cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

60D vs 70D

wnoswal
Apprentice

I am looking to upgrade from an EOS Rebel XSi that I purchased in 2008. I am considering purchasing a 70D, i was going back and forth between 60D vs 70D but really like the WIFI option that the 70D offers. From the Canon users of these 2 cameras can someone give me some insite of these two cameras....  

 

Wade

13 REPLIES 13

The 70D has a more sophisticated autofocus system and allows autofocus microadjustment. Those two reasons alone are enough to favor it over the 60D. Wi-Fi is not, IMO. Wi-Fi on a camera is like using a mule to pull a shopping cart. Yes, you can do it, but it often doesn't work very well and is seldom worth the effort.

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA

I'll second that.
The greatly more sophisticated AF has the obvious benefits.
Omitting AFMA from the 60d was baffling; returning it to the 70d will allow you to adjust focus on all your lenses yourself rather than needing to mail your camera + lens to Canon to do it.
Dual pixel AF is (I have read) a really nice addition too if you shoot live view and/or video.

For just about $300 difference it would be an easy choice for me personally.
Scott

Canon 5d mk 4, Canon 6D, EF 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS mk2; EF 16-35 f/2.8 L mk. III; Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "Art" EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro; EF 85mm f/1.8; EF 1.4x extender mk. 3; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS; 3x Phottix Mitros+ speedlites

Why do so many people say "FER-tographer"? Do they take "fertographs"?

I'll 'third' that!

Wi-fi is not ready for prime time yet.  Don't let it be a determining factor.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

TCampbell
Elite
Elite

The 60D and 70D are almost not even in the same league.

 

The 50D had the auto-focus micro-adjustment (AFMA).  For some bizarre reason, Canon decided to remove that feature when they came out with the 60D.  They were royally flamed by EVERYONE for that.  Notice that the feature is back again on the 70D?  That's because Canon learned they'd better not make that mistake twice.

 

I think part of the problem is that the 60D was the first DSLR to have the articulated LCD screen and people who were into video thought it was a really cool feature.  It was (at that time) the ONLY DLSR that had it.  Canon has since added the feature to numerous other cameras.

 

The 60D has 9 auto-focus points and all are "cross type".  But the 70D has 19 AF points and all are "cross type".  The 70D can shoot in continuous burst mode at 7 frames per second (just 1 frame shy of the 7D -- which was optimized for action photography).  The 60D is 5.3fps.  

 

One of the 70D's biggest features is it's new dual-diode auto-focusing sensor.  This is a big deal.

 

One huge advantage that DSLR cameras have over point & shoot cameras is their focusing system.  

 

A point & shoot has to use a focusing system called "contrast detection".  Here's an analogy to help you understand how it works.  Imaginge taking a photograph of a barcode stripe pattern.  What you should have, if the image is focused, is a white background with black stripes.  That means a well-focused image will have images that are either "black" or "white" but it shouldn't really have "gray" pixels.  At the edge of a black stripe you'll have a black pixel immediately adjacent to a white pixel.  That's a very high-contrast difference.    But de-focus the lens and what happens is the pixels right at the edge of the barcode stripe go to shades of gray. You no longer have a black pixel next to a white pixel... you have a black pixel, followd by a dark gray pixel, followed by a medium gray pixel, followed by a light gray pixel... eventually followed by a white pixel.  That's a VERY slow contrast difference.  Knowing this, the computer analyzes the image while adjusting focus and it's looking for rapid contrast differences on the sensor.  When it has maximized the contrast difference between adjance pixels, it has focused the subject at that position.  The problem is this requires some trial and error... it has to keep sampling the image while adjusting to see if things are getting better or worse and it "hunts" for focus.

 

A DSLR, on the other hand, has reflex mirror in front of the sensor.  When that mirror is down, it can bounce some light into some dedicated focus sensors on the floor of the camera.  These sensors have a beam splitter (prism) which splits a piece of the image into two halves called "phases".  Imagine taking a pair of scissors to a photograph and cutting it into two halves.  Place the two halves side-by-side, but slightly mis-align them so that their edges don't accurately line up.  The camera is basically doing this, not to the whole image, but just to a piece of the image at the focus points.  As the camera focuses, the two halves will align (they will come "in phase").  

 

But there's more... it turns out that not only can the camera can tell if the image is "in phase" or "out of phase".  It can also determine WHICH DIRECTION it needs to go to bring an out-of-phase image back in-phase.  And further, it can tell EXACTLY HOW FAR it needs to to bring the image back into phase.  

