it does not make sens to spend 200 extra euros and get a 7D.
I do like 60D flip lcd screen, though.

I wonder if it's more an indication of DSLR's pushing the envelope of what's possible optically than Canon's quality control. Dealing with such tiny sensors that are very sensitive tends to magnify the tiniest of optical errors. Optical design hasn't really kept up with Electronic design- it doesn't follow Moore's law.

Having said that I have a very hard time believing that you can adjust a zoom lens by changing the back focus distance by 5 mm or whatever. Lens focus tends to change a little when zooming and a little when stopping down the aperture. So a fixed number probably isn't always going to work.

Good point, actually. In canonrumors and dpreview forums, people are saying that AF microadjust makes sense only at a specific focal length and subject distance. So, if I understand that correctly, you would need to microadjust continuously if your lens isn't properly built. Also, I read that, supposedly, Canon cameras can store one microadjustment per lens, so that at least you don't have to re-adjust every time you swap lenses. However, that kind of suggests that Canon is thinking that on microadjustment per lens is enough, which contradicts the F / subjecy distance adjustment thing.

A bit confusing.

The sensor in the camera, be it film or digital, does not move w.r.t. the lens when zooming. So zoom lenses have to be designed to focus the image at exactly the point (plane) where the sensor lies, regardless of zoom length.

So, yes, a tiny back-focus adjustment can and does work. That's how Canon themselves do it when shipping the lot back for service -- it's just an offset value that gets programmed into the lens and/or camera firmware.

The issue here is whether or not they continue to make this adjustment user-accessible or not.

Cheers

Mark,
I see, so it is true that microadjustment works "per lens".

So, would you recommend a camera with AF microadjust over one without? Meaning: obviously with is better than without, but how likely do you think it is that one ends up with a lens requiring camera AF microadjustment?

Honestly, I am not planning to change camera body soon. I'd rather get a good one and keep it for years, inviesting instead in lenses. So, probably a 7D is worth the extra 200 Euros over the 60D. I'd consider a 50D as well, but I don't mind the HD video capability of the 7D.

Zoom lenses are designed to not change back focus when zooming/stopping down- the question is do they? Some older lenses were notorious for having "focus shift" when the aperture was stopped down. It's possible the same thing can happen with modern lens if quality control is an issue. Of course stopping down your aperture can mask many focus ills so it may not be an issue- especially with slower or wide angle lenses that have a lot of depth of field to work with.

For what its worth, I've never felt the need to get any of my lenses serviced and my 10D doesn't have an adjustment feature.

When the fuss over back focussing first kicked off on the DP forums I did some measurements and did find that some of my lenses weren't spot on all the time with a razor sharp depth of field.

But I can't say I've ever noticed it being a problem in real life. If there is anything holding back the quality my photographic output then it is me and not my lenses or camera.

That said, my 10D only has 6 megapixels, I expect any back focusing gets that much easier to see with three times as many pixels to peek at

Just to be contrary here, I am asking a serious question. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but am really curious as to why...

Why a DSLR rather than a super-zoom camera? Am I missing something here?

I know that a DSLR has a considerable larger CCD chip, and thus with the same amount of megapixels is going to have a better quality image, i.e., less noisy. And I know that an SLR lens with restricted zoom range is going to have fewer optical/mechanical compromises and will in all likelihood produce a sharper image.

But... there is much more to photography than ultimate image quality. I am by no means a great photographer, but I know from experience that it isn't the camera that makes the picture, but the person pressing the shutter button.

I have a Panasonic DMC-FZ50 super-zoom camera. The newer super-zooms have more impressive specifications (double the zoom, 40% more pixels) but the FZ50 has features the others lack, such as a manual (not electric!) zoom control and a separate viewfinder. It is a very versatile camera, operating in any mode from point-and-shoot to full manual. There are 23 separate buttons, slides, wheels, and controls on the outside of the camera, and I use every single one of them.

I bought the camera knowing full well that I was compromising ultimate image quality in the name of versatility. To match the capabilities of my camera with a DSLR, you would need a wheelbarrow to carry around all the lenses (I have everything from 26mm to 1680mm (35mm equiv.) at my disposal) and even if someone with a DSLR happened to have the proper lens with him, in the time it took to dig the lens out of the wheelbarrow, remove the present lens, put the new one one, get set up, focused, composed and exposed, the picture opportunity might well be gone. I routinely take photos that would not be possible with a DSLR. So am I worse off by getting a picture with slightly degraded quality (not discernible in less than a 16x20 print!) than I would be with no picture at all?

Now, a lot of very smart people proselytize for DSLRs, people who know a lot more about photography than I do. So, there must be something to it.

What?

tanstaafl.

Speaking with regards to my older 1D MkIIn, I love pressing focus and knowing that it's in focus. A DSLR's focus system calculates the difference, and tells the lens "move as fast as you can to this focus distance". A P&S generally racks the lens (pushes it back and forth) and watches for the image to come into focus.

The DSLR has bigger pixels. Within a given generation, the DSLR's noise will be orders of magnitude lower than the mini-sensor P&S. This is often the difference between getting the shot and not getting the shot. I love cranking the ISO and doing available light with my cheap 50mm f1.8 lens. This produces images that are incomparable to images taken with an on camera flash.

The larger sensor and dedicated lenses will always be able to have a narrower depth of field. This means that if I'm somewhere where the background detracts from a shot, I'll blur the background. I can also show the viewer of the image what to pay attention to, as the rest of it can easily blur away without even being apparent.

