I Told You
I'm planning on buying either the 60D or the 600D within the next few days. I know 60D is supposed to be a better camera and looking at the specs it is. But looking on dpreview.com and comparing the benchmark image shot by both of them, 600D comes out ahead by a good margin.
So any thoughts from any one who's used these cameras? Should I spend the extra $ and get the 60D, although the image looks to be not as sharp as the 600D? Another factor is that the battery life on the 60D is supposed to be at least double the life on 600D.
Any thoughts/ comments/ suggestions would be appreciated
Answer
One image per camera is not enough to make a valid evaluation, additionally the 60D has a better build quality and feature set. Either will get you into a very good lens system, which is where you should be putting your money. @the chap recommending Nikon, I shoot Nikon, I like their ergonomics, I've been using their system for 30 years but if I were starting over today Nikon would not be my first choice.
Consider the 600D a good starter camera and the 60D a semi-pro camera, I know many news photographers that use the 60D and it's older siblings, everyday. And when I say use I mean use hard and abuse.
One image per camera is not enough to make a valid evaluation, additionally the 60D has a better build quality and feature set. Either will get you into a very good lens system, which is where you should be putting your money. @the chap recommending Nikon, I shoot Nikon, I like their ergonomics, I've been using their system for 30 years but if I were starting over today Nikon would not be my first choice.
Consider the 600D a good starter camera and the 60D a semi-pro camera, I know many news photographers that use the 60D and it's older siblings, everyday. And when I say use I mean use hard and abuse.
Why my JPEG files are only 72 dpi? I have a canon 600D digital camera?
Behdad
I was comparing the properties of images I had taken with my old compact Canon digital camera (SX 200 IS) and my new Canon 600D. Surprisingly, I see that displayed "dpi" for photos taken by my new camera is lower that former one! (72 vs. 180)
Does anybody know why? doesn't it imply that images are recorded in a relatively lower quality (at least in one aspect)?
PS. it is set on ISO 100 and Large image size
To Eric: That is why i am wondering. it is the largest available size in my camera. but anyhow, a fairy advance camera like 600D must have higher dpi in comparison to compact model of SX200.
At HisWife: I actually meant dpi
I right clicked on jpeg photo and on details tab I see : dpi for horizontal and vertical : 72 dpi
Answer
DPI is printers, you mean PPI.
They aren't smaller files. You will find that your 72ppi images are gigantic in size. 72x48 inches. They are the same # of pixels as a 300 or a 240 or a 180ppi image. It's just how you spread the pixels out.
Your camera produces an image that is 5184x3456. It is always 5184x3456.
At 72ppi it is 72 inches by 48 inches. How that is figured is 5184pixels divided by 72pixels per inch.
If you divide it by 300 (lab requirements) then your image is a more normal size. It's 5184 divided by 300 pixels per inch equals 17.28 inches and 3456 divided by 300 pixels per inch equals 11.52 inches.
It is just how you compact those pixels into inches. If you shoved all 5184x3456 into a 2" by 3" wallet sized picture (it would look over sharpened because the edges are so squashed together) it would then be 1728 pixels per inch.
Like putting people in an elevator. If you have 10 people waiting for the elevator you have a lot of room standing there waiting. When you shove 10 people into the elevator you still have 10 people. They are just squashed close together.
Squashed SOME is best for printing, but you could easily print that giant image at that giant image size too.
ISO is totally irrelevant and much of quality has to do with the SENSOR size, not pixel dimensions either.
DPI is printers, you mean PPI.
They aren't smaller files. You will find that your 72ppi images are gigantic in size. 72x48 inches. They are the same # of pixels as a 300 or a 240 or a 180ppi image. It's just how you spread the pixels out.
Your camera produces an image that is 5184x3456. It is always 5184x3456.
At 72ppi it is 72 inches by 48 inches. How that is figured is 5184pixels divided by 72pixels per inch.
If you divide it by 300 (lab requirements) then your image is a more normal size. It's 5184 divided by 300 pixels per inch equals 17.28 inches and 3456 divided by 300 pixels per inch equals 11.52 inches.
It is just how you compact those pixels into inches. If you shoved all 5184x3456 into a 2" by 3" wallet sized picture (it would look over sharpened because the edges are so squashed together) it would then be 1728 pixels per inch.
Like putting people in an elevator. If you have 10 people waiting for the elevator you have a lot of room standing there waiting. When you shove 10 people into the elevator you still have 10 people. They are just squashed close together.
Squashed SOME is best for printing, but you could easily print that giant image at that giant image size too.
ISO is totally irrelevant and much of quality has to do with the SENSOR size, not pixel dimensions either.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Title Post: Canon 60D or 600D Digital Camera?
Rating: 94% based on 99768 ratings. 4,5 user reviews.
Author: Unknown
Thank FOr Coming TO My Blog
Rating: 94% based on 99768 ratings. 4,5 user reviews.
Author: Unknown
Thank FOr Coming TO My Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment