[Closed] Digital SLR's - Do I need a "Full frame" one?

For professionals and wannabes.
Buy whichever one feel good in the hand and is kind to the wallet.

It's like asking if you need a 10k specialized road bike to go to the shops. Of course not. Ff cameras are great for image quality but expensive, big and heavy and you need expensive lenses to get the same zoom ability. Just pointless for normal use. If you are just printing A4 images or keeping them digital then the extra quality will not show up anyway so it's a waste of money.

You don't need a full frame. I dare say there's a fair few 'pros' out there who haven't got them yet. The world won't end or anything.

If budget isn't a concern, have a think about what lenses you want. You should become concerned in no time at all 😉

You don't need one no. They are nice though - but also expensive and heavy, and need expensive lenses to make the most of them.

Not really just for the pros and 'wannabes'. Pretty much for any one who can justify the cash. Before digital, we all used to use full frame

Personally, I find the greater control of depth of field, superior noise control and increased dynamic range all compelling reasons to having shelled out for my 5D2. The fact my only L-series lens is also the only one that's failed is a less compelling reason for the pro lenses on reliability reasons...

canon 7d is my dream camera

If the cash means nothing to you then fine. You are a lucky person. Get one as long as you don't mind the weight. Personally I like my cameras small and light.

For anyone on a normal budget it is definitely not worth the expense. Photography is about art not equipment.

For anyone on a normal budget it is definitely not worth the expense.

That's a bold statement. I prefer the images from my old full frame 5D mark I to those from a more modern and expensive cropped sensor 7D.

I was tempted to upgrade my D90 recently to a D600/D800, the main reason was to get a 100% viewfinder, its the only thing that bugs me with the D90 and other mid ranged DSLR's, that the viewfinder view does not match exactly to what you take, I konw its not important for most things, but for closeup work I do, its something I have to be aware of all the time.

Depends what you want to photograph; for wildlife the extra reach of a crop sensor is useful, as is the faster focussing of a 7d over a 5d mkII. For landscape or portrait then a full frame will generally be preferred.

Obviously both types of camera can take amazing pictures of any genre.

And if you are buying a full frame then you are kind of committed to buying expensive lenses to make the most of it.

I have a 7d, but I think a 5d mkII would complement it nicely....

you dont need it...
if you can afford it then it will be, much better in low light conditions
much better at showing the distortions in your glass

result in a never ending spiral of more expensive glass, memory etc...

for a first SLR, buy a decent entry level cannon or nikon (whichever your dad has so you can swap lenses)

unless your totally minted, in that case, dont worry about it, send me 25k and and I will send you back a brilliant camera and lense selection

For anyone on a normal budget it is definitely not worth the expense. Photography is about art not equipment.

For anyone on a "normal" budget, they already have a half decent camera in their phone. If you're spending a lot more on an SLR, then you might as well explore all the options. For me the downsides of FF (weight, size) are far outweighed by the positives (image quality, better noise handling, better dynamic range, greater control over DoF, better build and handling, much better view finder... The list goes on)

A second hand 5D MkII or D700 will greatly outperform a new crop sensor body of the same price

And due to the greater pixel density of modern crop frame cameras, these can show up poor glass much more than FF

The difference between a phone and a half decent crop sensor DSLR are huge. Not discounting the rest of your post zokes, but that bit is a bit daft.

I can get far better control, image quality, dof, low light sensitivity, zoom, dynamic range etc on a £500 crop sensor dslr than I can on my £500 phone

Big and heavy? Since when is something like a 5D big and heavy? Simple answer is no you don't need one. It's the same that applies to bikes, you don't need a £5k mountain bike but its great having one and there will be a performance gain over a cheaper one, it's just a question as whether you personally can justify it.
Trust me, buying something secondhand like a Canon 1Ds Mk1 or Mk2 will show you just how good full frame cameras are and yes they're heavy but they are bombproof and weather proof which for some people is worth it's weight in gold.

