Canon 60D vs Canon Rebel t4i

Thank you so much for all your help! I am just entering the DSLR camera business, and I really don't have any ideas for lenses in that category for sports. Do you have any recommendations for sports lenses or must-have lenses?
Well the sky is the limit here of course, and you'll benefit from increases in performance at every step.

You might be able to get by for a bit with the entry-level 55-250mm, but I really haven't tested mine a lot on sports as the AF is kinda slow. Others might be able to chip in here. I'm thinking something like the 70-300mm IS USM would be a lot snappier, as an entry-level lens for football.

Myself, I like the 70-200 f/2.8L (non-IS), the 300mm f/4L IS, and the 85mm f/1.8 for sports, plus a wide zoom for the close stuff. These L lenses are really worth their price of admission, and I'd highly recommend saving up for something of this caliber if at all possible.

An additional note re: your shutter speed question. You will always be trying (struggling actually) to INCREASE your shutter speeds enough to freeze the action, so the 1/4000 sec top end shouldn't limit you here, even in direct sunlight.

R2

--

Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
 
Where does the 70D fit into this conversation?

The 60D may be more of a camera than the T4i. However, we're comparing older (60D) and newer (T4i) technology.

I realize the 70D is more expensive but that aside . . . .
 
The 60D may be more of a camera than the T4i. However, we're comparing older (60D) and newer (T4i) technology.
Newer technology at a lower price point is often the same as older technology :)

The technology used in the T4i that the 60D doesn't have are the touchscreen, the hybrid on-sensor AF (that supposedly doesn't work that well anyway), and DIGIC5 (whose utility is arguable, given that the T4i produces JPGs that are nearly indistinguishable from the 60Ds). Those have to balance out against all the things the 60D has going for it (dual control dials, pentaprism, top LCD, bigger/larger grip, etc) despite its age.

The 70D doesn't really fit into this conversation as it's at a significantly higher price point. It's like if someone had the budget for a 6D or a used 5DII and someone recommended a 1DX.
 
Last edited:
Newer technology at a lower price point is often the same as older technology
However in this case the newer AF technology of the T4i clearly outperforms that of the older 60D, especially important when shooting action.

R2
 
Ok then.

Let's put the 70D into the mix and allow for the price.

How would the T4i, 60D stack up against the 70D in detail?

Obviously interested in 70D (currently with a T2i).
 
Newer technology at a lower price point is often the same as older technology
However in this case the newer AF technology of the T4i clearly outperforms that of the older 60D, especially important when shooting action.

R2
60d for frame rate - eg, soccer. Also for balance of bigger white glass

frame rate trumps focus for soccer

t4i great for less size and where frame rate isn't primary

i own both and keep both for this reason
--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries
 
However in this case the newer AF technology of the T4i clearly outperforms that of the older 60D, especially important when shooting action.

R2
60d for frame rate - eg, soccer.
And deeper RAW buffer. However, AF keeper rate has always been the more decisive factor whenever I've shot anything that moves.
Also for balance of bigger white glass
Never been an issue for me no matter what camera I've ever owned. I was just fine shooting the massive Canon 200-400 on my T4i this summer. I regularly shoot the 300, 400, and 100-400 and am completely comfortable no matter if they're on the T4i or 70D.
i own both and keep both for this reason
YMMV of course.

R2

ps. You should also see a respectable increase in AF with your 5D3 as well. I'd consider one of those if I didn't shoot so much BIF.

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries
 
Last edited:
Ok then.

Let's put the 70D into the mix and allow for the price.

How would the T4i, 60D stack up against the 70D in detail?

Obviously interested in 70D (currently with a T2i).
Ahhh. Now we're talking :-) .

The 70D's AF is up another notch entirely (an often overlooked and undervalued feature). IQ would be pretty similar though.

It would be interesting to see how the new 55-250 STM would fare with sports though, as the other STM lenses AF on the 70D like Demons.

R2
 
"frame rate trumps focus for soccer"? You would rather have 16 unfocused shots than 5 in focus?

The desicive moment in any sports event comes and goes in under a second, if you need that buffer capacity you should be using video anyway.
 
Last edited:
"frame rate trumps focus for soccer"? You would rather have 16 unfocused shots than 5 in focus?

The desicive moment in any sports event comes and goes in under a second, if you need that buffer capacity you should be using video anyway.
you're assuming the 60d sucks

news for some...it does not

I shoot college soccer with it - for $

my t4i has the 10-17 fisheye on it for overhead - take it all in - for the team shots
 
However in this case the newer AF technology of the T4i clearly outperforms that of the older 60D, especially important when shooting action.

R2
60d for frame rate - eg, soccer.
And deeper RAW buffer. However, AF keeper rate has always been the more decisive factor whenever I've shot anything that moves.
Also for balance of bigger white glass
Never been an issue for me no matter what camera I've ever owned. I was just fine shooting the massive Canon 200-400 on my T4i this summer. I regularly shoot the 300, 400, and 100-400 and am completely comfortable no matter if they're on the T4i or 70D.
i own both and keep both for this reason
YMMV of course.
good way to put it. My 60d hits focus well for soccer. I'm using RAW plus jpg and the autumn hue preset from the canon site for the in-camera jpg processing. Often I go deep into the buffer.

My T4i allows me to carry two or three cameras to events and reduce lens changes

Works for me for $

R2

ps. You should also see a respectable increase in AF with your 5D3 as well. I'd consider one of those if I didn't shoot so much BIF.

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries
 
Ok then.

Let's put the 70D into the mix and allow for the price.

How would the T4i, 60D stack up against the 70D in detail?

Obviously interested in 70D (currently with a T2i).
Ahhh. Now we're talking :-) .

