Official Canon EOS 60D User Thread Part I

[CPhotography]

So why are you interested in 60D? Which feature/s?

Hmm actually I'm likely to go over to canon so I'm looking at the 60D. Think it would be pretty good for me to start with if possible. Have been using quite a number of cameras and personally don't find a need for the swivel screen, so I'm pretty okay with everything else on the 60D.

 

[postal]

Thanks for your advice! Postal!

As most ppl here, im also toying with either the 24-105 or the 24-70, most consideration wiil be the F-stops, but i will say the 105 with the IS will be very attractive! Curious, how does the 24-105 perform under low light? meaning which type of condition will be the minimum that the 24-105 can take before flashes has to be used? Sorry mate, still newbie trying to learn! Many thanks! Clubsnap is really the best site ard! YAh! : )

24-105 got IS and 24-70 got no IS... so in terms of low light situation, I would say both are about the same capability... 24-70 got F/2.8 so u got the bokeh effect... but 105 mm at F/4 bokeh effect is not bad either...

About the minimum... it depends on how high ISO u can accept... For me I am ok with ISO 3200... can be uploaded to facebook, clubsnap or print in 4R... but cannot be used as my desktop wallpaper...

And yeah... clubsnap can learnt tons of stuff... learn a lot from here... :-D

Hey, I just got an EOS 60D and there seem to be some problems with it~
This is the first time I'm using a DSLR and so if the problems are caused by some settings I have set, do let me know~
____________________
1. In Av mode in a dark enviroment, but not pitch black, without the flash, shutter speed is approx 1 second. When I push the flash button, which results in the flash firing, the shutter speed does not change, causing a severly over exposed picture. How come?
Edit*~~~~
Not just in a dark enviroment, but in any enviroment, when I turn on flash in Av mode, the shutter speed won't change! Help!
Edit Edit*~~~~
I am gonna double post this as a new thread, is that ok? I kinda, I mean, very urgently need the answer!!

Go to C.Fn 1: Exposure... page 7... is Flash sync. speed in Av mode... think u can find your answer from there...

 

[snagy23]

Thank you Postal,

Another great advice! Yup, with what you say i think i will go with the 24-105, yes heard of the 24-70 is almost 1kg, which is alot of weight carrying it ard, was looking for a walk abt lens which also can take along when overseas!
So now is time to save up and get a 2nd hand pc!

 

[cityhunter66]

Hmm actually I'm likely to go over to canon so I'm looking at the 60D. Think it would be pretty good for me to start with if possible. Have been using quite a number of cameras and personally don't find a need for the swivel screen, so I'm pretty okay with everything else on the 60D.

If no need swivel screen maybe should look at 50D or 550D? Have you considered these 2? Maybe can save a bit...550D is selling for abt 900+ in BNS, about 400 lesser than 60D. Just a thought

 

[nightpiper]

Erm... I am using 24-105 mm... 24-70 is really heavy for my traveling purpose... and it has a much shorter range as well... I find 24-105 is great for candid shots and general purpose photography...

But then u will need to pair it up with a ultra wide angle... if not u will have problems taking shots of interiors or buildings and in some cases landscape...

BTW, the 17-55, 15-85 (I think) and 10-22 are L quality... but they cannot put a red ring on it as it is EF-S... do consider the above 3 lenses as well... :-D

I beg to differ. Those EFs zooms r not of L quality (optically). I've used L lenses before & the tonality is actually better. But still they r very good already considering that they r not L. I tried 70-200L F2.8 vs 100mm F2.8, the L zoom has nicer tones whereas the prime lacks a little of that, but wins in the sharpness dept.

Between 24-105 & 24-70, personally i wudn't touch the 24-105, too soft for my taste. Couple that with a crop sensor DSLR, no need to say liao, crop DSLR is even more demanding on lenses than FF cousins. Considering the 24-70 is now barely resolving details from 21MP DSLRs, think the safer route is the EFs 17-55, not too ex & still gets the job done (barely again)

Canon needs to revamp the old lenses lineup really fast, they r producing so much more MP that their zooms r now struggling to keep up. :sweat: I see the 24-70 & 100-400 as "immediate attention"

 

[CPhotography]

Between 24-105 & 24-70, personally i wudn't touch the 24-105, too soft for my taste. Couple that with a crop sensor DSLR, no need to say liao, crop DSLR is even more demanding on lenses than FF cousins. Considering the 24-70 is now barely resolving details from 21MP DSLRs, think the safer route is the EFs 17-55, not too ex & still gets the job done (barely again)

Canon needs to revamp the old lenses lineup really fast, they r producing so much more MP that their zooms r now struggling to keep up. :sweat: I see the 24-70 & 100-400 as "immediate attention"

hey sorry I don't quite get you here. what's the problem with higher MP on cropped body and the 24-70L?

thanks!

