# Canon Users



## figo (Mar 11, 2009)

Can't decided between the Canon 60D with video capabilities or the 50D at a greatly reduced price. 

I really want to know if the HD video on the 60d, is as good or better than a cheap HD camcorder? Having two rolled into one sounds like a good idea, but isn't?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Check out some of the camera review sites for info. Try Dpreview... and their conclusion on the 60D.

All-in-one cameras often are a very mixed bag. A DSLR that has a cheap video capability isn't necessarily a good thing in my book, and though the trend is to provide HD video, the manufacturers are approaching this in different ways. Sounds like you're firmly in the Canon camp. If video is very important to you, at least as important as as good stills capability, you might want to spring for the 60D. Otherwise, if money's tight and you want a great camera, period - sounds like the 50D has better build quality and still ranks up there. It's not cutting edge, but I'm betting it gets the job done. Much depends on how demanding you are of your gear and what you do with your images once you've captured them.


----------



## figo (Mar 11, 2009)

Just want the ability to take sports pictures and print them for friends and family.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Then you want a fast camera. I'll leave it up to Canon folks to fill you in. Sounds like video is a distant second concern to you.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

Figo, I do video work, and I own the Canon 5D MKII - a video-enabled DSLR.

I never use the video capabilities of my 5D MKII.

I find that the video feature of this DSLR is still too limited to be of real use to me.
The video/DSLR works, to me, like a DSLR with video capabilities slapped on, for marketing purposes.
In fact, I am considering trading up to the Canon 1Ds MK3, a DSLR without video capabilities.
I would be taking a loss to do this, but I really want to clean up and simplify my photography gear and not cross it with video, keeping video separate.

However, I know that some videographers are using DSLRs as video cameras.
It's just not for me.

So, I'd recommend the 50D, and use the money saved, for better lenses.

But that's just my opinion based on my shooting style.


----------



## Digikid (Jun 22, 2010)

I will admit be being a Canon fanyboy. They make the BEST cameras. That said used the 60D for both video and stills and the video quality is superb in the 60D.....but it also depends on the lenses that you use. I also know a LOT of youtubers that use the 60D as a video camera with excellent results.

Look up youtube user SoldierKnowsBest. He uses both the 50 and the 60D and recently did a review on the 60D.

Here is his review right here.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






YouTube - Review: Canon 60D (DSLR)

[edit ehMax - Fixed YouTube link for you]


----------



## Guest (Jan 17, 2011)

I wouldn't worry about the video capabilities ... a DSLR is NOT a camcorder nor is it any good to use like one. If you want to use it for very specific video needs (i.e. set it up on a tripod or buy extra gear so you can have a proper shoulder rig for it) then make that part of your considerations, but if not take that out of the equation. Without doing that it's almost impossible to get good video footage with it due to the lack of dedicated auto-focus, etc.

I owned a 50D and it was a decent body, not sure what the 60D is like as I haven't tried one (I upgraded to a 7D). I don't imagine there has been that much difference aside from the video though, especially for your needs. The 50D was more than fast enough in burst mode to do great sports shots ... so I'd agree with SoyMac and spend less on the body and save up more for good glass! The right lenses are lenses for a lifetime, the bodies ... not so much. If you really really hate the body get rid of it in a year or so and upgrade. Lenses are the big expense (at least until you get up into serious camera gear which most of us here probably never will!)


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

mguertin said:


> I wouldn't worry about the video capabilities ... a DSLR is NOT a camcorder nor is it any good to use like one. If you want to use it for very specific video needs (i.e. set it up on a tripod or buy extra gear so you can have a proper shoulder rig for it) then make that part of your considerations, but if not take that out of the equation. Without doing that it's almost impossible to get good video footage with it due to the lack of dedicated auto-focus, etc.
> 
> I owned a 50D and it was a decent body, not sure what the 60D is like as I haven't tried one (I upgraded to a 7D). I don't imagine there has been that much difference aside from the video though, especially for your needs. The 50D was more than fast enough in burst mode to do great sports shots ... so I'd agree with SoyMac and spend less on the body and save up more for good glass! The right lenses are lenses for a lifetime, the bodies ... not so much. If you really really hate the body get rid of it in a year or so and upgrade. Lenses are the big expense (at least until you get up into serious camera gear which most of us here probably never will!)


