Camera suggestion 3000$ limit

[bevo]

What should I buy the wife for Christmas. She's always been a canon user but is curious about Nikon. Shes a fro knows photos watcher and he is a nikon guy so she is kind of leaning toward a Nikon. I'm willing to go around 3000$ for the camera and a lens. What would you suggest?
What body and what lens

What

 

[Bye Ya]

On average, Nikon is the most expensive option. If you go that route and you/she get seriously into photography, you will eventually want to have a full-frame DSLR, and that means FX lenses from Nikon, which are incredibly expensive.

It depends on what you want to use it for. Somebody who just wants a good camera for vacationing and general photos has no use for pro level equipment, even something like a D700. Yes, you might benefit from 50+ point autofocusing or insane high ISO capabilities, but those are reserved for certain situations in professional photography. I don't mean that you wouldn't need the camera as an indication of skill, rather what you would have to pay for something you'd rarely make full use of. Somebody who shoots at ISO 100 99% of the time has no use for a high ISO performer that they'd have to pay thousands extra for, as an example.

That all being said, the biggest factor in image quality comes from the lenses. A semi-pro body with super lenses will produce images with much better quality than a pro body with sub-par lenses. Lenses also last much longer, and should be your main focus for your investment. For $3K you could probably purchase some really nice glass for the Canon you already have and see very significant improvement in your images, depending on what you are currently shooting with.


This guy tells it straight up, and I would recommend watching these videos.






In the 2nd video, he also doesn't include the older Minolta AF lenses, which are fantastic, dirt cheap, and work with Sony Alpha cameras (no adapter required). Also, he uses Tamron and Sigma lenses himself (among others), which also have Sony-mounts, so there are plenty of options. The range of lenses for Sony cameras is quite large. Check out dyxum.com and you will find a ton of lenses and reviews with great information.

 

[F1GTR]

I believe Nikon do a D600 kit with the 24-85 VR for around $3k (I'm just converting from GBP so it may well be less). Nikon isn't ridiculously overpriced, so ignore what Bye Ya said.

 

[Bye Ya]

I'll rephrase, on average the most expensive option. Example: Nikon full frame body + Nikon full frame lenses. The best bet is to do a lot of research to see what the best lens and body combinations are. Nikon doesn't always = the best, especially with lenses.

 

[Azuremen]

Do you have any lenses in either system? And does she have much experience with SLR photography? I feel we need a bit more info before making strong recommendations, simply given the range of cameras and lenses out there and what the intended subjects will be, etc.

 

[bevo]

She has some experience with SLR cameras. She has a canon 60 D now and use to use a XTi something as her first digital SLR. The 60 D though has never been that great of a camera for her. She has always had problems getting it to take good pictures. She broke out the old XTi over the weekend and actually took some pretty decent pictures with it. I almost think there is something wrong with the 60D because she has never got good results with it.

She has tamaron 17-55 2.8
canon 70-300 I think
She also has canon 50 1.8

I'm not really worried about the lenses though, because if she goes Nikon she can start over and learn a lens one at a time and maybe get a little more versatile with each one.

I'm wanting her to start trying to get paid to do this. Just Family, wedding, etc pictures. She is an MLT now and doesn't care for it at all and I would love to see her do something she likes. She use to do a pretty good job with pictures until she got the 60 D and it kind of just ruined it for her and she has really slowed down. If I get her a top notch camera and lens I think it will get her back into it and maybe give her some confidence to try and do some shoots with people and make a little cash.

I've thought about the great lens option instead of a new camera, but something just about has to be wrong with that 60D, almost every picture you take is blurry even on a tripod.

Let the ideas fly. It seems like there are really only a few options for a camera in this range, but some lens options would be great.

 

[Carlos]

Nikon D600, not too hardcore but still fullframe. Put a nice macro lens with and she'll be happy

 

[Azuremen]

It sounds like the 60D is defective. I have an XTi (400D) and it doesn't even compare to old 40D's at all, so the 60D should make it look like a joke.

The Tamron 17-55 F/2.8 is a fairly worth while lens. Honestly, if she is familiar with Canon, I'd say stay with it as I can't ever get the hang of how Nikons are setup when I use a friends.