I recently went from a 7D to a 5D3...I think the difference is small in comparison with the differences you can make with composition, lighting and technique. I'm glad I got it, mainly as it's stopped me wasting time debating 'should I go Full Frame...' I'm now concentrating on learning, which is making a difference.

You only have to look at how many amazing pictures are taken with crop sensor cameras to see how much you can achive without going FF.

The difference between a phone and a half decent crop sensor DSLR are huge. Not discounting the rest of your post zokes, but that bit is a bit daft.

It is. But yet you can still take very good photos in good light, easily printable up to A4 and certainly ok for Internet use on any modern phone. This is probably more than what 99% of people who use any form of camera need, which was the OP's question.

Since getting an iPhone (other brands are available), I've found I cart my 5D II about much less. But, when I do carry it about, I tend to use it much better. However, for holiday snaps around a town etc, the camera on a decent phone is surprisingly good, and as ever, the best camera in the world is the one you have with you!

In a moment of madness I changed from a 7d to a 5d mk iii. It didn't make me an outstanding photographer. There, I said it! It is now a serious hobby just like biking so why not? I made a killing on the old body and ef-s lenses so the investment wasn't too brutal.

Don't underestimate the extra reach a crop sensor gives. Very useful for sports and wildlife especially.

I'm afraid composition and light far far outweigh what camera you use.

I'm afraid composition and light far far outweigh what camera you use

This absolutely.

BUT, if you are good at making the most of these, then a FF sensor will allow you to eek out even more. Greater depth of field control, cleaner images (especially low light), the ability to take 'ambient light' photos in near darkness.

As to the OP, probably a big old jump if this is your first DSLR. I'd say a cropped sensor body would probably be better until you know you like the control of a DSLR and can make the most of it. Then you can move up to an FF sensor. One way would be to buy a cropped body but invest in FF compatible lenses so that if you decide to move up to an FF body the lenses (generally the expensive bit) are already there. Something like a Canon 650D/Nikon D3200/Sony A37 would be ideal for a first leg up.

For anyone on a "normal" budget, they already have a half decent camera in their phone

I don't think that's a sensible statement. A £300 SLR is clearly miles better than a phone.

Since when is something like a 5D big and heavy?

Ask an Olympus or Pentax user 🙂 The 5Ds I've handled in shops seem like a right chore to me. I would not want to carry the camera and three lenses around on a family outing like I do with my Oly. Ok so it's not comparable with a 5D in terms of camera but my point about weight stands. It's a heavy item imo.

I make a point of not buying anything I can't use to its full capability. That goes for bikes, musical instruments, cameras and anything. I can't abide the idea of loading up on kit just because it's there.

My mid/entry level stuff will do me just fine until I turn semi pro 🙂

I'd have to disagree with you about the 5D size. I tried one a few years ago and thought it felt massive...it put me off and I bought a 550D. I ended up ditching the 550D for a 7D as the body is far to small to hold when you have anything but a kit lens on it.

Having used a 7d/5d I can't see how I ever felt the 550D was a sensible size for a camera.

ianpinder - Member

canon 7d is my dream camera

Just don't do what I did which was buy a 1D Mkii without realising the sheer size of it and cost of worthy lenses.

It's still sat in a box somewhere. 😳

Don't underestimate the extra reach a crop sensor gives.

A crop sensor doesn't give you any more reach than cropping an image from a full-frame camera 😉

I like full-frame, but I like mine for perhaps antiquated reasons - I love the massive 100% pentaprism viewfinder, I like that it makes old lenses work the way they were designed to, and I like the shallower DoF.

It's like "what lens?" - there's no right answer for every type of photography.

I bought a battery grip for my Olympus E-600 with the 70-300 on it, to help a little with holding. Although because the entire Olympus system is aimed at light weight, it's not that much of a chore. Any more zoom than that and I'm going to need a monopod anyway. I'm unlikely to be purchasing the f2.8 300mm prime any time soon 🙂

Seems the concencus is that I really don't want or need one then?

