# Suggestions on new Canon DSLR -- thinking 60D



## Pix8ion (May 18, 2012)

Good morning all! I'm new to the forum (and to photography) and this is my first post...so please excuse any noob errors.

I've been looking at getting into a DSLR for several years now, but just haven't bit the bullet so to speak. Up 'til now, I've just had compact digitals and supplemented them with camera phones for the on-the-go, spontaneous pics. While the quality of the pics from the compact digitals has been decent, I'm growing ever more frustrated with their lack of flexibility and speed. Now, with a growing family and summer vacations on the way, I think now is the time to jump in.

I've been doing quite a bit of research and have finally settled down on the 60D -- even though a newer model might be coming out in the near future, I'm not sure I can postpone any longer. 

As for lenses, I've been looking at the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS & the 55-250mm f/4-5.6. My reasoning is that at this point, I want to limit the number of lenses to choose from while out but still have flexibility for multiple shots. I know that there are better options, particularly when looking at fixed focal length lenses, but I don't think that I want to go down that route just yet.

So....my question to the experts out there is: "What are your thoughts on my choices? Is this a decent set-up for someone just starting out, or are there better options?" Any thoughts, suggestions are welcome. 

Thanks, in advance, for all the help! Cheers!


----------



## Act444 (May 18, 2012)

Hi,

First of all, welcome!

Two and a half years ago, I was in the same exact position you were, just starting out with a DSLR, frustrated with the awful, red-eye-laden shots my P&S was taking in indoor, low-light situations. There was definitely a learning curve once I did get my DSLR (I started out with a Rebel T2i)- my initial shots weren't much better than my P&S shots, kept getting blurry/OOF shots and wasn't really sure why it was happening. Long story short, to take full advantage of the new features and additional control I now had, I had to read up all on the basics of photography, talk to people, and practice- learn through trial and error. You'll find out that things as small as the way you hold the camera, your stance, etc. can affect the quality of pictures you get. Until good technique is achieved, it really doesn't matter what lens you start out with- the photos will likely look the same. 

What I did was I got my T2i/kit lens combo, used that to get comfortable with the camera, learn it, etc. As soon as I was ready to do some serious work with it though, I immediately ditched the kit lens and went for something better (the 24-105 f4). You can go ahead and start out with the 60D and 18-135 if you want- but I think you'll find that as you improve, you'll want a better quality lens. The T3i/60D/7D/5DIII are truly high-megapixel beasts that demand high-quality lenses if you ever want to see their full potential. If you want to jump right in, you might want to think about a cheaper body (a Rebel series) and use the money saved to get something like the 15-85mm lens (praised highly by many people here). When it comes to picture quality, the lens is really what's most important. You'll get higher quality shots with a Rebel and a 15-85 or 50mm than you would with a 60D or 7D with 18-135 or 18-200. 

Kind of long, but hope this helps.


----------



## RC (May 18, 2012)

Not claiming to be an "expert" by any means but my first advice would be to put your money in glass. I would seriously consider the 15-85 over the 18-135 for IQ reasons. Also the 15-85 is a bit wider making it 24mm (FF equivalent) which is great for landscapes and the build quality is better. Both have the same variable apertures so that is a wash.

Second, hold off on the 55-250 until you have had time to learn your camera and body. Chances are very likely that you will want a higher IQ lens than the 55-250 and you may discover that you might want a different focal length.

Have not shot with a 60D but I think that is an excellent choice (I have a 7D). I think you will find a lot of ergonomic benefit from a larger body (like the 60D) over the Rebels--of course is all personal preference.

It doesn't look like the the 60D is sold in a kit with the 15-85 so you may have to buy them separate. If budget is not an issue, consider the 17-55 which also has excellent IQ, and a constant 2.8 aperture.

Good luck and let us know your decisions.


15-85 review
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

18-135 review
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx

55-250 Review
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## atvinyard (May 18, 2012)

60D is a nice camera, with a nice set of controls for manual mode. If you get one, you have to learn how to use manual mode, otherwise it's a waste and you should go for one of the rebels instead (they're still very nice compared to a point and shoot). 

So... if you plan to learn to use it, get the 60D. If you plan to use it in auto mode like a point and shoot, get a rebel. 

My wife loves her 18-135. It takes good pictures. The rebel kit with the 18-55 and the 55-250 is what I started out with. Very versatile. The lenses are both pretty good considering what they cost. Also, seriously consider picking up a canon 50mm f/1.8 lens. It's the supreme DSLR beginners lens and they only cost around $100 US. Sharp and good in low light.

On top of that, I would look at buying a copy of Adobe Lightroom for photo editing. It's a very capable program that's fairly easy to learn how to use and will really help you to get the best out of the photos you take.


----------



## Orangutan (May 18, 2012)

Different models have different capabilities, and may suit different needs. Here are the criteria you mentioned:

"flexibility and speed. Now, with a growing family and summer vacations on the way..."

How old are your children? Will they stand still for a photo, or do have under-10's who never stop moving? I have a 60D and I like it. The autofocus works well, but is not perfect. My first recommendation is to think more carefully about examples of photos you would regret missing, that will help you decide which features are essential.

+ If you have perpetual-motion children and don't want to miss anything, get a 7D: people just love the autofocus. It has (nearly) the same photo quality as the 60D. You might consider a used or refurb 7D if money is a concern.

+ If your children move slower or will pose, the 60D would be a good choice, as might a T3i.