 

[nightpiper]

hey sorry I don't quite get you here. what's the problem with higher MP on cropped body and the 24-70L?

thanks!

It not juz about the high MP on a crop body, its the crop itself posing the problem.

Having a smaller sensor automatically results in a need for higher resolution & contrast lens to resolve details. The 1.3x/ 1.5x/ 1.6x/ 1.7x r not some crop factors derived from "tikam". Many yrs ago when Canon made their 1st D30 3.3MP DSLR, the 1.6 factor is determined becos most of the lenses r still able to do their job well. Also Canon wud not like to be seen following behind Nikon D1 so 1.6 is a good compromise. This holds true for all other co. as well except for Oly, their HG & SHG lenses actually r designed to coup with this issue.

Now couple this problem with increase MP, what do u get? :sweat: :sweat: "DXO mark!!" (a whole load of S) HAHAHAHA!!

 

[CPhotography]

It not juz about the high MP on a crop body, its the crop itself posing the problem.

Having a smaller sensor automatically results in a need for higher resolution & contrast lens to resolve details. The 1.3x/ 1.5x/ 1.6x/ 1.7x r not some crop factors derived from "tikam". Many yrs ago when Canon made their 1st D30 3.3MP DSLR, the 1.6 factor is determined becos most of the lenses r still able to do their job well. Also Canon wud not like to be seen following behind Nikon D1 so 1.6 is a good compromise. This holds true for all other co. as well except for Oly, their HG & SHG lenses actually r designed to coup with this issue.

Now couple this problem with increase MP, what do u get? :sweat: :sweat: "DXO mark!!" (a whole load of S) HAHAHAHA!!

so having any lenses in market now on the crop body isn't very suitable? poor resolution? poor noise? sorry a little confused

 

[kerinong]

I am currently using a 400D and am thinking of changing to a 60D..

Would i expect a lot of change (in terms of quality pictures) with a 60D? What are the cons, really?

 

[nightpiper]

so having any lenses in market now on the crop body isn't very suitable? poor resolution? poor noise? sorry a little confused

Let see if i can put it a little easier.

All lenses irregardless of brand, have a finite resolution & contrast. To simplify things, lets juz say Canon uses a resolution chart at 3m distance with a "passing" mark of 50 line pairs per mm. Lens A resolves 85 lp/mm, Lens B resolves 65 lp/mm, Lens C resolves 55 lp/mm & Lens D resolves 40 lp/mm. Lets also assume these r 35mm FF lenses.

Put a person at 3m, lens A, B & C get to resolve down to the eye lashes. Lens D will look blurry (but good for as a beginner kit lens).

Move this person away to 5m, maybe lens A & B can resolve those eye lashes

Move further to 7m, only lens A can pull it off


When these lenses r used on a crop body, in order to have the same FOV as 35mm, u need to move further away or use a wider angle lens. Thus by having a crop body, automatically this format requires higher resolution & contrast lenses to make up for the extra distance or wider angle needed.

Now u get what i mean? The problem escalates when MP increases as well. So ATM the 17-55 F2.8 EFs lens is like the 55 lp/mm lens, at border line passing mark, anything with finer details it tends to struggle. But put a 70-200 F2.8 MKII or a prime 50 F1.4, no issue at all. Only qn left is... r those focal length useful to ur shooting style/needs?


Hope this is clear enuf to understand

 

[nightpiper]

I am currently using a 400D and am thinking of changing to a 60D..

Would i expect a lot of change (in terms of quality pictures) with a 60D? What are the cons, really?

The only cons i see is pocket no money :bsmilie::bsmilie:

60D is better than 400D/450D in every way u look at it. IQ wise unless u have a IPS monitor to see more colours, otherwise the IQ improvement not so obvious (but still there)

 

[nightpiper]

To make my point on lens resolution even clearer, take a look at this pic

It was shot with a 100mm F2.8 lens wide open at F2.8 with 60D


Now take a closer look at 100% crop

The finer details can still be seen even though its nearer to the edge esp the chain of the bin & the grass at the foot of the lamp post. But if this shot was taken with the 17-55mm F2.8, i can't even see the bin proper even if its juz 5m away.

