Canon 60D+ML or 70D stock? What's your take? Which would you go for?

[ssnova]

I'm trying to decide.  It seems that a 60d with ML brings a lot to the table, such as setting exposure, 12800(unless I'm mistaken) ISO, and RAW video, among other things that I see valuable. 

However with the 70D you have AF supported with video, as well as the higher ISO supported and a perhaps a better sensor.  The price is quite close when the 70D comes on discounts.

What's your take?  Does the 70D really have anything on the 60D with ML?   I know everyone wishes there was ML on the 70d, but we're all assuming it'll take a good while before that happens.


Thanks for any input.

[1%]

ISO range and sensor will be better on the 70D... no clue how the modes and general usability will be when ported. Its still an SD camera though so you're not going to be getting much raw video.

[broch]

I have 60D. Based on
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/895|0/%28brand%29/Canon/%28appareil2%29/663|0/%28brand2%29/Canon

it seems that 60D + ML is better than 70D stock. However sooner or later 70D will get ML so, personally I would pick up 70D and wait.

On the other hand if this is an upgrade 60D > 70D then it is not worth it in my opinion

[ssnova]

Yeah I'm still on the fence, at first I was leaning more towards the 60D... but the more I think about it, perhaps I can wait for the 70D.

It's a shame that once again... Canon has limited video capture on it's stock product as they probably don't want it to compete against it's actual Camcorder line.  The recording to limited to only 4GB(file size, which would be short if it was HD)/28min(but that's low res SD) then creates a new file. 

Hopefully ML for 70D can fix these things. 

You guys think that a faster SDXC card will be released in the next year or so?  Perhaps UHS-"2"? 

*Also, anyone know if the 70D can do liveview monitoring output to a TV/small monitor like the 60D could? 

[darkstarr]

having moved from a 60d to a 6d, i would personally recommend to go 70d
i can never go back to 60d lol, unless shooting in broad day light

on the 70d you'd get a brand new dual pixel sensor, digic 5+ processor (as opposed to digic 4), 7 fps photo burst mode, better high ISO, video auto-focus, wifi (pretty useful for having clients view and rate pictures on a tablet after a shoot) etc

i would say goo for 70d, 60d raw you're not getting much resolution anyways (less than hd), no matter what sd card you buy.
70d specs say that its compatible with uhs-i cards, so im assuming its probably the same sd controller as the 6d, not the slower one of the 60d/rebel series, which would theoretically mean faster write speed for raw.

and according to canon website, yes 70d is capable of hdmi playback/monitoring like on the 60d:
Video Out Terminal
HDMI Type C (Switches automatically to suit the resolution)

Video output: 1080/60i, 1080/50i, 480/60p, 576/50p

*Switches automatically to 1, 2, 3, or 4 to suit the TV

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_70d#Specifications

[ssnova]

Thanks for chiming in darkstar.  I think I will hold out for the 70D.  In light of things I think I can probably wait too before getting one, seems like a decent upgrade from the 60D that may make it worthwhile, there's 60D kits out there that come with 2-3 lenses for about $1100(say... 18-55mm with a 55-250mm, which is decent...)... or I can get the 70D for $1249 with the STM 18-55mm... and get the 55-250mm STM later, down the road. 

Seems like a decent investment as the product is more progressive, haha, just gotta wait for ML to be released on it to enable some more cool features.

[TomJ]

Had the 60D, sold it and went down to T4i with ML. Now on 70D, no ML, but still SO much more a camera than the 60D AFAIC (and with true AF in video..., well..., almost anyway). Get the 70D on a sale, get a real lens, start playing with it and getting the controls down and before you know it, ML will be out for it...

[dmilligan]

It just depends on what you intend to do with the camera. 75% of what I do would not be possible without ML (mostly astrophotography and timelapse). I would be severly limited without ML, so much so that if you gave me a free 70D, I probably wouldn't use it (other than perhaps try to port ML on it ).

For less of a 'power user' that just intends to snap pics in LV, and take video of their kids with AF, then yeah, the 70D probably is a much better cam for them. I probably have AF turned off more than I have it turned on, and half my lenses are MF anyway. I don't think I would ever use AF in video (though, I don't do much of that), and for me all LV does is heat up the sensor reducing noise performance, and drain the battery.

Most of the 70D's new features I would consider 'point-and-shoot-esque' and seemed to be aimed at the average consumer rather than the serious amateur/hobbiest photographer or low budget professional.

