18 mega pixels vs 20.2 mega pixel: Is there really that much noticable different between the two? I have the Canon EOS60D and I am thinking of upgrading to a Canon 70d. All things...

edstubbs Loc: East Coast; 1st state, Delaware

Is there really that much noticable different between the two? I have the Canon EOS60D and I am thinking of upgrading to a Canon 70d. All things being equal, (which they are not), does the 2.2Mega pixels really make that much of a difference. I will be keeping both cameras hoping this will allow me the opportunity to take more shots without having to change lens.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

edstubbs wrote:

Is there really that much noticable different between the two? I have the Canon EOS60D and I am thinking of upgrading to a Canon 70d. All things being equal, (which they are not), does the 2.2Mega pixels really make that much of a difference. I will be keeping both cameras hoping this will allow me the opportunity to take more shots without having to change lens.

No it is not significant. I would be much more concerned about camera functions.

edstubbs Loc: East Coast; 1st state, Delaware

Thank you Joer. Still need a second camera and it's going to be a Canon. Thanks again ☺

amehta Loc: Boston

joer wrote:

No it is not significant. I would be much more concerned about camera functions.

I agree. It is 6% more in linear pixel resolution. So if you were going to make a 24x16" print, now you can make a 25x17" print. Nobody will ever notice that difference.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

edstubbs wrote:

Thank you Joer. Still need a second camera and it's going to be a Canon. Thanks again ☺

The more similar the bodies are, the easier it will be to switch from one to the other, or to bring both on a shoot.

edstubbs Loc: East Coast; 1st state, Delaware

Thank you

edstubbs Loc: East Coast; 1st state, Delaware

Thank you Jerry. I think they are similar.

haroldross Loc: Walthill, Nebraska

edstubbs wrote:

Is there really that much noticable different between the two? I have the Canon EOS60D and I am thinking of upgrading to a Canon 70d. All things being equal, (which they are not), does the 2.2Mega pixels really make that much of a difference. I will be keeping both cameras hoping this will allow me the opportunity to take more shots without having to change lens.

As far as megapixels go, there is very little difference as already been stated. The 70D has one of Canon's latest sensors and processors. The 70D can take picture in low light conditions and with the STM series lens, you will get autofocus while making videos. Also, the AF is much improved over the 60D.

davidheald1942 Loc: Mars (the planet)

what Jerryc said

edstubbs Loc: East Coast; 1st state, Delaware

Thanks Harold. That's good information. I have yet to use any of my cameras for videos though. Is that unusual?

Does anyone even make a DSLR that doesn't take videos?

amehta Loc: Boston

edstubbs wrote:

Is there really that much noticable different between the two? I have the Canon EOS60D and I am thinking of upgrading to a Canon 70d. All things being equal, (which they are not), does the 2.2Mega pixels really make that much of a difference. I will be keeping both cameras hoping this will allow me the opportunity to take more shots without having to change lens.

Now that the megapixel difference is put to bed, on to the question of the 60D vs the 70D. I think that a one-level upgrade/update is rarely worth it, a two-level may be, and a three-level often is. I include both updates like 60D --> 70D and upgrades like 60D --> 7D.

I think the 60D and 70D are too similar to make a big difference for someone who does not shoot video. One of the most notable features of the 70D is an improved live view/video autofocus system. But the overall image quality and low light performance is not very different (snapsort 60D/70D comparison).

amehta Loc: Boston

edstubbs wrote:

Thanks Harold. That's good information. I have yet to use any of my cameras for videos though. Is that unusual?

Does anyone even make a DSLR that doesn't take videos?

Any Canon autofocus lens will autofocus with video, not just the STM ones.

I believe the only current DSLR which does not have video is the Nikon Df, but it's a gimmick camera, and one of the gimmicks is, "Oh, look, I don't have video!" :-D

Bruce with a Canon Loc: Islip

if memory serves, you need to quadruple the area to double the resolution, Therefore to get twice the resolution of a 6 MP sensor you will need 24 MP sensor.
On that basis it would seem to me a couple percentage points is insignificant.
The difference in other features would be your guide to upgrade or not.

haroldross Loc: Walthill, Nebraska

amehta wrote:

Any Canon autofocus lens will autofocus with video, not just the STM ones.

:-D

Yes, that is true. The STM lens are practically silent compared to the micro-motor or USM lens. The noise is not a big problem if you are using an external microphone. Also, the STM lens autofocus is much smoother.

amehta Loc: Boston

haroldross wrote:

Yes, that is true. The STM lens are practically silent compared to the micro-motor or USM lens. The noise is not a big problem if you are using an external microphone. Also, the STM lens autofocus is much smoother.

True, the STM lenses are better for video for these reasons.