Weight/size of the camera would be important to me so I guess that rules out a full frame. I liked my dads canon 550d, but that is probably old technology now? What's this/next years equivalent?

I don't have a FF as I'm a hobbiest more than anything, I have a 400D, which is 5 years old and still takes great shots - the only weak point is my ability.

Have a shop around, if your Dad has a good collection of lenses and is happy to lend them then Canon makes sense for you. Also, if you are happy with 2nd hand or last seasons model you can no doubt get a bargain for precious little technological difference.

Lenses luckily rarely have upgrades and new models issues so 2nd hand ones can be great and the servicing with Canon I have found to be excellent value £52 for a lens that came back like new.

Seems the concencus is that I really don't want or need one then?

As a rule I'd say don't get anything pro quality until you come up against the limitations of the hobbyist level kit.

I've got a D7000 (crop) and D4 (FF) and you can't tell the difference between images from the two. I bought the D4 purely as it has the buffer size to run at 11fps for 30 seconds, which is great for sporting events, e.g. I have Jessica Ennis' 200m Heptathlon in it's entirety at 11fps. Other than that, there's not a lot between the two, other than a 5x price difference.

As a rule I'd say don't get anything pro quality until you come up against the limitations of the hobbyist level kit.

This. Buying better kit doesn't make a better photographer - in fact often the opposite.

Take a trip to Dpreview its like here but different

Here we have a community many of whome spend alot of money on multiple bikes. But they get out and ride them

Dpreview is full of people spending a fortune on expensive multiple cameras. They then take a couple of pictures of their cat, post it online and tell you how great the out of focus areas are They then start planning the next purchase or give up and take up a new hobby. Its like a whole land of people riding round the car park and pumping the forks a bit. There are exceptions of course. It looks like there are more actual photographers here.

Any way back to advice. By a basic DSLR probably Nikon or Canon. Canon if you can borrow lenses. Consider a wider range kit lens like the 18-105 for Nikon not sure which for Canon. See how you go. If you use it lots then you may want to by more stuff. If you don't use it much then you haven't wasted much money. If you do then buy again it might be full frame, it might not. Its a bit like hard tail vs FS everyone has their own opinion

I've got nearly 6 years out a Nikon D70s and 18-70 zoom that cost £350. Its photo quality is so much better than a phone that I can't believe that has been even sugested that as an option. My next move will probably be towards something more portable.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/john_clinch/

almost all with a compact or a 6Mp DSLR

If you're taking pictures of bikes don't bother. The extra reach you get and low weight is worth more than the bit better DOF.

I've got a 7d, not remotely tempted to swap it for a 5d as I generally lug it about on the bike taking photos of bikes. If I took mainly landscapes I would get a FF tho.

Btw, what do you need to go into menus for on the 7d? It's got buttons for every thing...

Weight/size of the camera would be important to me so I guess that rules out a full frame. I liked my dads canon 550d, but that is probably old technology now? What's this/next years equivalent?

With the Canons the models move up like so: xxxxd, xxxd, xxd, and then you have the 7d 5d and the 1d, (and I think they've just recently introduced a 6d).

Single digit models are higher up the tree, with the 1d being at the top (at least in monetary terms).

The 550d is a consumer/entry level model. There are the 1000d and 1100d below, which were introduced later on, but the xxxd series is the common one. I think this years would be the 650d or something. Newer models will have better low light capability, video functions and so on, but you could go way back (350d say) and still get excellent pictures.

xxd series are more prosumer market. Well built, robust, bigger and in my opinion have friendlier and more versatile controls. Not so much designed for simpletons.

xd series is moving into serious and expensive kit category. Do remember that the body is a small part of the puzzle. More money will be spent.

A Ff camera doesn't need to be big and bulky, or need lots of lenses. Sony have just announced a Ff compact with fixed 35mm Zeiss f2.0 lens.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/09/12/Sony-reveals-cyber-shot-dsc-rx1-24mp-full-frame-fixed-carl-zeiss-35mm-f2-lens-compact
Of course, it won't be cheap, but it will certainly allow the user to carry it around in a pocket and take more photos.
Did I say how much? Oh, about £2600...
Would I have one? Bloody right I would, but I'll need the money first! 😀

Yup, FF NEX cameras are on the way next year too...

