Canon 60D v. Sony a55

When I started shopping for a new DSLR months back, I was really locked in on comparing the Nikon D5100 v. the Canon 60D. I felt Canon was the right choice for me, given the variety of things I would be shooting with it—all different sports, our newborn, family stuff, and general pics to supplement what the full-time shooters at my paper didn't have time to get to.

I felt that the 60D's movie mode and articulating screen solidly put it over the top, and my photographer friends swore by the 7D, 5D Mark III's, and 1D series cameras. In an ideal world with me having a bigger budget, I would have bought the 7D for its great build and faster FPS. But, the 60D did a lot of the same things the 7D did, and it was a solid step up from my Nikon D40 kit which I happily sold on ebay to help with the cost of getting a new camera.

After giving a lot of thought to getting a 50D, I decided that shooting movies could be a bigger deal down the road and I went with the 60D. I ordered one refurbished from Canon along with a 50mm 1.8 ii and 55-250 refurbished lenses for just over $1000 with tax and delivery while they were having their big sale on refurbished stuff in December. I was and am pretty happy with the value I received, just as I've been happy with the quality of my images to date.

And just like many other new DSLR owners, I wonder if I didn't give another camera—the Sony a55 in my case—enough of a look. Did I kind of ignore it because it seemed to slight of build? Aside from the 7D, I liked the way the 60D felt in my hand the most of the cameras I picked up while I was out shopping. The 10fps of the Sony would come in handy shooting basketball, but I haven't heard great things about its performance while taking bursts.

I'm still learning how to shoot, really. The D40 was so dummy-proof, even if was terrible for shooting high school football. I have full confidence the 60D will be pretty good in that capacity.

I would love to hear you guys weigh in on what you've seen and heard on the a55 so far as it would weigh in as a challenger to the 60D. My gut tells me I've made the right choice, but the Sony fanboys chirp loudly in many reviews I've seen.

Thanks for your input in advance!

I actually have an A55 (its for sale too!) and an A77. For APS-C, the A55 offers a great value IMHO. The dynamic range is pretty impressive at lower ISO and the noise at higher ISO retains excellent detail if you shoot RAW. The autofocus is very impressive with the exception of continuous focus (like Canon ai-servo). The body is small, but that is sometimes advantageous. I actually think it is pretty easy to hold though.

I came to the conclusion that most APS-C bodies right now are very similar in output and performance across the board, with a few exceptions (7D, A77). It really comes down to lens selection, handling and ergonomics, and features. I have found I really enjoy the EVFs on the new Sony SLT line - there is a lot of information available in the viewfinder. I also find some of the shoot modes coming in very handy for some of my work - such as the in-camera HDR modes and multi-shot noise reduction.

The 60D is a great camera and I considered it quite a bit, but in the end the A55 offered more that suited me at the time.

stick w/ canon =P..

something about dslrs w/ translucent mirrors or alot of electronic viewfinders really turn me off

So JoeyC, you make the statement "The 60D is a great camera and I considered it quite a bit, but in the end the A55 offered more that suited me at the time" but up front you say the A55 is for sale. Why are you getting rid of the A55 and what is its replacement?

Canon has the superior overall system. You made the right choice, IMO, based on that alone. Between Canon and Nikon, you can play the specs and features game when choosing your initial camera, since their total systems are comparable. With Sony, not so much.

As an aside, I don't trust Sony to stay with anything for the long haul. So, will Sony even be in the DSLR business in 10 years? Nobody knows, but their record places some doubt in my mind.

If say, Pentax or Olympus came out with a APS-C that was better than Canon/Nikon/Sony and at better price, sure it may be a better camera, but the most important thing is which is the best system? Lenses, flash units, backwards compatibility with older or different lenses and accessories, as well as stuff that third party manufacturers make for those systems at a lower price. I got into Canon when I started, but I would feel comfortable recommending Canon or Nikon they are both very good. Sony is making better and better cameras and have a decent lineup of lenses, but there is usually some catch to their features (ie really fast burst mode but small buffer). I am mostly referring to DSLRs, with M4/3 and other MILC cameras people will mostly be using them for fun so you really need to look at the features and image quality from manufacturers across the board (and Canon is not quite in the game yet.)