Bottom line is, u need to invest in higher quality lenses for crop sensors & prepare for the MP race. :sweat: More lenses will be revamped as time goes by. The immediate ones i feel is the 24-70 & 100-400 zoom. Primes r still on the safe side

 

[doodah]

When these lenses r used on a crop body, in order to have the same FOV as 35mm, u need to move further away or use a wider angle lens. Thus by having a crop body, automatically this format requires higher resolution & contrast lenses to make up for the extra distance or wider angle needed.

The following two scenarios are identical:
APS-C sensor: f= 50 mm, f/2.8, ISO 100, 1/50 sec
35 mm sensor: f = 80 mm, f/4.5, ISO 250, 1/50 sec

Assuming infinite resolution on both sensors, the above settings with the same framing will produce IDENTICAL images on either sensor format. So, focal length of the lens does not come into the equation per se.

The issue lies entirely in sensor demands. In any case, this should not be of any concern to CPhotography who is currently using an APS-C camera body.

It was shot with a 100mm F2.8 lens wide open at F2.8 with 60D.

The finer details can still be seen even though its nearer to the edge esp the chain of the bin & the grass at the foot of the lamp post. But if this shot was taken with the 17-55mm F2.8, i can't even see the bin proper even if its juz 5m away.

Really? Depending on the focal length, subject distance and framing, you should be able to replicate the scene with the 17-55 lens with the same resolution. According to this analysis of the 100 mm IS macro lens compared to this one of the 17-55 IS lens, there should not be any issue.

The 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens is supposed to be sharp from corner to corner at all focal lengths. But Canon QC is AWFUL and you need to cherry pick a good copy. I went through 4 copies at Cathay Photo and only the last copy I tested was able to meet this requirement.

So, if you find your copy of 17-55 IS lens is not able to produce sharp corners, please send it to Canon for servicing. They'll of course first try to convince you the lens is performing within spec... Sigh...

Note to CPhotography: that will be my chief gripe against Canon. They have pretty awful QC. Some claim Nikon is much better and others say it's just as bad. I won't know 'cos I have never tested the grass on the other side of the fence.

 

[shane901117]

just to share~
taken with my kit lens

 

[nightpiper]

The following two scenarios are identical:
APS-C sensor: f= 50 mm, f/2.8, ISO 100, 1/50 sec
35 mm sensor: f = 80 mm, f/4.5, ISO 250, 1/50 sec

Assuming infinite resolution on both sensors, the above settings with the same framing will produce IDENTICAL images on either sensor format. So, focal length of the lens does not come into the equation per se.

The issue lies entirely in sensor demands. In any case, this should not be of any concern to CPhotography who is currently using an APS-C camera body.

Nope. Lenses have a finite resolution so lets not kid ourselves here. U have a 50mm lens for 35mm, standing at a fix distance, the scene has a certain framing. Put the same 50mm on a crop body, u need to move further away to achieve the equiv FOV. If this distance goes beyond the threshold of the 50mm, the scene will not have refine details. Also due to the deeper DOF, the 2 identical scenes with the same 50mm will also look a little diff. No use assuming the lens has no drop off, etc etc becos when u actually use it in real life, this is what u really get. Again lets not kid ourselves here.

Really? Depending on the focal length, subject distance and framing, you should be able to replicate the scene with the 17-55 lens with the same resolution. According to this analysis of the 100 mm IS macro lens compared to this one of the 17-55 IS lens, there should not be any issue.

The 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens is supposed to be sharp from corner to corner at all focal lengths. But Canon QC is AWFUL and you need to cherry pick a good copy. I went through 4 copies at Cathay Photo and only the last copy I tested was able to meet this requirement.

So, if you find your copy of 17-55 IS lens is not able to produce sharp corners, please send it to Canon for servicing. They'll of course first try to convince you the lens is performing within spec... Sigh...

Note to CPhotography: that will be my chief gripe against Canon. They have pretty awful QC. Some claim Nikon is much better and others say it's just as bad. I won't know 'cos I have never tested the grass on the other side of the fence.

Again disagree. Equiv framing yes, but resolution definitely no, test or no test, when u used it u'll understand better. But if u believe in what u said then, i'm not going to try convince u otherwise. I've both lenses & i used them extensively for 2 yrs already, so i know how they behave. The 17-55 was very good at the beginning but after extensive use, the calibration tends to drift. Even if u send it to CSC, they can't fix the wear from the barrel unless u want to replace the whole thing. Construction is where the L lenses win big time, performance is much more consistent over time.