Weddings and portraits are far more about lenses than the camera as well. I'd say warranty/exchange the 60D (at least have it looked at) since it is a body that is more than great for that stuff. Then look into some other lenses, such as the 70-200mm F/4L or such (that 70-300 is pretty soft in my opinion) and some primes, like the 85mm F/1.8 and such. If a new body is needed, consider the 7D unless full frame is absolutely necessary (it never is really) then look into the 5D, but you'll have to get rid of the 17-55mm Tamron (which is a good wedding lens on a crop sensor)

The 7D feels much nicer than the 60D because of the metal used in it and all around better ergonomics and handling. It also comes in a decent amount cheaper than the 5D Mark III and has better video and AF options than the 5D Mark II.

 

[CoolStory]

A Nikon is all good but if you're willing to look into other brands I would definitely suggest a Canon T2i

I honestly don't know all that much about Nikons but if you were to consider going with the T2i, I can say that I have one and know first-hand that it's very easy to use but also very pro. I doubt she would have much of a problem "getting it to take good pictures" seeing as with this camera it's not all about dozens of buttons and effects; it's more about taking a second to match the current light with your ISO and getting a good angle for whatever you're taking a picture of.

It also has movie mode, which comes in handy.

Seeing as you're looking into a professional career with this camera, and I doubt she would want a point-and-click, keep in mind that this camera seems very easy to use but is very professional. Movies are shot with this camera, commercials are shot with this camera. Professional photographers use this camera all the time and the results are phenomenal. If she's going to do wedding photos and the like then this camera is still one of the better choices.

I bought mine with a standard zoom lens and it does a pretty good job. Depending on the light it can get a little grainy when zoomed to its deepest point but on a clear day the image quality is impeccable.

However, it does have its downfalls. It doesn't do well with darker skin (but a LOT of cameras don't) or nighttime, whatever the lighting. I just did a test with my standard zoom lens and taking a picture with the shutter speed at 30, the ISO at 3200 (I usually keep it below 800 but it's evening and the current light calls for a higher ISO) and aperture at 5.6, the photo is bright with limited grain, or so it seems. Zooming into the photo the surface image quality quickly decreases. I would say this camera is more of an outdoors camera, which is mostly what I use it for.

I do agree with Azuremen about wedding photos, etc. being more about the lens selection. This camera is in the $600/$700 price range so you would have a lot of money left over for a really good lens.

The others posting here seem to be giving you some pretty good suggestions for a Nikon so I guess I won't have to go into that considering I know almost nothing about them

Also, a question about the current camera. Could definitely be defective by the sound of it. But not getting good results with the 60D might not be because there's something wrong with it. What shutter speed does she use? Certain shutter speed/ISO combinations will always result in a hot mess, tripod or not.

For example, to brighten my image I just took a photo at 800 ISO, shutter speed 0"5. Slightly blurry.

ISO at 3200, shutter speed at 1"6. Result = a bright blurry mess.

ISO at 1600 and shutter speed at 15 gave the photo the kind of light we all find attractive and kept everything in non-blurry focus. Sometime's more or so all about what the photographer does with certain settings, not the camera/lens itself.

Hope I helped with this giant pitch, lol. Good luck with her photo career, sounds like she's on the right track

 

[Azuremen]

The 60D is a generation newer than the T2i and considerably better in terms of ergonomics. The T2i is also an entry level dSLR and feels quite cheap in the hands compared to the 60D, let alone the 7D or 5D. I can't recommend it if the money is there for a better body simply because those better bodies avoid menu diving as much to change things.

 

[wfooshee]

The D600 is basically a full-frame D7000. 24MP over the D7000's 16. Is it worth a grand more than the D7000? Not to me.....

Keep in mind that the ultra-high MP cameras will require VERY good glass. The D600 with a hundred-dollar zoom lens is going to take pictures that look like a phone camera.

