# Differences between Canon Eos 30D and 60D



## tadzio89

I am happy Canon EOS 30D user and I don't know if it is worth to buy a  new body - like Canon EOS 60D? Main reason is noise. My camera is too  noisy for me,


----------



## KmH

Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : EOS 60D

Canon U.S.A. : Support & Drivers : EOS 30D

The 60D has only slightly better ISO performance than the 30D has.
DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

For improved ISO performance, you may want to consider switching to Nikon.
Nikon's D90 out performs the 60D, but even better is Nikon's D7000 or D7100.
DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side


----------



## Big Mike

You might also look into a full frame Canon.  The 5D is an old camera by today's standards, but it would still give you significantly less digital noise than the 30D.  Better yet would be the 5DmkII, but it would be harder to find one that is in the price range of the 60D.

But keep in mind, if you have any EF-*S* lenses, they would not be compatible with a full frame camera.  But that may be better than no lenses being compatible with a Nikon camera.


----------



## Gavjenks

KmH said:


> Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : EOS 60D
> 
> Canon U.S.A. : Support & Drivers : EOS 30D
> 
> The 60D has only slightly better ISO performance than the 30D has.
> DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side
> 
> For improved ISO performance, you may want to consider switching to Nikon.
> Nikon's D90 out performs the 60D, but even better is Nikon's D7000 or D7100.
> DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side



The D90 is at BEST 1/3 of a stop better at noise than the 30D, and that's only at the low end of ISO. Up around 800+ it is pretty much identical (<1/6 stop better).  And it's about twice as close as that between the 60D and the D90 (at most 1/6 of a stop or so).

1/6 of a stop at just some ISOs only is a terrible, terrible,* terrible reason* to switch brands and suffer all of the associated costs of selling and rebuying equipment and relearning ergonomics and blah blah.



OP, A *full frame camera* is the only thing that is going to represent a serious difference of 1+ stop of noise improvement, and either brand would accomplish about the same improvement with similarly priced full frame bodies (Nikon is a bit more of an improvement at low ISOs, Canon a bit more at high ISOs)


----------



## Derrel

The 60D has a higher-resolution and better LCD screen, which is a tilt screen. The 60D shoots video, and uses SD cards, not CF storage cards.The 60D has a nifty virtual horizon display, as well as a very nice exposure simulation mode in its rear LCD Live View mode. The 60D is a bargain priced d-slr for what you get, I think in large part to the fact that the sensor in the 60D is the same old sensor that Canon has been recycling since 2009. Canon has basically ignored the consumer d-slr sensor market since 2009, except to iterate new models that show very little improvement.


----------



## iolair

I was using a 20D until recently (basically a 30D but with a smaller LCD screen), but recently upgraded to a 40D and 50D.

I'm actually finding better high ISO performance on the 50D than many sources suggest, with a lot of usable images up to ISO 3200, I'd say about a stop improvement compared to the 20D.  (This isn't what the statistics seem to say, but is what I've found in actually using the camera).

However, the 5D (classic/original/mk I) is a budget way to improve the ISO performance a lot from your current body.  As stated above, it won't be compatible with any EF-S lenses you may have (however, depending on what kind of photography you're into, it could be worth keeping the 30D as a backup body).

The Canon 70D is out soon and it has been suggested by Canon that the ISO performance will be a big improvement, but I've yet to see any test images supporting this.


----------



## o hey tyler

Why aren't people citing more DxO mark "findings?" I mean, the D600 is apparently worlds better than a 6D according to DxO, but no one cares to note the massive discrepancies between DxO and actual photographs taken with each camera. 

I take anything I see on DxO with a grain of salt, because it hasn't translated into real life.


----------



## Derrel

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> Why aren't people citing more DxO mark "findings?" I mean, the D600 is apparently worlds better than a 6D according to DxO, but no one cares to note the massive discrepancies between DxO and actual photographs taken with each camera.
> 
> I take anything I see on DxO with a grain of salt, because it hasn't translated into real life.



Yeah, a lot of Canon fanboys hate to admit that DxO Mark's results are valid because Canon sensors have so much more noise, and Canon can still not get rid of the pattern banding in shadows, and so on. Since Canon cannot manage to put a camera within the top 10 in DxO Mark sensor performance, many on-line Canon fans try very hard to discredit DxO Mark's results. They cast aspersions and try and discredit the company that shows their "pet camera brand" does not perform as well as its main competitor.

You want a "real life" example of how DxO Mark's sensor performance ratings translate into real life, o hey tyler? Well, here's an example, published by Fred Miranda himself, on his web site. It proves that the DxO Mark Dynamic Range figures for the Canon 5D-III and the Nikon D800 are accurate, and that the Nikon's sensor dynamic range is indeed vastly superior at Base ISO. This is using the same,exact Zeiss lens on both cameras, via adapter, with both bodies at their base ISO.



