Bought a 20D my initial impression

06/19/2006 02:21:09 PM · #1

Please note that everything i say is compared to the 1D unless I say otherwise... which I probably won't.

Well the first thing I noticed was how small the darn thing is. My hand barely fits on the body, I might get a grip as a solution, but i can't afford it right now. The viewfinder is noticably smaller but I think it's ok. The blackout time is slightly longer, noticable, but not so bad. Most of the buttons are very different from the 1D and this is a little annoying right now, but I'm sure that will get better. I haven't looked at any images out of the camera, but on the LCD the images look good, well exposed, and with good white balance in AV/auto. It also seems to scroll through pictures slightly faster. Autofocus seems about the same quickness for one shot, but i'm not going to get a chance to test the ai-servo anytime soon.

Overall I'm excited to test it out even though I'm dissapointed by some of the differences so far.

I'm going to love testing out the high iso settings, and I plan to do a full test on printing cropped 20x30" upsized images and printed at 4x6" to see the real world differences. I'll report back when I have more expirience with the camera.

Thanks for looking.

Bobster

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

06/19/2006 02:24:05 PM · #2

its like driving a farrari and then going to an austin 7..

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/19/2006 03:38:20 PM · #3

Alright a quick update:

I shot a few pictures of the same scene at the full range of the iso settings the cameras do. I'm not going to comment on noise at this time, i'll do that when i look at the prints later. However, I noticed the 1D focus to be more consistant and more sure (less slight changes when you hold the button) but the 20D was always very close and sometimes it hit just perfectly and looked as good as the 1D or maybe even better? I upsized the images to 30x20 inches at 200dpi bicubic smoother, sharpened at 250%, 0.3, 0... and then cropped that to 4x6 in the same basic place. Viewing on the screen here, the detail of the 20D was aparent in certain spots on the frame, mostly the tiny text was clearer, and sometimes readable, the 1D had sortof a more blobish, you know it's text but you can't really make it out feel. The White Balace was FAR better on the 1D with auto WB. The differences in the 1D files was from 5250-5400K and the 20 ranged from 5100-5900k. So there's another update and i'll report back when i have the cropped prints in.

Prof_Fate

06/19/2006 03:52:31 PM · #4

Interesting comparison.
I went from a 300D to a 30D, and got a 20D as backup. Not too big a change, and ALL for the better.

My friend went from a 20D to a 1D mk2n and recently got a 30D as backup. he got the grip as he too feels the 30D is too small.

I got to play with a 1Ds from canon at a school i went to - confusing as all hell to me, and 2 others (non-1D users). The viewfinder seems lots brighter/sharper on the 1D than lesser canon models. Perhaps a full size sensor has a larger mirror and box so it's that much brighter? not sure.

the 1D is a heavy beastie. I hear focus is better - you got to get something for all that extra cash!

Never heard about the WB being different though - this is interesting. How did you test that to know what the camera saw, in K?

KiwiChris

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

06/19/2006 04:07:44 PM · #5

This is an interesting way to compare cameras.. More of a sideways step overall I imagine.. Lots of pros and cons for each, unless all you do is still life in a studio, where the 20D resolution will be the winner.

Having used a 1D and a 1DII a couple of times you'll definately find that the focus is 10x better on the 1 bodies. That is the one thing that will finally make me jump on the '1' bandwagon. For sports work the 'hit' rate on focus is far, far higher with the 1D and fast lenses/shallow DOF that the photo editors like.

With the 20D I loose a lot of images to slight focus errors. The one rugby came I covered with the 1DII gave me a real appreciation of why I need one.. :-).

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

06/19/2006 04:30:30 PM · #6

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

IThe viewfinder seems lots brighter/sharper on the 1D than lesser canon models. Perhaps a full size sensor has a larger mirror and box so it's that much brighter? not sure.

The 5D also has a much bigger/brighter view finder (edit: than the 20D), so your assumption is probably correct.

Message edited by author 2006-06-19 16:30:54.

06/19/2006 06:45:43 PM · #7

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

Never heard about the WB being different though - this is interesting. How did you test that to know what the camera saw, in K?

Easy, I looked at the Raw editor data. The 1D has an external WB sensor so that may have made the difference.