+1, it is not a video camera, do not be fooled by the commercials, there is alot of hight tech gear and manual focus going on to produce the videos you see on tv, "this commercial was shot entirely with this camera"

and when you shot in high res your frame rate drops big time to something like 25-30 fps, versus 640 at 50 fps.

It is very difficult to shoot video with a DSLR using the lcd screen and trying to hit the af button all the time to stay in focus when the subject moves. And if I am not mistaken on high res I think there is a time limit on video.


----------



## pcronin (Feb 20, 2005)

Joker Eh said:


> +1, it is not a video camera, do not be fooled by the commercials, there is alot of hight tech gear and manual focus going on to produce the videos you see on tv, "this commercial was shot entirely with this camera"
> 
> and when you shot in high res your frame rate drops big time to something like 25-30 fps, versus 640 at 50 fps.
> 
> It is very difficult to shoot video with a DSLR using the lcd screen and trying to hit the af button all the time to stay in focus when the subject moves. And if I am not mistaken on high res I think there is a time limit on video.


+1
not to mention that using the AF button makes some nasty servo noise (think about when the camcorder operator coughs or moves their hands over the case. )


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

I've used the video on our 1D Mk IV once. The camera was mounted on a tripod & recording a more or less stationary object (cat washing himself).

Yep, it works. However, for the life of me I really can't figger a way to incorporate video into our workflow. Waste of money but came with the camera. 

If I wanted a video cam, I would have purchased one...


----------



## Kami (Jul 29, 2002)

What type of sports are you going to be shooting and what type of lenses do you currently have?

I had a 50D and it was a very good but not a great sports camera. The one feature that the 50D has but is missing on the 60D is micro-adjustment for lenses. I had to use this on my 70-200 and found it a great feature to have. This feature alone is worth factoring into your decision. If you spend a lot of time reviewing your images on the camera, the new LCDs on the 60D and 7D are great to look at.

I also had a 7D and the AF (once you understand how it works as it is more complex than the 50D/60D) is a big, big improvement over the 50D and 60D. If you have a long lens for sports then the 7D could potentially increase the number of keepers that you will be getting. If you don't have long lenses then it may make more sense to buy the cheaper body and get the lenses you need.


----------



## figo (Mar 11, 2009)

*Speed*

Looking into getting a 70-200mm 2.8 lens. The 7d sounds like a great camera but it may be a little too much camera right now. 

Is $500 for a 50d with grip a good deal?


----------



## Kami (Jul 29, 2002)

figo said:


> Looking into getting a 70-200mm 2.8 lens. The 7d sounds like a great camera but it may be a little too much camera right now.
> 
> Is $500 for a 50d with grip a good deal?



Yes, that is a really good price especially if the camera is in good shape. 50D bodies without a grip are in the $600-$700 range on the Fred Miranda.com site depending on shutter count. Do you know if this camera has been used a lot? Make sure that the grip fits securely without having to over-tighten the thumb screw. Also check that the grip's shutter release is working properly.

Are you planning on shooting field sports?


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

figo said:


> Looking into getting a 70-200mm 2.8 lens. The 7d sounds like a great camera but it may be a little too much camera right now.
> 
> Is $500 for a 50d with grip a good deal?


Oh yeah thats a great lens!!! Combine that with a 24-70 you will cover all areas, and if you really have money go fro the 500mm. Yeah Baby!


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2011)

Yep that's a good price provided what Kami mentions is good. Also the 70-200 2.8 IS is a great lens ... a bit heavy, but great for sports stuff.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

mguertin said:


> Yep that's a good price provided what Kami mentions is good. Also the 70-200 2.8 IS is a great lens ... a bit heavy, but great for sports stuff.


canon does offer the 70-200 IS but with F4 , smaller and lighter and I think cheaper.


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2011)

Joker Eh said:


> canon does offer the 70-200 IS but with F4 , smaller and lighter and I think cheaper.