 

This means the camera samples your image once and knows precisely what to do to nail the focus.  The system is VERY FAST.  It's the reason that people are frustrated with the lag of a point & shoot system and thrilled with the speed of a DSLR.  The actual focus performance of the camera is mostly limited by the amount of available light, how much texture/contrast exists in your subject (it can't focus, for example, on a flat blue sky with nothing in it), and the speed of the focus motor in the lens.   

 

This system is called "phase detect" auto-focus and all DSLR cameras do this.

 

But there is a problem.... put the camera into "live view" mode... or put it into "video" mode, and that reflex mirror has to swing up.  No mirror... no way to bounce light into those phase-detect AF sensors.  That means the camera has to reverst to the slow "contrast detect" auto-focus system that point & shoot cameras use.  Your videos will show noticeable "focus hunt" as the camera focusing while recording.  Not good.

 

So the really big deal with the 70D is that Canon found a way to basically put that beam-splitter directly into the sensor surface on the 70D.  The camera can actually use the phase-detect auto-focus concept WHILE using live-view or video.  This makes its ability to do continuous auto-focus during video VERY SMOOTH and accurate.  An impressive feature and a new first (I expect we'll start to see that in more cameras, but the 70D was first (Canon did have some early versions of it in other cameras but they were nowhere near as good as the system in the 70D.)

 

The WiFi feature is there as well on the 70D... but WiFi is being viewed as a bit of a gimmick because it's a bit cumbersome to get your smart-phone linked to your camera.  It does work, but you'll need to be patient and you'll probably conclude that Canon could have done a better job.  Anyway... it's not the best feature of the camera.  You'll probably use it a few times and conclude it's more of a hassle than it's worth.

 

If you REALLY want WiFi, you can add it to just about any Canon camera by buying a "CamRanger" accessory.  The transmitter dangles from the side of the camera (attached via USB cable) and it's about the size of a smart-phone.  It includes a smartphone app (I use it with my iPad) and it'll give you full remote control of the camera via WiFi including image transfer.)

 

Tim Campbell
5D III, 5D IV, 60Da

All, thank you for all your input, i was already heading towards the 70D and you really helped me with my decision for selecting a camera. Since we got that figured out lets talk lens, I currently have EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II ; EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS; Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di SP A/M 1:1 EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I use my EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM for everyday use, I use this lens for most of my photographs. I am what you may call a waterfall hunter, no matter where i will find the perfect spot to enjoy a waterfall, also landscapes, sun rises and sun sets and of course my children and granddaughter. I also use my Macro for my close ups of flowers and butterfly's. I would like to continue to use my 17-55, but would like to move to a new lens with the new camera. I have been looking at some of the L Series (EF 24-70mm f4L IS USM) but i am open for any recommendations....

 

Wade


@wnoswal wrote:

All, thank you for all your input, i was already heading towards the 70D and you really helped me with my decision for selecting a camera. Since we got that figured out lets talk lens, I currently have EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II ; EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS; Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di SP A/M 1:1 ; EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I use my EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM for everyday use, I use this lens for most of my photographs. I am what you may call a waterfall hunter, no matter where i will find the perfect spot to enjoy a waterfall, also landscapes, sun rises and sun sets and of course my children and granddaughter. I also use my Macro for my close ups of flowers and butterfly's. I would like to continue to use my 17-55, but would like to move to a new lens with the new camera. I have been looking at some of the L Series (EF 24-70mm f4L IS USM) but i am open for any recommendations....

 

Wade


Your current lens inventory is actually pretty good. Your 17-55 f/2.8 is a better match for your camera than the 24-70 f/4, though the latter is, for whatever reason, a lot cheaper than it was originally. Possibly a better value, though I don't see that you really need it, would be the EF 24-105mm f/4. If you buy either, you'll be able to continue to use it if you ever upgrade to a full-frame camera. Your 18-55 seems a bit superfluous, but it probably isn't worth enough to justify trying to sell it.

 

Bottom line: If I were in your shoes, I'm not sure another lens would be my first priority. I might be inclined to go for a good tripod or a top-of-the-line speedlite instead.

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA


@RobertTheFat wrote:

@wnoswal wrote:

All, thank you for all your input, i was already heading towards the 70D and you really helped me with my decision for selecting a camera. Since we got that figured out lets talk lens, I currently have EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II ; EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS; Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di SP A/M 1:1 ; EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I use my EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM for everyday use, I use this lens for most of my photographs. I am what you may call a waterfall hunter, no matter where i will find the perfect spot to enjoy a waterfall, also landscapes, sun rises and sun sets and of course my children and granddaughter. I also use my Macro for my close ups of flowers and butterfly's. I would like to continue to use my 17-55, but would like to move to a new lens with the new camera. I have been looking at some of the L Series (EF 24-70mm f4L IS USM) but i am open for any recommendations....

