Question For All You Photogs - 60d vs 7D

guitarguru777

guitarguru777

Member
Nov 13, 2003
8,531
19
38
48
Las Vegas
www.jasonconstantine.com
Ok so after a week of having a friend in town shooting various places around Vegas and shooting some video with his 7D I am convinced I need a better camera then my Olympus E420. I have been doing some research into cameras that also shoot video and seems the 60D and 7D are the top of the heap as far as dual purpose.

So my question is ....

Id the 7D really worth the additonal cost? They both shoot 1080P video and both can reach ISO6400 for late night shooting, and low light applications. The 8 shot per second vs 5.3 shot per second time is not a big thing for me as I rarely shoot continual shots like that.

My main deal is really the difference in price. It doesn't seem like I would be getting THAT MUCH more of a camera with the 7D for the additional $600

Opinions?
 
Frankly? Neither. Do you want a still camera or do you want something to do quality yet easy to use video?

The 7D has good video output which really only matters if you are doing cinematic movies because it doesn't autofocus while in movie mode. Thus you cant' just pan around and let the camera focus. You need to know what your subject is doing before it happens because focusing through the LCD screen is nearly impossible while you and the subject is moving. It's normal still mode auto focusing is alright but nothing stellar and it's low light performance is not that great - way below what Nikon gives. It says ISO6400 but tests show that it really tops out quality wise about ISO1600 because the chip is small and the packed too many pixels into it making their light sensitivity lower.

The 60D isn't as good at the 7D in all areas and has the same chip and processing as the Rebel Ti2 which is less money still.

Bear in mind that DSLR's that do video are a total pain to use. 80% of quality video is the audio and none of the DSLR's have built in audio that is worth a darn. You will end up buying the camera, fixed focal length lenses, a steady harness, external mics, external mixer and wearing headphones while manually focusing to get good video capture and then you will need to edit the video to make something worth looking at.

If you want simple video use your point-n-shoot or better yet a dedicated camcorder. If you want a good quality still camera - get a Nikon. If you want a an affordable great quality still camera what will do better quality video than anyone except for what independent movie producers need - get a Nikon D300s.
 
Canon Rebel T2i. Basically the same as the 7D, with cheaper body materials. Or for even less money, the now discontinued T1i. You can find good bargains on new ones still.
 
Flat Fifth Fury said:
It's normal still mode auto focusing is alright but nothing stellar and it's low light performance is not that great - way below what Nikon gives. It says ISO6400 but tests show that it really tops out quality wise about ISO1600 because the chip is small and the packed too many pixels into it making their light sensitivity lower.
Click to expand...

I should state first that I'm not partial to Nikon or Canon; I shooot with both a 5D Mark II and a D700.

This statement complete bullshit dude... I've seen plenty of nice 7D images at ISO3200, and images that are plenty "usable" ISO6400 images. Nikon wise, it's definitely better than the noise from a D300 but not as good as a D700 (which is to be expected since the D700 is a full frame sensor). Unless you are shooting concerts or weddings for a living you probably aren't concerned about high ISO performance anyways.

The main difference that you are buying going from the 60D to the 7D is that the 7D is a "semi-pro" camera and is built as such, metal body, and weatherproofed. The 7D has 100% viewfinder coverage. What you see is what you get. The 60D has an older autofocus system that will perform quite similarly to that of a Rebel, while the 7D has far superior autofocus.

Bottom line... if you're serious about it, get the 7D.
 
Ya I am definitely serious about it. I get good images now but I have so many problems with the Olympus its retarded. Thats what I get for buying a $400 DSLR though ...lol

Gonna have to start putting cash away this week. I really want that 42-120mm lens they got!
 
arv_foh said:
I should state first that I'm not partial to Nikon or Canon; I shooot with both a 5D Mark II and a D700.

This statement complete bullshit dude... I've seen plenty of nice 7D images at ISO3200, and images that are plenty "usable" ISO6400 images. Nikon wise, it's definitely better than the noise from a D300 but not as good as a D700 (which is to be expected since the D700 is a full frame sensor). Unless you are shooting concerts or weddings for a living you probably aren't concerned about high ISO performance anyways.
Click to expand...

Well not to get into the dreaded "pointless internet argument" but my statements are based on a discussion about the professional usefulness of using a 7D as a backup body to a Canon EOS1 Mark IV on SportsShooter.com which is a forum strictly for professional sports and news photographers that I am a part of. I am a Nikon shooter so I have not personally worked with the 7D thus I am working off of the opinion of people whose judgement I can trust to an extent. The consensus among the numerous pros who have tried the 7D was that the image quality doesn't hold up past ISO1600 compared to the Mark IV which isn't as good as the 5D Mark II which isn't as good as the Nikon D700/D3 and nowhere near the king: the Nikon D3s for high ISO. Almost all of the dozen or so respondents to the thread agreed that they took their 7D's back for a refund. They did agree that for video it's pretty good but again in low light for video it fails in comparison to the 5D Mark II or Nikon D3s. Guitarguru777 mentioned how it would go to ISO6400 so I wanted him to know that yes it will do that but it's not going to look as good as on other cameras.