Best camera is the one you have on you...

Do you need one, no.

Will you struggle to go back to a cropped sensor once you've used full frame, yes.

The high ISO performance on something like a 5D means I can get shots where I wouldn't even bother getting my 550D out.

That said, I've been on the cheaper Canon's ever since they brought out the 300D and still have shots that I consider keepers from that very first body. But the 5D I have at work is something else, but then it's easy to justify one when it's for commercial use.

Size is a good point. I do a lot of DSLR video (more than stills in fact), and when I'm out riding and filming, I don't even entertain taking the 5D due to its size.

I must've spent £1500 on my camera kit. I paid £300 for the camera and I have 7 other lenses.

I have far more creative options and I can have far more fun with that lot than £1500 of full frame camera and kit lens.

I think Molgrips makes a good point

out of intrest what do you have?

Yes.

Everyone wants a full frame, but only about 5% actually have the need for one. Your better off spending less on the body and more on.glass and the change in going places to use it.

Not everyone. I don't. Crop is fine for me...

Would rather spend the money on lenses and places to go for new photo opportunities...

I must've spent £1500 on my camera kit. I paid £300 for the camera and I have 7 other lenses.

By contrast, I mostly stick to two lenses, forcing me to work on my composition, rather than faff about playing with different lenses.

Everyone wants a full frame, but only about 5% actually have the need for one

I certainly don't, I ocasionally worry that Canon will ditch the 7D for a full frame and i'll have nothing to replace it with when I invevitably drop my camera!

I have a 40D body for sale if you are interested?

I think Molgrips makes a good point

out of intrest what do you have?

I have an Olympus E-600 which Currys were clearing out half price a few years ago, cost me £320. Ok so it's not the camera for everyone but I love it and it was a hell of a bargain.

Lenses include most of the Olympus standard range:

14-42mm f3.5-5.6
40-150mm f3.5-5.6
70-300mm f4.0-5.6
9-18mm f4.0-5.6
25mm f2.8 pancake (love this for ease of packing and handling, but it's a bit long for general purpose, would prefer the 17mm length you get in m4/3 version)
35mm f3.5 macro
8mm fisheye (this is actually a pro range lens.. mmm... )

And a Sigma 30mm f1.4 EX DG which is a bit of a love hate thing.

Almost all of which was bought second hand from the US for cheap.

As for limiting yourself to think about composition - not sure why having more than two lenses would stop you thinking about composition. Photography is all about composition, isn't it, regardless of lens? Otherwise it's just snaps.

If I have several lens choices I have to think MORE about composition because I can bring far more stuff into the picture if I want.

Anyway I usually only have one or two with me.

As for limiting yourself to think about composition - not sure why having more than two lenses would stop you thinking about composition. Photography is all about composition, isn't it, regardless of lens? Otherwise it's just snaps.

Definitely - I've got more silly expensive lenses than I should really admit to, but rarely go out with more than two or three. I find it harder with more lenses - it makes it harder to mentally frame images.

I think if I was starting again, I'd go completely against everything said here - I'd get a FF and a single 50mm lens. I've learned a lot more with that setup than I ever did carrying about a bag of different lenses.

I've learned a lot more with that setup than I ever did carrying about a bag of different lenses

That's been mentioned often on here but I've got no idea where you are coming from. Prime lenses give prime lens style pics. Wide angle ones give wide angle style pics. If you only have a prime you can only take prime style pics. Sure you can get really good at it but there's a whole range of stuff you just can't do.

I suppose if you were prone to fannying about with gear and not properly thinking about what you were doing then it could help, but I don't suffer from that.

