Upgrading to 20D - anything I need to know?

05/12/2005 04:28:32 PM · #51

Had to run to Ritz today for film for U2 concert Saturday.
While there I thought I would pick the reps brain on the 20D & 7D.

He said that the experience he had with the 7D IS was not great. That it caused blur when left on and he did not shake. Not sure how much I believe of that - though, he is a Minolta fan.

I did realize that I would have to buy a new lens even if I went with the 7D - as my smallest Minolta lens is not wide enough once you take the 1.5 conversion into account.

I was also told the flashes I have for the 8000i are not totally compatible with the 7D - as in don't synch up properly.

Question about software updates for the 20D. Ritz told me that software updates happen periodically - some that allow for the CMOS/CCD to upgrade to higher pixels? True or not true? Ritz charges a large yearly fee ($210/yr or so if you buy 3 years) for warranty which includes cleaning/check and software updates - which supposedly are not availble to people who do not buy their warranty - and that would allow the 8MP to bump up if software improves (or something similar).

Also, he said that it is better to get more smaller memory cards rather than one large - as the memory is faster the more free space on the card. So better to switch out to an empty card keep the camera working faster. And he said Scandisk cards are slow - even the Extreme III. Lexar is better - and the 80X card is better thant he Extreme III.

Comments?

Message edited by author 2005-05-12 16:41:56.

05/12/2005 04:47:48 PM · #52

Not sure I buy the increase in higher pixels. Although, in the case of the 300D Rebel there are software hacks that greatly increase it's feature sets.

And I've seen firmware (software) updates posted for the 20D before. A lot of times their on the Japanese site. *shrug*

Kylie

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35

05/12/2005 05:03:00 PM · #53

Autumncat - you are making me feel sooooo deprived . . . U2 tickets AND a new dSLR????? LOL Couldn't wish on a better person!!! Well, except me maybe ;o)

05/12/2005 05:11:18 PM · #54

Originally posted by autumncat:

He said that the experience he had with the 7D IS was not great. That it caused blur when left on and he did not shake. Not sure how much I believe of that - though, he is a Minolta fan.

The reviews I've seen of the Minolta AS system pretty consistently note that it's inferior to both the Canon IS and Nikon VR, both in how much shake it reduces, and in the fact that you can't see the stabilization through the lens. On the other hand, it is a heck of a lot cheaper.

Originally posted by autumncat:

Question about software updates for the 20D. Ritz told me that software updates happen periodically - some that allow for the CMOS/CCD to upgrade to higher pixels? True or not true? Ritz charges a large yearly fee ($210/yr or so if you buy 3 years) for warranty which includes cleaning/check and software updates - which supposedly are not availble to people who do not buy their warranty - and that would allow the 8MP to bump up if software improves (or something similar).

You're being conned. Software updates cannot have any effect whatsoever on the number of pixels the CMOS can return. There *are* periodic firmware updates to correct various bugs and support additional external pieces of equipment (the latest update, for instance, was to add support for a wireless network unit for transferring images), but they are available for free from Canon's website without any need for a deal with Ritz. Also, check that warranty to see what it covers -- most of those expensive warranties exclude basically everything bad that can happen to a camera, and apply only if, three years down the line, there is an internal mechanical failure for no good reason. If you ever dropped it, even if that wasn't the proximate cause, the warranty voids. If there's signs of condensation or water damage, the warranty voids. Other visible environmental damage, even if it's not related to the problem at hand, the warranty voids. It's one of the great scams of cheap, disreputable camera places (I got bit by this myself, once, though I have the additional excuse that they point-blank lied to me about what the warranty was when I asked them some questions), though I'm very disappointed to hear that Ritz camera has descended to that. I remember having good dealings with them, once.

Originally posted by autumncat:

Also, he said that it is better to get more smaller memory cards rather than one large - as the memory is faster the more free space on the card. So better to switch out to an empty card keep the camera working faster.