Another option: try to borrow or rent one to get a sense of it. There's a big difference between P&S and DSLR.


----------



## sanjosedave (May 18, 2012)

I recently bought a 60D and like it. I'd suggest trying to budget for L glass, image quality is king.

As for software, I use Photoshop Elements 10 to edit and Picassa to manage images. Most of the 3rd party edit apps from Nik, Alien and Topaz work with Elements.


----------



## Bruce Photography (May 18, 2012)

Over the years I have bought quite a bit of Canon gear and most of their lenses. When it came time to grab a camera and lens to go to San Francisco and visit museums, the tea garden, and the botantical gardens I wanted to use just one lens. I chose the 60D with the 18-200 because of the sharpness and versatility. When I got home I had a couple of thousand images and they were all great. To keep things simple I chose manual mode using 5.6 most of the time at 1/125. I set my ISO at auto with a limit of 3200. I then proceded to shoot inside, outside, and even in the dark deyoung museum (sorry but I don't know how to spell it). Talk about simple. 

Now perhaps I just got lucky with my copy of the 18-200 but I'm very happy with my results. Another piece of honesty: I only shoot raw and I use Lightroom 4 and Photoshop CS6 and I've invested my time in knowing them pretty well. But at some point in your future, you will too. The images you take today will last into your families future. I know the 60D with the 18-200 can now be had for $1299 and I think it represents the best value that Canon offers. I never want to let go of my 60D and 18-200 combination - what a great setup! Even the batteries can last for the entire day of shooting.

P.S. Don't bother with the 18-135 - what a piece of junk. Not even a lens creep lock (18-200 does have a lock). I do like the 15-85 but really not long enough for traveling.


----------



## whatta (May 18, 2012)

If I could not wait than I would get the 60d too.


----------



## preppyak (May 18, 2012)

Bruce Photography said:


> P.S. Don't bother with the 18-135 - what a piece of junk. Not even a lens creep lock (18-200 does have a lock). I do like the 15-85 but really not long enough for traveling.


Funny, I had the opposite experience, I hated the 18-200 (found it unusable for wide shots because of the distortion, and not very sharp on the long end), but I liked the 18-135, even though its far from perfect. And I never had issues with zoom creep on the 18-135, but the 18-200 needed the lock badly

That said, my suggestion is that you go with a T3i over the 60D and use the extra money to get the 50mm f/1.8. If what you're finding frustrating is the lack of speed, the ultra-zooms won't solve that problem. All of them are gonna be f/5.6 for most of their range, which won't be any faster or handle low-light any better than your point and shoot. The 50mm f/1.8 will, and by a significant margin. You'd still get one of the zooms, because they'll work great outdoors, but you'll have versatility that way.

Another way you could consider going is getting one of the 17-50 f/2.8 lenses from Tamron. It's basically the same cost as the 18-135, but, you'll likely find it much more useful. Then you can supplement that with the 55-250 for use outdoors when you want more range. Also, many places are currently running promos, you can probably get the 55-250 for damn near free, since its $150 off when purchased with one of the bodies. At that price, its worth it.


----------



## robbymack (May 18, 2012)

let me first say, "welcome to a lifetime of always wanting more gear!"

You can't go wrong with the 60D, but other than build there is little difference between it and a t3i. Since this is your first dive into the DSLR world I'd save the few $100 on the camera. In fact since a t4i is likely to be released soon if you can hold off a month or two then you could pick up a new t3i on the cheap. As for lens, the kit 18-55 is junk, but a good starter. From my experience the 18-135 is better than the 18-200, but different strokes for different folks. A lot of people like the 15-85 or even the 28-135, but you honestly aren't getting any real stellar lens out of that line up so just go with what feels right to you. I think the 18-135 is a great starter you can go from moderate wide to moderate telephoto in one piece of kit. I still have the one I purchased several years ago and it is permanently attached to an older rebel that makes appearances on vacations and when ever my wife wants to take photos. Stop it down to f7.1-f11 and it takes decent to pretty good shots. If you can swing it get the 17-55 f2.8, that is, by and large, the best zoom for crop senors. If not and you pick up one of the super zooms above do yourself a favor and pick up a 50 f1.8 or if you want to spend a little more a 50 f1.4, 28 f1.8, or 85 f1.8. Lastly as above a good imaging program is needed. Lightroom, or if you own a Mac, Aperture are both the places to start. IMHO Aperture beats the tails off of Lightroom simply because your workflow is streamlined. Good luck and happy shooting!


----------



## briansquibb (May 18, 2012)

With my 40D I used the 18-55 and 55-250.

Both were excellent lens for the price

40D with [email protected] - the 60D should give a better image than this


----------



## well_dunno (May 18, 2012)

Welcome to the forums!

I will repeat what has been said earlier in the thread - the camera sees things through the lens so without good lens it does not matter how good of a camera you have. All lenses have their strong and weak points and can provide good results at their best. The more you spend on the gear, the more freedom you get to achieve good results in other words. 

Not sure about your budget, but if it allows 17-55 f/2.8 IS or 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS (if those are too expensive Tamron 17-55 f/2.8 the non stabilized version) and 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS would be the lenses I would pick. The 70-300 is an EF mount so if you happen to decide shooting with full frame cameras some day, it will still be usable. The first three are only compatible with the APS-C cameras as you are probably aware. 

Also, if on limited budget, picking a lesser body -Rebel line/550D-600D - and use the difference for getting better lenses can give you better results. You can find quite a few lens reviews at photozone.de

As for software - open source GIMP

Cheers!


