Camera Body Discussion
 

Hello all,

I'm shooting a Canon Rebel XSI (450) for a few years now and i'm wondering if it's worth the extra couple hundred dollars to upgrade to a 60D.

I have some decent lenses but we're talking about body here now. It's old enough where it doesn't do video, which isn't a concern for me... but might be nice to have? I donno.

Can anybody weigh the pros / cons of said purchase?

Thanks all :tiphat:

The 60D has a swivel screen, some new polycarbonate body, and a little bigger in size compared to the Rebel cameras.

It has the same sensor as a 7D.

I think it's a good option for an upgrade. Personally, I can live without a swivel screen so I'd rather save a little and get a 7D, or save a little money and get a T3i, but that's just me.

Whatever you choose, it's an upgrade from the XSi.

What do you expect to get from the upgrade?

I know you mentioned that you have decent lenses? Could you tell us what lenses?


+1

I have a 60D and have to say I've loved it ever since I got it. Granted I'm no professional but I'd have to say that it does take some great pictures. Also I'm not sure if you meant the 60D or your current camera can't take video. If you meant the 60D I can tell you you're mistaken. It doesn't seem to like high speed action video (ie. race cars on track) but if it's anything slower the video is just fine.

I'm not sure what to expect... but I would like to have sharper images out of the camera with less Photoshop sharpening.

Sure!!
- EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
- EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS
- EF 50mm f/1.4

Instead of getting a new camera, sell your 18-55 and 70-300, and buy either a Canon 17-55 f/2.8 or a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Those lenses will give you awesome pictures. You can also buy a used Canon 70-200 f/4 for about $500. That lens will blow away your 70-300.

If you are at the point where you've learned how everything on the camera works, then the simple answer is yes, it's worth the upgrade. The camera can only do so much though, and a lot of it has to do with how you take a photo. If you're still if-y about the inner workings of a DSLR and haven't mastered it yet, then it's not worth it at this point. Your pictures will be just as bad/good with the more expensive camera. My advice is, don't upgrade until you've squeezed everything out of your current camera. Something like getting sharper pictures for example, can be fixed by using a tripod & a low ISO.

Low ISO+tripod=sharper pics.
http://architekphotography.smugmug.c.../L/cmike-L.jpg

Your lens line-up are just fine for the kind of stuff you probably shoot. A 17-55mm f/2.8 is a great lens, but not worth the pricetag for what you'll use it for. What makes it good is its ability to shoot in low light situtations and having 2.8 max aperture throughout the zoom range. It won't automatically make your pictures any better than the 18-55mm kit lens. If you're taking pics of mostly stationary objects, you probably couldn't tell either pics apart if shot correctly.

I KNOW i was looking at that lens and considering it until i saw the $1100 price tag on it *cough.

If you'd like to see what sort of pictures i've been taking lately...
- here's an idea of my photog skills and sharpness of said lenses: Supercar Pic Thread.

So the feeling i'm getting is... nobody can really justify the price of the 60D but just MAYBE it could be nice to have a better than kit lens for walking around.

Any more input is appreciated, I'm still undecided.

Your pics look great. You seem to know what you're doing. The only thing that needs a bit of work is composition. It's not that your pics aren't great shots, it just feels ordinary, if you know what I mean. I'm guilty of doing the same thing. Someone wise once told me an interesting shot is better than a technically perfect shot. I think that's what you should aim for and decide on the equipment that would make getting that shot easier. If having a camera with more megapixels and better low light capability help you get that shot easier, then go for it. You won't regret it. That's really the fundamental notion that separates the entry level from the pro's. The better cameras makes getting the shot easier and less time consuming. If you don't have a speedlight/flash/strobe, I would invest in that instead. Proper lighting is more important above anything else.

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is very comparable to Canon 17-55. It will cost you about $350-$400. I had it for about a year and I loved it.

Camera Bodies
 

1) You will get a bit sharper images from the better sensor IF your technique is good--otherwise won't make a noticeable difference for the type of shots you have posted.

2) The major advantages of a wider aperture lens are a) Shooting in dimmer light. b) Ability to throw backgrounds more out of focus.

3) There are techniques in Photoshop (and even Photoshop Elements), with or without extra plug-ins from non-Adobecompanies, that let you quite satisfactorily mimic selective focus.

4) Adding--and using!--a tripod will make more difference to your sharpness than a new camera body. Watch the pros shoot.

The 60D has much better high ISO due to the lack of pattern noise, so if you shoot,low light + no flash, it will be a big improvement (supports ISO 6400).

Otherwise the main differences are more (better) controls (the 7D is even better), faster fps for sports/action, much better Autofocus, much better LCD, top LCD, and much brighter viewfinder.

Basically, the more you shoot action/sports or low natural light, the more you will gain. And if you shoot manual/adjust settings a lot, you will gain more rapid control.