Well, these are mutually contradictory statements: if you're trying to go faster, and you need more space on a card for that to happen, you need one large card. This actually isn't really true, though, until you get up to around 75%-80% full. Most file systems do slow down as they get past that point, but it's not an extreme slowdown.

Originally posted by autumncat:

And he said Scandisk cards are slow - even the Extreme III. Lexar is better - and the 80X card is better thant he Extreme III.

I assume you mean Sandisk. As a blanket statement, this is false, though actual card performance changes depending on what equipment you are using to read or write to the card. Sometimes some Lexar cards will be slightly faster, sometimes they will be slightly slower. Most of the time, the performance is limited by the reader or writer, however, and as a result, all of these high speed cards actually end up very close to each other. There is a slight speed advantage to be gained from staying at 2GB or less on a card because you don't have to move to FAT32 as a file system (which is a little slower), but even the Sandisk Ultra 4GB card is within the top 10% of performers on a 20D, and the top performers in every single category are usually Sandisk cards. Rob Galbraith measured a huge number of cards in a huge number of cameras, and posted the results. The 20D results are here. You can use the drop-down menu at the top to go to other equipment to see how they work out. Anything shaded in blue is basically the top end, close enough in performance that you probably won't tell the difference in the real world.

The advantage of going with 2 2GB cards instead of 1 4GB card is not so much that the 2GB cards are faster (though they are, very slightly), but that if one fails, you still have the other. On the other hand, it means you have to swap cards and keep track of them, which is a nuisance.

05/12/2005 05:36:26 PM · #55

Originally posted by Kylie:

Autumncat - you are making me feel sooooo deprived . . . U2 tickets AND a new dSLR????? LOL Couldn't wish on a better person!!! Well, except me maybe ;o)

Sorry gal! ;-) Don't mean to rub it in.
I haven't heard anymore about a Sacramento show - have my fingers crossed they still add one.

Can't wait for Saurday - have fast film and new batteries for the P&S Minolta. Going to try to get my digicam in but not sure.

As for the DSLR - I've been selling all sorts of things on e-bay to try to get the camera sooner than later!

05/12/2005 06:24:08 PM · #56

Originally posted by Zed Pobre:

True - that is part of the reason I keep hedging. But, I still think I am leaning more toward the 20D for various reasons. As long as I can get a few more questions answered.

Originally posted by Zed Pobre:

Well, I am being conned if I buy into his info and buy my camera and the warranty. ;-) Luckily I haven't done that. I AM a bit of a sceptic. My first inclination was not to believe him and come back here to people who aren't making money from me - to get opinions and confirm or deny his BS. Their warranty IS supposed to cover all the nasty stuff that could happen - such as dropped, dog eating it (his example), dropped in water...all that. That is his big selling point - that and the 3 "free" $250 cleaning/checks and firmware upgrades. But I do not think he has been completely up front on all the info he was giving me.

Originally posted by Zed Pobre:

Yes, I meant Sandisk - sorry. I checked that link previously and was surprised when Ritz contradicted what it said. Ritz was telling me they no longer carried Sandisk because they were too slow. I am wondering if Sandisk dropped Ritz? Anyway, this guy was trying to sell the Lexar because that is what they carried.
I think we will research a bit more - and probably go with 2 2GB Sandisks.
Do you know how many RAW photos you can fit onto a 1GB card?

Message edited by author 2005-05-12 18:24:44.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

05/12/2005 06:29:48 PM · #57

Usually when a store says crap like that "we don't carry them because it's slow", it translates into "we get much more margin on these cards so we push these"

BobsterLobster

Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro

05/12/2005 06:56:27 PM · #58

Minolta AS is not inferior, a lot of Nikon and Canon owners make up this information to feel better about their equipment. I challenge anybody to show where this has been proven.
Check out this photo I took at 1/2 second at 120mm (180mm 35mm equivalent) completely handheld.

It works.