As you can see, the dynamic range the 5D Mark II manages to eke out is 11.7 EV. The Nikon D800 on the other hand, has a dynamic range of 14.4 EV, as tested, measured, and analyzed by DxO Mark's rigorous testing.


And now, wait for it, wait for it, here are two test images comparing the cameras, with the SAME, exact lens, same scene, and Base ISO levels.



Obviously, the Canon sensor's shadows are filled with *NOISE* and *pattern banding.*



As you can easily "see" with your eyes, if you're not a huge Canon fanboy, the DxO Mark figures show that the Canon's sensor is filled with pattern noise in the shadows, and has much lower resolving abilities. And the Canon's 11.7 EV dynamic range performance is easily bettered by the Nikon D800's better sensor, with its 14.4 EV of clean, noise-free, high-resolution imaging capability.

Pretty obviously, the DxO Mark data is well-supported by testing the two cameras head to head. And by the way, Fred Miranda is a Canon shooter himself.Buuut, he's not a Canon fanboy. Your effort to discredit DxO Mark's testing procedures will need to involve more than simply putting quotes around the word "findings", o hey tyler.


----------



## Dao

Derrel, first of all, I am not saying you are wrong.  Just want to make sure you aware.  

This is just based on what I learned, experienced and read.  Of course, I could be wrong.  As you know, I use Canon camera.  Do I pay attention to DxO mark?  I read it and aware of the differences in sensor technologies.  For me, as a Canon shooter I do not think the DxO number alone can make me switch to Nikon.    It is not because of a fanboy or not.  It is just I used to Canon layout and like their selection of lenses.   Even if I sold all my gears and start from fresh again, based on my experience and custom to Canon, I will get Canon cameras and lenses again.

Same thing  if I started with Nikon gears, I may just stay with it.  As for the sensor technology.  I remember either it was the introduction of D90 or D700 from Nikon.   I remembered CNet or something similar released some high ISO photos and they were very very noisy.   And the photos were asked to removed from the site (maybe from Nikon) since they were from an pre-production camera and they were straight from the camera without noise reduction apply.   Of course, after they took it down and I could not locate it again.  I wish I did a screen capture at that time.    Based on that page and the clean high iso images from the production cameras, I think clean high iso image is not just the result of the sensor.   Nikon may have some additional (software based) technology apply to the recorded data (including RAW) to make the image less noise.

Again, I could not located that page again since it could be permanently took down.  And that was just based on my observation and I am not saying that is truth or not.

Also, the more I know about photography, the less I pay attention to the DxO mark.  When I saw other people were able to produce nice images from older cameras such as the Nikon D50, D40 or D70.  Or Benjamin Kanarek (forum member here) produces many many beautiful photos for magazine covers (he used to shoot with Pentax, and I think he switch to D600 recently) I know even if I change my 7D to D7100, my photos will not improve at all.  So why bother.   Because I know the reason for not able to produce those nice images is me, not the camera.  

Note: I am not saying camera gears are not important.   I think knowing the limitation is the key.


----------



## Gavjenks

The reason why people's experiences don't match DxO overall scores is because DxO overall scores are as a rule, calculated in the stupidest way possible.

Dynamic Range: Is calculated by DxO as simply the maximum point on the whole curve.  Not an average or anything. Just the maximum. Which uselessly ignores dynamic range performance at everything except ISO 100 (usually the ISO where dynamic range matters LEAST, since that's where you have the most of it to work with). The people sit there for HOURS and HOURS or DAYS and measure these numbers at every ISO, and *then they just throw out 90% of their work when reporting the "overall" score* ?!


This terrible method of reporting what is actually "one arbitrarily chosen part of the score" as an "overall score" completely explains the mismatch between DxO score reporters and actual shooters in real life. Nikon does outperform at low ISOs, but Canon outperforms at high ISOs.

Noise is also idiotically scored. Instead of just scoring something like the average signal to noise ratio score at all ISOs like a normal, sane person would do, DxO instead reports the highest ISO level where SNR is above 30 dB, where color depth is above 18 bits and dynamic range is above 9 EVs. *Not only are all of these cutoffs completely arbitrary, but it also makes no sense at all to include color depth or dynamic range in the first place*, because they already reported those things in other scores! They double count them in the noise score, but they DON'T double count noise in the other scores.  Why? Nobody knows... They smoked some extra crack that day, I guess.

If you want a more meaningful and sane analysis of noise, just look at their SNR curve, which tells you exactly what you want to know without any stupidity mixed in.  And when you do, you see the 6D and D800 are pretty much identical:



Also, DxO Mark uses RAW files for all of these things, which ignores the fact that Canon almost certainly has greatly superior jpeg conversion software in camera.  Seemingly significantly better than what people can accomplish out of camera (like with RAW converters) from what I've seen. This matters in real life, because if your jpegs are less noisy and better looking 99% of the time by a factor of up to 2 stops in some cases, then you will be more likely to just use jpegs instead of RAWs, since they're good enoughn already, and significantly speed up your workflow.  And they may even be just as good as what you could achieve with RAW conversion, for normally exposed, typical photos.