 

[cookiestar84]

Again disagree. Equiv framing yes, but resolution definitely no, test or no test, when u used it u'll understand better. But if u believe in what u said then, i'm not going to try convince u otherwise. I've both lenses & i used them extensively for 2 yrs already, so i know how they behave. The 17-55 was very good at the beginning but after extensive use, the calibration tends to drift. Even if u send it to CSC, they can't fix the wear from the barrel unless u want to replace the whole thing. Construction is where the L lenses win big time, performance is much more consistent over time.

Agree to some extend here. I own a 17-55mm and after 1year of usage, the "blurness" starts to appear. I had thus sent it for servicing today. But my i know what to check and how to check with my camera if the servicing is ok or not. Pardon my noob qns here. :sweat:

 

[nightpiper]

Agree to some extend here. I own a 17-55mm and after 1year of usage, the "blurness" starts to appear. I had thus sent it for servicing today. But my i know what to check and how to check with my camera if the servicing is ok or not. Pardon my noob qns here. :sweat:

Check with some old pics u shot when u 1st had the lens :lovegrin: Not juz blurness, but corners r affected as well

 

[cookiestar84]

Check with some old pics u shot when u 1st had the lens :lovegrin: Not juz blurness, but corners r affected as well

OK thanks. i rephrase my qns abit, May i know what and how to check AT THE SPOT when i collect my lens nxt wk... :bsmilie: thnx in advance.

 

[doodah]

U have a 50mm lens for 35mm, standing at a fix distance, the scene has a certain framing. Put the same 50mm on a crop body, u need to move further away to achieve the equiv FOV. If this distance goes beyond the threshold of the 50mm, the scene will not have refine details.

OK. I see where you're coming from. But I am arguing using a different focal length.

Also due to the deeper DOF, the 2 identical scenes with the same 50mm will also look a little diff.

Actually, the different DOF can be compensated for by stopping the lens mounted on a FF camera. But I agree the very act of stopping down changes the lens optical performance. However, like I said, I am looking at the use of different focal length lenses.

BTW, here is a direct comparison with REAL images using the same lens mounted on different cameras (21 MP 1Ds3 vs 18 MP 7D vs 15 MP 500D). And I quote:

"In terms of detail, the results are quite obvious. The 7D is slightly better than the 500D (and other 15 or 12 megapixel cameras), but it captures less detail than the 1DsIII, even though the difference is small. These are 100% crop from the RAW files; the images of the 7D and 500D have been upsampled to 21 megapixels."

I've both lenses & i used them extensively for 2 yrs already, so i know how they behave.

Let's see... I've used a 100 mm macro lens for >6 years (before I changed to the HIS version recently) and the 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens for 4 years (two copies... first copy was sold when I needed money urgently but I re-bought the lens after 3 months 'cos I missed it too much). Does that count for anything?

The 17-55 was very good at the beginning but after extensive use, the calibration tends to drift. Even if u send it to CSC, they can't fix the wear from the barrel unless u want to replace the whole thing. Construction is where the L lenses win big time, performance is much more consistent over time.

No arguments here. But I did not experience any optical degradation with my 17-55 IS (having used 2nd copy for 3 years).

 

[nightpiper]

OK. I see where you're coming from. But I am arguing using a different focal length.

Let's see... I've used a 100 mm macro lens for >6 years (before I changed to the HIS version recently) and the 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens for 4 years (two copies... first copy was sold when I needed money urgently but I re-bought the lens after 3 months 'cos I missed it too much). Does that count for anything?

No arguments here. But I did not experience any optical degradation with my 17-55 IS (having used 2nd copy for 3 years).

Looks like we're talking about different things here. I was explaining why the crop sensor format automatically requires higher rez & contrast lens. Whereas the usage of different FL is a whole subjective discussion altogether.

Frankly after reading ur history of usage with the 100mm, i was even more surprise by ur comment earlier. The 17-55 is a great lens, i'm still holding on to mine & intend to send it in for recalibration probably b4 xmas this yr. But its not the super duper type of lens one wud hope for, however i wud still highly recommend it to anyone who uses a 1.6 crop body.

:cheers:

(ps. maybe one day after calibration, i shud do a mini comparison with both lenses to show u what i observed)