60D or 70D Buying advice

[Akash Nandi]

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!

 

[sujoyp]

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

 

[Akash Nandi]

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

 

[sujoyp]

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

 

[raja manuel]

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?

 

[nac]

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

 

[The Incinerator]

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.

 

[sujoyp]

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

 

[The Incinerator]

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

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

 

[sujoyp]

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

 

[Akash Nandi]

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)

 

[nac]

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?

 

[sujoyp]

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]

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.

 

[Akash Nandi]

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 - - -

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.

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.

 

[sujoyp]

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.

 

[srkmish]

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

 

[The Incinerator]

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.

 

[sujoyp]

@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

 

[nac]

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.