60D or 70D Buying advice

A

I plan on purchasing a new DSLR (my first one) and i'm quite confused between the 60D and the 70D.
60D costs 45K whereas 70D costs 80K .
Now my question is... how much of an upgrade is the 70D over the 60D ? Is it worth spending 35K more? what are the major differences? i don't mind spending the extra money if the camera is worth it.

Also, i was googling canon lenses... i found out there are various types of lenses like USM ... STM etc etc..
can someone kindly explain these as well...? (in details)

Thank you!

You better get the 70D coz even D7000 was superior to 60D and 60D was not a big success ...
70D is very good technologically ...its hybrid AF system is fast and accuate.

STM and USM are two type of lens focus motors ....difference is STM are silent and good for video recording ...or lens motor sound will be captured in video by microphone

A

sujoyp said:
You better get the 70D coz even D7000 was superior to 60D and 60D was not a big success ...
70D is very good technologically ...its hybrid AF system is fast and accuate.

STM and USM are two type of lens focus motors ....difference is STM are silent and good for video recording ...or lens motor sound will be captured in video by microphone

Are STM and USM the only 2 types ... cause i saw one without either of them written in description.
Also.... do all canon lenses support auto focus?
what happens when u compare 60D and 70D in term of value for money?... Is there any camera in between which has better features compared to 60D

Yes there is one more in canon... Its not the fast ultrasonic motor...its the normal motor which u get in cheap lens..there is no name for them
All canon lens autofocus..dont worry.

Value for money..you can check 700d and compare it to 70d...
For less price get nikon d7000 it will come between 60d and 70d

R

The question of whether the 60D or 70D is a better camera for you depends a lot on what you want to do with it. Also, if this is your first DSLR why are you jumping into the mid-level segment? Do you already have a lot of experience with entry-level DSLRs?

80k is lot of money, so take time and do a lot of research before buying.

Get a 600D for the start up and then move on to something like 7D or 6D later on, IMHO. If you are beginner even the 600D is a lot camera that will take time to get fully utilized.

- - - Updated - - -

The 700D is too expensive for what it does. It focuses faster with the STM lens in video and live view. But mind you only with the STM lens it focuses fast, with normal lens you will not notice anything. The STM lens is expensive too. And then all you will do is shoot 15 minutes of video,and frankly who shoots video with a DSLR or even use live view to focus, I was ignorant but now I know. If the feature came without a premium then may be. But spending over Rs 20K for an 18-55 STM and 700D over a 600D with dual lens 18-55/55-200 is an utter waste.

I think it purely depends on his ability to spend further ....If 80k is the final budget ...and he may not want to spend any more for at least 2-3 years then 600D + Tammy 17-50 2.8 + Tamron 70-300 VC USD/Sigma 90mm 2.8 macro + A bag+ tripod would be enough to start with.
If he wants to keep the body for long and keep getting lenses slowly then 70D/D7100 is great body

Another way is getting Nikon D7000 which cost between 600D and 70D around 45k

That 600D with the Tammys and accessories is a killer gear set for 80K.

I would have chosen the D7000 over the 700D anyday.

yes D7000 is still awesome....just the viewfinder itself is a lot of difference.

A

right you are!.. i'm still doing research.. i've been into photography for almost 7-8 years now and i feel i'm ready for the next level... hence the thought of going for 70D. i do a lot of bird photography... so i guess the buffer size of 70D along with its high burst rate would be useful! i basically click everything other than portraits. And another thing is... i probably wont buy another DSLR body again until the time this becomes unusable/obsolete... hence the large budget for the body.
However, if you guys think the 70D is hardly any better than the 700/600/650D... then obviously, it makes no sense to buy it.

PS : i havent used DSLRs much before. But since i'm not willing to buy another body for a pretty long time... i'm willing to spend the money.
Also, 1) how much of a difference in image quality is there between tamron/sigma and the canon lenses?
2) do the cheaper canon lenses have a poorer image quality? (consider same focal lengths) (not considering L series)

650D is obsolete, 700D is pretty much same as 650D. 600D is totally different from the above two, but the price difference is too much for 700D, IMO. But for that price, you can go for yesteryear high end entry level body like 60D or D7000. 70D do have some impressive upgrades, but don't know whether 30k price difference (predecessor 60D) justifies them. Only you can tell that, whether the upgrades really justifies your requirement/purpose for the money you spend.

