My experience going from A700 to Canon 60D

[Greg Beetham]

That's all interesting stuff Henry, I've been following your exploits with the 60D, I even read (some of it) my first Canon review at dpr, they say the construction is polycarbonate and aluminium. Btw I figured out pretty quickly how to magnify an image on my A700 without the manual, the AF/MF button has a little magnifying glass next to it, but I didn't know the procedure for zooming out though until I looked in the book, different to the KM5D and the A100 there. Also I think the A700 'remembers' where you last left the zoom position the next time you use it, I found by accident it can zoom more if you want to.
How do you like those funny shaped buttons?
Greg

[bakubo]

Btw I figured out pretty quickly how to magnify an image on my A700 without the manual, the AF/MF button has a little magnifying glass next to it

I just checked and for the first time noticed the little magnifying glass on the A700! Dark blue on black. Sony certainly does know how to do it. I hope the next Sony just goes ahead and makes it black on black and be done with it.

How do you like those funny shaped buttons?

You mean the ones on the back? I have found I like their location much better than on the 30D and A700 which are lined up off on the left side of the LCD. I don't have to take my hand off the lens to press them. Just use my right thumb which is right there anyway. Canon thought this through well.

[bakubo]

I just checked and for the first time noticed the little magnifying glass on the A700! Dark blue on black. Sony certainly does know how to do it. I hope the next Sony just goes ahead and makes it black on black and be done with it.

It was about 6:30 AM in a room with just a lamp on the other side of the room when I checked that. Just now at 9:00 AM I took the A700 over by the window and see the blue magnifying glass. I guess I have noticed it before, but had forgotten. Still, blue on black is not such a good choice. I think if the background is black then white is a pretty good choice to make things very clear. If the background is white then black is a pretty good choice. It just dawned on me, but I wonder if that is why for so long books, newspapers, etc. generally do that??????

[Greg Beetham]

I guess they did that so it wouldn't look chintzy with white printing all over the place, I suppose a slightly brighter blue maybe, but I sortof don't mind it the way it is, but yeah you do need to be in daylight to see those adequately. How about they invent ones that brighten up in darker places and then go back to normal in daylight?
Greg

[bfitzgerald]

This is pretty interesting so I'd like to see more!
I was thinking about doing something write up wise ala getting a non Sony DSLR myself and pros and cons/differences.

I always found Canon a bit unusual for me handling wise, not bad just took some getting used to from a Minolta users perspective.
There are lots of small things that can make a difference sometimes good other times not so good.
A few things I always thought were a bit odd on Minolta/A mount. Image review blinking highlights/shadows only in the small view (not a big deal but odd) On the K-x you can set the quick zoom level and that's useful at times.

I see some nice ideas from all makers in different areas, tweaks and settings and even just general use. In general I would agree Canon have a strong line-up, though the 60 might not sit as comfortably for some longer term Canon users..the price has been dropping (as it should) so it's becoming more interesting as that happens! (inevitable at the start it got compared to the D7000)

I think the 550d is pretty good but it's got the same problem I had from previous models..that grip it's just not that comfortable. As the 550d is pretty expensive as well (UK price) might as well spend a bit more and get more.

[Greg Beetham]

I've been having a snoop over on the Nikon forum at dpr for the first time, and you would never guess, there is quite a few who don't like that they had video in their DSLR's rammed down their throats, like it or lump it. I would like to see what would happen if the camera manufacturers built two versions of their current models, one without video and NO compromises to the still taking ability features and controls at all, and see what would happen over the retail life span of the model, some would say the one with video would win, but I'm not so sure.
Greg

[bakubo]

This is pretty interesting so I'd like to see more!

I am going to try to keep this thread updated as I discover new things and also if my early impressions change.

I was thinking about doing something write up wise ala getting a non Sony DSLR myself and pros and cons/differences.

That would be cool. I hope you do.

I always found Canon a bit unusual for me handling wise, not bad just took some getting used to from a Minolta users perspective.
There are lots of small things that can make a difference sometimes good other times not so good.
A few things I always thought were a bit odd on Minolta/A mount. Image review blinking highlights/shadows only in the small view (not a big deal but odd) On the K-x you can set the quick zoom level and that's useful at times.

I used Minolta MF for years and then Minolta AF for even more years. My first DSLR was the Canon 300D in 2003 and later a 30D in 2006. I had no problems at all with the handling and ergonomics. The 60D is a pretty big jump in improvement over the 30D, I think. At least, it is for the controls that I tend to use a lot. It also has even more configuration items in the menu than the 30D did. The 60D can use the rear LCD to make changes to lots of stuff just like the A700. The A700 has the Fn button to access it and the 60D has the Q button.