----------



## well_dunno (May 18, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> With my 40D I used the 18-55 and 55-250.
> 
> Both were excellent lens for the price
> 
> 40D with [email protected] - the 60D should give a better image than this



Nice shot Brian! 

Didn't the cat get annoyed by the flash? A friend of mine got bitten by his cat due to flash firing


----------



## dstppy (May 18, 2012)

well_dunno said:


> Nice shot Brian!
> 
> Didn't the cat get annoyed by the flash? A friend of mine got bitten by his cat due to flash firing



Sounds like a nice set of fur gloves to me.

The 60D is a great camera coming from P&S cameras, but the T4i is going to be a super shooter if they put DigicV in it. At very least, wait until next month to figure out what the 'new cameras' are, most likely the price of the 60D will only improve.

Craig was nice enough to reply to an e-mail to me a few years back and recommended the 60D and the 15-85mm, which was a great setup. The only changeout I might suggest is the 24-105mmL which I got afterwards, but the 15 is nice on the crop body.

If you at all care about image quality, I really would shy away from cheaper glass over 100mm --- I have a 70-300 that I just plain hate. Honestly, I got a used 200mm F 2.8 L and I love it. I use it on my FF or with a TC (1.4) on my 60D with a monopod and lens ring and it's just awesome what I can get out of it.

So, in short (too late), go with a cheaper body and better glass if you can. LightRoom (and other software) have lens-specific correction for vignetting and barrel distortion, making lenses like the 15-85mm comparable to an L lens in a lot of circumstances.

Also, don't be afraid of used gear (lensrentals has a buy area that I've gotten 3 lenses from).


----------



## briansquibb (May 18, 2012)

well_dunno said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > With my 40D I used the 18-55 and 55-250.
> ...



No flash - it was in his favourite place in the greenhouse.

I like your choice of lens - cheap and good. Get them used and they will be a lot of bang for your buck. Buy new and you lose a lot as you walk out of the store - same with the body ....


----------



## Northstar (May 18, 2012)

I have a Nikon d7000 and Canon 5d3.

For your price range, I'd suggest the Nikon d7000 over the 60d, and I'd suggest just one lens -the Nikon 18-200 vrii. 
This is a very good combination. and, you won't have to carry an extra lens or worry about changing lenses. 

From my reading/experience, they're both great cameras, but the d7000 AF and low light shooting are better...both of which will be important for the type of shooting you're describing.

Good luck either way, they're both good cameras that should bring years of enjoyment.


----------



## Lyra Video Productions (May 18, 2012)

60D is a great camera--I've got one myself. I've also shot on a D7000 at work, but primarily for video and time lapses--both are great cameras for the price; though the 60D wins for video.

I'd agree with some earlier posters and say see what happens in the next month before you buy, if you can. Whatever ends up coming out may affect your decision--or may affect the prices of current cameras and if you're looking for used..

I can't say I've had any experience with the lenses you mentioned. If budget is an issue, just go with what you can afford. You won't be unhappy with what you get. You can always upgrade later on. But if you feel like shelling out some extra dough, consider going for some L glass. If you take good care of it, it will last a long time.

And I understand the desire to get lenses with lots of versatility/big range--I had a similar set up with my first DSLR, the nikon D40. Could I have gotten better image quality from a more expensive lens with less range? sure. am I sorry I got the lenses I did? Nope--for me at the time that cheap dslr and cheap lenses were great. Some of my best shots to this day were on that camera.


----------



## Pix8ion (May 19, 2012)

Huge thanks to everyone for the thoughts and advice! I'm definitely rethinking my initial choice of lenses and taking a fresh look at online reviews. 

I'm definitely set on the 60D or upcoming replacement (may end up holding off until June to see what happens). I've compared the T3i to the 60D and the T3i just feels small in my hand whereas the 60D fits well -- that may be a problem for my wife, but hey this is for me.  Also, I definitely want to utilize the manual controls and not just rely on the auto settings (a main reason to get away from P&S).

For the quote below, the kids will pose, but not for very long. They're getting better, but slowly. The dog on the other hand..... 



Orangutan said:


> How old are your children? Will they stand still for a photo, or do have under-10's who never stop moving?



Other than family pics, I'm also planning ahead for kids sporting and nature (landscape, wildlife, etc.). Again, just getting into higher-end photography (i.e., not just P&S), so not trying to break the bank just yet. Looking for lenses that will enable me to build basic skills yet still take solid pics -- and make me want to upgrade over time.

One last question, the recommended lenses included some EF and EF-S. While I know that both fit the 60D, I'm less clear on what the impacts are to the perceived focal length and/or quality. Online postings seem to be somewhat contradictory on this matter. My understanding is that pictures taken with, say, 50mm focal length EF and EF-S lenses be framed differently on an aps-c sensor (as in the 60D) versus a FF sensor. Because of this, some postings have mentioned that an EF lens on an aps-c sensor will effectively extend the reach of the lens -- turning the 50mm into a 80mm lens (1.6x crop factor). If both a FF and aps-c sensor have the same MPs (when using the same EF lens on two different bodies), does this really happen or are there impacts to image quality? As a result, is it best to stay with a lens specifically made for an aps-c sensor (i.e., an EF-S lens) versus a FF lens? Guess that was more than one question.... :-[ To the extent possible, I'd prefer to lean to EF lenses purely for the long-term reuse should I make the jump to a FF body.