Just got a new camera just before Christmas. Canon eos-m, its pretty compact and with adapters can take a multitude of lenses. Here are a few test shots quickly taken when I got it:[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/wilsonalasdair/sets/72157632320093581/ ]new eos mn[/url]

Molgrips that looks like a great collection.

Still stuck on one lens. Partly due to funds butartly as I can't decide if I'm really committed to Nikon F mount...

That's been mentioned often on here but I've got no idea where you are coming from.

I guess what I mean is that, for me, when I started out having more lenses was a distraction. Fr example, instead of thinking properly about framing a shot I'd just bung on a different lens. It's a bit like how everyone goes through the post-processing phase where you experiment with lots of PP effects, before eventually going back to taking picture properly in the first place 😉

Perhaps it's a bit like learning to ride a bike - you don't bung a child on a full-sus bike with 27 gears and disc brakes, you put them on a Like-A-Bike where all they have to think about is balance. With a single prime lens, you don't have to think about which lens to use, how to zoom and stuff like that, so you can concentrate more on learning about aperture, shutter speed and the important stuff.

I think it also helps with learning spontaneity - a small prime lens is great for just strolling about.

Molgrips that looks like a great collection.

Thanks, it's meant to cover most possibilities for the least money. I've promised myself I won't go chasing ever better quality or light - there's just no point. As an example there's a 50-200mm f2.8 which is rather nice and not too expensive in the older version without the supersonic motor, but I'd need a teleconverter to get what I can get with my 300mm, and it only gets me one extra stop. Hardly ground breaking improvement. To get a significantly better wildlife lens I'd have to spend thousands really.

Having said that I think I will save up for a teleconverter for wildlife. It's a bit silly but on holiday somewhere sunny where there's unusual wildlife there might just be enough light 🙂

a small prime lens is great for just strolling about.

Yeah well just because I have all those lenses doesn't mean I carry them about all the time. I often do have just a prime.

No, you don't need a full frame sensor unless you're planning on doing either portrait or landscape photography. For those two you'll reap the rewards that increased sensor size (and cost) will give.

There are many, many professionals using crop sensors, it's the person using the camera that is composing the image and choosing the settings, the camera's just a means of capturing the creativity.

You'll be much better off spending your money on lenses than a FF body and one or two lenses.

I'm with Stumpy on this. I would rather have my mid range kit (7d and 60d plus good compliment of lenses) and invest in travel rather than go full frame.

Of course if I had the money I would do both!

BB

I think if I was starting again, I'd go completely against everything said here - I'd get a FF and a single 50mm lens. I've learned a lot more with that setup than I ever did carrying about a bag of different lenses.

Having been pretty much forced back to this after my staple 24-105L failed partway through this holiday, I've found today's walk with only a 50mm or 18mm on my 5d2 a rather re-enlightening affair

Fwiw, I've got about 8 lenses in a cupboard, but unless I'm going anywhere specific (eg sports for long tele or botanic garden for macro) I tend to stick with the L zoom or UWA and just use them. My photography is certainly much improved since I stopped faffing about with 6 different lenses

Yup, FF NEX cameras are on the way next year too...

For me that'll be the nail in the coffin for bulky SLR's with flipping mirrors and expensive lenses. Even the current NEX7 would be the camera I would like regardless of price.

I have a friend who pretty much queued up for a nex7 when they came out, just in time for his youngest to be born. Yet strangely, most of the pics of his kids he has on display were taken on my clunky expensively lensed Canon 5D Mk II.

He's already said he wished he'd got the 5D now

Maybe it's just me being old-fashioned again, but I can't really get on with my NEX-5. It's well made, takes decent images and is very good for video, but it doesn't feel part of me the way the big A900 does. Maybe it's as simple as the fact it's got a screen not a viewfinder.

I'm with you there, Im just not able to feel quite as comfy with a compact as I can with a dslr, the rugged larger grip of the dslr just feels right. Though after 2 hours climbing a mountain a bag with a dslr and 4 lenses feels a bit annoying too.

I have to say I think that the NEX range is all smoke and mirrors. They look great on the internet but the reality is some what different. The 6 and 7 might be better..