I see some nice ideas from all makers in different areas, tweaks and settings and even just general use. In general I would agree Canon have a strong line-up, though the 60 might not sit as comfortably for some longer term Canon users..the price has been dropping (as it should) so it's becoming more interesting as that happens! (inevitable at the start it got compared to the D7000)

Yeah, lot of good stuff coming from all of the companies. I find the 60D to be a nice upgrade from the 50D. I considered the 50D last year, but it was even bigger and heavier than the 30D and I didn't really want that for travel. Also, it had a reputation for not being so good at high ISO. Before buying the 60D the one issue that I was disappointed about it was that Canon removed MFA that was in the 50D. But, it seems like Canon may have done something to the 60D because there have been very few posts about FF and BF like are usually seen everytime a new body is released. There is lots of speculation as to what may have changed. Some think it may be that Canon has just tightened up manufacturing and testing tolerances or even that the firmware has been changed and somehow is often able to self-correct focus errors. Anyway, here is a long thread discussing it:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=36592408

I can say that with the 5 lenses I have tried on the 60D I haven't had any problems with AF.

Also, from these diagrams it looks like the 60D is weathersealed about the same as the 7D:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=36828375

I think the 550d is pretty good but it's got the same problem I had from previous models..that grip it's just not that comfortable. As the 550d is pretty expensive as well (UK price) might as well spend a bit more and get more.

Yes, the features of the 550D are quite good and has pretty much all the things that are important to me. The OVF is, of course, a bit smaller though. It does feel a bit cramped holding it though. Here in the States the 550D (T2i) is $699 at Amazon.

[bakubo]

I've been having a snoop over on the Nikon forum at dpr for the first time, and you would never guess, there is quite a few who don't like that they had video in their DSLR's rammed down their throats, like it or lump it. I would like to see what would happen if the camera manufacturers built two versions of their current models, one without video and NO compromises to the still taking ability features and controls at all, and see what would happen over the retail life span of the model, some would say the one with video would win, but I'm not so sure.

I don't care about video, but as long as it doesn't interfere with still photo functions and doesn't degrade still photo functions then I guess I don't mind. If two SLRs were otherwise identical but one had video and one didn't and the one without video cost less then I would get the non-video model. With the SLTs though I am okay with the video and I might even use it occasionally. Clearly their design is the way it is to make video work better at the expense of still photos, but maybe still photo quality hasn't been degraded too much. Probably a good compromise for people who want both. Of course, video quality has been degraded a bit too in the SLT design, but no more than the still photo quality. They both take a bit of a hit in order to get the features and convenience.

[bakubo]

After having all the 3 lenses for almost 2 weeks I decided to keep the Tamron 18-270mm and return the Canon 18-200mm and Sigma 18-250mm. Returned today.

[bossel]

I had the Sony 18-250 (based on the Tamron 18-250) and while it was really very versatile, it wasn't good at at 200mm and above. How does the new Tamron do?

[bakubo]

I had the Sony 18-250 (based on the Tamron 18-250) and while it was really very versatile, it wasn't good at at 200mm and above. How does the new Tamron do?

Yes, I remember your post a few months ago with the crops made with your Sony 18-250mm. It sure looked like you had the misfortune of getting a bad one because I had never seen those very poor results with mine. I recall posting in that thread with some crops made with mine.

The Tamron 18-270mm at 200mm seems to be good. I don't do testing and obsessing over 200% views, but I have used the lens now for almost 2 weeks and it seems to be doing well. At 270mm also it is okay and even wide open at f6.3. The way I look at it is that at the longest focal lengths I am usually trying to get a close-up of a face or something else and in order to reduce dof I am also often shooting wide open. Who cares if the test bench says the corners aren't as sharp as the center in this case when the corners are way oof anyway? Or, I may crop anyway. It is just rare for me to use this sort of lens at 270mm to shoot a detailed landscape where I want the grains of sand in the corners a mile away to be just as sharp as the ones in the center. I guess if I took lots of photos like this at very long focal lengths then I would use a different lens.

Speaking just for myself, I have so rarely seen any of my photos that optical quality was the only thing keeping the image from being fantastic. Actually, I love this sort of lens because without it many photos I take would not even be taken. I know because I have used other lenses over the years and I get many more photos that I want to take and keep now than I used to because rather than having the wrong lens on the camera (or wrong film inside the camera) I can shoot at wide angle in one shot and seconds later shoot at a long focal length or anything in between.

I also like the light, plastic lenses so much more than the old, heavy metal ones. The plastic ones just seem so much tougher and don't get scratched and scuffed up and the lighter weight is great.

[Dusty]

I have to agree that with digital we now never "have the wrong film in the camera". I always had several bodies when I went to do anything serious just to have the various different film speeds and types available.