I spent a few years moving up every couple of years, and I'm quite happy with my D7000. Yes, it's DX (smaller sensor) instead of FX (approximately film-size) but I don't care. 16 clean megapixels, and since I shoot nature and sports, the smaller sensor gives me more reach with a given lens. The D7000 is fast. Not just high shutter speeds, but the whole shutter action. You press the button and by the time you think to the 'l' in 'click' it's finished. Quieter than my D5000 was, too.

Save the grand and get a D7000, and use the rest for really good glass. Glass is more important.

 

[Bye Ya]

If she is going to get into wedding photography then she needs a body that can do high ISO, and no matter what camera you go with you should then be looking for a really good 70-200 f2.8 lens. If you go with the Nikon D600, be prepared to spend about $1700 or more on the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR. That length lens is also perfect for portrait photography. I haven't seen many D600 performance test photos, but the D700 is a fantastic high ISO camera body.

With any name brand you choose, you can have a pretty complete setup with a really good 70-200 paired with a good 24-70. But like I said, with Nikon you are going to have $3K right there just in the lenses alone. They're fantastic lenses, and should last as long as you want if you take care of them, but it's a major investment. I also would not venture into wedding or portrait photography with mediocre gear.

And if you are going to do serious wedding photography then Lightroom is a must. Also keep in mind that during any given wedding you may shoot up to 3000 photos, which will wear on your shutter real quick. Most top end cameras are rated for about 150,000+ actuations before the shutter goes out. That's a $200-300 repair on average. And you will definitely need to be good at editing photos if you get into wedding and portrait photography. Lightroom is great for handing tons of batch processes for the large number of photos you'd take at any given wedding. I think it's around $300-400.

 

[Azuremen]

If she is going to get into wedding photography then she needs a body that can do high ISO, and no matter what camera you go with you should then be looking for a really good 70-200 f2.8 lens. If you go with the Nikon D600, be prepared to spend about $1700 or more on the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR. That length lens is also perfect for portrait photography.

With any name brand you choose, you can have a pretty complete setup with a really good 70-200 paired with a good 24-70. But like I said, with Nikon you are going to have $3K right there just in the lenses alone. They're fantastic lenses, and should last as long as you want if you take care of them, but it's a major investment. I also would not venture into wedding or portrait photography with mediocre gear.

I honestly have to say there are so many things wrong with all of what you just said...

First, you don't have to get a 70-200 F/2.8. Honestly, an F/4 would be fine assuming it has solid optics (Canon F/4L). Fast primes are also very real options, such as the 85mm F/1.8 or 135mm F/2L in the Canon line up. High ISO is basically standard on any new body, but 3200 or so is fine in all but the darkest of situations I'd say.

Honestly, with that 17-55 F/2.8 and the 85mm or a 135mm F/2L, one would be in a pretty good position to shoot a wedding or portraits. Hell, the 17-55 F/2.8 is super useful for portraits as well.

As for needing "pro" gear to shoot a wedding, this is the biggest amount of crap I've read in ages. You can do a wedding on a 40D and some decent glass, especially if it is more outdoors or a well lit venue, with little issue. And unless you need to make 40 inch prints, the resolution won't be an issue. Work flow and actual skill far outweigh gear for the most part.

Please tell me why you are qualified to make such statements? Please

 

[Bye Ya]

I honestly have to say there are so many things wrong with all of what you just said...

First, you don't have to get a 70-200 F/2.8. Honestly, an F/4 would be fine assuming it has solid optics (Canon F/4L).

Firstly, I have a 70-210 f4 lens, and it is not suitable for low light, which you WILL run into doing weddings. Primes are great, but I suggested two lenses that will cover a wide range of lengths. I shoot low light with primes, and I can tell you for a fact that there are situations where a low light 24-70 is a better option than a prime. You don't always have freedom to move around.

As for needing "pro" gear to shoot a wedding

That's not what I said. "So many things wrong", you named two. Why are you such an ass?

You can do a wedding on a 40D and some decent glass, especially if it is more outdoors or a well lit venue, with little issue.

Precisely, but anyone serious about wedding photography would never use situational equipment because it's not versatile enough. "Some decent glass", also pretty vague. And again I wouldn't set out to really be a pro wedding photographer with 'decent' gear.

