| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/12/2006 09:32:36 PM · #1 |
hi, i am looking to buy a used camera right now, and after some consideration, it narrowed down to 3 models by canon;
1D 10D or 20D...
price range is about the same; 20D body alone about $1000, 10D body and grip for about 7-800 and 1D i am looking at is about $1200(only about 1400 acuations/pictures taken)
any suggestions on which camera to get?
it will be used for portraits and landscaping mostly...(just beginner)
and one more question? regarding picture print blowups
what is the maximum size can these camera be used to blow up prints?
little concerned regarding the 1D with 4.1mp
thanx a bunch |
|
|
|
03/12/2006 09:49:07 PM · #2 |
for portraits or landscapes, go with the 20d, every megapixel counts.
For sports or something else that needs amazing AF performance or a higher sync speed, go 1d.
For the budget, go 10d.
|
|
|
|
03/12/2006 10:09:19 PM · #3 |
I have a 20D and I wouldn't change it for a 10D or a 1D even.
June
|
|
|
|
03/12/2006 10:16:54 PM · #4 |
I like what hsteg said... summed up well.
Details that support what he said:
The 10D has the worst noise, but none of these cams have really bad noise characteristics. You can't use EF-S lenses with this camera, so you can forget about that canon 10-22 if you want to go wide.
The 1D has noise that is likely a bit closer to the 10D than the 20D. You also can't use EF-S lenses if you want to go close-up, but if you want to do all telephoto stuff, this is still a really good choice. Fantastic camera in it's time and very nice camera now. 8.5FPS is seldom used by the average user. 4MP does have some resolution limitations, but you could get a lot more fine detail at really wide apertures like f/22 and f/32 if you ever use that. If you are an out and about shooter, it's more weather resistant, but it's also bigger and clunkier to take with you.
The two above cameras could reasonably be said to be 'outdated' with serious compromises in functionality in some areas. Of course, they are still capable of taking fantastic pictures in the right hands.
The 20D on the other hand is every bit still a current contender. There are no real major compromises (ok, maybe the weathersealing, but that's what ziploc is for right?). It's true that it has been replaced, but even the replacement speaks volumes about it's predecessor in that very, very little has changed. Especially in the areas where these 3 cameras significantly differ.
8mp is good enough for 90% of most people's uses. 5FPS too. The lcd screen is a tiny bit small for today's standards, but this is not as big an issue as most people make out.
If it were me, I'd save up for the 30D (that's precisely what I'm doing), but for your choices, I'd say keep your eyes open on fredmiranda.com for a 20D for under 900 dollars or better. I've seen a lot there for 800-850 starting bid. It's really a fantastic peice of work. |
|
|
|
03/12/2006 10:21:02 PM · #5 |
Seems the opinion is running stronly for the 20D... and my post won't change that. It was a winner when introduced, and still is quite a contender.
The AF on the 20D is superior to the 10D, and the general responsiveness of the camera is significantly better. Much faster shutter response (less than half the 10D lag time), very quick image review, startup is much faster. The battery life on the 20D is MUCH longer than the 10D as well.
|
|
|
|
03/12/2006 10:26:12 PM · #6 |
get the 20d (or a d70 ;-) ) -- a 1d with only 1400 actuations sounds a bit odd to me, personally...I'd be weary of that one.
|
|
|
|
03/12/2006 11:06:32 PM · #7 |
I agree with getting the 20D.
As far as the prints go, 8mp is quite good.. you should be able to get 16x20 prints with pretty good resolution as far as I know. |
|
|
|
03/12/2006 11:08:14 PM · #8 |
Definitely get the 20d. The only thing I don't like about the 20d is the shutter noise. It's much louder than the 10d.
Message edited by author 2006-03-12 23:09:00. |
|
|
|
03/12/2006 11:09:06 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
4MP does have some resolution limitations, but you could get a lot more fine detail at really wide apertures like f/22 and f/32 if you ever use that. |
f/22 and f/32 are very NARROW (i.e. small) apertures. I am not sure I understand your point here.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/12/2006 11:18:11 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
...The 10D has the worst noise, but none of these cams have really bad noise characteristics... |
I've heard this said before here, but it's not true. The 20D excels at speeds over 800 ISO, the 10D shows discernible noise. The 10D, however, shows lower noise levels at speeds between 100 and 400 ISO than the 20D.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 12:00:00 AM · #11 |
My 20D has been the best photographic purchase I have ever made.
Shutter has more audible noise than I would have thought but it's less than my AE-1, F-1, GII, KIEV 88, anything film.
I can see the noise in 800 ISO but it's like, "that's it?" 400 is less, and 200/100 is non-existant.
Believe me, if this was a bad camera, I would say so even though I own one.
-Rick |
|
|
|
03/13/2006 12:46:13 AM · #12 |
thanx for all the replies =D
does anyone know the major advantages of 30D over 20D other than the LCD? think it's worth it to fork out little extra for 30D over 20D?
thanks guys =D |
|
|
|
03/13/2006 01:02:55 AM · #13 |
Other than the LCD, it's got spot metering, a better AF algorithm, and a more durable shutter. And a slightly faster burst rate, few other small things.
It's not a huge improvement, and if money is a concern, I'd just get the 20D. |
|
|
|
03/13/2006 01:07:28 AM · #14 |
I have a 10 and 20 D, I would never shoot with my 10D again, I keep it only for security...can't shoot a wedding and then your camera stops working...got to have two bodies.
So get the 20D...you'll be happy
|
|
|
|
03/14/2006 12:31:21 PM · #15 |
Bear, I was referring to diffraction limitation. If shooting something at F/32 on a 4mp 1d with the larger sensor than the 8mp 20d, there would be significantly less loss of fine detail.
However, I qualified my statement as this is not likely to be commonly used by most people because as you say, f/32 and even f/22 is VERY narrow, so has limited application. Hyperfocus for landscapes does sometimes go beyond f/22 though? I doubt that this is a major difference, but I thought I would mention it. The pixels on the 1d are quite large.
You and I both know that the in-camera sharpening of the 20D is more than good enough to compensate for a good portion of this effect too. My money is on the 20D/30D.
ZeusZen. When comparing noise characteristics from film to digital, the 10D is not really what one would call unacceptable or horrendous. Hence, it's not really all that bad. It's certainly vastly better than even many of today's P&S cameras.
Comparing the 10D's noise characteristics to the 20D's is not even close, and I believe I mentioned that. To say that the 20D is exceptional in this regard is certainly accurate.
Madman. I believe that the difference in the burst rates from the 20D to 30D are not that the 30D is faster, but that it has a larger buffer, so it can sustain more pictures before slowing down, as well as the fact that you can shoot at 3FPS as well in the 30D, whereas you could only shoot 5FPS in the 20D. All or nothing.
I'm personally interested in the 30D because I think I will not be upgrading for a LONG time after I get it and I want those shutter actuations. At the very least, it will translate into improved resale value. The bigger LCD is nice and is more of a nudge for me than a push. I was satisfied (VERY) with the AF performance of the 20D, but I'm not going to complain if it's improved upon in the 30D.
If I come across a cheap local 20D in good shape, I'll still probably go for it. |
|
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: 09/23/2025 02:56:42 PM EDT.