Also considering that the pixel pitch of both the 7D and 60D is smaller than the 50D and I haven't seen a side by side comparison to the D700/D3 I extrapolate that if he really wants a camera what will produce photos at ISO6400 that isn't a grainy mushy mess he might not be that happy with either camera. My assistant shoots a 50D and with it's larger pixel pitch and granted older chip/processing @ ISO 1250 it looks like my D700 @ ISO 4000. I have told her not to use that camera over ISO1600 for jobs because it looks noticeably worse than the images that my cameras produce and as a result look poor when in the mix.

Where "megapixel" was the sales buzz word of the last 5 years "high ISO" is the current marketing push and neither of those cameras deliver.

And again yes there are fine looking examples out there. There is also stunning video from the 7D and most of it is not done just by pointing the camera with the kit lens at something. Just as "I have Garage Band" doesn't mean that you are a producer. It means that you have Garage Band. Making quality video takes time, more gear that you imagine, a lot of editing and experience. Most people think that a DSLR with video capacity makes for easy movie making. If that's what you really want get a camcorder.
 
As stated I shoot Porn. None of it needs to be "film" or "sundance" award winning stuff here ...lol

My concern is price point really. There isn't much money in the porn industry these days with all the free sites running rampant posting stolen content. So that's where my interest really lays with this camera. Possibly shooting some bands live as well as it is a passion of mine. The video option is really just a bonus for me when working on my "films", and would be more of a convenience then anything else as I could do both with a single body.

I don't expect any of my work to end up in SI or Time. So keeping on the lower end of the spectrum is really my push. The EXTREMELY rare occasion I would have to shoot at anything higher then ISO1600 would make me choose bigger glass before moving to 2400 or 3200, god forbid 6400 unless it was for a particular "effect" I was going for.

Just want to mention I am not a "noob" to photography, and I understand the ISO thing has been the big buzz word recently. I wasn't really using ISO as the deciding factor on the camera, it was just something I noticed was the same between the two of them.

Knowing that the 7D is really just built more rugged makes me look at the 60D. Also knowing that the final episode of house last year was shot completely on the 5D II was one of my factors as well. Considering the quality of video they got on the show and the quality cinematography they used makes me like Canon even more.

I have been shooting video for nearly 20 years, and my Sony cam just isnt cutting it anymore. I have an extremely nice editing suite as well. Im not just some amature thinking I am going to make "Titanic" with a Canon DSLR ...lol
 
No matter how you spin it either camera is going to be a significant upgrade for you.. it's just all down to how much you want to spend.

You should just go balls out and get a 70-200L while you're at it :)
 
guitarguru777 said:
Ok so after a week of having a friend in town shooting various places around Vegas and shooting some video with his 7D I am convinced I need a better camera then my Olympus E420. I have been doing some research into cameras that also shoot video and seems the 60D and 7D are the top of the heap as far as dual purpose.

So my question is ....

Id the 7D really worth the additonal cost? They both shoot 1080P video and both can reach ISO6400 for late night shooting, and low light applications. The 8 shot per second vs 5.3 shot per second time is not a big thing for me as I rarely shoot continual shots like that.

My main deal is really the difference in price. It doesn't seem like I would be getting THAT MUCH more of a camera with the 7D for the additional $600

Opinions?
Click to expand...

7D is one of the best cameras out there.

I recently got a 550D, it has similar features to 7D, cheaper, and it is a great camera for video (1080P & ISO6400 as you mentioned).

In fact, many people think they are the same cameras, that is why there are a lot of sites explaining differences between both 2.
THEY ARE NOT, but there is a big difference of price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DullElysium
Wich one would you go for (if you were shooting a slowmotion video)?
Replies
7
Views
582
Bar
DullElysium
D
DullElysium
A question for all you snowskaters.
Replies
0
Views
308
Bar
DullElysium
D
Ermz
  • Poll
Hardware 1176 vs Distressor Bass shoot-out
Replies
30
Views
4K
Backline
Kazrog
K
sk8ersick666
Muting/silencing drums & cymbals for music video shoot
Replies
23
Views
12K
F.O.H.
Dimaura
D
Kazar
It's Q&A time: post your question for Seventh Wonder!
Replies
9
Views
2K
Seventh Wonder
BaraHime
B
Top Bottom
Back