Again, thanks for all the help and my apologies if the above is your basic run-of-the-mill noob questioning. I've tried to answer it using existing online resources, but just can't find a decent answer.


----------



## robbymack (May 19, 2012)

I'll say it again for the one millionth time, buy the lens for the camera you own TODAY no the camera you will own tomorrow. Who knows what you will want in a few years time? Tech moves so fast don't worry about it. In 6 months canon could introduce a mirror less ff so why worry about that which you cannot control. You're buying a crop sensor so make use of it and save some cash with ef-s lens where reasonable. The 17-55 2.8 should be at the top of your list.


----------



## briansquibb (May 19, 2012)

robbymack said:


> The 17-55 2.8 should be at the top of your list.



A cheap ef-s lens?

L lens start kicking in at that price. The OP was clearly looking for something longer - the 70-200 f/4 would be cheaper than the 17-55


----------



## !Xabbu (May 19, 2012)

Pix8ion said:


> One last question, the recommended lenses included some EF and EF-S. While I know that both fit the 60D, I'm less clear on what the impacts are to the perceived focal length and/or quality. Online postings seem to be somewhat contradictory on this matter. My understanding is that pictures taken with, say, 50mm focal length EF and EF-S lenses be framed differently on an aps-c sensor (as in the 60D) versus a FF sensor. Because of this, some postings have mentioned that an EF lens on an aps-c sensor will effectively extend the reach of the lens -- turning the 50mm into a 80mm lens (1.6x crop factor). If both a FF and aps-c sensor have the same MPs (when using the same EF lens on two different bodies), does this really happen or are there impacts to image quality? As a result, is it best to stay with a lens specifically made for an aps-c sensor (i.e., an EF-S lens) versus a FF lens? Guess that was more than one question.... :-[ To the extent possible, I'd prefer to lean to EF lenses purely for the long-term reuse should I make the jump to a FF body.
> 
> Again, thanks for all the help and my apologies if the above is your basic run-of-the-mill noob questioning. I've tried to answer it using existing online resources, but just can't find a decent answer.



Hi Pix8ion,

The focal lens is the same for EF and EF-S lenses. However, a 50mm lens (both EF and EF-S) will give you a 80mm FF equivalent field of view on a crop sensor camera. This means that you will need something below 18mm, if you want to shoot really really wide.

As to your questions - I would stay away from kit lenses and cheap lenses. I got a 450D with kit lens a few years back and the IQ was horrible. As soon as I upgraded to my Tamron 17-50mm I started understanding what the DSLR rave was really about and getting my 70-200mm f/4 L opened a whole new world for me. Lenses have a much bigger impact than the body can ever have.


----------



## RC (May 19, 2012)

Pix8ion said:


> ...I'm definitely set on the 60D or upcoming replacement (may end up holding off until June to see what happens). I've compared the T3i to the 60D and the T3i just feels small in my hand whereas the 60D fits well...


 Good decision and great choice, the wait game can drive one nuts.



Pix8ion said:


> One last question, the recommended lenses included some EF and EF-S. While I know that both fit the 60D, I'm less clear on what the impacts are to the perceived focal length and/or quality. Online postings seem to be somewhat contradictory on this matter. My understanding is that pictures taken with, say, 50mm focal length EF and EF-S lenses be framed differently on an aps-c sensor (as in the 60D) versus a FF sensor. Because of this, some postings have mentioned that an EF lens on an aps-c sensor will effectively extend the reach of the lens -- turning the 50mm into a 80mm lens (1.6x crop factor).



Focal length is focal length. Just think of a APS-C camera (60D) like a 1.6 teleconvertor. On Canon's crop sensor cameras, multiple the focal length whether it is an EF-S or EF, by 1.6 to get the FF equivalent. EF-S lenses will not physically fit on a FF body and shouldn't because the FF mirror can hit the rear lens element. So buy the lens you need and want for the body you have whether it's an EF-S or EF. (In my case I have a 7D and no EF-S lens not because I'm getting ready for FF, but because I chose the best lens for my needs.)

EF lens do not resolve any less detail when used on a crop body. So don't worry about losing anything if you chose an EF over a EF-S lens. In fact if anything, a crop body can't see the edges of a EF lens (where its prone to be less sharp) like a FF can. The experts on this site can define all this much more scientifically.

Typical focal lengths in FF:
24mm (15mm on a 60D) - Landscapes (obviously wider is nice too)
50mm - 135mm (31mm - 85mm on a 60D) - typical for portraits (of course any lens can be used, but outside of this range you have to be more careful of distortion)
50mm (31mm on a 60D) - normal FOV approximately what your eyes see


Final tips: 

If you expect to get into photography seriously, and if you can, spend a little more now and get good glass. IMO, I don't like the "start out with this lens now" and then "upgrade to this lens later" strategy. Do your homework (it sounds like you have) and get what you want up front.

Buy gear incrementally. Get some experience with your body and main lens, then use that experience to choose your next lens.

Good luck


----------



## ruuneos (May 19, 2012)

Simply:
- Choose DSLR body which fills all your needs from it.


----------



## elflord (May 19, 2012)

One thing I'd suggest -- avoid the temptation to cover every focal length at the expense of everything else. There's a big advantage to faster glass, the mistake beginners usually make is that they get some 18-270mm zoom at the expense of everything else. 

