In designing the much-anticipated EOS 60D, Canon decided against a simple upgrade of the previous model, the EOS 50D. Instead, the company opted for a redefinition of its range to create a middle ground between the semi-pro EOS 7D and the entry level EOS 550D. Canon EOS 60D Canon's EOS 60D subscribes to the all-plastic body …
I am very pleased I bought the 50D when I could.
Slower continuous shooting, less customisation and a flimsy plastic body and the CCD out of the entry-level 550D - I'm not convinced the consumer-oriented bells and whistles the canon trick-cyclists have come up with really make up for these shortcomings.
The body is high strength engineering plastic, and the camera still has a steel chassis. It is of course not as durable as the magnesium body of the 50D but it is far from "flimsy".
Canon hasn't put a CCD in a DSLR since mid 2004. That "CCD [sic] out of the entry level 550D" is also used in the decidedly higher level 7D.
I'd have waited until after the 60D was available so the price on the 50D could drop before I bought it, but that's just me.
Keep ripping us off, Canon
£1100 for something that will be worthless in two years' time? And why, after all these years, can't consumer cameras have a full frame sensor?
Mine's the one with the secondhand Leica M3 in the pocket.
Well if you consider the 5D a consumer camera, then Canon already does.
However if you think about it, a 35mm full-frame sensor uses practically 2.5x the silicon of an APS-C like the D60 (864mm² vs 343mm²) That significantly increases the cost of the sensor (more silicon, plus lower yeald). The mirror also has to be bigger and the viewfinder prism too; again all costing more.
Then you need full-frame lenses. All the film lenses were full-frame of course, but now there is a huge range of cheap as chips lenses for smaller sensors; they need less glass and the angles to the sensor are reduced, making it much cheaper to produce the lenses inside the lens.
So to answer your question; there will be consumer cameras with full-frame sensors when the consumers are happy to pay full-frame prices.
While I enjoy camera-porn as much as the next man (or woman)
and this model may look reasonably priced in comparison to the Leica and Hasselblad that cost as much as a luxury car, could we have some reviews of cameras that the typical Reg reader (most of whom, I guess, are not professional photographers) might be interested in buying?
Re: While I enjoy camera-porn...
You might have noticed the number of mid-level DSLRs in the hands of all kinds of people out at events. I'd have expected this (or perhaps even the next step up) to be right up the alley of the typical Reg reader, but then I'm no market researcher.
If you go the DSLR route you might as well go for a mid-range prosumer Nikon or Canon simply because of the availability of lenses from the makers and third parties. The body should last a number of years and TCO should be relatively small.
Also the body is not really the most important part of the equation, most people will tell you it is the lens that is more important. When you start paying more for a single lens than you paid for your body you know you are hooked.
Cheaper? Just as good?
"could we have some reviews of cameras that the typical Reg reader might be interested in buying?"
Sir should look at the Pentax kx (or the slightly updated k7). Around £350 including a lens. Its particularly praised for its high image quality and performance in low light conditions.
It's HD Video recording has some flaws, but it sounds like this new Canon has those too
No, I haven't particularly noticed an increase in people carrying DSLRs - certainly for every one I see, I see 10 compacts. Maybe I don't get to the right 'events'. And if you're thinking of spending a grand on a body + a similar amount on lenses (hardly my idea of a mid-level system), I suggest that ElReg probably isn't the place to look for camera reviews - $deity knows there's no shortage of specialised camera sites.
I used to be a big fan of 35mm SLRs, with multiple bodies and lenses. Now I just take my compact superzoom. Maybe there's a few percent loss of quality, but I can have it with me all day without my back complaining about lugging a 6kg bag around with me.
I see so many people who at first judgement aren't going to be professional photographers with these expensive D-SLR cameras and I always wonder why? I've even seen tourists with 5D's! Most of these people probably take pictures which could easily be achieved with a decent compact at a fraction of the cost. I've studied the art of photography and lighting, but it is not my career and I choose to own a Canon PowerShot G10 because it takes superb pictures and I don't have to lug around a kilo of glass and plastic.
Perhaps I am just being unduly derogatory towards amateurs and stifling ambition, but by the same token this seems to be people spending money they perhaps could better spend elsewhere in their lives or perhaps on someone else in their lives? Do we all need to keep spending so much money on excess in our lives when a more basic tool will do? People work full-time with no professional reason to own an expensive camera. Most SLR cameras owned by amateurs will be used for less than 100 hours in its life and at £1500 that is a fair bit of money.