Food for thought: 70D and D7100 costs pretty much same. Why Canon? and Why not Nikon?

if you want futureproof then its better to get 70D or D7100 ....a 3 yrs old model is already 3 yrs technologically old ...better get the latest body and keep getting lenses ...lenses are very costly ...when you will be getting a 70k lens then you may regret not spending the extra 20k on your body ...just think

I bought D7000 now coz I am not planning to use it for more than 3 yrs...and will definitely get a full frame or whatever new technology will bring at that time.

R

Akash Nandi said:
right you are!.. i'm still doing research.. i've been into photography for almost 7-8 years now and i feel i'm ready for the next level... hence the thought of going for 70D. i do a lot of bird photography... so i guess the buffer size of 70D along with its high burst rate would be useful!

Many people have managed to capture great photos of birds, even in flight, from cameras like the 550D. Since you are new to DSLRs and cannot be sure of exactly what feature you would want most until you actually have one in your hands, I would suggest you consider a less expensive model (like the 600D) and get a couple of years experience with it before deciding on a more advanced body. Remember, it is only your investment in lenses that holds value, the body depreciates quickly. Also, you may need a lot of other expensive accessories and if you are on a budget it would make sense to keep some funds aside for that.

A

nac said:
650D is obsolete, 700D is pretty much same as 650D. 600D is totally different from the above two, but the price difference is too much for 700D, IMO. But for that price, you can go for yesteryear high end entry level body like 60D or D7000. 70D do have some impressive upgrades, but don't know whether 30k price difference (predecessor 60D) justifies them. Only you can tell that, whether the upgrades really justifies your requirement/purpose for the money you spend.

Food for thought: 70D and D7100 costs pretty much same. Why Canon? and Why not Nikon?

the reason i'm not going for nikon d7100 is because of
a) buffer size of canon is much higher.
b) i kind of prefer the picture quality of canon. i sometimes feel that the nikon gives slightly more vivid photos. Its a personal opinion ofcourse!

there are obviously areas where d7100 beats the 70d ... low light for example!

- - - Updated - - -

sujoyp said:
if you want futureproof then its better to get 70D or D7100 ....a 3 yrs old model is already 3 yrs technologically old ...better get the latest body and keep getting lenses ...lenses are very costly ...when you will be getting a 70k lens then you may regret not spending the extra 20k on your body ...just think

I bought D7000 now coz I am not planning to use it for more than 3 yrs...and will definitely get a full frame or whatever new technology will bring at that time.

Raja Manuel said:
Many people have managed to capture great photos of birds, even in flight, from cameras like the 550D. Since you are new to DSLRs and cannot be sure of exactly what feature you would want most until you actually have one in your hands, I would suggest you consider a less expensive model (like the 600D) and get a couple of years experience with it before deciding on a more advanced body. Remember, it is only your investment in lenses that holds value, the body depreciates quickly. Also, you may need a lot of other expensive accessories and if you are on a budget it would make sense to keep some funds aside for that.

does the body really ever become obsolete? :/ Yes, in technical terms it may become so... but if i buy camera A with XYZ features, then camera A will perform those XYZ features in an uniform manner until the time it undergoes mechanical/senson failure... which if used/maintained properly, takes a more than a decade right?

Yes, on what sujoy said, upgrading to a full frame camera later on obviously makes great sense and that would indeed be a true upgrade.

yes body actually become obsolete ...why one will want to get a body with 2010 's ISO quality , obsoate focus system, old style of metering , when he can get all latest in his budget.

I would want my new DSLR to take clean shots at ISO 1600 ....can a D90 or D80 do it ...nope
I want superfast focus in low light ...can D90 do it ..nope compared to D7100
D7100 even can meter in color which a D90 cant

I am not saying D90 is bad ...I am just saying technology of body improves and body need to be replaced every 4 year ...but lens technology almost remain same...soo Lens need to be selected properly.