Please tell me why you are qualified to make such statements? Please

Clearly I don't need to explain myself to the likes of you. You have made suggestions that no competent professional would consider. Not having low light capabilities with your equipment is just irresponsible if you are really trying to be a professional photographer. If you are trying to be an outdoor, daylight wedding photographer, by all means, go F4 and above, but anyone with experience producing professional low light photos knows that you need at least f2.8 or wider for those situations.

Please, what are your qualifications, exactly?

 

[Azuremen]

Firstly, I have a 70-210 f4 lens, and it is not suitable for low light, which you WILL run into doing weddings.

Funny story, I've used my 70-200 F/4L in low light just fine and sold results from it just fine.

That's not what I said. "So many things wrong", you named two. Why are you such an ass?

Mediocre gear in my mind is "less than pro" based on you suggesting top tier lenses. Reflect on your suggestions more and you'd understand where I was coming from.

Precisely, but anyone serious about wedding photography would never use situational equipment because it's not versatile enough.

You realize the lenses are just suggested are adequate for virtually any situation. You also realize we are not talking about someone that is going to go full pro at the moment and has far more to learn about professional work flow before dropping 3 to 4 grand into optics and a body.\

Decent glass doesn't mean a grand or more per piece.

Clearly I don't need to explain myself to the likes of you. You have made suggestions that no competent professional would consider. Not having low light capabilities with your equipment is just irresponsible if you are really trying to be a professional photographer.

I think you are vastly underestimating the current performance of sensors in low light, and how much quality optics impacts noise issues in these situations. F/4 on a modern mid tier camera is enough to use in many bars, let alone chapels with large windows and artificial lighting, and certainly more than sufficient for any other venue where they aren't blatantly dimming light in the area.

My qualifications are I've done a great deal of shooting in worse light than you'd find for a wedding on F/4 glass. And been paid for it. You've not linked to any of your work nor discussed what it is you actually do. For all I know, you are just some kid on the internet talking numbers.

 

[Bye Ya]

Funny story, I've used my 70-200 F/4L in low light just fine and sold results from it just fine.

The photography work I get paid to do is almost exclusively low light, and I can tell you from experience that stopping movement just doesn't happen in those conditions with an f4 lens, and I don't even shoot fast moving subjects. I shoot between 3200 and 6400 for those events. If you need to stop movement, it's not enough. Maybe I shoot in lower light than you do. I do theater productions, and 'concert' music. The two lenses I use most in those situations are a 50mm f1.4 and a 100mm 2.8. I also use a 20mm 2.8 when it's needed. I get to sit pretty close for most events, so the 100mm is fine for what I do.

Mediocre gear in my mind is "less than pro" based on you suggesting top tier lenses.

I suggested Nikon FX lenses to go along with the D600/700 body, for wedding work. I don't shoot Nikon so I'm not up to speed on the cheaper alternatives for their full frames, but if I were getting into wedding photography with a Nikon full frame the first lens I would get is their 70-200 f2.8.

You realize the lenses are just suggested are adequate for virtually any situation.

I disagree for low light.

You also realize we are not talking about someone that is going to go full pro at the moment and has far more to learn about professional work flow before dropping 3 to 4 grand into optics and a body.\

They asked about $3k range?

Decent glass doesn't mean a grand or more per piece.

I'm well aware, as I own several examples.

I think you are vastly underestimating the current performance of sensors in low light, and how much quality optics impacts noise issues in these situations. F/4 on a modern mid tier camera is enough to use in many bars, let alone chapels with large windows and artificial lighting, and certainly more than sufficient for any other venue where they aren't blatantly dimming light in the area.

Certain people you shoot for are going to be put off by grain, especially when viewing the images digitally on the web. Printing is another story. I'm well aware that most of the stuff coming out can do 3200 quite well, as again it's what I also use. I have been doing this for a while, and my images have been used many times for peoples' websites (digital, more grain), and they have unanimously preferred 3200 or lower compared to 6400 and up.

We're getting off the subject here.




My suggestions are based on the principle that if I were to set out to do professional work in any field, I would want only to produce the best results possible, and weddings are a huge deal to people. It's a huge moment in their lives and if they end up not being happy with the work you produce it's no small matter, and I would never as a wedding photographer want to be known for a situation like that. It's my opinion on how to approach it, and you can do what you want.