"decided against a simple upgrade of the previous model, the EOS 50D"
Indeed, it is a down-grade if you want to compare it to the 50D.
"replacement of the dual function buttons with single function buttons "
Yes, so you now have to wade through menus to change settings that you used to be able to change by pressing a button and rotating a wheel.
"upgrading from the EOS 50D"
To do that, you would buy a 7D or a 5DII from Canon's range. The 60D is not a step up.
(Owner of 450D, 50D, 7D and have used 60D)
nah another shitty canon
wake up canon!!!! look at nikon d7000, this is a no go for this price. few people have been waiting for this and all of them ended up buying either 7D or d7000
I gave you a thumbs down and I'm a Nikon user. Nikon/Canon, Fender/Gibson, PC/Mac whatever, all have their fanbois and such comments don't make one better than the other. However, they do show the ignorance of the author.
Re: nah another shitty canon
Do you mean the Nikon D7000 that only costs $50 less than the 7D?
check my comment below
few comments below... i don't mind shooting on canon/nikon/sony... i was waiting for this camera to upgrade but it's just another rebel camera, not in the same league as x0D cameras used to be
Whoops, the prices have changed a bit and now the D7000's $180 less than the 7D. What I clearly should have said was "Do you mean the D7000 that costs 40% more than the 60D?"
60D in perspective
Don't get your knickers in a twist over price - the costs quoted in this (belated) review are HUGELY over-inflated. Amazon is currently selling the 60D for £771 (body only) or £902 (body + 18-55mm). It can also be found MUCH cheaper elsewhere (I got mine from HK with 18-55mm, 55-250mm AND a spare battery all for under £810).
I spent a long time obsessively comparing 60D vs 7D vs Nikon D7000, reading countless reviews and opinions and handling each in shops.
In my opinion, when you consider this camera's FULL spec (and I mean REALLY consider it), the 60D offers a great combination of features for amateur enthusiasts at a very reasonable price. The build quality is also perfectly robust and solid. I actually don't think this reviewer's score does the 60D sufficient justice.
forgot to add...
that although i've got nikon, i've been waiting for this canon too, to me it doesn't matter what camera but i think i'll skip this round and will jump on FX, i just hope that canon updates AF on new 5D or i'll just get d700 or replacement for it
I bought a 40D a few years ago after the 50D came out - while the 50D was a little bit better, the 40D was heavly discounted. The 60D doesn't make me feel like I need to upgrade. Canon just saved me alot of money.
Check out the Pentax K5
It has weather sealing, a magnesium body, and in body lens stabilisation for every lens added including those made 30 years ago.
The Pentax has 7.7fps and much the same metering/focus points with better high iso image quality.
The only thing the Canon has over it is slightly higher mp (16 vs 18) a swivel LCD and full manual video control, but video is of minor importance to me. I bought my camera for pictures not video.
As a long-time Pentax owner, including owning a lot of Pentax mount top quality glass, I was very very disapointed that they took soooo long to come out with a DSLR worth having. So much so I sold everything and switched to Canon (now it seems like a shame, but because of that I've had a DSLR for a few years).
Pentax used to be top of the heap (including first autofocus SLR), and I still look at their stuff fondly (including the new digital 645 last year). It's a shame that they lost their market share. I'd happily recommend their stuff to people.
The in-body stabilisation sounds like a good idea, but you can't beat in-lens stabilisers. (With my long lenses, it was hard to keep the focus point over something without a tripod, and in-body stabilisers don't help). Also not all stabilisers are equal.
Canon has other, more important things...
"he only thing the Canon has over it is slightly higher mp"
The K5 is excellent, but you are missing out what Canon really have and that is simply a vastly larger system range of lenses, flashes, alternative bodies, retailers and third party support. That matters a lot to many people (and I don't own a Canon).
As any serious DSLR user will tell you (and this is not an entry level model), you buy into a system, not a camera body.
Another 60D non-buyer
For me the major killer points were body (and I'm sorry, I abuse my camera bodies - yes the do get dropped by accident and I'm not proud to admit it. ) the swivel screen (that's an insta-break item) and the lack of a PC port (so I could sync it with studio lights if I'm on a location that's silly enough not to have a radio trigger nearby).