Akash Nandi said:
the reason i'm not going for nikon d7100 is because of
a) buffer size of canon is much higher.
b) i kind of prefer the picture quality of canon. i sometimes feel that the nikon gives slightly more vivid photos. Its a personal opinion ofcourse!

I kind of feel the opposite. I feel Canon pictures are more punchy and a lil oversaturated as compared to Nikon's natural colors. Nothing beats Fuji colors though. Its the best

Canon has one advantage,that is you can use the full frame lenses on the DX format cameras.Hence if you buy a 600D body and a L series lens you will still be able to use it on the DX format 600D/70D for now and later on when you move on to a FX format 6D or 5D! Invest in good Lens if you have plans to go FX format.

Though 700D/70D has a different but same base 18 mpx sensor as 600D/60D image quality is almost the same.

@inci thats not canon advantage but its general advantage with all DSLRs

Full frame DSLR can fit DX lenses but a circle will be around the picture
DX DSLR can use full frame lens without any issue

BTW FX lenses cost a lot...soo if FX is not in the wish list very soon then its not wise to spend heavily on FX lenses

Though you haven't used a DSLR much before, you seem like you know something and you have figured/ing out. I guess you are here just to smooth out those edges. So Nikon is out of picture.
60D vs 70D (42400 vs 79500)
VF - Wee little bigger coverage
Touch screen
2MP more
Better processor
More cross focus points
Impressive AF when using Live view (do you use Lv/record movies most of the time)
Wifi (and you can control using smartphone over wifi)
Slight better IQ
About 2fps faster
And there are AF micro adjustments, deeper bracketing.... and more.

All these costs about 37000/- You ask yourself, whether these are worth for your requirements. If you're not gonna use Lv or record video, than this dual pixel AF matters nothing.
What do you think? 60D+37k worth glass is something or 70D.

Yes thats right @ Sujoy.

I have read that the hybrid AF system in 70D makes it a much better dslr for video recording than other competitors

The advantage seems to me more targeted at wildlife/bird photography and video
2fps extra means a lot in wildlife and birding
bigger brighter viewfinder is also big advantage as you compose each shot using viewfinder only

more cross focus point and faster focusing is also big advantage for wildlife and birding mostly

A

how much difference does the image processor make?... i understand that the 60D has a digic 4 and the 70d has digic 5+.
is the difference notable?
About the increase in cross focus points... thats quite a big deal right... It should help in better framing i believe? Also, can someone explain the difference between nikon focus points and those of canons?

2MP is hardly any difference... i use a 8MP bridge now and i'm quite happy with 8 itself!

PS : i rarely take videos.

Definitely 5+ is better.
All the focus points in Canon are cross focus while Nikon does have more focus points but fewer are cross focus points. Raja shared this link, check out these video series for better understanding of Canon focusing system

70D have 19 AF points all cross type

Nikon D7100 have 51 AF points and 15 cross type ...framing is actually easier in D7100

70D
*www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-70d/ZTECH_AFPOINTS.jpg

60D
*i.stack.imgur.com/04T34.jpg

D7000
*4.bp.blogspot.com/-6FWW7vMBMWM/Ub-FLynx6gI/AAAAAAAABTs/ReVTWAdm9hQ/s400/D7000+AF+Sensors.jpg

D7100
*1.bp.blogspot.com/-DRWu2YmqHcg/UeNOnX0OtjI/AAAAAAAABaU/68Oz7X-Svf0/s400/Nikon+D7100+AF.jpg

My compact camera just have center focus. I don't have the luxury of pick the one I want. I have to recompose and shoot. I can understand the benefit of having focus points to pick. 70D pretty much cover the same space but with closer focus points than 60D. Does it make 70D better by huge margin? I don't know... @OP please don't mind. This kinda discussion will sure help you know/understand +/- and what you get/what you miss of the products. I am not against 70D or favouring 60D.

nac while framing you can select the right focus point ...like in portrait you can select the eyes or while shooting a bird you can select the bird ...thats an advantage

Yes, I get it. It's an advantage. Every little upgrade is an advantage (at least most of the time

). But how much better it is to have closer focus points? With 60D we can still pick one of those 9 focus points and shoot. 7D does have the same amount of focus points as 70D, better built, faster, more customizable, bigger and 100% VF and it's just around the corner. (Really I am not suggesting 7D here. Just that spending more money for the next level (7d) is justifiable better than the same range (60d).

d600, a full frame costs 110000, 70d costs about 71k and 7d costs about 83k. What will be the launching price 7d mark ii? I guess it's gonna cost as much low end FF

7D was the best birding DSLR till now ....nothings beats it....just that its ISO is very outdated now...and people dont like grains at ISO 1000 or ISO 1600 nowdays.