My sister has a NEX 3. Small body huge lens. I keep wanting to like it as I could buy one used very cheaply. But the user interface is so bad that i feel permanantly lost. AF is OK in good light on static subjects. But poor in low light or on moving objects

Maybe the phase detect AF on the NEX 6 will bring it all together?

If I was to go mirrorless it would be with micro fourthirds. Much maligned for its smaller sensor its a system that actually seems to work. Good handling bodies a good range of lenses and lenses that are really smaller

NEX has grown from a culture of internet reviews with loads of pixel peeping and the desire to have the ultimate image quality. When in reality most peole will be printing small or uploading to face book

I moved from Olympus m4/3 to nex. The user interface on the Olympus was awful. The nex5 is ok. The nex7 is better than a dslr.

Now Olympus has moved to Sony sensors there isn't much in iq and the new Sony lenses are a match for m4/3 so I don't think there's much between the two systems.

Having said that... the only thing going for nex or m4/3 is size. Autofocus on anything moving is useless compared to a dslr and they're both fiddly little things. Lenses on both systems are ludicrously expensive.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was cheaper to build a system around a Nikon d600 than either m4/3 or nex.

Seriously the motion AF on the NEX7 isn't anygood? With static stuff is really fast so what is going on there?

I must've spent £1500 on my camera kit. I paid £300 for the camera and I have 7 other lenses.

I don't need 7 lenses. I have 4. One is tatty and well used Sigma 17-70 f2.8 MTBing pics, and is passable for macro use. One is a wide Sigma 10-20mm and only gets used rarely, the same as my 50mm f1.8. I've just bought a Sigma 18-250 which will probably take 80% of my pics for the next 5 years.

If I had to choose one of those 4 it would be the tatty old Sigma 17-70. It's crisp, it's fast, it's versatile. It matters more what you point the camera at than what camera you're pointing at it. Photography isn't about 'creativity' and gear. It's about taking pictures. 🙂

Much maligned for its smaller sensor its a system that actually seems to work.

Similar story for the Olympus SLRs too it seems. More noise at high ISO was reason for the pixel peeping gear nerds to write off 4/3, but there seems to be quite a few people around who love the handling, operation and the lenses.

Lenses on both systems are ludicrously expensive

Really?

JCL - just contrast detect af vs phase detect. Fast is an overstatement for static subjects on the nex7 though. Adequate mostly. Not fast.

Molgrips - sure. Compare the price of a new 25mm f1.4 from Panasonic to a 50mm f1.4 from canon for example. Then look at the second hand market.

Compact lenses are costing me a fortune compared to full frame lenses.

Well it made my old D60 seem clockwork!

Gutted though as I loved it (the NEX7) when I was playing around with it. Seemed like the future.

I use my nex7 more than my dslr. Everything is a compromise one way or another.

Compare the price of a new 25mm f1.4 from Panasonic to a 50mm f1.4 from canon for example

Hmm.. well the former is marketed as a top notch lens isn't it? And the latter is a do-it-all cheapo that happens to be quite good. Economies of scale apply, which I guess is your point.

Yes, there's that. There's the huge used market that doesn't exist for compact system lenses, and the extreme pixel density on the compact systems that are much more fussy about lens quality.

Well.. the point about 4/3 is that it's easier to make a sharper lens BECAUSE of the smaller sensor, isn't it? And m4/3 is the same size...?

The requirement for physically smaller lenses probably pushes the price up tho.

It will be interesting to see if uptake of compact systems increases, but I suspect it might not be. Just read the film camera thread for people's feelings about their cameras beyond practical usability.

"But it just FEELS so nice".. wtf, it's a camera not a blowjob.

Well.. the point about 4/3 is that it's easier to make a sharper lens BECAUSE of the smaller sensor, isn't it? And m4/3 is the same size...?