Whilst the reinvestment if SD memory would had been a pain, it's not the end of the world, And I'm still a beliver a camera is a camera - not a video toy.
Canon gave me two options - Buy a 7D or a Second hand 50D. And I went for the 50D. (And if I'm honestly blunt, I'm not a fan of it. Give me back my old 40D please....)
You can buy a simple hot shoe to pc sync adapter for pennies.
Or with an optocoupler to protect against the voltage of the strobes for a few pennies more.
If I were a terrible cynic, I'd suspect you were just trying to bluster up a justification for having bought the 50D at the wrong time. Assuming that's not bluster too.
Re: Another 60D non-buyer
Out of interest, what do you find is worse on the 50D than the 40D?
likely buyer for the same reasons you don't like it.
I also consider myself an abuser of camera bodies, and some of the same points you list as negatives look very much like positives to me, perhaps due to a different use-case. You're probably right that you're NOT the target market for this camera, and Canon want you to buy the 7D instead, but I still think think some of your objections are spurious.
Body strength: If you truly drop your camera often enough that you're worried about breaking the body, and you take yourself even half seriously as a photographer, your budget for replacing damaged lenses must be phenomenal...
Swivel screen: may be an insta-break if you're into dropping your camera, or grabbing it by whatever protrusion is nearest, but if you think a swivel screen is such a bad idea, you don't have to use it that way - it's very unlikely to break when it's folded in!
From my POV (pun intended) a swivel screen would be an incredible boon for composition in difficult spaces, and the option to have it LCD-inwards protects the LCD from scratches the rest of the time when composing through the viewfinder.
And while I can see that many photographers couldn't care less about a little extra weight or bulk, to me a lighter (and smaller) body means I can take it places where taking another camera increases personal risk or at the very least discomfort; down canyons, up mountains and rock climbs, travelling out of the way places. Steel chassis/plastic body construction is plenty strong enough for me, and I've been shooting outdoor activities since before the label "extreme" was applied to anything and everything, back when camera religion was as much KR64 vs Velvia as Nikon vs Canon. The only reason I use an entry-level body is size and weight, this being equal I would have bought a high-level prosumer camera years ago.
Sounds all very whizzy but....
I would save the money and spend it on Lenses instead, I have a 400d and a 50d. The 50d body makes the 400d feel like a fisher price camera and it was well worth the money.
I think that it says something that they have compromised professional requirements (fps) for consumer requirements (in camera effects) and as such will not be upgrading. I was hoping that the full frame sensors such as the 5d Mk II would be starting to filter down into the lower cameras but hey ho.
Personally, though no one looking to buy a camera is going to listen, if I were in the market for a DSLR I would buy an older model and instead spend a bucket load on courses and days out to take pictures.
"I would buy an older model.."
You're quite right, of course, but you can't blame the manufacturers for trying. After all, golf club manufacturers have been getting rich for decades persuading fat Americans that their game would improve if only they bought a set with the head/shaft/grip made of the latest material, designed on the latest computer and endorsed by the latest hero.
Come to think of it, there must be some good s/h bargains to be had by now, both clubs and cameras...
Seems ok to me....
The 60D seems ok to me other the special effect gimmics. Thats got me baffled.
Interesting hearing the two sides of the story about camera body construction , size and weight.
I've got a 450D and 5D MKII and sympathise to the arguments. The 5D MKII full frame sensor and solid construction is obviously great but at times you just dont want to carry the weight and bulk around and the 450D is a blessing.
Also the full size sensor of the 5D is double edge sword. Yes it is very good and you can give you quite dramatic shallow depth of field. The downside of course is if you dont want shallow depth of field it becomes problematic. Found macro photography a bit of pain with the 5D for that reason. Of course the full frame is great for landscapes but then you loose out when you need to shoot telephoto. Plus as another poster pointed out, there are some pretty good wide angle lense now for cropped sensors.
Think though when its time to upgrade, I will move from the 450D to 600D rather than the 50D/60D.
- Crawling from the Wreckage Want a more fuel efficient car? Then redesign it – here's how
- Apple SILENCES Bose, YANKS headphones from stores
- Nobody wants to look at your boobs: Snapchat gets ads 'that interest you'
- TV Review Doctor Who's Flatline: Cool monsters, yes, but utterly limp subplots
- Vid NASA eyeballs SOLAR HEAT BOMBS, MINI-TORNADOES and NANOFLARES on Sun