Need Help! 60d or sony a65?

R

ripper351

New member
Hey guys. I don't know whether i swhould buy the canon 60d or the new sony a65. I love the 60d's feel and body, and the menus and buttons are ergonomic and easy to use. However the sony is a little harder to manipulate the menus. The advantages of the a65 however are continous exposure and AF during video, and it is very smooth. I am looking to get a camera for short films and shooting sports photography. Also the a65 has live view in the viewfinder during video. Is continuous AF a dealbreaker? Since the 60d doesn't have continous AF should i not buy it? also would buying a magnetic lcd viewfinder eliminate the no live view in viewfinder problem on the 60d?
 
i hear sony has a 24 megapixel camera coming out at the end of the month. i think it's the a77. check it out....
 
Don't get caught up on continuous AF - In my opinion it's a gimmick feature for lazy people and hobbyists who just want to keep their home movies in focus. If you're serious about using the camera for more professional shooting that you hope to one day monetize, then I recommend going full manual for focus. Whether it's an EF lens or an more cine-style lens with a longer focus barrel throw, using it and pulling focus by hand (or with a dedicated follow focus) gives you much more creative control of your image. You'll find after using the same lenses for awhile you're hand-eye coordination will drastically improve and you'll be amazed at how well you can manually focus.

I've had the 60D for a almost a year now and I love it.
 
I agree with Mythmaker. If you want autofocus, get a video camera. Shooting with a DSLR is like shooting with a film camera on a smaller level, at least in terms of lens control. You are your own focus puller, selectively focusing your subjects.
 
My personal experience: AF on the video cameras I have had (including HVX 200) is slow and most often not useful. There were many occasions when I need a good AF system while shooting and I wished the AF on my video camera could perform adequately. If you can have a DSLR which does a good AF during video recording, that is a useful bonus and depending on what you record, you may find is handy. At worst, you don't have to use it when it is not needed. So between the above options, I would personally opt for Sony A65 (or A77) because of numerous additional features they have over 60D including video AF which can sometimes be useful. Besides, their picture quality is equally good.
 
I went down the road you're looking at, and I can tell you for video…don't do it. The Sony is (in my opinion) a better stills camera, and it can certainly shoot some nice video. But two things killed it for me.

One…no magic lantern.

Two…I couldn't mount my manual Nikon lenses on it without using an adapter that has a glass lens element.

If you're hell-bent on going Sony, I'd look at the NEX-5N and NEX-7 cameras instead. They have the same AVCHD modes as the A65 and A77, but with a much more adaptable lens mount.
 
Go for the Nex 7 or the 5n, mirrorless cameras are better suited to use different lenses, i have the 5n using mostly Nikon glass, no regret, nice image a little of aliasing but not worse than Canon, i will buy the Nex 7 too but i gonna wait till January, to know if they came with issues.
 
I just bought the Sony A77 not to long ago and I think its an incredible machine for shooting video, inputting settings are fairly easy, the autofocus is amazing! Look at some of the footage examples on YouTube and Vimeo, if you intend on shooting sports video the 60fps @1080P will come in very handy, 60P allows you to get some excellent slow motion post production.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top