I have to disagree with the plastic vs metal on the lenses though. I think the metal ones are tougher, and the added weight gives me more stability for hand holding shots - the same as a heavy barrel does on my hunting rifles.

Dusty

[bakubo]

I have to agree that with digital we now never "have the wrong film in the camera". I always had several bodies when I went to do anything serious just to have the various different film speeds and types available.

Yes, being able to change the ISO from shot to shot sure is nice. I also like auto ISO for when I am walking around.

I have to disagree with the plastic vs metal on the lenses though. I think the metal ones are tougher, and the added weight gives me more stability for hand holding shots - the same as a heavy barrel does on my hunting rifles.

Of course, neither one of us knows without doing extensive, careful testing (and who wants to do the testing on one's own lenses? ), but I suppose the companies that make the lenses do it. Also, there are many different kinds of plastic and metal and also construction. If I was forced to drop a lens such as the Sony 18-250mm or Tamron 18-270mm onto a concrete sidewalk from 3 feet I would be more comfortable than doing the same with a Minolta 28-135mm or Minolta 70-210mm beercan. For one thing, the 2 plastic lenses may very well survive with no cosmetic damage whereas the 2 metal lenses would almost surely be scratched and dented. Internally, who knows though unless you want to try it? By the way, did you see these cool abuse videos (part 1 & 2) that really go after Nikon and Canon DSLRs (plastic ones with plastic lenses)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1tTBncIsm8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWzsXeXCwuc

When it comes to plastic there are many types and qualities, but I am reminded that they are also used for motorcycle helmets, military helmets, football helmets, tennis rackets, skis, etc. instead of metal. Oh, thanks for reminding me. Also, many rifles now have plastic stocks and some handguns such as Glock have many plastic parts.

I agree that what you like is what you should get though.

[bakubo]

I have to agree that with digital we now never "have the wrong film in the camera". I always had several bodies when I went to do anything serious just to have the various different film speeds and types available.

I was thinking more about this. In 1991 I was in Kenya and mostly used ISO 100 slide film, but I brought some ISO 400 slide film too. It seemed no matter how hard I tried I sometimes had the wrong film in the camera. It would be early in the morning or late in the day and I would end up having ISO 100 film in the camera and then during the day have ISO 400 in the camera. In 1993 I was in Africa and I had a Minolta 7xi and Minolta 7000i. I kept ISO 100 slide film in the 7xi and ISO 400 slide film in the 7000i. I thought that having 2 bodies would solve my problems. Well, it helped a bit, but not much. I found that I would often have the wrong lens on the camera I wanted to use and would have to swap lenses on the bodies. Then 5 minutes later I would be in a situation where I needed to swap the lenses again. Swapping lenses from one body to the other is more difficult and takes more time than dealing with 1 body and 2 lenses. Also, with all the dust while riding on the dirt roads having 2 bodies and 2 lenses and trying to swap the lenses leaves the bodies open longer and harder to protect. Plus, sometimes I would be trying to swap the lenses while the vehicle was on the move on those bumpy dirt roads and everything was bouncing around.

It is all so much easier these days! Another thing is having access to excellent quality ISO settings than just ISO 25-200. It doesn't seem all that long ago that I usually used ISO 25 and ISO 64. ISO 100 was a nice improvement in speed, but now it is the slowest ISO normally found on a DSLR. Now, I think nothing of using ISO 400 or 800. Actually, when I travel and the light is low I think nothing of using ISO 1600, 3200, and 6400. With the 60D it also has ISO 12,800. Sure, the quality goes down as the ISO goes up, but it is still outstanding compared to what we had with film. Also, for many photos the noise/grain is not much of a problem and sometimes looks good. I have Neat Image that also helps a lot. Also, for low light shots at high ISO it often looks good to make them B&W.

[Greg Beetham]

I didn't think much of the idea of using plastic in lens construction either but I'm pretty much sold now, good plastic is much more durable all round than metal I think. One biggie is almost no thermal expansion and contraction as compared to a metal body and the exterior is much more resistant to being scratched or scuffed in any way. The black anodizing on my MD lenses is tough I know and they all still look almost brand new, but that's only because they have been looked after with great care, if they hadn't been I guess they could have easily ended up looking like some journo's lenses used to do.
I think the plastic moulding of lens bodies allows quite a lot of savings in machining costs as well, no tolerance checking and re-checking, no tooling wear and tear etc. wheather these cost savings were passed on in full I'm not so sure.
As for impact damage, I don't think dropping a lens is a good idea whatever it's made out of, I've never dropped one yet and I don't intend to start, but I'd expect the plastic one would survive better than a metal one, less weight equals less inertia, and plastic will spring back to it's original shape better than metal.
So yep I'm now quite happy with the plastic idea now, took a bit of getting used too at the beginning though.
Greg