Here, this guy is a pro and he uses a handful of non-$1000 lenses. Also, if you are serious about portrait photography you should be prepared to spend a fair amount on a flash an lighting setup, also not cheap.



Also, these.

 

[Azuremen]

The photography work I get paid to do is almost exclusively low light, and I can tell you that you will not be able to shoot moving subjects in low light with an f4 lens, and I don't even shoot fast moving subjects, and I shoot between 3200 and 6400 for those events. If you need to stop movement, it's not enough.

And my experience disagrees.

I suggested Nikon FX lenses to go along with the D600/700 body.

You also suggested the 70-200 F/2.8 VR. Which is more than two pieces of glass I suggested, combined, which are F/2.8 and 2 respectively.

I disagree for low light.

See above, again.

They asked about $3k range?

And you suggested nearly that much in glass, before the body.

I'm well aware, as I own several examples.

Dang, that makes two of us.

Certain people you shoot for are going to be put off by grain, especially when viewing the images digitally on the web. Printing is another story. I'm well aware that most of the stuff coming out can do 3200 quite well, as again it's what I also use. I have been doing this for a while, and my images have been used many times for peoples' websites, which show more grain, and they have unanimously preferred 3200 or lower low-light photos over 6400.

I find the grain less of an issue when presenting digitally. As for printing, it really depends on how large of prints you are going to need.

Honestly, you were more suggesting a setup for someone who is going to do this professional. At the moment, advanced hobbyist is the best description to use here. And realistically, getting into wedding and portraits doesn't require particularly good gear compared to a good eye and understanding. Especially when picking and choosing are far more of options.

You're suggesting this "Go pro or go home" mindset that I feel is quite unnecessary.

As aside, care to link to your work/site?

My suggestions are based on the principle that if I were to set out to do professional work in any field, I would want only to produce the best results possible, and weddings are a huge deal to people. It's a huge moment in their lives and if they end up not being happy with the work you produce it's no small matter, and I would never as a wedding photographer want to be known for a situation like that. It's my opinion on how to approach it, and you can do what you want.

I think you are failing to realize how much less critical most clients are versus other photographers. The amount of people I know that produce, frankly, subpar work and make a living doing it is amazing. Even when using top end equipment. It is far, far more important to know what you are doing than what you are using. I don't think I can stress this enough, and I doesn't seem you get this despite, apparently, being a professional photographer.

 

[Bye Ya]

And my experience disagrees.

That's fine, but I didn't start out being a * about it.

You also suggested the 70-200 F/2.8 VR. Which is more than two pieces of glass I suggested, combined, which are F/2.8 and 2 respectively.

That's ONE suggestion. If I had $3k to start out as a wedding photographer, I would get a D700 and the 70-200, and start there. Earn from a couple of weddings and add another lens/equipment. That's me. I posted the videos for a reason, and if you look at them you will see that they aren't suggesting $5k in lenses, so let's keep that in mind when you try to sum up what I am suggesting.

Dang, that makes two of us.

So we're friends then?

Honestly, you were more suggesting a setup for someone who is going to do this professional.

That's exactly what I said.

You're suggesting this "Go pro or go home" mindset that I feel is quite unnecessary.

No. More of a "go the very best you can and make sure it's versatile", which applies to weddings specifically.

The amount of people I know that produce, frankly, subpar work and make a living doing it is amazing. Even when using top end equipment.

Indeed.

It is far, far more important to know what you are doing than what you are using. I don't think I can stress this enough, and I doesn't seem you get this despite, apparently, being a professional photographer.

Couldn't agree more, absolutely, 100%. "Takes crap photos, buys top end gear, still takes crap photos." But then I would never get into wedding photography if I took crap photos. You don't seem to understand the distinction I am making between wedding photography and basically anything else. Like I said, in my experience it's a different beast because of how important it is to the couples and their families, and how much they are getting charged for the photography services. I stated that it was my opinion. You can disagree without being a *.