Yes but not as fast. I've owned both and prefer the 2.8 IS, heavier or not


----------



## Kami (Jul 29, 2002)

IS is nice a feature to have if you're shooting where there isn't motion. If you're shooting sports then having the heavier f2.8 plus the ability to shoot at high(er) ISO can be the difference between getting the shot and missing the shot because of motion blur.


----------



## Guest (Jan 19, 2011)

Kami said:


> IS is nice a feature to have if you're shooting where there isn't motion. If you're shooting sports then having the heavier f2.8 plus the ability to shoot at high(er) ISO can be the difference between getting the shot and missing the shot because of motion blur.


IS is incredibly useful with or without motion .. that lens has two IS modes, one is specifically used when there is horizontal motion to track -- like you would have with most sports ... not sure why you are seeming to say it's only useful when there is no motion.


----------



## figo (Mar 11, 2009)

*IS or no IS*

Bought the 60d because I thought the 7d was a little too much camera for a rookie. 

So, the search is now on for a 70-200mm lens. I've decided to buy a used lens, because it hurt my ears when I heard the prices from someone at Henrys. The sales rep. tells me I should buy a lens with the IS feature - does it make that big of a difference considering I'll be using a monopod?

Sigma, I have also been told makes an excellent 70-200mm lens. Is this true?

All this research is making my fingers sore - spent have of this time buying a house!


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

There are other places then Henrys

Camera Canada ::

I personally would buy it with IS especially for a zoom lens. You can always look at the f4 (i know mguertin), almost half the price and on sale at Camera Canada

Camera Canada :: Canon :: 70-200mm f4.0L IS USM EF Lens


----------



## Kami (Jul 29, 2002)

mguertin said:


> IS is incredibly useful with or without motion .. that lens has two IS modes, one is specifically used when there is horizontal motion to track -- like you would have with most sports ... not sure why you are seeming to say it's only useful when there is no motion.


IS mode 1 and mode 2 do not freeze the motion of the subject. So, while the lens may be stabilized, if you are shooting basketball at 1/60 of a second, the players will still be blurred when they are running, jumping, etc. Its all about the shutter speed.


----------



## Kami (Jul 29, 2002)

figo said:


> Bought the 60d because I thought the 7d was a little too much camera for a rookie.
> 
> So, the search is now on for a 70-200mm lens. I've decided to buy a used lens, because it hurt my ears when I heard the prices from someone at Henrys. The sales rep. tells me I should buy a lens with the IS feature - does it make that big of a difference considering I'll be using a monopod?
> 
> ...


Congrats on the 60D! Take lots of photos and hang around some of the Canon forums like photography-on-the-net.com and fredmiranda.com to learn from some truly gifted sports shooters. One of the things that you didn't mention was what types of sports you were going to be shooting as this could influence the type of lens you want to get

Some lens thoughts

I started off with the 70-200 f4 L (non-IS) and used it until I needed a longer lens when the kids started playing on larger fields and when I got back into birding. Its a relatively inexpensive L lens if you buy it used ($450-$600 CDN). Its light and easy to hand hold and sharp.

Sigma's 70-200 f2.8 comes in 3 (or 4) different models. If you are buying used then you need to make sure that you avoid one version in particular as its reputed to be not as sharp as the other versions. I have to look this up.

Sigma has a 100-300 f4 which is incredibly sharp and unique amongst the long canon mount telephoto zooms. Its heavy so you won't be hand holding it for extended periods of time unless you are pretty strong. I don't think I'll ever sell my copy 

Tamron has a 70-200 f2.8 but its AF is generally considered too slow for sports shooting.

Another choice in the used lens arena is the Canon 80-200 f2.8. This isn't a super fast focusing lens like the Canon 70-200 USM lenses but it is very sharp and the colours it produces are awesome. Goes by the nickname "Magic Drainpipe". Not selling this one either. Keep in mind that this is an older lens and not serviced by Canon any more.



Just a note: If you put an IS lens on a monopod or tripod, you need to turn the IS off.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

mguertin said:


> IS is incredibly useful with or without motion .. that lens has two IS modes, one is specifically used when there is horizontal motion to track -- like you would have with most sports ... not sure why you are seeming to say it's only useful when there is no motion.