The 70D's AF is up another notch entirely (an often overlooked and undervalued feature). IQ would be pretty similar though.

It would be interesting to see how the new 55-250 STM would fare with sports though, as the other STM lenses AF on the 70D like Demons.

R2
photos or video?

if video is the main thing, go with 70d + STM lenses

if photos main thing, save the money and get T4i/T5i/60d/SL1 and put the extra into glass like my 35 F2 IS which rocks on my T4i and 60d
--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries
 
By far my main interest are photos.

My lenses are Canon 15-85 and 70-300L.

What's making me lean towards the 70D is pretty reasonable performance at ISO12,800. Cleaning makes them very usable.

Also, hopefully better/faster AF.

Am I correct?
 
60d for frame rate - eg, soccer. Also for balance of bigger white glass

frame rate trumps focus for soccer
The burst rate of the 60D is 5.3fps. The T4i is 5 fps -- near enough as to make no difference. Buffer depth is another matter.
 
By far my main interest are photos.

My lenses are Canon 15-85 and 70-300L.

What's making me lean towards the 70D is pretty reasonable performance at ISO12,800. Cleaning makes them very usable.

Also, hopefully better/faster AF.

Am I correct?
nope,

iso12800 ugly and 6400 not pretty, you need a FF 6d or 5d3 to do these ultra hi iso's nicely

better AF - probably for sports

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-70D.aspx

I sold my 15-85, nice lens, but I'm going primes with multiple bodies

I think the 70d would be nice with your 70-300L and your T2i with the 15-85. T2i is nice camera and doesn't take up too much to just carry the second cam.

IQ between the T2i and 70d will not be that different. Features will.
 
60d for frame rate - eg, soccer. Also for balance of bigger white glass

frame rate trumps focus for soccer
The burst rate of the 60D is 5.3fps. The T4i is 5 fps -- near enough as to make no difference. Buffer depth is another matter.
you are correct,

buffer depth to accept more raw frames
 
The 70D's AF is up another notch entirely (an often overlooked and undervalued feature). IQ would be pretty similar though.

It would be interesting to see how the new 55-250 STM would fare with sports though, as the other STM lenses AF on the 70D like Demons.

R2
photos or video?
if video is the main thing, go with 70d + STM lenses
An excellent combo for PDAF through the viewfinder, Live View with the LCD, and for Video. All three. The 70D's viewfinder PDAF is definitely a notch up from my T4i, and completely blows the other two modes away.
if photos main thing, save the money and get T4i/T5i/60d/SL1 and put the extra into glass like my 35 F2 IS which rocks on my T4i and 60d
Not a bad suggestion. The better the lenses, the better the results. Especially true when shooting sports.

R2
 
The 70D's AF is up another notch entirely (an often overlooked and undervalued feature). IQ would be pretty similar though.

It would be interesting to see how the new 55-250 STM would fare with sports though, as the other STM lenses AF on the 70D like Demons.

R2
photos or video?

if video is the main thing, go with 70d + STM lenses
An excellent combo for PDAF through the viewfinder, Live View with the LCD, and for Video. All three. The 70D's viewfinder PDAF is definitely a notch up from my T4i, and completely blows the other two modes away.
yeah, wish I had a 70d, but big price diff
if photos main thing, save the money and get T4i/T5i/60d/SL1 and put the extra into glass like my 35 F2 IS which rocks on my T4i and 60d
Not a bad suggestion. The better the lenses, the better the results. Especially true when shooting sports.

R2
yep, my 70-200 f2.8 L plus 1.4 ext II gets the call for outside sports
--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries
 
So you said, "An additional note re: your shutter speed question. You will always be trying (struggling actually) to INCREASE your shutter speeds enough to freeze the action, so the 1/4000 sec top end shouldn't limit you here, even in direct sunlight."

Does this mean that the 1/4000 second shutter speed will freeze the action in sports? I have seen many people that take pictures of skiers in mid-air at a 1/750 second shutter speed. And in the case of lenses, I'm thinking of getting the 85mm f/1.8 USM lens and the Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens. Since I'm thinking of lenses similar to this, I'm trying to go towards the less expensive lenses. I'm sixteen and a budding photographer, so I just want to experiment with lenses up to about 500 or $600 at most.

Thanks for the lens suggestions!

Tim
 
So you said, "An additional note re: your shutter speed question. You will always be trying (struggling actually) to INCREASE your shutter speeds enough to freeze the action, so the 1/4000 sec top end shouldn't limit you here, even in direct sunlight."

Does this mean that the 1/4000 second shutter speed will freeze the action in sports?
1/4000 second certainly will. However it's not too often that you can even get that high, especially with an f/4 or f/5.6 lens without increasing the ISO to uncomfortable levels. Shutter speeds at this level and greater are primarily useful for maintaining proper exposure when using lenses with very large apertures in direct sunlight, or when aiming for a silhouette type of effect.

I have seen many people that take pictures of skiers in mid-air at a 1/750 second shutter speed.
My keeper rate increases with each step up in shutter speed, then plateaus at about 1/2500 second. I'm always looking to maximize shutter speed, but I also don't want to increase the noise to unacceptable levels (by setting ISO too high). Always keep in mind that good light is your friend, especially true when shooting action.
And in the case of lenses, I'm thinking of getting the 85mm f/1.8 USM lens and the Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens.
I think you could do quite well with these.
Since I'm thinking of lenses similar to this, I'm trying to go towards the less expensive lenses. I'm sixteen and a budding photographer, so I just want to experiment with lenses up to about 500 or $600 at most.
You're waaaay ahead of what I was shooting at that age!

Good luck to you. Have fun,

R2
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top