Edit: It's true that you can't preview the effect, but this really is not a great loss. You should be able to tell by your shutter speed and focal length whether or not you're going to have any blur.

Message edited by author 2005-05-12 18:58:11.

05/12/2005 07:56:31 PM · #59

Originally posted by BobsterLobster:

Minolta AS is not inferior, a lot of Nikon and Canon owners make up this information to feel better about their equipment.

You know, it's perfectly okay to have a disagreement without casting aspersions on the motives of people who disagree with you (and by implication on me, for passing the information along). Some people tested it, and found it somewhat inferior. Calling them dishonest because you don't agree with that is a bit uncalled for, particularly since some of these reviewers are well known and well trusted, across a variety of equipment. You can see an example of one of the complaints (that the AS is slightly on the inconsistent side) at DPReview, and Michael Reichmann also wrote that he found the Canon IS system to be somewhat superior, both in overall effect, in preview ability (though he noted ways to compensate for that somewhat), and in the fact that you can't disable horizontal stabilization only on AS for pan shots. I've seen these results, and the general reasons for them, echoed around other forums and on Usenet, by people who have used both systems. It's not just a few dishonest people with big egos.

This isn't to say that the AS is bad. It can mostly get the job done, but from what I've seen written, it seems to give closer to a 2 stop than a 3 stop advantage most of the time, and suffers from inconsistency in whether or not it functions well on a given shot. It is also certainly cheaper, as I mentioned. There's certainly some merit in claiming that the Minolta may give you better value per dollar, but there's no need to be rude about it.

05/12/2005 08:05:51 PM · #60

Originally posted by autumncat:

Their warranty IS supposed to cover all the nasty stuff that could happen - such as dropped, dog eating it (his example), dropped in water...all that. That is his big selling point - that and the 3 "free" $250 cleaning/checks and firmware upgrades. But I do not think he has been completely up front on all the info he was giving me.

Being fed a line like that is how I ended up paying for a worthless $200 warranty myself (they even assured me that the warranty I was buying was direct from Canon, which was another outright lie). Make sure you read the exact text of the warranty and any limitations and disclaimers. Also, check up on your homeowner's or renter's insurance, if you have it. Your camera (and other personal items) may already be covered against acts of dog.

The cleaning isn't worth $250, by the way. You can pick up a set of professionally checked sensor brushes for $100 and do it yourself as many times as you need to, quite possibly better than they can, and there are other, cheaper techniques for the brave that I'm sure others can tell you about.

Originally posted by autumncat:

Do you know how many RAW photos you can fit onto a 1GB card?

You should be able to get a little more than a hundred images per gigabyte.

05/12/2005 08:20:52 PM · #61

As a side note about real-world write speed in a 20D to a Sandisk, I have a 4GB Ultra II card (basically one of the slowest of the high end, and if you are to believe that salesman, a card that would be too slow to use), and by going into rapid fire mode and saturating the buffer, then waiting for the shutter clicks to regularize at a constant speed, I find out that I can write a RAW shot to the card roughly every 1.5 seconds... something you'll only ever discover if you need to rapid-fire more than 8 RAW shots, which is how long it took for the camera to even slow down, and the next half dozen shots were at a little less than a second apart each before it finally slowed down to a second and a half. This was actually a new discovery to me, as I've never actually ever had to do this. As with any fully automatic shooting, I tend to fire in controlled three-shot bursts, to a maximum of five. ;P

If it turns out later that the fastest Lexar card on the market at this time (according to Rob Galbraith, the 1GB 80x) really does outperform that in any meaningful way even for sports photography, I'll buy you one by way of apology - right after I buy my own. ;)

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

05/12/2005 08:32:00 PM · #62

Ok - thanks to every person who has responded with their opinions and information. I very much appreciate it!

Basically - it helped me feel better about my choices.

So - after much research, questions and discussions - I ordered my new camera.

I went with B&H - a company I have dealt with before. Getting the 20D w/kit lens. 2GB Sandisk Extreme III, UV filter and lens hood.

