# Canon 60D vs T4i vs ???



## Yanks121482

Hello all.  I'm sure you guys get inundated with "what camera should my first DSLR be" posts, but hopefully you can help me out.  This site was consistently rated as one of the best photography forums on the web, so I come to you as a newbie looking for some good advice.

I work for a DJ company on the weekends, and for the past few months have been primarily shooting zap shots at weddings and bar/bat mitzvahs.  I am almost never the only photographer there, the hosts usually hire a professional photographer to do the event photography.  My job is to take the pictures at the event that go on the TVs or projection screens during the event and get the family a DVD with the pictures on it.  The thing is, the DJ company supplies me with a Nikon Coolpix point and shoot for this task and frankly, I find that embarrassing and near unacceptable.  So I have been looking to upgrade and purchase myself a DSLR camera.  I have borrowed a friend's Nikon D3100 and was impressed with the improvement in picture quality (obviously), but am not ashamed to say that I am a complete rookie when it comes to exposure, aperture, f stop, ISO, etc.  I was looking at a Nikon D5100 and a Canon 60D with standard kit lenses.  The decision maker between those two was price, and in the interest of full disclosure I was going to go Canon because I found out that I have a friend that could get me employee pricing on Canon cameras and lenses.  But now I've looked into the T4i, and it appears to my untrained eye to be a better body for less money.  So now my decision becomes 60D vs T4i.  I think.

To keep this post from getting _too_ long-winded, which camera would perform best for the situation?  It will be mostly low-light shooting, I guess you would say, with the house lights dimmed and the majority of the light being from the moving colored lights that they use in the venues and clubs.  I would also like to use the camera to take pictures of my nieces and friends in conditions where the light would be significantly better, but that is secondary.  I am not planning on staying a newbie forever and would like to learn about the subtleties of taking the perfect photo.  So should I spend a little less on the T4i and get a better lens?  Should I go with the "prosumer" 60D with the kit lens for now, then upgrade the lens when I do learn more about the camera and what I need?  Am I wrong in going with Canon simply because I can get a higher-level camera for the same price as a lower-level Nikon?  Any advice that is given is greatly appreciated, as I have been looking into this for a week now and feel that I have only made my decision harder.  Thanks in advance!


----------



## sovietdoc

You've gotta ask yourself a question.  Do I care about movie shooting or am I only going to focus on photos?

In either case, forget about 60D.  I am sure others will probably jump into this boat and start arguing, but I never thought 60D was a good bang for the buck. If t3/t4i is like a cheap kia,60D is like that same cheap kia except with stripes painted on it.  It's pretty silly.

The two cameras you really gotta compare if you're going with canon are t4i and 7D.  Don't automatically say "what? 7D is through the roof!" because you can get a pristine condition 7D pretty cheap and as a camera it will last you many years.  

When shooting low light, the obvious choice are zooms with large aperture like f/2.8 or faster primes.  Here you have a choice, you could get a zoom, and considering you're shooting in low light you'll need f/2.8, or you can get a prime like 50mm f/1.8.  
Obviously with the zoom you have huge convenience of not having to move about to recompose as you can just move the ring and you change your focal distance.  The down side is that large aperture zooms are fairly expensive and can cost you more than you pay for the whole camera itself.  
Primes, especially 50 f/1.8 are cheaper (unless you get into pro primes like f/1.2L) but you'll have to move a lot to frame your shot correctly.  Another downside is indoors, 50mm on a crop sensor won't be very wide, so if you need to take shots of the whole gig, it won't work.  On the up side is the lens lets mor elight through than a f/2.8 zoom and it costs a LOT less so you can easily shoot with it in low light. 

I am not sure what your budget is (and i'd persuade your company to cover at east some of the expenses since you're doing this for them) but my 2 suggestions would be either
t4i (if you dont care about video get t3i its just as good) + used 24-70 f/2.8
or
used or CPS 7D + 50mm f/1.8

If both of these are way too much money then maybe a t3i with kit lens, but it won't be too great in low light.


----------



## Wannagetbetter

sovietdoc said:
			
		

> You've gotta ask yourself a question.  Do I care about movie shooting or am I only going to focus on photos?
> 
> In either case, forget about 60D.  I am sure others will probably jump into this boat and start arguing, but I never thought 60D was a good bang for the buck. If t3/t4i is like a cheap kia,60D is like that same cheap kia except with stripes painted on it.  It's pretty silly.
> 
> The two cameras you really gotta compare if you're going with canon are t4i and 7D.  Don't automatically say "what? 7D is through the roof!" because you can get a pristine condition 7D pretty cheap and as a camera it will last you many years.
> 
> When shooting low light, the obvious choice are zooms with large aperture like f/2.8 or faster primes.  Here you have a choice, you could get a zoom, and considering you're shooting in low light you'll need f/2.8, or you can get a prime like 50mm f/1.8.
> Obviously with the zoom you have huge convenience of not having to move about to recompose as you can just move the ring and you change your focal distance.  The down side is that large aperture zooms are fairly expensive and can cost you more than you pay for the whole camera itself.
> Primes, especially 50 f/1.8 are cheaper (unless you get into pro primes like f/1.2L) but you'll have to move a lot to frame your shot correctly.  Another downside is indoors, 50mm on a crop sensor won't be very wide, so if you need to take shots of the whole gig, it won't work.  On the up side is the lens lets mor elight through than a f/2.8 zoom and it costs a LOT less so you can easily shoot with it in low light.
> 
> I am not sure what your budget is (and i'd persuade your company to cover at east some of the expenses since you're doing this for them) but my 2 suggestions would be either
> t4i (if you dont care about video get t3i its just as good) + used 24-70 f/2.8
> or
> used or CPS 7D + 50mm f/1.8
> 
> If both of these are way too much money then maybe a t3i with kit lens, but it won't be too great in low light.



