60D or 7D

I currently have a 50D and am looking to upgrade. Im in school but I am going to start taking video production classes. Those out there with 60Ds or 7Ds, what do you like and dislike about your cameras? Thanks!

If video is your main interest, then go for the 60D, because of the swiveling screen.

If you are really serious about video, it doesn't matter, since then both cameras require extra equipment worth 3-4 times the cost of the cameras themselves to become "professional".

If you are really into action photography, then go for the 7D. Frame rate, AF capability, viewfinder - there are several benefits for the fast action photographer with the 7D.

If you can't confirm any of this, then just go with whatever. It will not matter. You may notice that the 60D, being more recent, have a few features that aren't represented on the 7D. But Canon will publish an updated firmware for the 7D on August 7th, where some of these functions are added to the 7D as well, so that will be no issue.

Just bought the 7D and selling my 60D. Only feature I will miss is the swivel screen when videoing.

Oh F'n well

7D > 60D

While the 50D is a little long in the tooth it still takes great pictures. So if your serious enough about video to start taking video courses then why not buy a video camera instead of a still camera that can also do video? Just a thought.

after the firmware update the 7d and 60d will basically only be separated by the swivel screen as far as video is concerned.
get whichever you can afford and still get glass.

or go for the t4i which as better video AF.

GaryS1964 wrote in post #14791436
So if your serious enough about video to start taking video courses then why not buy a video camera instead of a still camera that can also do video?

Because video DSLRs, warts* and all, still shoot video that no dedicated video camera in the price range can touch for shallow depth-of-field (that's the big one!), dynamic range, low-light performance, and lens selection.

*Some of the more "fun" warts - manual focus pulling, rolling shutter, moire, near-mandatory dual-system audio, twelve-minute clip limit - really, if the picture wasn't so dang good for the money, nobody would shoot video with these things

If video is your main concern, the 60D has a lot going for it over the 7D - swivel screen and longer battery life chief among them, but also if you're not averse to installing third-party software on your camera, then the Magic Lantern firmware (which adds a whole mess of useful video features) will not run on the 7D, but it will run on the 60D.

As far as stills go - if you need 8FPS and a more advanced auto-focusing system, the 7D is the way to go. If you're happy with your 50D's auto-focusing system, the 60D has the exact same system.

PPL should learn how to search the forum!

50D is a very capable camera. If budget is an issue, you can stick with your 50D and give magic lantern a try

http://magiclantern.wi​kia.com …ording_with_Mag​ic_Lantern

I was going to add that the 50d CAN do video but I think it has no way to record sound. So I didnt bother mentioning it.

^^ you can get that fixed by using an external audio recorder and then sync them up on post.

gratchie wrote in post #14791502
^^ you can get that fixed by using an external audio recorder and then sync them up on post.

Yeah, but without even a guide track of audio from the in-camera file, syncing in post will be a pain since you can't auto-sync using Final Cut Pro X or PluralEyes and have to do it manually.

manfesto wrote in post #14791479
Because video DSLRs, warts* and all, still shoot video that no dedicated video camera in the price range can touch for shallow depth-of-field (that's the big one!), dynamic range, low-light performance, and lens selection.

The ergonomics of DSLRs for video are horrible, and manufacturers are starting to produce cameras which deal with the issue you speak of.

For instance, it appears Sony will be releasing an APS-C video camera rather soon (September): http://www.xdcam-user.com …ched-available-september/


I would not, at this point, buy a DSLR primarily for video. Buy a DSLR for what it's best at: still shots.

Yep. The 50D is an excellent camera. Stick with it unless you can specifically articulate why you want/need something else.

kcbrown wrote in post #14791539
The ergonomics of DSLRs for video are horrible, and manufacturers are starting to produce cameras which deal with the issue you speak of.

For instance, it appears Sony will be releasing an APS-C video camera rather soon (September): http://www.xdcam-user.com …ched-available-september/


I would not, at this point, buy a DSLR primarily for video. Buy a DSLR for what it's best at: still shots.

Actually, the NEX-VG20's been out for a while, it's not that well reviewed (basically people think it's an overpriced NEX-5N with mediocre build quality for the money), and it still lists for around $2k (though can be had for less, of course, but still twice the price of a 60D). The more serious Super-35mm cameras like the Sony FS100 are even pricier at around $5k.

DSLRs still get you in the shallow-DOF video world for the least amount of money.

As for ergonomics - it depends, really. You can kit out a DSLR with cages and shoulder rigs to make it handle like a "proper" camera, but you can also just head out with a bare body and an IS lens for where space is a concern, or where you're looking to be as discreet as possible.

You'll never be able to make a "proper" camera less of a big box.

It's why Canon's professional-level cinema camera, the C300, looks more like a fat DSLR than a big square box (like it's main competitor, the Sony F3) - because those are the ergonomics lots of DSLR shooters have gotten used to.

manfesto wrote in post #14791589
Actually, the NEX-VG20's been out for a while, it's not that well reviewed (basically people think it's an overpriced NEX-5N with mediocre build quality for the money), and it still lists for around $2k (though can be had for less, of course, but still twice the price of a 60D). The more serious Super-35mm cameras like the Sony FS100 are even pricier at around $5k.

Ooops. You're right. I didn't notice the year. My bad.

I guess that's true for now.

Certainly the 60D isn't a bad way to go at all, regardless. It can be had from CLP for about $650.

Either way, I'd seriously consider an inexpensive, dedicated video camera for video work. Ask yourself how badly you want the shallow depth of field that DSLRs are capable of for video before making the decision.

kcbrown wrote in post #14791616
Either way, I'd seriously consider an inexpensive, dedicated video camera for video work. Ask yourself how badly you want the shallow depth of field that DSLRs are capable of for video before making the decision.

For sure DSLRs aren't great for everything - I wouldn't want to shoot, say, a documentary full of interviews where I'd have to keep asking the talent to start over what they were saying every twelve minutes, haha!

If your intent is to shoot narrative stuff with cinematic style, a DSLR will be the cheapest way there.

If your intent is to shoot run-and-gun documentary stuff, a proper video camera without record limits and deeper depth-of-field would be a better bet. (Though having a DSLR on set for B-roll and insert shots would still be a good idea )