IS 1 does not help with moving subjects, as has been noted & for the reason noted. IS 2 works when panning a moving subject as long as there is little or no vertical movement (think moving vehicle or skater).



Kami said:


> Just a note: If you put an IS lens on a monopod or tripod, you need to turn the IS off.


I agree on the tripod but would disagree on the monopod. While the monopod stops vertical movement, it does not help with horizontal. I'd leave it turned on for the monopod.
____________

Canon notes that some of it's lenses can sense if the lens is mounted on a tripod & turns off IS. I wouldn't bother trying to figure out which ones do/don't work/won't. Just turn off IS on a tripod.


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2011)

I know that IS will not help to "freeze" the motion of a subject, but it is still helpful and can get you shots that you might not get without it. I might not help you with fast moving sports with slow shutter speeds but ... not all shots in sports are when people are that fast moving! It still might be useful especially in low lighting with long zooms capturing people not in motion ... for fast moving stuff though you for sure need high shutter speeds, IS will not help you there.

I would get IS if you can fit it into your budget. I'm with FeXL on the monopod, I'd still leave IS on if it's needed for what you're shooting. At the end of the day if you're shooting in well lit conditions with fast shutter speeds you don't need IS at all, unfortunately that's rarely the case and with sports you have no control over that.


----------



## figo (Mar 11, 2009)

*sports*

I'll be taking a lot of outdoor soccer shots and some indoors. My brother in law is always asking me to take pictures at his sons' hockey games, so I'll be a rink rat- really find it difficult to take pictures in old arenas in Toronto. 

Does anyone know of a place where I can take a course in sports photography? Checked Henrys and I didn't see anything offered.

Thanks


----------



## Kami (Jul 29, 2002)

figo said:


> I'll be taking a lot of outdoor soccer shots and some indoors. My brother in law is always asking me to take pictures at his sons' hockey games, so I'll be a rink rat- really find it difficult to take pictures in old arenas in Toronto.
> 
> Does anyone know of a place where I can take a course in sports photography? Checked Henrys and I didn't see anything offered.
> 
> Thanks


If you're shooting soccer on a full size field then you'll really want to get something longer than 200mm to get tight shots of the action. Shooting with a 200 will mean that you may need to crop. Indoors in a rink will mean a fast lens like the 70-200 f2.8 and high ISO. Are you in a location where you can rent a lens or two to try out?

You can learn a ton from the sports forums on the 2 sites I mentioned earlier. People post their photos and ask for critiques from the pros and serious amateurs. There are a lot of new photographers on the POTN forums and if you do a bit of reading you'll find some great advice and tips.

Try here:

Sports Talk - Canon Digital Photography Forums

There are 2 stickies at the top of the page that can get you going. You can do a search inside that forum for "hockey" and "soccer"


----------



## RatsOnMacAttack (Mar 5, 2005)

Dont mean to hijack the thread here, but there seem to be a lot of knowledgeable people on Canon 50/60D. I have a chance at getting a 50D body free of charge, but no lens. I was just wondering what a decent lens would be for this, maybe up to $500. Nothing fancy, no sports photography, mainly used on a tripod, and lots of close up/pseudo-macro shots. Anyone have any suggestions?


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

RatsOnMacAttack said:


> Dont mean to hijack the thread here, but there seem to be a lot of knowledgeable people on Canon 50/60D. I have a chance at getting a 50D body free of charge, but no lens. I was just wondering what a decent lens would be for this, maybe up to $500. Nothing fancy, no sports photography, mainly used on a tripod, and lots of close up/pseudo-macro shots. Anyone have any suggestions?


For macro on that budget, the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro would be a fantastic lens, both for amazing 1:1 macro shots, and portraiture.

The only downside is that a 100mm lens is not a lens one would ideally have as their only lens.

If you're looking for a fairly standard walk-around lens, there are a few options. Canon 17-85 IS, 18-55 IS, Tamron 17-50 2.8, etc.

For a nice prime lens, you can't go wrong with the Canon 50mm 1.8 for just over $100.


----------