7DMKII will surely cost around 90k ...anyhow DX world is different ...people get DX for cheaper lenses and longer lenses...and fast burst speed at cheap ...
people like me shifting to FX will need to sell off there 4 out of 6 lenses ...then why will I bother at all

R

Whether cross-type AF points are an advantage or not depends on how you shoot. On my 600D I find the normal focus points a disadvantage particularly in low-light situations; in most normally lit situations they lock quickly and easily. Those who follow the compose-recompose method of framing also might not benefit from more cross-type AF points. I know a few D7000 users who have their cameras permanently set to centre point because they find that easier to handle, especially for event photography.
And just when we are drooling over the cross-type autofocus point along comes the double cross…

Raja Manuel said:
Those who follow the compose-recompose method of framing also might not benefit from more cross-type AF points. I know a few D7000 users who have their cameras permanently set to centre point because they find that easier to handle, especially for event photography.
And just when we are drooling over the cross-type autofocus point along comes the double cross…

May be they are old school, no offense meant. Something they are used to and feel comfortable using it though there is better/faster/easier way to do (at least claims to be)

"Learning something new is hard and forgetting the learned things are even more harder"

That's new to me. I haven't heard something like this exists

nac its not like that ...you cant imagine how frustated I was when my auto selection AF could not focus on a bird just front of me ..my all 39 AF points were confused ...and if I want to move around 39 AF points that theoretically good but practically not soo good
I just put my cam again on center AF point/single point AF and I got all correct AF in a second .
So after that incident I decided to use 39AF points in landscapes/portraits but single AF on birds

^ Oh! that was you he was talking about :rofl:

nac we always learn from experience..dont we

^ Very true. The more you use, more you know about your camera and you can effectively use its features. Give it some time. You can very well judge what to use when and where...
This I read very recently, may be today or yesterday... Its someones signature I think.
"Good judgement comes from experience and that experience comes from bad judgement"

A

sujoyp said:
7D was the best birding DSLR till now ....nothings beats it....just that its ISO is very outdated now...and people dont like grains at ISO 1000 or ISO 1600 nowdays.

7DMKII will surely cost around 90k ...anyhow DX world is different ...people get DX for cheaper lenses and longer lenses...and fast burst speed at cheap ...
people like me shifting to FX will need to sell off there 4 out of 6 lenses ...then why will I bother at all

7d m2 is bound to cost a lot more... rumors say it has 61 AF points combined with ISO performance close to 5d m3 =/ + dual digic 5

yes 7Dmk2 surely will have great AF like 5Dmk3 coz Nikon D7100 have D4 AF system

7d 2 may cost as much as 6d but I don't think it will cost as much as 5D 3. That's too much...

My speculation of 7d 2 spec:

70d's sensor
likely equipped with dual digic 5+, this will bump up burst a little
70d's dual AF with more focus points
touch screen but fixed
will inherit 7d's bigger 100% VF
better control over video (compared to 70d)
wifi, nfc
better battery
CF compatible

nac we are saying it will inherit AF system from 5Dmk3 and not price of 5dmk3

touch screen on a Pro body...I dont think so...I want many keys for every features...touch screen just for menu system

Oh! My mistake.
Since 650D, all the Canon DSLRs came with touch screen except 6D and they all are low end entry level and high end entry level models. (100D - 70D). May be you are right... May be Canon would think that touch will make things simpler when using live view. Most likely 7D2 will release this year and we will see what it brings.