- And I started out suggesting Sony + Minolta gear, far cheaper than any of your suggestions, and just as good. By far the best bang for $3000. I also posted a video that suggested you don't buy pro gear for amateur work. One of the very first comments I made was that Nikon really isn't necessary and often not the most affordable. Apparently you missed all of that.

Sony a850 professional 24-megapixel full frame body is around $1500 used if you play it right, and uses the same CMOS sensor that the top of the line Nikon ($5000) D3 uses. You can easily buy a bag, a tripod, and a handful of great Minolta lenses to cover a 16-300mm range with the money that would be left over. You want my suggestion, that's it.

 

[Carlos]

- And I started out suggesting Sony + Minolta gear, far cheaper than any of your suggestions, and just as good. By far the best bang for $3000. I also posted a video that suggested you don't buy pro gear for amateur work. One of the very first comments I made was that Nikon really isn't necessary and often not the most affordable. Apparently you missed all of that.

Forget those brands. They seem nice but my Nikon's have seem strong winters, alot of water and rain, coca cola's, hits, falls, sand, and it's still a beast. That is to me a reason to consider Nikon/Canon over brands as Sony and Minolta.

 

[Ibonibo]

between a Canon-ier and a Nikon-er

As Carlos said, Sony does have a incredible camera in line up with the a99 (is that it, the full frame?). Sony has the best current sensor in the industry, though Canon might launch a new one soonish (Nikon uses Sony's one), but Sony Pro level is very expensive but has also very good lenses. but look at the prices and hold on to something.

Though you always loose some money when changing makes. If she is happy with Canon (well apart from the faulty 60D) you can stay with it. A 5DII with a nice lens could be around your price point.

In some places I have seen the 5DIII for 2700€ body only.
Then there is the new 6D which in a kit could also come to your price point.

I'm not into Nikon at all so I can't give you info about those. And with all the fan comments on the internet it's hard to get a clear non biased user info about Canon/Nikon.


On a side not, send the 60D in, might be cheap to repair and you can sell it and buy a lens or part of lens for it.

 

[F1GTR]

For weddings all you really need is a fast 35 and a fast 85. Screw those stalker zooms.

 

[Ibonibo]

^I love Zooms cause you not in the face of the people to take the shot. Some don't like it, though 35mm is a really good flirt method 👍

 

[Speedster502]

Well, I have a 60D and have had no problems with it. I'd actually suggest getting it repaired (particularly if it's still under warranty) it's a decent camera for the price you paid. If it can be fixed for £100-200 what's the point in getting something new? Spend the extra money on a new, good quality, lens.

Out of interest, could you post a couple of photos showing the problem with the 60D and list the settings the image was taken on?

 

[CoolStory]

The 60D is a generation newer than the T2i and considerably better in terms of ergonomics. The T2i is also an entry level dSLR and feels quite cheap in the hands compared to the 60D, let alone the 7D or 5D. I can't recommend it if the money is there for a better body simply because those better bodies avoid menu diving as much to change things.

Yeah, but if the 60D is proving to be unreliable or difficult, the T2i would be a good option to fall back on.

But that's only if the 60D is defective. If it is, then I would recommend just replacing it with another 60D. If she doesn't like the 60D at all and is looking for another camera all-together, I would still point towards the Canon T2i. But that's just a personal reference and speaking solely from my experience.

As for the menu diving, it's not necessary at all. I just opened up the menu and I saw settings for interface, a few things for white balance, etc. I never use those. All you really need to do with this camera is adjust the ISO, shutter speed, and sometimes the aperture. Don't bother with the presets (landscape, portrait, etc.). Manual is actually far easier and far quicker when it comes to getting the photo style that you want.

The actual camera is obviously a huge part of the whole photography thing (duh ) BUT when it comes to specifics such as wedding pictures and stuff, its all about the lens you use. There are a ton of awesome lens available for both the T2i and the 60D that I'm sure would fit her preferences just fine

 

[CoolStory]

Spend the extra money on a new, good quality, lens.

I second this

Out of interest, could you post a couple of photos showing the problem with the 60D and list the settings the image was taken on?