I know what you think about 60D's, but come on, now your dissing my car.............


----------



## Wannagetbetter

Wannagetbetter said:
			
		

> I know what you think about 60D's, but come on, now you're dissing my car............]


----------



## TCampbell

The T2i, T3i, T4i, 60D, and 7D all have the Canon 18mp sensor.  The differences lie elsewhere.  The T4i now has the Digic V processor... it does have a some improvements that exceed the 60D.  The 60D's advantage was that it was (a) weather sealed (b) had controls laid out more like a pro body (it has a rear dial just like the 7D, 5D, 1D_ bodies.) and it had a much better focusing system.  It was a clear upgrade above anything in the Rebel line up until the T4i was introduced.  I think the T4i now has the same focusing system... and my guess is that Canon is about to launch a "70D" (and possibly go back to magnesium alloy like the 50D -- they got a lot of hate mail over putting the 60D in a polycarbonate body.)

With that said (and yes... I have a 5D II) I've heard people make the claim that a Rebel simply isn't "professional".  It's true that most serious pros end up with a high end body.  But don't ding the Rebels - most of what sets one image apart from another is NOT the camera body used to take the shot, but rather the skill of the shooter, the lighting, and the lenses.  The body choice is low on the pecking order.


----------



## Wannagetbetter

TCampbell said:
			
		

> The T2i, T3i, T4i, 60D, and 7D all have the Canon 18mp sensor.  The differences lie elsewhere.  The T4i now has the Digic V processor... it does have a some improvements that exceed the 60D.  The 60D's advantage was that it was (a) weather sealed (b) had controls laid out more like a pro body (it has a rear dial just like the 7D, 5D, 1D_ bodies.) and it had a much better focusing system.  It was a clear upgrade above anything in the Rebel line up until the T4i was introduced.  I think the T4i now has the same focusing system... and my guess is that Canon is about to launch a "70D" (and possibly go back to magnesium alloy like the 50D -- they got a lot of hate mail over putting the 60D in a polycarbonate body.)
> 
> With that said (and yes... I have a 5D II) I've heard people make the claim that a Rebel simply isn't "professional".  It's true that most serious pros end up with a high end body.  But don't ding the Rebels - most of what sets one image apart from another is NOT the camera body used to take the shot, but rather the skill of the shooter, the lighting, and the lenses.  The body choice is low on the pecking order.



Well said


----------



## PhotoBrody

TCampbell said:
			
		

> The T2i, T3i, T4i, 60D, and 7D all have the Canon 18mp sensor.  The differences lie elsewhere.  The T4i now has the Digic V processor... it does have a some improvements that exceed the 60D.  The 60D's advantage was that it was (a) weather sealed (b) had controls laid out more like a pro body (it has a rear dial just like the 7D, 5D, 1D_ bodies.) and it had a much better focusing system.  It was a clear upgrade above anything in the Rebel line up until the T4i was introduced.  I think the T4i now has the same focusing system... and my guess is that Canon is about to launch a "70D" (and possibly go back to magnesium alloy like the 50D -- they got a lot of hate mail over putting the 60D in a polycarbonate body.)
> 
> With that said (and yes... I have a 5D II) I've heard people make the claim that a Rebel simply isn't "professional".  It's true that most serious pros end up with a high end body.  But don't ding the Rebels - most of what sets one image apart from another is NOT the camera body used to take the shot, but rather the skill of the shooter, the lighting, and the lenses.  The body choice is low on the pecking order.



All that is very well said, I couldn't agree more. I started out on a rebel body.. One of the biggest thing that separates them from the higher end cams is the lack of focus points and the slow shooting speed - and the cheap body builds of course. As far as quality pictures they exceed quite well, I'll give them that. I enjoy my D series cameras though


----------



## Yanks121482

I appreciate all the advice guys, thank you very much.  I came in to this with a budget of around $1000, but when all is said and done I can walk away with a brand new T4i body, a Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II lens, a Speedlite 430 EX II, and a 200EG backpack for $1200 shipped.  A refurbed 7D would cost about the same with the kit lens.  I'm not too concerned about whether other people are going to judge me as a "professional" yet, because I'm not.  I feel like this is a decent setup for what I intend to use the camera for, it will allow me to use it for both business and pleasure and to learn.  Thanks again for all of your help and advice!


----------



## sovietdoc

that's a good deal on all that equip.  You shouldn't be disappointed with t4i.


----------

