New Camera

[Redback]

We are considering a new camera for a pressie for our Nessie, at the moment she has a F828 Cybershot.

So with our budget we are looking at the Canon EOS 600D and 60D, are there any benifits going for the 60D over the 600D, she is not an expert photographer and isn't doing it as a job, she does do a lot of plant photos for her work in Horticulture lots of closeups and so on, is the extra $400 to $700 worth it for her.

We searched around and we can get the 600D for $550 without lenses and $830 with, the 60D ranges from $990 to $1300.

Please just coments on these two cameras;)

She has an old non dig EOS 500, the lenses fit these two cameras, which should be OK until she wants to get better lenses.

Baz.

[Yorkie]

i would ask this over in the overlander forum aswell, some pro piccie takers there that will have some advice. :)

[Tombie]

If its like the previous units (dont have time to look) then go the metal body over the composite.... 60D over 600D...

The Canon X0D series is semi-pro vs X00D which is enthusiast as a rule :cool:

My cameras are all XD, XD-MkII or X0D units and have never given me an issue.. I just wish I used them more..

Havent picked up my DSLRs in over 12 months :(

[Psimpson7]

60 is composite body too.

I have been doing a lot of research on those cameras recently and we have decided on the 60.

[Discovery-94]

Haha. tough one....!

In terms of technical differences 60D and 600D are pretty much identical.

Sensor size is identical (22.3x14.9mm)
so is sensor type and resolution (18Megapixels)

ISO is identical in range
both have in build flashes
and identical metering system
LCD is identical in size and resolution and both have tilt LCDs
both have live view for their identical HD movie recording

So where are the differences?

There are "small" differences in Viewfinder type (pentaprism vs pentamirror), viewfinder coverage (95% vs 96%), viewfinder magnification (0.85 vs 0.95)
which in the end do not really have an impact on the quality of the shots

More substantial differences are for example shutter speed range which is 30s - 1/4000s with the 600D and 30s - 1/8000s with the 60D
BUT 1/4000s is already a super fast shutter speed. the increase to 1/8000s would be mainly applicable to freezing fast action - say sports photography for example. could be interesting for nature photography in photographing flying birds, whereas you can do that with 1/4000s just as well.
another difference is the continuous burst speed which is almost 4 frames per sec for the 600D and just over 5 for the 60D
Again, a minimal difference unless you rely on getting that one extra shot per second - for example again in sports photography.

In my opinion these differences are absolutely minimal.
In this case I would personally go with the smaller (in size) one (which by the way is also newer than the 60D I believe) and rather put the extra $$ in either a macro lens or a set of close up extension tubes which go with virtually any lens (effect obviously varies with lens).

There. My 15cents. Good luck with your decision!

[mojo]

A couple of other differnces:

- The 60D will be bigger and heavier than the 600D, which could be a consideration.

- The 60D is also weather sealed against water and dust (probably why its heavier).

I went though this process a few years ago, and ended up bying the enthusiast camera (40D) over the beginer camera (450D). The extra money for me was probably not worth it - I don't think I'm "into" my photography enough for it to make a difference. Spending the extra cash on a good lense would have been a better option for me.

[Redback]

Thanks everyone, just the info I wanted, this is a secret chrissie present;)

So DON'T say anything Liam:p

I think we'll go for the 600D, she's not as serious photographer and differances are not much as pointed out by Discovery-94(thanks), she can buy some good lenses for her close up stuff.

Baz.

[Yorkie]

Thanks everyone, just the info I wanted, this is a secret chrissie present;)

So DON'T say anything Liam:p

I think we'll go for the 600D, she's not as serious photographer and differances are not much as pointed out by Discovery-94(thanks), she can buy some good lenses for her close up stuff.

Baz.

your secret is safe with me!, just remember to charge to battery before wrapping it. :D

[s7000]

For the use you're after, get the lesser camera and better lenses. The picture quality from the 600 to 60 is minimal. It's basically just camera size and build quality that change.

[dmdigital]

What s7000 said.

Whilst I'm a Nikon user as much as a Land Rover owner and don't use Canon, the 600D and 60D really aren't leaps forward in Canon's lower end range. That said I believe the 600D offers better value for money and you can then use that to get some better lenses. There is also an even cheaper EOS 1100D but this really isn't good value compared to what the 600D offers.

The Canon kit lenses offered as a deal with the camera bodies are IMO about the worst you can get - cheap, plastic and very clunky. Also the old EOS 500's lenses may not work on either body, just depends and it would pay to check.

[Psimpson7]

This site has some good reviews:

Canon EOS 60D Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos60d/default.asp)

the link above is for the 60, but they have all of them pretty much!

loads of reading material!

[Yorkshire_Jon]

The other difference between the two is design life. The 60D is designed to take more shots without failure. I cant remember the exact numbers but its something like X00D = 50,000 and ther X0D = 100,000 shots.

Personally Baz I reckon you'd be better off with the 600D series (given its for occasional use and not required for her job) and use the "spare" cash to put towards a 100mm F2.8 Macro lens - I have the L version and its soooooo sharp its amazin! The non-L equivelent also gets very good reviews.

J