 

Wade


 

Bottom line: If I were in your shoes, I'm not sure another lens would be my first priority. I might be inclined to go for a good tripod or a top-of-the-line speedlite instead.


This. 

 

The other suggestion above is terrible advice, IMHO, given what lenses you have and your use.   It's a lot of money to just improve focal range (on a single lens).  Your 17-55 have better image quality, at a full stop faster.  

 

For waterfalls and nature, and other static things, a good sturdy tripod will have a far more profound impact on your photography than any lens.  Any decent lens (of which you have many), produces good images when stopped down.  And if you have a tripod and your subject isn't moving, you can always stop down. 

 

Grandchildren are another story entirely.  You want a wider aperture, long range zoom lens.  But those aren't cheap, and they're heavy.  That's a whole 'nother topic entirely if you want to discuss it.

 

If I were you, and I was hunting waterfalls and nature, I would invest in a good carbon fiber tripod and head, if you don't have one already.  On top of that, I'd get a good circular polarizer, and some neutral density filters - a 3 stop and a 10 stop. 

If I had an EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 then I don't think I'd be in much of a hurry to replace it when I bought a new camera.

 

To qualify as an "L" series lens, Canon has a rule that the lens must work on all EOS cameras, past and present (and presumably future).   EF-S lenses are designed to work with EOS bodies that have APS-C size sensors, but they cannot be used on bodies with larger sensors such as the 1D, 5D, and 6D bodies.  For this reason alone, the EF-S lenses are not eligible for the "L" designation.

 

But that doesn't mean they lenses aren't as good.  I never had a 17-55, but I did have an EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM and currently have a EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM and I've compared them side by side.  The 60mm absolutely gives that 100mm L series lens a run for it's money... it's detail resolving capability is nearly identical.  The build quality is also about the same.  

 

If you have a full-frame sensor body, then the 24-70mm lens is a nice working/standard zoom... offering a bit of wide angle and a small bit of telephoto.  Not a lot in either direction (not extreme wide, nor especially telephoto... just enough to give you some wiggle room when composing shots.)  The 17-55mm is basically fulfilling the same purpose... but for an APS-C size sensor camera.   The "normal" (1x magnification) focal length on a crop-frame camera is actually 29mm.  That means 24mm is just *barely* wide... not very much at all.  But 18mm... that's noticeably wide (not ultra-wide... just "wide").  

 

If you're trying to shoot landscapes and you've got a 24mm lens, you'll probably feel a bit constrained.

 

If I were in your situation and I loved hunting waterfalls then my NUMBER ONE priority would be

(1) tripod,

(2) 3-stop ND filter, and

(3) 10-stop ND filter.  

(BTW, those ND filters might be called an "ND 0.9" and "ND 3.0" because in the "density" system, each ".1" worth of density falue is 1/3rd of a stop.  So density 0.3 is actually 1 full stop, and density 3.0 is actually 10 full stops.)  If you want quality (and you do) then make sure those filters have anti-reflective coatings (otherwise you see "ghosting" in your images from the internal reflections off the flat filter surfaces.)  B+W brand and the Hoya Pro1 series are well-regarded makers of filters.

 

The f/2.8 isn't necessary when you're on a tripod or shooting landscapes.  Usually you want a broad depth of field so you'll be shooting at high focal ratios.  When shooting waterfalls, usually you're trying to prolong the amount of time the shutter can be open (hence the desire for the Neutral Desnity filters to cut the flow of light into the camera and allow even longer exposure times) and so you'll want a tiny aperture (high f-stop value) there as well.

 

Your 18-55mm (not the 17-55) will rotate the front of the lens when it focuses.  If you use a polarizer (or any filter where orientation is important... such as an ND Grad) then you'd have to keep correcting the front filter every time you touch up focus.  That gets annoying when trying to shoot landscapes and waterfalls.  The 17-55 does NOT rotate when you focus (it has internal focusing).

 

Tim Campbell
5D III, 5D IV, 60Da

You focal range coverage is pretty good.  You have a couple of very good lenses there, too.

The EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM and EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM.  However the others do have room for improvement.

 

The EF 24-105mm f4 L is a best buy in Canon "L" level pro quality lens.  You can find them, brand new for $700-$750 if you look.  Since the intoducing of the EF 100-400mm L II, the older version is a buy, also.  Now you would have coverage from 10mm to 400mm and all very nice glass indeed.  Smiley Very Happy

 

A good tripod is always a good idea.  Don't bother with cheapo's here either get a high quality one.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!
Announcements