Also, start with at least one prime in your kit even if it's just the 50mm f/1.8. Especially if your zooms are all slow variable aperture zooms, a fast prime will really help for portrait shots. 

I'd recommend one general purpose like the 15-85, 17-55 f/2.8. or the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Would skip long tele to begin with unless you have a specific application in mind.


----------



## elflord (May 19, 2012)

Northstar said:


> For your price range, I'd suggest the Nikon d7000 over the 60d, and I'd suggest just one lens -the Nikon 18-200 vrii.
> This is a very good combination. and, you won't have to carry an extra lens or worry about changing lenses.
> 
> From my reading/experience, they're both great cameras, but the d7000 AF and low light shooting are better...both of which will be important for the type of shooting you're describing.
> ...



A slow super zoom covers all focal lengths but doesn't give you much control over exposure or depth of field, and you also compromise in terms of image quality. 

Especially for low light shooting, fast glass is important (and makes much more difference than the body). For low light shots, The 50mm f/1.4 and a flash on a Rebel T1 will be light years ahead of a D700 or a 5D Mk III with a slow superzoom.


----------



## boateggs (May 19, 2012)

scrappydog said:


> The 24-105 is a good choice because it is mid-wide to mid-telephoto, has image stabilization, and is sharp. The f/4 is not very fast, but you can add a 50mm f/1.8, which is an inexpensive fast lens for low light situations.
> 
> My advice is to get the camera refurbished from Adorama. You get a $100 discount from the new 60D price and Adorama provides a 1 year warranty. I bought my Canon point & shoot refurbished from Adorama and it was like a brand new camera.
> 
> ...



+1, although i mostly agree. skip the 24-105, that is a full frame lens (havent used it, just my opinion).

Scrappydog mentioned a refurb camera from Adorama, try looking at getting a refurb from Canon direct. A 60d is 800$ and if you do the CLP with a broken $10 ebay camera you will get 20% off the camera plus whatever lenses you get at the same time. I was going to get a 60d & 15-85mm lens through the refurb store next week fro $1150 plus tax but have put that on hold with the recent rumors. Plus, from my reading, the refurb lenses from Canon are better than new as they have all been individually inspected.

My personal buying habits have been to skip the 17-55 f2.8 and get a zoom with more range (15-85, ordering that on Monday) and pair it with a fast prime or 2 (50/1.8 & 30/1.4) for low light. In my case will end up with 3 lenses for roughly the same price as the 17-55 and i will have greater range plus better low light capabilities at frequently used focal lengths.

In the long run you will be happy, just dont go too nuts at first. Learn and then buy rather than buy what you think you need and gain another expensive paper weight


----------



## jebrady03 (May 19, 2012)

elflord said:


> One thing I'd suggest -- avoid the temptation to cover every focal length at the expense of everything else. There's a big advantage to faster glass, the mistake beginners usually make is that they get some 18-270mm zoom at the expense of everything else.
> 
> Also, start with at least one prime in your kit even if it's just the 50mm f/1.8. Especially if your zooms are all slow variable aperture zooms, a fast prime will really help for portrait shots.
> 
> I'd recommend one general purpose like the 15-85, 17-55 f/2.8. or the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Would skip long tele to begin with unless you have a specific application in mind.



I think this is the best advice in this thread so far. EXTREMELY solid!

Based on the information you've provided and the amount of money you've decided to spend (based on the camera and lenses you've mentioned above) - I'd snag the 60D and 15-85. Someone above said the image quality of the 15-85 isn't great. That's COMPLETE rubbish. The IQ for the 15-85 is absolutely FANTASTIC!

If you can manage it, I'd add the 55-250 - an EXCELLENT choice if you're not going to shoot long distance shots very often - I use mine about 3-5 times per year and that's it. In fact, I just visited a zoo a few weeks ago with my 15-85 and only wished I had my 55-250 TWICE. 85mm is longer than you'd think! If you're going to need a telephoto lens fairly often (sports or zoos every weekend or even once a month, etc.) then an "L" zoom (like the 70-300L or any of the 70-200L's for instance) will cost approximately 4-14x as much as the 55-250 but the IQ can't be beat.

For low light photos (and a price range of $120-460 each), I'd consider the 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 (depending on budget) and/or the 28mm 1.8 or 35mm 2.0. Or, you could forgo the 50mm/28mm/35mm group and stick with the 15-85 zoom and add an external flash like the 430EXII ($280). Using flash properly is an art in and of itself, IMO. 

As for your concern over whether to buy EF lenses instead of EF-S lenses. Personally, it's not an issue for me. Here's how I see it. The crop sensor market is FAR larger than the FF market. Used equipment, especially higher quality equipment, doesn't depreciate much. So, higher quality EF-S lenses will be easy to sell for many many years (ie, 17-55 and 15-85) and for very little loss. Finally, the crop sensor affects the angle of view. So, let's say you snag a 70-200mm L lens and LOVE that focal length/angle of view on your 60D. When you put that same lens on a FF, the angle of view is going to be DRASTICALLY different. On the 60D, the focal length equivalent will be 112-320 but on the FF it'll be 70-200. There's a big difference between 70 & 110 and 200 & 320. Essentially, if you want that same field of view that the 70-200 provided on your 60D, you'd need a 112-320 (if such a lens existed - the 70-300L would be the logical choice). So, you're STILL going to need to sell your old equipment and buy something new. Unless you have a TON of lenses and/or keep your crop body as a second camera.

And finally, as a hobbyist, there's probably very little chance that you'll upgrade to FF. It's possible - just unlikely.

