50D+17-50 2.8 or 60D+17-50 2.8

Would you spend an extra $180 for the 60D? I do 99% landscape and could go either way with having or not having the video ability.

Thanks!

No, but thats me.

if you don't care about video, then what's to discus?

Nope,,,but I'm prejudice.

Am I going to gain anything by the newer metering system?

ISO performance should be a noticeable improvement.

jtack wrote in post #11950534
Am I going to gain anything by the newer metering system?

Not if you learn how to shoot in manual and read a histogram

for $180, you get better high ISO performance, fantastic quality video and a swivel screen, but you'll lose micro adjustment of focus. Not sure which one is better. But I'd choose a 60D for video, for sure.

You lose MA and gain a swively screen and something which real cameras(Still) never were meant to do.

And yes I am horribly biased.

If you do 99% landscapes get the 5D classic or 1DS the full frame will help you.

Youll like the higher resolution with landscapes. Lol at comment above saying the only real cameras are still cameras...

sulli.gibson wrote in post #11951102
Youll like the higher resolution with landscapes. Lol at comment above saying the only real cameras are still cameras...

Yeah I kinda wrote that to provoke a lol so I hope no one will be offended.

I would go for the 60D.

No, MA is pretty important at least for me.

yes I would go with the 60D, you get allot more camera. And though you do not get MA, you do gain HD, faster focus, better high iso performance, and a better weather seal body. 50D is a good camera, and if want to save, it is a good photography too.

Micro Adjustment is a over played topic. Nice to have but not needed. If the lens is off when you get it, send it back to get it cal. As that is what you really want out the box is a properly focusing lens.