60D+ML > 70D
60D+ML < 70D+ML

However, there's no guarantee that ML will ever be ported to the 70D. Yes, it probably will at some point, but I certainly would not buy one with that expectation, because there is still a chance it might not ever be ported.

get a real lens...

Agreed, don't waste your money on the garbage 18-55 kit lenses.

[Marsu42]

What's your take?  Does the 70D really have anything on the 60D with ML?

The main advancement 60d->70d is re-addition of af micro adjustment which can be important for fast primes and the denser af field plus more fw customisations for tracking... it's not the same as the 7d btw, Canon removed some important features like spot af and af expansion. The other features (dual_pixel af, wifi) seem to be a bit gimmickish to me, but then again you might want them.

The sensor is a big disappointment, it's about the same as before, 2mp more and *maybe* 0.5ev better iso if any - crop is still crop. I have to admit I am happy I didn't have to make the 60d/70d decision as I'll stick with my 60d for tripod/wildlife/macro and bought a 6d :-)

[ssnova]

The thing that I like about the 70/60 D is the articulating LCD screen, many uses-with angular shots, for it that it'd almost be a deal breaker for me without one. 

As for wifi on the 70d, I think it's useful for an android/iOS device in which you can control it remotely and have a view of the lens from afar if you're taking a group photo and your in the picture... just one way of convenience.

I'm disappointed with the 70d's sensor as well, barely better than the 60d according to the dxo lab reports as posted above.

I do like the long exposures that ML allows as well as time elapse, which are both things that I see as "neat" features, but for now it would just be something "cool" for me to have. 

If anything.... heck, I'd get a 70d and start investing in STM glasses..and if ML doesn't come out, I could probably get a cheap 60d and use the STM lenses on it.

So what do you guys consider to be "real" lenses(I know what you mean...but name some out there...)...reality is... as a pro-sumer, I wan the clarity and decent quality... but I don't want to spend $1-2k on lenses right now, just need versatile range with decent* quality...for now.... I'm looking at the 18-135mm STM(I've read that it's similar enough to the 18-55mm.. so I mind as well pick up more range for the same price)... then probably will pick up the 55mm-250mm STM for longer telephoto... probably get a 50mm f/1.4 or something for closer range/macro.. yes I know those are beginner/noob lenses, but I think it'll serve my purposes for the time being.  But always opened to suggestions for different ranges... I'd like something more versatile in range for general family /hobby videos, a macro lense for some hobbies/experiements, and then an ok telephoto for those times when I need that kind of zoom power.

[dmilligan]

If you want quality on the cheap your best option is going to be some good primes, 28 f1.8, 50 f1.8, 100 f2. Expect to spend well over $1k for any kind of zoom that is even 'decent'. Even the best zooms can't touch the quality of those relatively inexpensive primes. The other option is vintage/fully manual lenses. You'll get nearly equivalent optical quality at a fraction of the cost, you just have to do everything manually (which isn't as difficult or scary as it sounds).

You seem to be overly concerned with zoom range. Keep in mind, the larger the zoom range, the worse the quality is going to be, so if an 18-55 is not very good, expect that an 18-135 for the same price to be absolute garbage. IMO the versatility you gain with a zoom lens is not worth the severe loss in quality and increase in price. But if you're going to get a zoom, at least get one with a smaller range so you know that the quality will be better. There's just no way the same glass can be good at being a wide angle and a telephoto at the same time, that's just physics.

[Marsu42]

If you want quality on the cheap your best option is going to be some good primes, 28 f1.8, 50 f1.8, 100 f2.

As a "proud" owner of a 50/1.8 I have to mention the iq (sharpness) is outright horrible wide open, next to laughable build quality and noisy, imprecise af. If at all get a 50/1.4 which might be on sale cheaper next year because Canon is very likely to issue a new 50/1.8 with IS in 2014.

The 100/2 and 85/1.8 are bargain lenses though, just expect some CA wide open which might be a problem in the bokeh/background as it's though to correct.

[Walter Schulz]

50/1.8 (old = metal mount) or "new" 50/1.8 II?
If later: If you owned a decent one you won't have to complain about sharpness. But I agree on build quality and noise and add AF performance to the list.