Not really, the quality of the glass has to be far superior for the bit of lens that is used for u4/3. If you cut the sensor on my 5d2 to a u4/3 size, it would only be about 5.5 mpx, yet it is a 22 mpx sensor at FF

God keep it simple
Buy a camera body in your budget with the best metering system
Does it have a processor on it if so even better.
Buy pre set lenses if you really need them (not right now).
Buy a good zoom lens IE 28 to 140 focal length with the biggest F stop you can afford.

My day to day camera even photographing my Furniture I use a
Canon G11 Yep a Compact digital camera Laugh you may but I put these in Magazines
as long has I don't go any bigger than 10*8 and MB wise 4 meg is all you need for
quality publication.

The two pictures was shot in Manual metering in Natural light and I did override the flash and the
camera was hand held too.
Also I have not used Aperture so no enhancement one bit.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

"But it just FEELS so nice".. wtf, it's a camera not a blowjob.

Dunno, people can choose what they like, they don't have to justify it to anybody. It's a creative hobby, it would be pretty sad if eveyone used the same tools.

If someone want's to use a camera becase they like the feel, or even the colour of the backlghting on the buttons, it's up to them. At least they didn't choose it because they read their opinion on an internet forum.

You use those pics to sell your furniture? They are awful.
The furniture looks quality, the images aren't.

With the Canons the models move up like so: xxxxd, xxxd, xxd, and then you have the 7d 5d and the 1d, (and I think they've just recently introduced a 6d).

Single digit models are higher up the tree, with the 1d being at the top (at least in monetary terms).

So looking at the Canons. I was looking at the 60D in Curry's for £729, I am sure it will be cheaper elsewhere but just wanted to have a look at it.)

Whats the main difference between the 60D and the 650D or 600D?, the 650D can be had for £809 with £50 cashback, so all comparable prices)

all 3 seem to be 18 megapixels, Sensor size and type: 22.3 x 14.9mm CMOS (what is this?? also what is APS-C????)
HD video: Full HD 1080p
ISO Speed Range: 100-6400

I thought the 60D would be far higher spec than the 600/650??

Organic check this site out for reviews

[url= http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/canon_eos_60d_review/ ]Canon EOS 60D review[/url]

[url= http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/canon_eos_650d_review/ ]Canon EOS 650 review [/url]

Difference between 60d, 650d and 600d?
From memory, the main difference will be between the 60d and the 600/650d - the 60d is more ergonomic with 2 control dials (when in full manual you have instant access to shutter and aperture, rather than having to use the same dial and press a button) along with less features buried in menus and directly accessible through primary buttons.

The 650d is a slight upgrade to the 600d, although I don't know if the sensor is improved. If you're looking for a direct numbers comparison, try snapsort.com

APS-C is a sensor size, it's equivalent to an old (now defunct) film size called 'Advanced Picture System - Clasic'.

Keep an eye on http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod.php?n=CanonEOS7DBody&p=1170

Generally quite good at getting the cheapest price, that said I saw a 7D for 800 ish the other day on ebay...

BTW, the control dial on the 60D (and 7D) is def worth having. The little joy stick you get for selecting focus points is also worth having (but only on the 7d)

Grantway: not the worlds best pictures. Fuzzy and low resolution. The double socket and mixer tap on the second pic show it worst for me.

OP: No need for full frame for most photographers. I wanted one a few years ago (still using a D80 currently). I shoot a lot of stage performances and wanted full frame for the extra ISO reach it offers. However, with current sensors offering very high ISO at DX frame size then I think my next camera will be a DX rather than FX frame size. The loss of zoom reach on FX is high (unless you use in cropped mode).

Any SLR will be a massive leap up from a point and shoot. Handle a few and see what feels right for you. I much preffered the feel of Nikons when I was shopping. Now that I have >£1000 of wireless flashes and lenses, I am certain my next body will be a Nikon too.

Organic355 - the 18mp canon sensor is an old one. That's not to say it's bad but you should be paying a lot less than a camera with a new generation sensor.
[url= http://www.dxomark.com ]DXO[/url] is useful for comparing camera specs.