So, as others said. Buy for today! Don't even factor in the FF argument.

In terms of post-processing software. Many will recommend Lightroom, Aperture, Photoshop Elements, and even various plug-ins. Many people overlook the bundled software - Digital Photo Professional (aka: DPP). DPP is VERY good. It may not be equal to some of the other programs in it's overall power and ability, but given the fact that as of now, you have no idea what you're doing - it's already MUCH more than you're capable of utilizing. It's very easy to use and it's very comprehensive. And... it's VERY good (as I said before). Some folks doling out recommendations will start processing in one program, move the same image to another and process it further, then move it to another program (or utilize plug-ins) to process further!!! As someone who is out taking pictures of their family, trips, etc., I can assure you - that will NOT be your workflow. You'll be a one-program-and-done kind of guy because by using DPP (for FREE) you'll already be 95% of where a $500 3-suite process would get you. AND, you won't be trying to sell your images like they will.

As with bodies and lenses, only upgrade when you feel that your tools are limiting you. I've been using DPP for 3 years now and I still don't see many opportunities for me to upgrade.

Above, someone mentioned the ability of one of the programs to correct distortion. This would be someone who hasn't bothered to use DPP. DPP KNOWS your camera and lenses (if you buy Canon lenses) and can correct lens aberrations (such as distortion and vignetting - it even does some noise reduction and chromatic aberration corrections too) for you with the click of a button. It knows where the flaws in your Canon equipment is and how to correct it because CANON made it  I think WAAAAAY too many people foolishly overlook DPP to the detriment of their bank account. They probably do this because DPP is the only manufacturer-provided post-processing software that's worth installing. Nikon and Sony's software is garbage - so many assume Canon's is too. It's not! 

Hope some of this helped!


----------



## briansquibb (May 19, 2012)

I would still go for the 24-105 over the 15-85 as:

- you have the wide covered
- the quality of the 24-105 is excellent
- the 24-105 is weatherproofed
- f/4 all the way through

Taken today with 24-105 on 7d


----------



## RC (May 19, 2012)

jebrady03 said:


> In terms of post-processing software. Many will recommend Lightroom, Aperture, Photoshop Elements, and even various plug-ins. Many people overlook the bundled software - Digital Photo Professional (aka: DPP). DPP is VERY good....



Agree, DPP is very good software and the perfect software to start with IMO. DPP is included with all Canon RAW capable cameras. I use DPP along with LR. You will determine in time if you need / want to add photo editing software. When that time comes, download and test trial versions.



briansquibb said:


> I would still go for the 24-105 over the 15-85 as:...



Certainly worth considering. I very much like the 24-105 in conjunction with the 10-22. You get true wide through moderate telephoto for crop cameras. That might be the better route to take, only you will know. Primarily for the need / want to have weather sealed lens, I sold my 15-85 and added the 16-35 and 24-105.


----------



## Northstar (May 19, 2012)

> A slow super zoom covers all focal lengths but doesn't give you much control over exposure or depth of field, and you also compromise in terms of image quality



"covers all focal lengths" is a very important and an underrated feature. It's great for mom's / dad's that don't want to change lenses(or carry multiple) all the time on vacation, at outdoor soccer/baseball, parks.



> Especially for low light shooting, fast glass is important (and makes much more difference than the body)



agree with you here....I would add to my recommendation, for ALL indoor shooting get a fast 50 1.8 prime(in addition to the 18-200)...or if you think you'll shoot a lot of indoor sports/plays etc - then get the 85 1.8. For good quality indoor images you really need a fast prime....a must. If you go with the 60d, then the $125 50 1.8 would be great. Get the 85 1.8 if you know you'll be shooting indoor sports / plays..etc.

I standby the 18-200....for most outdoor shots with decent light, it will work very well.


----------



## DB (May 20, 2012)

Like many others here, I was in a similar situation to you, bought a Rebel T2i with a kit lens, but did not learn much until I bought a 'nifty-fifty' 50mm f1.4 fast prime (which is a good walk around lens on a 1.6 crop). Trust me forget the plastic EF-S lenses, once you start acquiring fast primes or 'L' glass you'll chuck 'em in a drawer and never use them again. My 50mm lens cost a little more than half what my T2i cost. Quick rule of thumb: 50% of budget for body + 50% for your first lens (thereafter you'll spend a lot more than your camera cost on individual lenses...some day!).


----------



## D_Rochat (May 20, 2012)

DB said:


> Trust me forget the plastic EF-S lenses, once you start acquiring fast primes or 'L' glass you'll chuck 'em in a drawer and never use them again.



Some will inevitably disagree, but I found this to be the truth. If I were you, I'd start with the 60D 18-135 or 18-200 kit. These lenses are just OK, but they'll allow you to find out what focal lengths you use the most and be able to make a much more sound decision when looking for upgrades in the future. I stick to fixed aperture lenses, but they are quite a bit more expensive. If and when you start acquiring L glass, your "all in one" kit lens will start to collect more dust. Just like anything else, I've found it's much more cheaper in the long run to get what you want in the first place rather than trying to save a few bucks with a cheaper purchase.


----------



## briansquibb (May 20, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> DB said:
> 
> 
> > Trust me forget the plastic EF-S lenses, once you start acquiring fast primes or 'L' glass you'll chuck 'em in a drawer and never use them again.
> ...