I'm pissed at Sony for trying to change the meaning of the word 'translucent' in common English. What is wrong with calling a pellicle mirror exactly that?

For my whole life, 'translucent' has meant a substrance that is tranmissive to light, but which is not clear and which cannot be seen through. Like frosted glass, or a thin piece of quartz.

On topic, Sony is probably an OK choice for someone looking for a dSLR and a few basic lenses. But this customer base is all going to be moving into the mirrorless arena in the next two years I bet. For the serious hobbiest, I would be worried in getting into a system that does not have the extensive lens lines of Canon and Nikon. I mean, why get a Pentax or Sony when you can pick Canon or Nikon and know that no matter what shooting you get into down the road these two systems will have the best lens choices.

Plus used equipment is much easier to find for Canon and Nikon due to the huge user base.

Interesting input so far . . .

Lens choice is huge, and getting them used will be my reality as I try to cut cost wherever I can these days without sacrificing quality.

Amongst the 3 top dslr makers, Sony offers most bang for the buck. Their pedestrian lenses are meh. But the top end Zeiss lenses are something to behold.
But as others say, if you are getting into dslr, look into the overall system offerings. Canon has alot of support.

JeffreyG wrote in post #13703523
I'm pissed at Sony for trying to change the meaning of the word 'translucent' in common English. What is wrong with calling a pellicle mirror exactly that?
...
On topic, Sony is probably an OK choice for someone looking for a dSLR and a few basic lenses. But this customer base is all going to be moving into the mirrorless arena in the next two years I bet. For the serious hobbiest, I would be worried in getting into a system that does not have the extensive lens lines of Canon and Nikon.
...
Plus used equipment is much easier to find for Canon and Nikon due to the huge user base.

Actually, I can understand why they chose Translucent over Pellicle.. If you said something had a pellicle mirror to most that speak english, they'd probably respond with "huh?" or "WTF is that? "
Most users would probably be OK with a few basic lenses.. I would be.. Like how a lot of Canon body users use third party glass, there is third party glass out there for the Sony's. Where Sony and Canon fall short or are two expensive, well, the third parties come in to the rescue.
Personally I don't buy used and rarely sell anything- however, I can understand your concern with the lack of a good user base.. It's one of my major concerns regarding any major purchase of a different camera system.

wayne.robbins wrote in post #13705293
Actually, I can understand why they chose Translucent over Pellicle.. If you said something had a pellicle mirror to most that speak english, they'd probably respond with "huh?" or "WTF is that? "
Most users would probably be OK with a few basic lenses.. I would be.. Like how a lot of Canon body users use third party glass, there is third party glass out there for the Sony's. Where Sony and Canon fall short or are two expensive, well, the third parties come in to the rescue.
Personally I don't buy used and rarely sell anything- however, I can understand your concern with the lack of a good user base.. It's one of my major concerns regarding any major purchase of a different camera system.

I find the idea of a 'translucent' mirror to be more confusing. If the mirror isn't clear, how does it work. I picture a piece of frosted glass.

John from PA wrote in post #13703268
So JoeyC, you make the statement "The 60D is a great camera and I considered it quite a bit, but in the end the A55 offered more that suited me at the time" but up front you say the A55 is for sale. Why are you getting rid of the A55 and what is its replacement?

The A55 was my backup to the A850. I sold the A850 and purchased the A77 which covers 75% of my needs (and does everything the A55 does except high ISO). I'm back and forth on letting go of the A55 - I'd like to grab a full frame camera again for some of the portrait work I've been doing lately. Not necessary, but I do appreciate the shallower depth of field with full frame or even APS-H.

WylunCustoms wrote in post #13703161
stick w/ canon =P..

something about dslrs w/ translucent mirrors or alot of electronic viewfinders really turn me off

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

Yeah same here.
Stick with Canon. And I heard the 60D is pretty nice for video

try out the sony, but keep the 60d until youre sure you like the Sony.