Talk:Canon EOS 60D

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Commons Categories

FYI to all. I have made a commons category for this camera here. Any images of the camera should be placed there. Also I have made a Category for photo's taken with the camera here. Thanks. Nebrot (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"below expectations"

"From a technical point of view it stayed far below expectations, offering less than six frames per second continuous shooting and only a nine-point autofocus."

Should that really be on the page? is it really notable that some people on forums are disappointed that the AF system is not upgraded from the previous model? it might be notable that some specification have been reduced compared to the 50D. how about a table of differences, http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos60d/ could be used as a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.117.246 (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's unsourced, "far below expectations" is point of view and original research. The preview you mention states that it's exactly what it should be, in between the 50D and the D7. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 12:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a list of changes and removed the above quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.117.246 (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

image

the french wikipedia page has a photo. can this be used here as well? --87.127.117.246 (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not yet. The file is missing "essential source information". BC _{talk to me} 21:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about a picture of only the camera, without the lens ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.142.122.10 (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battery / ISO

The battery for the 60D is not the same as the "2 digit line, (such as the 30D or 50D). The 60D uses the same battery as the 5D and 7D, the LP-E6. Although for such a short article with such little information, this bit of information seems unimportant, except maybe in the above section of changes from the 50D.

In addition to this line sounding like nonsense, "ISO with both steps 1 f-stop steps and 1/3 f-stop steps," it is also inaccurate. This is not a change from the 50D. The 50D also has the option of either full stop increments or 1/3 stop increments for ISO settings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djkmann (talk • contribs) 02:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

17.9 versus 18 MP, what is true?

It is written in the article that the sensor contains 17.9 MP but if it is indeed the same sensor as the one build in the 550D it must have 18 MP. Or the 550D must have 17.9 MP. We shoul harmonize both informations. --109.41.226.69 (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both. It's 18.0 effective and 17.9 recorded. Cp82 (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photographytalk: SPAMMED, vague info from an unreliable blog

The editor is probably the second spammer for photographytalk i've found
He just writes one sentence as a reason to make his main action: SPAM for photographytalk
The source is a blog-style page with infos from manufacturer, unclear other copied reviews and own opinions without giving any reasons or technical research, especially for this sentence: UNRELIABLE !

Best wishes, and find other sources with not so unreliable info, Tagremover (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]