Canon Announces EOS 60D Digital SLR Camera

[Derek]

Well I just saw the 60D selling for 1499 Canadian with a kit lens in the current Future Shop flyer; I've seen the 7D bodygo on sale for 1499 Canadian, so this seems like a cruel joke.

[JJphoto]

Well I just saw the 60D selling for 1499 Canadian with a kit lens in the current Future Shop flyer; I've seen the 7D bodygo on sale for 1499 Canadian, so this seems like a cruel joke.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

the possible lowest price I could find on ebay from a Canon authorized dealer for a 7D was $1290(well I have ordered some of my stuff from them including my 7D and 300mm 2.8,) before July 31th. so the price of 60D will drop pretty soon.


BTW, I'm think if you need a camera around this price range and don't shoot a lot of fast moving subject, why not get a 5DI instead? since Canon doesn't want to make a FF body for consumer at this time.

[cfnz]

The 60D is a lot better: only f/6.8 and faster are completely camera-limited. Between f/6.8 and f/19, the resolution is limited by a combination of lens and camera. Anything slower than f/19 is fully camera limited.

Yes and yes. Unless you see some pixel-leveldegradation, it means your
camera is holding back your lens. In other words, your camera has more
detail and resolution to offer, but your camera is too dull to capture
all of it.

Now, I'm confused. You've said 'camera' a lot in the above quotes, should one of the words in bold say lens in each quote? Also, where did f/19 come into the equation? I'm still trying to wrap my head around this DLA concept.

[scalesusa]

As has been noted before, the 7D is the replacement for the 50d. This left no place for a $1400 XXD. Canon delayed for a extra year before deciding to position a new camera at the D90 price point. Then, they dropped some features along with the price.


The main missing feature is the micro focus adjustment, they were not thinking clearly here.


Most of their sales comes from places like best buy and Walmart or other big box stores. They clearly wanted to position a camera in that price range. Most who buy one will be looking at price, only a few are really knowledgeable about cameras. They will see 18mp for the same price as Nikon 16mp, and Canon marketing thinks that will convince them.

[Daniel Browning]

Now, I'm confused. You've said 'camera' a lot in the above quotes, should one of the words in bold say lens in each quote?

Yes, thanks for catching that. It should say "Anything slower than f/19 is fullylenslimited" and "yourlenshas more detail and resolution to offer".

Also, where did f/19 come into the equation?

f/19 is the point at which pixels smaller than the 60D's pixels will yeild no benefit. So if you only shoot at f/19, resolution will not get any better than what you can get with the 60D. However, if you shoot at faster f-numbers (like f/16, f/11, f/8, etc.), then future cameras will provide more resolution.

[cfnz]

Thanks Daniel, I guess I did understand it more than I initially thought.

[canoli]

yikes - that means I've been thinking about DLA completely wrong - the truth is a lower f/stop is the better body spec, right?


So camera sensors limit rez below a certain aperture, and lenses limit rez above a certain aperture...that means the only diffraction-free apertures are between those 2 limits. Is that the right way to think about it? And as the f/stop spec on a body comes down, the wider that range gets?


As an aside, we are talking 100% pixel views here, right? So maybe the effect has little, if any, real-world significance? (I don't mean to suggest it's irrelevant and I'd still like to understand it)


Sorry, I'm like a 50D sensor I guess - dense! I have a bad feeling I've still got it all balled up. Any help will be greatly appreciated...thanks!

[Jon Ruyle]

The effect of diffraction on a picture is simple. Each point of light passing through the lens turns into a disc. The overall effect of this is to blur the picture. The bigger the disc, the more blurry the picture is. This happens with all lenses, but a bigger aperture makes a smaller disc (sharper picture). DLA is the f number at which the size of the disc equals the size of a pixel.

So camera sensors limit rez below a certain aperture, and lenses limit rez above a certain aperture...that means the only diffraction-free apertures are between those 2 limits. Is that the right way to think about it?

I would think about it like this: 1) f number limits resolution. The smaller the f number, the higher the resolution you can have. 2) Sensor limits resolution. The more megapixles, the higher the resolution. 3) Your pictures resolution will be limited by the worse of these two limits 4) DLA is where these limits are the same. A higher resolution camera will be the equal of a larger aperture lens, and thus have a lower DLA.


There are no "diffraction free" apertures. Diffraction is always there, but in some cases it is small enough to be hidden by sensor resolution (blur discs are smaller than a pixel). Of course, higher resolution sensors reveal diffraction more often. Some people misunderstand and think higher resolution sensors "have more diffraction", but that is not true. (We all know that a higher resolution sensor can reveal more optical flaws in a lens, but that doesn't mean those flaws aren't there when using a low resolution sensor. Same idea here.)

So maybe the effect has little, if any, real-world significance?

Often, diffraction is not an issue. But sometimes (notably for macros and landscapes) it can be the limiting factor in resolution.

[HiFiGuy1]

As has been noted before, the 7D is the replacement for the 50d. This left no place for a $1400 XXD. Canon delayed for a extra year before deciding to position a new camera at the D90 price point. Then, they dropped some features along with the price.


The main missing feature is the micro focus adjustment, they were not thinking clearly here.


Most of their sales comes from places like best buy and Walmart or other big box stores. They clearly wanted to position a camera in that price range. Most who buy one will be looking at price, only a few are really knowledgeable about cameras. They will see 18mp for the same price as Nikon 16mp, and Canon marketing thinks that will convince them.

The fact that they are competing with Nikon in this price/market segment should have convinced them to leave in the essentially free and already developed AF Microadjustment. As John pointed out, it is a feature almost entirely based in software, so including it wouldn't really increase the cost of manufacturing, and it would differentiate them in the market place. A bean counter somewhere should be made to walk the plank for this omission.

[canoli]

Thanks Jon - can't say I quite get the concept yet but I'm getting there, and I thank you for elaborating on the subject.