Ciao
Walter

[Marsu42]

50/1.8 (old = metal mount) or "new" 50/1.8 II? If later: If you owned a decent one you won't have to complain about sharpness. But I agree on build quality and noise and add AF performance to the list

Ah, right, it's the new plastic one. I know the performance is a matter of debate esp. considering the price, and my 60d has no af micro adjustment to begin with - I just wanted to add my impression of it so potential buyers know what to look out for.

Here's the sharpness 1.8 vs. 1.4 on ff, it's worse on crop mind you since the "not sharp even in the center" problem gets magnified: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=105&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

[ssnova]

If you want quality on the cheap your best option is going to be some good primes, 28 f1.8, 50 f1.8, 100 f2. Expect to spend well over $1k for any kind of zoom that is even 'decent'. Even the best zooms can't touch the quality of those relatively inexpensive primes. The other option is vintage/fully manual lenses. You'll get nearly equivalent optical quality at a fraction of the cost, you just have to do everything manually (which isn't as difficult or scary as it sounds).

You seem to be overly concerned with zoom range. Keep in mind, the larger the zoom range, the worse the quality is going to be, so if an 18-55 is not very good, expect that an 18-135 for the same price to be absolute garbage. IMO the versatility you gain with a zoom lens is not worth the severe loss in quality and increase in price. But if you're going to get a zoom, at least get one with a smaller range so you know that the quality will be better. There's just no way the same glass can be good at being a wide angle and a telephoto at the same time, that's just physics.

I don't know if you read what I wrote as you seem to have gotten me totally mistaken in your comment, I am definitely not overly concerned about zoom.  I just listed 3 different segments short(50mm f/1.8 ), mid(18-135mm), and long(55-250mm) range lenses(granted cheap lenses) to cover a wide range of spectrum with 3 different budget lenses, other than the 18-135mm, the other two are on the other sides of the spectrum that I mentioned(which is what I want, variance to cover close/mid/long in 3 different "specialized" lenses.... though it'd be nice to have a cheap "go-to" lens that'll have some versatility if I don't want to bring more than 1 lens around while walking around on a casual day (which I figured the 18-135mm will do...but again, open to suggestions).

I mentioned the 50mm f/1.8 already..... in fact I played around with it today too... as for the other two, thanks for bringing them up, are these the ones you meant?
(edit: oops, I mentioned the 50mm f/1.4 in my above post... but also had the f/1.8 in mind but didn't mention it, lol, my bad)

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-100mm-Telephoto-Lens-Cameras/dp/B00009USVW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1386552548&sr=8-1&keywords=canon+100mm+f2

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-28mm-Wide-Angle-Cameras/dp/B00009R6WU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1386552407&sr=8-1&keywords=28mm+f%2F18

[TomJ]

I don't know if you read what I wrote as you seem to have gotten me totally mistaken in your comment, I am definitely not overly concerned about zoom.  I just listed 3 different segments short(50mm f/1.8 ), mid(18-135mm), and long(55-250mm) range lenses(granted cheap lenses) to cover a wide range of spectrum with 3 different budget lenses, other than the 18-135mm, the other two are on the other sides of the spectrum that I mentioned(which is what I want, variance to cover close/mid/long in 3 different "specialized" lenses.... though it'd be nice to have a cheap "go-to" lens that'll have some versatility if I don't want to bring more than 1 lens around while walking around on a casual day (which I figured the 18-135mm will do...but again, open to suggestions).

I mentioned the 50mm f/1.8 already..... in fact I played around with it today too... as for the other two, thanks for bringing them up, are these the ones you meant?
(edit: oops, I mentioned the 50mm f/1.4 in my above post... but also had the f/1.8 in mind but didn't mention it, lol, my bad)

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-100mm-Telephoto-Lens-Cameras/dp/B00009USVW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1386552548&sr=8-1&keywords=canon+100mm+f2

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-28mm-Wide-Angle-Cameras/dp/B00009R6WU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1386552407&sr=8-1&keywords=28mm+f%2F18

I travel most of the year (business mostly), find myself in places where I can't afford to have crappy glass. But like a lot, I can't afford Zeiss either (or won't anyway). The nifty 50 is part of my loadout as it's cheap and very light. Lost? No biggie. The one that got the most mounted time was a Sigma 17-50 2.8, but now a Sigma 18-35 1.8. Rarely comes off. The only other lens I'd want to haul with me (and do) is my 70-200 Canon L. For the price, it is one of the sharpest zooms going. These have served me well from the Louvre to Tahir square in Cairo last year, these were all that I needed. Oh..., and a quality doubler if you have the light...