Good call 👍

 

[Bye Ya]

Forget those brands. They seem nice but my Nikon's have seem strong winters, alot of water and rain, coca cola's, hits, falls, sand, and it's still a beast. That is to me a reason to consider Nikon/Canon over brands as Sony and Minolta.

What makes you think that the level of Sony camera you can get with $3K and lower won't withstand the elements? I have taken many a landscape photo at 14,000 feet in freezing conditions with an a900 with no problems. Spilling a soda on your camera? Many of the best Minolta lenses also went out of production in the late 80's and 90's, and they are still great lenses.

As Carlos said, Sony does have a incredible camera in line up with the a99 (is that it, the full frame?).

Along with the a850 and a900, used under $2000. Not the a99, way too expensive right now.

Spend the extra money on a new, good quality, lens.

If I had a decent to good camera body already, I would definitely take $3K and get a few pieces of really good glass.

 

[Azuremen]

But that's only if the 60D is defective. If it is, then I would recommend just replacing it with another 60D. If she doesn't like the 60D at all and is looking for another camera all-together, I would still point towards the Canon T2i. But that's just a personal reference and speaking solely from my experience.

It is very clear the 60D is defective.

As for the menu diving, it's not necessary at all. I just opened up the menu and I saw settings for interface, a few things for white balance, etc. I never use those. All you really need to do with this camera is adjust the ISO, shutter speed, and sometimes the aperture. Don't bother with the presets (landscape, portrait, etc.). Manual is actually far easier and far quicker when it comes to getting the photo style that you want.

You should be changing aperture and shutter speed more often than ISO I feel. And manual is fine but it is often easier and more relevant to shoot in Shutter or Aperture Priority.

Those points aside, the T2i (and all Rebel bodies) lack the control wheel and the directional stick. They also lack the top LCD and buttons to directly access all relevant things on the camera, such as focus mode, focus points, shutter drive, and just about anything else.

I'm not sure if you've spent much time with the higher end Canon bodies, but they have vastly improved ergonomics and controls over the Rebel line-up.

 

[bevo]

I think we are going to try and take the 60D somewhere and get it looked at to see if something is wrong with it for sure. What would be a good option for a portrait lens for that camera that would work well with the MARK II or III if she decides to upgrade, or are those both bad picks for an upgrade.

As you all can tell I have very little knowledge of anything camera. I'm trying to put together a christmas present for her.

 

[CoolStory]

I think we are going to try and take the 60D somewhere and get it looked at to see if something is wrong with it for sure. What would be a good option for a portrait lens for that camera that would work well with the MARK II or III if she decides to upgrade, or are those both bad picks for an upgrade.

As you all can tell I have very little knowledge of anything camera. I'm trying to put together a christmas present for her.

I would recommend to splurge for a 70-200mm F2.8 IS lens. It's good for both the Mark II and the Mark III. As far as I can tell, it's a decent portrait/landscape lens but it's in the $2,000 range.

 

[CoolStory]

It is very clear the 60D is defective.

I'm sure it is.

But unless we see some example pictures we won't know for sure if it's the defectiveness of the actual camera, the lens, or maybe even if it's just the wrong lens at the wrong time in the wrong lighting with the wrong settings. Referring back to my other post about the blur regardless of a tripod, it's inevitable that even if your camera is strapped to a brick wall and completely unmoving, certain shutter speed/ISO combinations will never get good results.

But then again, I'm probably over-thinking.

You should be changing aperture and shutter speed more often than ISO I feel.

I agree, seeing as I usually have my ISO at 800 and adjust the shutter speed and aperture accordingly.

I'm not sure if you've spent much time with the higher end Canon bodies, but they have vastly improved ergonomics and controls over the Rebel line-up.

The T2i actually a very high-end camera. Yes, depending on the picture I'm sure the 60D could easily make the T2i look amateurish. But when it comes to taking pictures like wedding photos I don't think that someone would really be in need of having a wider range of settings.

Yeah, a camera with good quality layout is always handy but it doesn't seem like a totally pro camera is what she's looking for. An easy to get-around camera with great quality paired with some awesome lens seems like it could work just fine, and the T2i is in a low enough price range that you could get at least one really good lens

Sorry, double-posted.