I agree with Osta - 7D without a question. Better body, better weather protection, faster everywhere - basically, built to last. 60D is aimed at the "prosumer", while the 7D is aimed at the second-camera pro. Or spend on good glass (which you will need with the 7D, btw). I have a 400D, and notice the difference between the standard kit lens and my 60mm f2.8. Only in macro do I notice the 60mm out-resolutions (if that's a word!) the sensor.
I am now used to the "but that's a girlie camera" when I use my 400D. It suits my arthritis in my right hand due to its size, and more importantly, weight. My 60mm f2.8 weighs almost as much as the body...
I have owned a 7d for a few months now, since purchasing the camera body I have also bought the 70-200 f/4 L lens. I aslo have the Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4 DC which is an incredible lens for a Sigma, very sharp and decent image stabiliser built in and manages to obtain focus incredibly close (with subject almost touching the lens element).
My next purchase will be the canon 100mm 2.8 L Macro, which hopefully the wife will buy me for christmas
I have the Sigma 10-22 and that is an excellent lens, also have the Canon 60mm Macro, Canon 50mm prime, Canon 15-55, Sigma 150mm Macro and Tamron 70-300. The only lens that shows really bad is the tamron the rest are excellent bits of kit.
Hello all new to this group (and ARRSE) but have being a snapper well 10 year, my current camera is a 5D which i have had for about 3 year now.
My veiw on this is unless you need a full frame camera, stick to the 60D (which is excellent). I grew up with the 10D then the 20D and they were lovely, I only took the plunge into the 5D becuase i started on weddings.
Despite the fact I wouldnt know the difference between the latest camera and a throaway disposable. I am going to buy a a very good friend a camera for christmas(obviously she is female) she likes the Nikon D5100 although Ive heard the Nikon D7000 is better. If any of you photographering weirdos thinks Canon is better I'd like your advice.