The interface is also designed for taking pictures. On my camera I can shoot a 6 hour event and never navigate a menu. I also can zoom to the point I want to zoom to in a fraction of a second. I can focus and recompose in that same fraction of a second.

However, all of these are nice to have, not required to take photographs. Every technique I use with my DSLR I can take and use with an old P&S, a tripod and a lightbulb. The images aren't as good, but they're certainly good enough to make a non pixel peeping audience happy.

The reason I've been considering a dslr is speed only. My p&s camera takes pictures of the future, meaning I push the button and some time in the near future, it takes a picture. I've missed vast amount of shots because of this. On my Samsung camera phone, I've have the kids pose for every shot, and even then, they get bored and turn their backs half the time...

You need a better P&S camera then. My Canon compact digital in center AF mode can take photos as soon as you push the shutter so long as it doesn't need to charge the flash.

P&S cameras have made great strides in improving their contrast-based autofocus. One of the new Fuji cameras has even sorted out a clever way of doing phase-based autofocus, just like a D-SLR, through clever masking of individual pixels in the standard sensor.


For a given generation, this is very true. Across generations, it's quite interesting. My Panasonic LX3 (new in 2008) outperforms my old Nikon D70 (new in 2004), despite the latter having much larger pixels. Of course, the LX3 had fairly large pixels for a smallish sensor, while other P&S have significantly higher pixel densities. Likewise, the LX3 has a bright f/2.0 lens, versus standard kit zoom lenses on D-SLRs that often begin at f/3.5 or f/4.0. Two extra stops of light is nothing to sneeze at.


No argument. Large sensors require longer lenses for a given field of view. This is a feature if you like shallow depth of field. Otherwise, it's a whole lot of extra weight in larger lenses. Also, curiously, these P&S cameras do absolutely amazing macro photographs. I'm particularly intrigued by the Pentax W90's inclusion of LEDs for macro illumination.


UI quality varies significantly, but generally I agree that D-SLR cameras are engineered around the idea that you have some vague idea what you're doing. If you put the camera in one of the P/A/S/M modes, all the goofiness generally goes away. The higher-end P&S cameras have similar modes, in addition to the invariably stupid ones. ("Kids and Pets" mode? Uggh.)


I dearly loved my Panasonic LX3, prior to its being stolen. (A new LX5 should be arriving here in the next few weeks.) I also dearly love my Nikon D700. I see these serving very different purposes. The D700 is amazingly powerful, but it's also amazingly conspicuous and undeniably heavy. The LX3 is lightweight and versatile, perfect for tourism, and capable of remarkably sharp photographs.

When in doubt, own both...

What's the model number? I'll check it out. I'm not wild about my Nikons. The 5900 takes execellent picts, but is slow. The L18 takes nasty-looking picts, and is slower...

Ehhh. It does everything I need but my requirements are fairly low. It is an Ixus 990IS. I'm sure you can find better cameras than it especially now.

That would be true if anything else was equal. But the extra size of the DSLR sensor behind that smaller aperture far outweighs the extra light gathering you get with your extra stops on the LX3.

Well, I am a novice here and I am open to see my own opinion change after direct, hands-on experience.

However, currently, the way I see this is that essentially DSLR offer opportunity. Given the same skills of the photographer, a DSLR will produce a bette result, and that is rewarding. Even more importantly, I think that a DSLR grows with you, as you learn and experiment. Which is even more rewarding. And fun.

This compensates the extra wiegth, the fact that I won't be able to carry a DSLR with me (which is why I am keeping my G11 as well of course), and that as you say it will be less practical in several occasions.

Just curious: are there super zooms out there that can do bulb-photography? That's something I could not do with my G11, which is really disappointing as I suppose a firmware upgrade would give that feature to the G11, and I had to resort to my gf's 550D. Which is one of the reasons why I started to use it and learn in the first place.

I would say that if you can't decide between a new point and shoot or a DSLR you should go for a really nice point and shoot.

I see so many people at weddings trying to take pictures with some crappy DSLR with the kit lens on that it drives me mad. They are all using the pop up flash and many ask me why my pictures look so different when they have the "same" camera. The point and shoots are so impressive these days I think they all would be much better off with them.

Photography is only 10% equipment in my opinion, the rest is down to you. You should pick kit not based on reviews but what feels good in your hand, it feels right to use straight out of the box and you know you want to take with you. Sure Camera A may have better noise performance that Camera B but as long as it captures that moment, who cares ???

Outside of professional reasons I never have a camera with me apart from my iPhone. I found that I spent ages messing around with my camera and had almost no time enjoying the moment, so now I let other people do that if they want. Isn't that what facebook is for

On the micro-adjust features, if you are a Pro then it is very useful. I've found most of my lenses needed some kind of adjustment, and focus is now a little better across my kit. Does it make a difference in landscapes? Nope! But if you are working in low light without flash at f1.2 of f1.4 the difference can be quite impressive.

Cheers

Cris

... and, I forgot to mention it, there's a geeky aspect to it. I found I just love the toy. After putting mind more accurately to what is the physics behind it, it is fun to experiment with light, focal length, dof, etc. From that respect, I feel a DSLR is a more intriguing device.
Admittedly, I would not spend € 2000 for "just a toy", but while a secondarily important factor, it still contributes to make me want my own DSLR.

i've never had a camera with that feature, but I really wish my current one (40D) had it. It's a valuable feature, but not a deal-breaker.

I would never get a 7D over a 40/50/60D camera: lack of built-in flash ("speedlight") is the issue. The danged thing is simply to useful to be without. Yes, I have a very good external speedlight, but it's not always with the camera.

Still.. full-frame is very tempting.

Cheers