As you can see here, the jpeg comparisons reverse the apparent results of Derrel's:



*Although even with RAWs, the 6D and 5D Mark III both to my eye outperform the D800. *Which makes me wary of even DxO's base results/curves as well (wouldn't be surprising, given how much they screwed up their overall score metrics).

Play around on this link to see for yourself (compares either RAW or JPEG):

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/stu...n_eos5dmkiii&slot3Sample=5d3_5215.acr&x=0&y=0


----------



## pixmedic

what all of these charts, numbers, and mathematical gibberish tell ME...is that in all reality....Canon and Nikon are pretty much equal to everyone but the most astute computer calculated pixel peepers.  Its like comparing Intel to AMD microchips. can you put them on a computer benchmark and see a difference? absolutely. 
is the average person going to realistically be able to tell the difference between the two? nope.

it really is a very simple solution. 
if you research cameras and find one that you feel best suits your needs....buy it. 
I havent seen ANY evidence whatsoever that would lead me to believe that ANY DSLR system is so much better than another to make it worth actually switching if  you are already invested in another system. 

the ONLY camera comparison that really makes any sense at all to fuss over is DX -vs- FX, where you can actually SEE a real difference in image output. 

All of the number crunching, benchmarking,  and pixel peeping is only good for advertising and fanboy bragging rights. the numbers arent far enough apart to make any huge real world differences that cant be easily corrected with processing or camera setting adjustments.


----------



## Gavjenks

> Canon and Nikon are pretty much equal to everyone but the most astute computer calculated pixel peepers.


\
They have different strengths and weaknesses that are different enough to matter if you are a certain kind of specialist in the photos you take, which these charts can tell you (e.g. Canon is going to be noticeably better in very low light like concerts, and Nikon is going to be better in bright or controlled light like studio portraiture or traditional landscape photography)

But all in all, they cancel each other out pretty well and, yes, end up identical on the whole.  And I agree that even if you do shoot one particular kind of thing, it would never be worth switching if you already own a bunch of one kind of lenses, etc.

Which is of course almost certainly related to them being neck and neck in sales with one another.


----------



## o hey tyler

Derrel said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why aren't people citing more DxO mark "findings?" I mean, the D600 is apparently worlds better than a 6D according to DxO, but no one cares to note the massive discrepancies between DxO and actual photographs taken with each camera.
> 
> I take anything I see on DxO with a grain of salt, because it hasn't translated into real life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, a lot of Canon fanboys hate to admit that DxO Mark's results are valid because Canon sensors have so much more noise, and Canon can still not get rid of the pattern banding in shadows, and so on. Since Canon cannot manage to put a camera within the top 10 in DxO Mark sensor performance, many on-line Canon fans try very hard to discredit DxO Mark's results. They cast aspersions and try and discredit the company that shows their "pet camera brand" does not perform as well as its main competitor.
> 
> You want a "real life" example of how DxO Mark's sensor performance ratings translate into real life, o hey tyler? Well, here's an example, published by Fred Miranda himself, on his web site. It proves that the DxO Mark Dynamic Range figures for the Canon 5D-III and the Nikon D800 are accurate, and that the Nikon's sensor dynamic range is indeed vastly superior at Base ISO. This is using the same,exact Zeiss lens on both cameras, via adapter, with both bodies at their base ISO.
> 
> View attachment 52811
> 
> As you can see, the dynamic range the 5D Mark II manages to eke out is 11.7 EV. The Nikon D800 on the other hand, has a dynamic range of 14.4 EV, as tested, measured, and analyzed by DxO Mark's rigorous testing.
> 
> 
> And now, wait for it, wait for it, here are two test images comparing the cameras, with the SAME, exact lens, same scene, and Base ISO levels.
> 
> View attachment 52812
> 
> Obviously, the Canon sensor's shadows are filled with *NOISE* and *pattern banding.*
> 
> View attachment 52813
> 
> As you can easily "see" with your eyes, if you're not a huge Canon fanboy, the DxO Mark figures show that the Canon's sensor is filled with pattern noise in the shadows, and has much lower resolving abilities. And the Canon's 11.7 EV dynamic range performance is easily bettered by the Nikon D800's better sensor, with its 14.4 EV of clean, noise-free, high-resolution imaging capability.
> 
> Pretty obviously, the DxO Mark data is well-supported by testing the two cameras head to head. And by the way, Fred Miranda is a Canon shooter himself.Buuut, he's not a Canon fanboy. Your effort to discredit DxO Mark's testing procedures will need to involve more than simply putting quotes around the word "findings", o hey tyler.
Click to expand...


----------



## tadzio89

So lets sum it up. I want 6D now


----------