7Dmk2 will be definitely big thing ...I still see people buy used 7D for 50k and its really good ....If I had canon gears I would have got a used 7D instead of new D7000

R

sujoyp said:
nac its not like that ...you cant imagine how frustated I was when my auto selection AF could not focus on a bird just front of me ..my all 39 AF points were confused ...and if I want to move around 39 AF points that theoretically good but practically not soo good
I just put my cam again on center AF point/single point AF and I got all correct AF in a second .
So after that incident I decided to use 39AF points in landscapes/portraits but single AF on birds

This is exactly it. It is the old rule about using 10% of the features 90% of the time. A larger number of AF points only introduce more and unnecessary complexity in most situations. Whenever I have used a D7000 I have kept it in centre-point focus (this is in event photography) and it worked fine for the situation. I suspect that we are not meant to use all 39 AF points at the same time. We will need to use them in groups. I would be glad to be proved wrong, though.

Raja ...39 af point really works fine at the time of portrait shots..or landscapes coz in portraits it automatically adds up with face detection and in landscapes or product shot it lock in quickly .
basically it locks on based on the contrast of the subject ...if scene is jumbled up or less in contrast then it gets confused

sujoyp said:
if scene is jumbled up or less in contrast then it gets confused

That's the same thing the speaker (on the video shared by Raja) said.

sorry I didnt saw the video...in office youtube is blocked

R

sujoyp said:
Raja ...39 af point really works fine at the time of portrait shots
..or landscapes coz in portraits it automatically adds up with face detection

Face detection with PDAF?

sujoyp said:
and in landscapes or product shot it lock in quickly .

When you shoot landscapes you require 39 AF points and let the camera decide what to focus on? Curious as to your shooting style; I would have thought landscapes are the area least likely to require many AF points.
Also, in what situations do you find the number of focus points determines how quickly focus locks?

raja it seems I mixed up my mobile AF and camera AF ...no my cam does not add up with face detection...but my mobile does that

yes in landscape photography I tend to focus on infinite mostly...that too f8-f16 ....why will I need focus point manually selected in that case ....the 39AF points automatically select any area in focus soo it locks in quickly...

I think while taking group photo, or in the garden where multiple flowers is to be kept in focus and landscape ....I use 39AF when I need multiple object in focus rather then just one...yes I dont use 39AF at 2.8 ....I use it more when I am at f8 and below.

Akash,
Check out this discussion, you may find it useful in making buying decision.

A

this discussion is turning out to be really helpful guys... learning quite a lot!

- - - Updated - - -

nac said:
Akash,
Check out this discussion, you may find it useful in making buying decision.

i'll check it out ASAP!

R

sujoyp said:
the 39AF points automatically select any area in focus soo it locks in quickly...

If an area is already in focus, why do you need the AF point to lock? This is circular reasoning.

sujoyp said:
I use 39AF when I need multiple object in focus rather then just one

How? The lens can only focus on one plane; anything before or behind that plane will appear in focus based on DOF, not autofocus points.

strange...I never thought about this ...then why do all bird photographers needs D300 51 AF system ....the reason must be good hit rate while clicking on burst or panning

R

A review of the D300 says the 51 point AF is a bit slow (when used in all 51 point auto mode), so it is possible that it is the burst speed (8 fps on a full frame body) that attracts the birders (which sort of corresponds with what I have heard from other birders). It is also possible that a large number of AF points gives greater flexibility in AF patterns. I don't know if that is of interest to birders; as far as I am aware the most complex AF systems are sought after by sports photographers, particularly those who cover fast moving team sports, but I don't know enough about this to be sure.
Or maybe they all bought a D300 because that is what every other birder has

if multiple AF point is useful for sports then it will be useful in birding too...birds are also fast moving objects...yes burst speed is a thing which attracts 7D and D300, D300s users ...but all of them have equaly fast AF system

I will read some articles about the need of multiple AF points.

A

Ok guys! i just got a new revised budget. 1.3L for body and lens
what do you think is the best possible combo?

^ You want to shoot action and don't want Nikon. And you know your choices... 60D vs 70D vs 7D. I hope you have done some research in the last three weeks. By now you know better what you want.
60D with kit lens costs little over 40k, you can save the rest for lenses and accessories.
70D, If you think/feel the features worth the extra go for it.
7D, semi pro body. Looks, feels like a pro. But 7D MK 2 likely too see it's announcement this year. Once that happens, value of 7D will drop a lot.
Take time to think and decide.