06/19/2006 07:09:10 PM · #8

alright here are my subjective results from the test i mentioned before. 100% crops from 30x20 prints (effectively)

please note that I only gave each camera ONE try at each setting, and whatever it did, was my real world variable test of sorts.

For reference here is the full scene capture each time. This particular one shot with the 20D.

Here's the crop after upsizing/sharpening from the 20D at iso 100.

at iso 100 and 200 the 20D is pretty much impossible to tell the difference.

ISO 200:
Compaired to the 1D, the 20D definately showing more detail as it should. However the 1D still produces plenty for my eyes. The main difference is the text of the bottle is mostly readable from the 20D. There are areas that are blurred too much for me to make out. The 1D words are blurrier, but you can still make out a few of them.

ISO 800:
The 20D shot here is the sharpest of any of the photos. Nearly all the text is readable and the details on the pencil is nice and clear. The 1D is starting to fall behind a little at this point and is showing less defined edges partially due to noise, and partially due to the larger upsize that had to be done. I would still feel comfortable printing these for a gallery at 20x30. Even at an arms length though, the 20D is clearly in sharpness here.

ISO 3200 (yeah i skipped 1600 sue me):
Noise is easily spotted at a normal 4x6 viewing range. At arms length the 20D noise is pretty minimal, but the 1D is still visible. The 1D is sharper for my test here despite clearly rougher, more pixilated backrounds and shadows. There's a good difference between the files now. The text is not readable on either of the prints outside of a few select words. the 20D just has a smoother feel to the image at this point, and the 1D shows more typical upsize jaggies.

edit: NO NOISE REDUCTION was use for this test.

Message edited by author 2006-06-19 19:12:29.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

06/19/2006 09:01:59 PM · #9

bump for the night crowd.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

06/19/2006 09:22:59 PM · #10

Very interesting stuff...

I too used a 1 series camera for a short while, having played with a 1D n Film camera. Even with a slower an crummier lens, (Canon 75-300 f/4.0-5.6), it outperformed my 80-200 f/2.8 on my 30D.

Wow.

From that, I got the impression that these 'camera' functions that have not changed from film to digital will have the edge in the 1D series which has always been a notch above.

On the other hand, the 1D sensor is quite old now, so where sensor issues are concerned, the 20D will outpace it easily...

Still makes me itch for a 1D II.... *drooool*

Prof_Fate

06/19/2006 09:52:03 PM · #11

Originally posted by kyebosh:

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Never heard about the WB being different though - this is interesting. How did you test that to know what the camera saw, in K?

Easy, I looked at the Raw editor data. The 1D has an external WB sensor so that may have made the difference.

what editor?

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

06/19/2006 11:19:29 PM · #12

rse, but any raw editor should tell you that.

srdanz

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

06/20/2006 12:11:31 AM · #13

E.g. in Camera Raw (i.e. in CS/CS2/Elements) when you go to WB setting and choose the "As shot" option, it will tell you what the camera figured out.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

06/20/2006 12:36:08 AM · #14

thanks srdanz, that's exactly what i meant.

Stagolee

Kodak Easyshare C180

Canon EF 50mm f1.2L

06/20/2006 12:42:16 AM · #15

Originally posted by kyebosh:

Interesting, I have never brought a camera that I haven't physically picked up and used before buying. Each to their own I suppose.

PhantomEWO

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

06/20/2006 12:45:19 AM · #16

Great comparison ... see if ya can borrow a 5D and use same comparisons. Great work, thanks

06/20/2006 12:50:21 AM · #17

Originally posted by PhantomEWO:

Great comparison ... see if ya can borrow a 5D and use same comparisons. Great work, thanks

unfortunately i don't know anyone with a 5D, and i won't be able to buy one most likely. I have a friend who's business has a 1Ds but i doubt they'd even let me test that out.

Prof_Fate

06/20/2006 08:25:02 AM · #18

Originally posted by kyebosh:

rse, but any raw editor should tell you that.

I use canon's DPP or Breezebrowser pro - they tell me the WB setting, but not the K equivalent. perhaps the 20D/30D doesn't record that info?

I don't have CS2 to see...a friend does, and he has a 1Dmk2n.