Now I have to wait anxiously until next week to get it.

Message edited by author 2005-05-12 21:37:08.

BobsterLobster

Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro

05/13/2005 03:44:01 AM · #63

Originally posted by Zed Pobre:

Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Minolta AS is not inferior, a lot of Nikon and Canon owners make up this information to feel better about their equipment.

You know, it's perfectly okay to have a disagreement without casting aspersions on the motives of people who disagree with you (and by implication on me, for passing the information along). Some people tested it, and found it somewhat inferior. Calling them dishonest because you don't agree with that is a bit uncalled for, particularly since some of these reviewers are well known and well trusted, across a variety of equipment. You can see an example of one of the complaints (that the AS is slightly on the inconsistent side) at DPReview, and Michael Reichmann also wrote that he found the Canon IS system to be somewhat superior, both in overall effect, in preview ability (though he noted ways to compensate for that somewhat), and in the fact that you can't disable horizontal stabilization only on AS for pan shots. I've seen these results, and the general reasons for them, echoed around other forums and on Usenet, by people who have used both systems. It's not just a few dishonest people with big egos.

This isn't to say that the AS is bad. It can mostly get the job done, but from what I've seen written, it seems to give closer to a 2 stop than a 3 stop advantage most of the time, and suffers from inconsistency in whether or not it functions well on a given shot. It is also certainly cheaper, as I mentioned. There's certainly some merit in claiming that the Minolta may give you better value per dollar, but there's no need to be rude about it.

Perhaps I should have added a smilie, although I do believe there is a bias towards canon/nikon. I certainly didn't intend to be rude... perhaps as a nikon/canon owner you are being defensive? ;-)
I am interested to find any sources where reasonably rigorous testing has been done on this, rather than hearsay and 'feel'. Canon may well be better... or Minolta may be better... I've not seen this properly tested yet.

TomH1000

Olympus E-3

Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital Zoom

05/13/2005 06:00:58 AM · #64

Originally posted by BobsterLobster:

I actually went for the Minolta system from scratch with no lenses. I wouldn't use any other camera... love it to pieces.
Fantastic for low-light situations with no tripod.
I also like the menu system and buttons which was a big selling point to me... I don't want to go poking about in a menu to change ISO. It feels fantastic.

Hehehe, I understand your feeling about your camera and I feel the same way about my Olympus E-1. It is hard to get people here to think there is any other camera system other then Canon or Nikon but I keep trying (-: I'm not saying that C & N are bad in anyway but to say they are always the best choice? I don't think so. All I ask is that when buying into a new system make sure you do all your homework first. Don't buy a system just because Joe Pro has that one. Look at everything out there and find what is best for you.

Message edited by author 2005-05-13 06:03:59.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

05/13/2005 09:33:24 AM · #65

I truly think what has created this is the Canon systems being a generation ahead in two areas:

ISO & Speed (blew my mind the first time I took 20+ shots in mere seconds)

The question is, will they keep it?

I think Olympus had great vibrancy on their units. And superior build on their E-10/20

BobsterLobster

Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro

05/13/2005 09:58:15 AM · #66

Originally posted by theSaj:

Just to keep things balanced, Minolta 7D noise is about equal to the 20D. At ISO3200 Canon is slightly sharper, and Minolta has slightly less noise. But the differences are subtle. Nikon are definitely behind on this issue though.

TomH1000

Olympus E-3

Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital Zoom

05/13/2005 10:33:26 AM · #67

Originally posted by theSaj:

I had both the E10 and E20 and they were both built like a tank. The E-1 is the same. I do alot event type photography rain or shine so the weather proofing of the E-1 was a strong point for me.

05/13/2005 10:52:36 AM · #68

I don't know, every comparison of noise I've seen the Canons has always been a notch above in overall clarity.

I think Olympus should give a $300 rebate to owners of E-10/E-20. This would help them migrate their current users to the 3/4 system.

:)