| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/14/2005 07:56:16 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by dimitrii:
If you shoot RAW 20D is almost useless ... |
Why? |
That was going to be my question.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2005 08:32:56 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by cbeller:
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by dimitrii:
If you shoot RAW 20D is almost useless ... |
Why? |
That was going to be my question. |
Sounds like a personal preference thing; it's certainly not useless since so many people are shooting RAW with the 20D. The biggest limitation I see with it is the buffer only holds 6 images of RAW; coupled with 5 fps shooting rate that makes for a short burst. Even so I rarely find it to be a limitation. It's amazing how long 1.2 seconds really is when panning objects. |
|
|
|
03/14/2005 08:37:38 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by richterrell:
Sounds like a personal preference thing; it's certainly not useless since so many people are shooting RAW with the 20D. The biggest limitation I see with it is the buffer only holds 6 images of RAW; coupled with 5 fps shooting rate that makes for a short burst. Even so I rarely find it to be a limitation. It's amazing how long 1.2 seconds really is when panning objects. |
That's what I thought. But he says he swapped it for a D70 which confused me.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2005 10:01:58 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by richterrell:
Sounds like a personal preference thing; it's certainly not useless since so many people are shooting RAW with the 20D. The biggest limitation I see with it is the buffer only holds 6 images of RAW; coupled with 5 fps shooting rate that makes for a short burst. Even so I rarely find it to be a limitation. It's amazing how long 1.2 seconds really is when panning objects. |
That's what I thought. But he says he swapped it for a D70 which confused me. |
You're right - I was thinking D1X from the poster's current camera listed, which I believe can hold 9 RAW images in the buffer. The D70 holds 4, so it is certainly not an improvement over the 20D in that capacity. I am at a loss - just have to wait for the original poster to clarify I guess :-)
|
|
|
|
03/14/2005 10:03:27 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by Damian:
Canon will not magically make you a better photographer.
You will spend so much money switching and see no improvement in the final picture you take. |
Only a Nikon user would say that. He tried a 20D...he wants to change systems...'nuff said.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2005 10:28:43 AM · #56 |
| I switched from Nikon to Canon over 30 years ago and have never looked back. I think canon makes better equipment. With that said, It DOES NOT matter what camera you have if you put cheap glass on it. Unless you are just a shooter that doesn't really care about the best sharpness and quality. Put the Canon L series lens on your camera and you will see a difference. Also get a camera with some bulk (weight) to it. Some of those cameras are so light now that the mirror slap will effect many photos. |
|
|
|
03/14/2005 10:58:39 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by gwphoto:
I switched from Nikon to Canon over 30 years ago and have never looked back. I think canon makes better equipment. With that said, It DOES NOT matter what camera you have if you put cheap glass on it. Unless you are just a shooter that doesn't really care about the best sharpness and quality. Put the Canon L series lens on your camera and you will see a difference. Also get a camera with some bulk (weight) to it. Some of those cameras are so light now that the mirror slap will effect many photos. |
I would agree with the weight thing if only to help balance out the lens. I didn't like the feel of the 300D I had, I guess because I have become used to heavier cameras over the years.
You don't necessarily have to have L lenses to have good glass though. Most of CanonĂ¢€™s non L primes are tack sharp, and if you were to pick through the Tamron Sigma lineups you could find some very sharp lenses among them. I agree that a sharp lens is as important as a good body. One without the other is only as good as the lesser of the two. It has always been a point of wonder to me to know why someone would spend over a thousand dollars on a body and then flinch at paying $300 for a lens
|
|
|
|
03/14/2005 01:27:00 PM · #58 |
My 20d is the first DSLR I've owned. I used a 10D for about a month on a loan from a friend. The 20D is the best camera I have ever used, but, if I woke up tommorow and found out that I had hit the lottery and someone had stolen my 20D--- I'd buy a Nikon to replace it. And I have about twice the price of the 20D invested in lenses.
The 20D is ok, but I want more. I want a larger LCD monitor like the 2.5 inch one Nikon offers. And I am not satisified with the service Canon offers. They have the same answer for every issue large or small --send it in and we'll look at it-- which means 3 weeks without your camera.
Or I might go for an Olympus. I really think they desreve credit for attacking the sensor dust problem.
In the end I might decide that Canon is the best but right now I'm not satisfied with them.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2005 01:36:11 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
My 20d is the first DSLR I've owned. I used a 10D for about a month on a loan from a friend. The 20D is the best camera I have ever used, but, if I woke up tommorow and found out that I had hit the lottery and someone had stolen my 20D--- I'd buy a Nikon to replace it. And I have about twice the price of the 20D invested in lenses.
The 20D is ok, but I want more. I want a larger LCD monitor like the 2.5 inch one Nikon offers. And I am not satisified with the service Canon offers. They have the same answer for every issue large or small --send it in and we'll look at it-- which means 3 weeks without your camera.
|
Well Canon customer service does suck, I'll give you that.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2005 01:39:42 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by Damian:
Canon will not magically make you a better photographer.
You will spend so much money switching and see no improvement in the final picture you take. |
Only a Nikon user would say that. He tried a 20D...he wants to change systems...'nuff said. |
Buddy, ive had my D70 for 3 months, i dont fall for this Nikon/Canon crap like you do.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2005 01:50:15 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by gwphoto:
I switched from Nikon to Canon over 30 years ago and have never looked back. I think canon makes better equipment. With that said, It DOES NOT matter what camera you have if you put cheap glass on it. Unless you are just a shooter that doesn't really care about the best sharpness and quality. Put the Canon L series lens on your camera and you will see a difference. Also get a camera with some bulk (weight) to it. Some of those cameras are so light now that the mirror slap will effect many photos. |
I would agree with the weight thing if only to help balance out the lens. I didn't like the feel of the 300D I had, I guess because I have become used to heavier cameras over the years.
You don't necessarily have to have L lenses to have good glass though. Most of CanonĂ¢€™s non L primes are tack sharp, and if you were to pick through the Tamron Sigma lineups you could find some very sharp lenses among them. I agree that a sharp lens is as important as a good body. One without the other is only as good as the lesser of the two. It has always been a point of wonder to me to know why someone would spend over a thousand dollars on a body and then flinch at paying $300 for a lens |
You are so right about people flinching abou the cost of a lens. If people would check out this link they could see for themselves. //www.photo.net/equipment/canon/is_lenses/ |
|
|
|
03/14/2005 02:45:17 PM · #62 |
Not a big fan of IS myself. If I am shooting with anything over 100mm I almost always use a tripod. I own three very stable tripods and a mono-pod and I keep one with me or in my truck not far off at all times.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2005 03:00:59 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Not a big fan of IS myself. If I am shooting with anything over 100mm I almost always use a tripod. I own three very stable tripods and a mono-pod and I keep one with me or in my truck not far off at all times. |
I have used the IS lenses before and they have their place, but your right, a Heavy sturdy tripod is a MUST. I hate lugging it around untill I see the results. Infact I even add weight to my tripod by hanging my camera bag on it to anchor it down. Then if the shot permits, I will lock up the mirror and use an electronic shutter release, to minimize camera movement. One of the reasons I love the Mark II is its heft. It is a sloid camera. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/27/2025 03:38:36 AM EDT.