The best start lens are the 18-55 and 55-250 as they are very cheap and decent enough to use for a year or so. Once you start delivering good pictures with these is the time to think about upgrading.


----------



## D_Rochat (May 20, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> D_Rochat said:
> 
> 
> > DB said:
> ...



I just looked up the cost of an 18-55 and 55-250 by themselves and I retract my statement. I'd go with what squibby said. It's not much more to buy body only plus those two lenses. A local retailer may even bundle them at a reduced rate for you.


----------



## !Xabbu (May 20, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> D_Rochat said:
> 
> 
> > DB said:
> ...



I really have to disagree here - I got the 450D with the 18-55mm kit lens and IQ was abysmal. I know that this lens has been upgraded, but it seems to me like cheap lenses just don't do it. Why get a DSLR and then put a super cheap piece of glass in front of it? I'd rather suggest to go with the Tamron 17-50 non-IS or - even better - with the EF-S 17-55mm. I only used the kit lens for about 2 months and never touched it since - so, overall it was quite a waste of money (not a lot of money, but still a waste).


----------



## briansquibb (May 20, 2012)

!Xabbu said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > D_Rochat said:
> ...



The reviews on the 16-55 are very good, and from experience the reviews are correct - IQ is very reasonable when taking pictures stopped down to f/5.6

Carrying your argument forward why not put a 24-70 II on the 60D rather than 'cheap' ef-s lens like the 17-55?


----------



## xps (May 20, 2012)

My personal experience is, that the 60D was my favorite, when I was waiting for the 5D MKIII (which is a little bit too expensive for me by now). 
In my family, three Persons own an 60D and one an 600D. 
It´s image quality ist quite good, if you use EF-S lenses or lenses that are designed for Crop Cameras. My older lenses (all "L") as the 17-35mmL 2.8 are suffering from chromatic aberation and being not as sharp as the lenses that are designed for crop Cameras.
The two lenses that you want to buy are ok. In my opinion good shots are more depending on the knowledge od the photographer than on technique.
The AF is working well, but if the AF has to be very fast, there is an big difference to the AF of the 7D. But the 7D costed twice the price of the 60D.

The "minus" of the 60D is the quality range of the picture sensor. My 60D had quite big noise if the ISO was higher than 400. After changing the Sensor (red stripes in the picture), the image quality is much better. The 60D of my son is not very sharp, but has superior colors...

Forget the live view mode if the object is moving. It is working much to slow.

The 600D has an much better image quality. Think of buying the 650D. It is worth waiting. The 600D of my daughter has an superior image quality to my camera. In landscape, portrait and macro fotography the pics are very sharp and detailed. The AF is a little bit slower than that one my 60D has. 


Overall: The 60D is (for its price) a very good camera. Think of the 650D, maybe its an good alternative


----------



## briansquibb (May 20, 2012)

xps said:


> Overall: The 60D is (for its price) a very good camera. Think of the 650D, maybe its an good alternative



Where can I buy a 650D?


----------



## elflord (May 20, 2012)

!Xabbu said:


> I really have to disagree here - I got the 450D with the 18-55mm kit lens and IQ was abysmal. I know that this lens has been upgraded, but it seems to me like cheap lenses just don't do it.



Take a look at the photozone reviews. The upgraded lens is substantially better. I agree with your comments though that it doesn't make much sense to spend close to $1000 on a camera body, then get a $100 kit lens. I started out with a Rebel and spent about twice the cost of the body on glass.


----------



## elflord (May 20, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> The reviews on the 16-55 are very good, and from experience the reviews are correct - IQ is very reasonable when taking pictures stopped down to f/5.6
> 
> Carrying your argument forward why not put a 24-70 II on the 60D rather than 'cheap' ef-s lens like the 17-55?



For any fixed budget, there is an optimal way to allocate it, which lies somewhere between spending $0 on the body and spending it all on the body.

Now what works best will vary (depends on the person and what they're photographing), but when a beginner wants to spend four times as much on the body as they do on glass, it's usually because they don't understand how little difference the body makes and how much difference the glass makes -- and usually, they would end up with a better kit by trying to find a way to spend less on the body (or finding some more dough for decent glass). Because of the relative rates of depreciation, it's much easier to pick up a bargain basement body than glass.


----------



## briansquibb (May 20, 2012)

Personally I would go for the 24-105


----------



## danski0224 (May 20, 2012)

Pix8ion said:


> As for lenses, I've been looking at the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS & the 55-250mm f/4-5.6. My reasoning is that at this point, I want to limit the number of lenses to choose from while out but still have flexibility for multiple shots. I know that there are better options, particularly when looking at fixed focal length lenses, but I don't think that I want to go down that route just yet.



I don't think you have mentioned a budget and there is a whole lot of overlap in those lens choices.

I also don't know what you are getting in a 60D that is better or more useful for your uses than the T3i.

A EF-S 17-55 f 2.8 is about the same money as the two lenses listed plus a bit (or, sub the T3i).

There really is a big difference between f4 and f2.8. It could mean the difference between using flash or not.

The 24-105 f4 also gets good comments.

I suggest having something lower than 24mm on a crop body. I happen to like the 16-35 II, but if you have no plans or need to go to a FF camera, then I'd suggest the 17-55 f 2.8.