You think you will the features of 70D for the next two years. If not, go with 60D use it for two years. By then you know better as you have experienced, then you can decide whether you wanna/need to upgrade to 70D/7D MK 2.

1.3L is a bigg budget ...tell me what all you want to shoot ...lets make a good config for you

Even if you say everything ...most things can fit there...but a specific answer is much better

A

Things i'm going to shoot : wildlife (burst mode required... i click a lot of birds) , landscapes, Macro (lots of it), few portraits. Flash photography (mainly for flowers)..., I do the long exposure light trails at times too!

strict no no : product photography

LOL soo you have mentioned almost everything ...lets see

The big problem with wildlife is that it takes away most of your budget ....a canon 100-400 itself cost 1.1 lakh new and 75k used ...soo we will keep pro wildlife lens away from ur budget untill you learn the basics of wildlife photography.

70D+18-55 stm =75k
Tamron 70-300 VC USD = 25k
Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro lens = 22k
canon 50mm 1.8 = 6k

that makes 1.28 Lakh ....now all that without a bag, tripod, flash ....soo that way you have to sacrifice a lens for now or get a 60D

Canon 60D + kit = 44k
Tamron 70-300 VC USD = 25k
Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro lens = 22k
canon 50mm 1.8 = 6k
A good camera bag =5k
A good nissin flash =10k
A good tripod =8k

Still 10k left...we will think about it

with 10k you can get
canon 70-300 instead of tammy 70-300
canon flash instead of nissin flash
a better tripod which will last forever
replace kit lens with Tamron 17-50 f2.8

First decide on what body you want and better don't deploy all your money right away. Buy a DSLR with kit lens and use it for a while before buying any other lenses.

A

i'm still unsure about the body .... but for the lens kit...
How about this?

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens - 7600 ( wont this one alone be enough for macro...? ( I dunno much ) )
Canon EF 70-200 mm f/4L USM Lens - 56,635 OR Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens - 47K (which do you think is better... L lens without IS is usable? )
18-55 kit lens free

i dont think i'll need to buy an external flash right away and i also wont be needing the tripod just yet.... Bag.. i'm pretty sure i'll for if i buy locally

what are your thoughts on the above mentioned things???

Also, *www.flipkart.com/canon-ef-s-55-250...n+ef&ref=873b707f-1adb-4869-ba65-08853e516f14

Is this a good deal? why is priced so low? Does the image quality suffer???

I have that 55-250 its a good sharp lens for the money with great IS at 250mm,but yes you cant compare it a L series in anyway. At extreme lenghts it tends to make the image softer by a bit. Its great between 150mm and 200 mm though.Color reproduction is good too if not amazing.Its bright too.

FK quote for 55-250 seems to be on the expensive side. You can get it for around ~9k. I guess the prices of other lenses too are from FK. If so, they most likely to be more expensive than other places.

50mm f/1.8 is one of the best (may be "the best") VFM lens one can get. But it's not a macro lens, you can try macro with that lens using "reverse lens" technique. But there are some +/- in trying that. Read more about it, if you wanna try.
I have read people opting for Tamron 70-300 for ~25k rather than Canon 70-300. I don't know which one is best between the two.
Yes, IS matters a lot esp. for tele lens. And also check out third party lenses too, like Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. Just a food for thought.

ok nac and Inci have told you most things

1. canon 50mm dont have aperture ring...soo its almost difficult to use it revered for macro ...soo no you can not use it for macro purpose
2. 70-200 f4 L is a specilised lens and not for starters...and its not at all helpful in wildlife
3. Canon 70-300 is too expensive and overpriced ...better get Tamron 70-300 VC USD for 25k ...Canon 55-250 dont have USM or ultra sonic motor inside..so slow to focus then other two
4. Bag - get anything but from proper company...you dont want to keep your 1.3 lakh camera items in a 1k bag ...buy a good paded waterproof bag

Get those National Geographic Bags! Amazing.Costsvover 5K for the good ones.

People are discussing about 70D focusing issue in another forum. Here is the link... Check out this before deciding.