Canon EOS 60D Review

[Dave Johnston]

Nice review indeed. It is kind of sad to see the end of the xxD series. At least for ME its the end. I am sure many users will discover the 60D and its successors and be amazed and happy with what they have to offer. I just can

[Trowski]

I experimented with a 60D at Best Buy a few weeks ago. I think a lot of the criticism the camera received has been unjustified. It was solidly built even though it wasn

[Daniel Browning]

I believe too many people were expecting a 7D for a 50D price.

Agreed.

That being said, I also wonder why some 50D features are missing from the 60D.

I think the marketing department wanted to increase the gap between it and the 7D. If they had kept all the 50D features, then it would have gotten close enough to lose a few of those higher-margin 7D sales.

The most puzzling is the loss of the AF micro-adjustment. I'm guessing Canon felt that most Rebel-type users won't understand this feature, I don't see how including it could hurt, or be very costly, (since it seems to be done in software,) though I could be wrong.

It's definitely not hurtful or costly - they removed it just to have another carrot to dangle from the 7D. It's that way with a lot of features. Everybody does it. Nikon added the very best autofocus to their $1500 body, whereas Canon saves it for the $4,000+ crowd. Canon puts a full 21 MP in their $2,500 body, while Nikon saves it for the $7,000+ body. Both companies are just playing with the features and prices arbitrarily. One thinks we're dumb enough to pay thousands extra for pixels (Nikon), the other thinks we're dumb enough to pay thousands extra for build/autofocus/etc. (Canon).


They need to choose some sort of method to extract the highest margin possible; otherwise the people who can afford the D3x would just buy a D300, and all that profit (and money for R&D) would be left on the table. Without that, there would be less money for the low-end cameras, so in a way, this demarkation helps everybody. But it mostly helps the people who's beliefs are the opposite of the company. For example, if you believe pixel count is hugely valuable and worth paying 3 times more for, then you should definitely shoot Canon, because they think pixels are so worthless that they'll put the highest pixel count in one of their cheapest bodies (5D2). But if you don't really care about pixels and are more interested in top-flight autofocus, FPS, pro build, weather sealing, etc., Canon is not for you. They'll charge you an arm and a leg for 1D or 1Ds series. Nikon, however, will give you all of that for much cheaper -- you just can't have the pixel count.

[Jon Ruyle]

But if you don't really care about pixels and are more interested in top-flight autofocus, FPS, pro build, weather sealing, etc., Canon is not for you.

I wish someone told me that before I dropped all those thousands on canon lenses []


Actually, I'm not that in to FPS or pro build. But I would be willing to pay through the nose for a "top flight af". Not through *both* nostrils, though. An extra $1 or $2K would be okay. But I'm not going to drop 6K on a body. I'm just not.

[Daniel Browning]

I think the 7D signals a small change in strategy for Canon. It used to be all or nothing -- full pro 45-point AF or the low end stuff. The 7D adds something in the middle for a very cheap price (relatively speaking). It

[Jon Ruyle]

I have the same hope. It makes sense... the pros are still going to want the 1D autofocus, so why not kick it up a notch for us full frame mortals? Well, at least it makes sense to me

[neuroanatomist]

Makes sense - let's just hope that they don't decide us non-pros don't need AFMA on the 5DIII... [:S]