You should also budget for a separate flash.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 1, 2012)

Northstar said:


> For your price range, I'd suggest the Nikon d7000 over the 60d



Choosing Nikon or Canon is a tough decision, and the d7000 has the better specs. But it is more expensive, too, I like Canon usability better and Nikon doesn't run magic lantern - that's why I got Canon when I had to decide 1.5 years ago.



dstppy said:


> The 60D is a great camera coming from P&S cameras, but the T4i is going to be a super shooter if they put DigicV in it.



Omg - an upgraded cpu won't fix your sensor but maybe noise-reduction in jpeg, and the t4i most probably won't have a new one. I have a 60d and wouldn't want to get a xxxd because the ergonomics of the 60d are much better (back dial, top lcd display, buttons). When you're advancing in photography, better usability becomes more and more important.



RC said:


> I would seriously consider the 15-85 over the 18-135 for IQ reasons. Also the 15-85 is a bit wider making it 24mm (FF equivalent) which is great for landscapes and the build quality is better. Both have the same variable apertures so that is a wash.



+1 ... cropping from a shorter good lens is better than having blurred pictures at longer range.



RC said:


> Second, hold off on the 55-250 until you have had time to learn your camera and body. Chances are very likely that you will want a higher IQ lens than the 55-250 and you may discover that you might want a different focal length.



+1 ... face it, a usable tele lens will cost you, or you'd better crop from a shorter one (see above).



danski0224 said:


> There really is a big difference between f4 and f2.8. It could mean the difference between using flash or not.



Imho f2.8 is overrated, it's not that large a difference, for "shoot in the dark" look at f1.4 and the like. The good thing about f2.8 is that the af works better in low light, but a larger aperture is meant for shallower depth of field (and even f4 is quite shallow) and cannot fix up a sensor's noise problems nor replace flash.



danski0224 said:


> You should also budget for a separate flash.



Yep, but for starting off the built-in flash is surprisingly ok because the 60d has x-sync up to 1/250s.


----------



## Pix8ion (Jul 27, 2012)

Hi all! I've been quiet on the forum for a while and took the recommendations to wait it out and see what new options Canon would put out. To be honest, I'm impressed by both the new T4i and EOS-M cameras (but disappointed in some missing features as well). 

As a result, I decided to pull the trigger and picked up a T4i (verified that it was not part of the recall) with the 18-135mm STM and a 40mm STM lens. I haven't been able to take any significant number of pictures and/or put the camera through it's paces yet as work has been taking up way too much time, but I've been happy with the camera and lenses thus far.

Now, here's my dilemma....as is usually the case....I'm on the brink of buyer's remorse as I read about the Nikon D3200 camera (yet again) -- mainly due to the 24MP sensor. I've begun to appreciate the articulating screen and "pinch to zoom" feature (which really is helpful for quick reviews of pics) on the T4i, but just wondering if the 18MP sensor on the T4i will give solid IQ compared to the D3200. 

Can anyone help pull me away from the edge, so to speak, and alleviate my concerns?? I just don't want to be worrying that I should've gone over to Nikon.

Thanks all!


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 27, 2012)

Pix8ion said:


> Can anyone help pull me away from the edge, so to speak, and alleviate my concerns?? I just don't want to be worrying that I should've gone over to Nikon.



That's what CR is for  ... deep down inside, you know you don't want a Nikon, do you  ?

No, really: 18mp is plenty as long as you don't want to crop heavily. The $7000 1dx "only" has 18mp, too, you know? You should worry more about the dynamic range and esp. iso (i.e. noise) limitations of Canon's aps-c sensor - imho iso800 is the max. really usable value. And what's 24mp good for if your lens' sharpness cannot keep up?

It is certainly correct that Nikon has the sensor edge right now, but 650d as well as d3200 will be outdated, too in no time . It doesn't really matter what your current dslr is, you will have a steep learning curve now and will think in a couple of years that the shots you're taking now are/were complete crap. So why spam your hd with 24mp ?


----------



## Northstar (Jul 28, 2012)

Having used and still use both Nikon and canon, I say forget about the d3200 and don't look back. The difference in image quality between these cameras is so small, and probably not noticeable...really, just start focusing on your t4 and that fun to use shorty 40.


----------



## elflord (Aug 1, 2012)

Pix8ion said:


> Now, here's my dilemma....as is usually the case....I'm on the brink of buyer's remorse as I read about the Nikon D3200 camera (yet again) -- mainly due to the 24MP sensor. I've begun to appreciate the articulating screen and "pinch to zoom" feature (which really is helpful for quick reviews of pics) on the T4i, but just wondering if the 18MP sensor on the T4i will give solid IQ compared to the D3200.
> 
> Can anyone help pull me away from the edge, so to speak, and alleviate my concerns?? I just don't want to be worrying that I should've gone over to Nikon.



Two things that should help

(1) megapixels don't matter that much. 

The Nikon D700 is a 12 megapixel camera. Until recently (the release of the D800), it was a current model. By the way, it blows away any APS-C camera (despite the low megapixels)

(2) Sensors haven't improved substantially in the last 10 years or so (let alone in the few months since the T4i was available). Take a look at DxOMark measurements for different cameras and it quickly becomes apparent that sensor size more than anything else determines sensor performance. full frame > APS-C > micro 4/3 > 2/3 > 1/1.7" > 1/2.5". Sony might be able to produce a 24 megapixel 1/2.5" sensor but it's no match for a 12 megapixel Nikon D700 or even a 10 megapixel Canon 5DC.

That's why professional grade cameras are on 4 year release cycles. Until this year, Canon's 5DII and Nikon's D700, both 2008 cameras, were current models.


----------

