DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> 20D vs 10D - check out the tests that I did...
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 22 of 22, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/24/2004 05:42:14 PM · #1
I bought Canon EOS 10D in July 2003, that is a great camera, I did use it a lot for more than a year. When EOS 20D was announced I was a little bit interested in upgrading, and when it became available on Sept 14th in the States I bought me one at B&H.
The main reason for upgrading was the speed differences. I have been doing some birding and I missed some good moments with the 10D just because it took the camera 2.5 sec to start up. But 20D is ready immediately. With 20D I can take 5 fps against 3 fps (10D), that is also very good in birding and other stuff. 20D is also quicker to write on the card.
I didn't think there would be as much difference as it is with the noise. But I did some test shots before I sold my 10D that shows that there is definately a huge difference at the higher iso settings.

Here are shots that I took with 10D and 20D at Iso 3200, this is full frame (no cropping) and the difference is clearly visible even at 640 pixels size:


Here you can see a close up side-by-side comparison of a 100% size crop out of the two images above:


And the difference is also visible at Iso 800:


The difference is even more after I did some levels changings. I changed the levels settings to 0 - 1,25 - 150 on the Iso 3200 images here:


The noise difference is very obvious and the 3200 iso setting is more useable on the 20D. But what I found interesting is that when I did those comparing shots with Aperture-priority the 20D chose a slower shutter speed than 10D, there is definately a change in the metering factory settings between the cameras also. Both cameras were set on Evaluative Metering mode. Now, have anyone of you read that they changed this between the cameras?
 10/24/2004 05:55:30 PM · #2
How noticable is the difference when printed?
 10/24/2004 05:59:46 PM · #3
whats the point in this post?
 10/24/2004 06:02:10 PM · #4
thanks for the info Amason, now I want 20D

Message edited by author 2004-10-24 18:05:18.
 10/24/2004 06:03:04 PM · #5
Originally posted by Nazgul:
whats the point in this post?


Didn't you see the question? :'D
 10/24/2004 06:04:14 PM · #6
Thanks for posting. I'm pretty interested in astrophotography and long exposures (eg. star trails). I wonder what the difference is like at the lower iso's, especially for exposures over a minute.
 10/24/2004 06:04:52 PM · #7
Originally posted by siggi:
Stop anoying us Amason


10D should just belong in there Siggi:


MUUUHAAHAHAHAHAHAAAaaaaa
 10/24/2004 06:06:42 PM · #8
Originally posted by Amason:
Originally posted by siggi:
Stop anoying us Amason


10D should just belong in there Siggi:


MUUUHAAHAHAHAHAHAAAaaaaa


I´m sure someone who has a 1D Mark II would say the same about the 20D c," )
 10/24/2004 06:06:59 PM · #9
Why did you change the quote?

Originally posted by Amason:
Originally posted by siggi:
thanks for the info Amason, now I want 20D


10D should just belong in there Siggi:


MUUUHAAHAHAHAHAHAAAaaaaa

10/24/2004 06:11:00 PM · #10
Originally posted by siggi:
thanks for the info Amason, now I want 20D


yea, yea, yea, but who has this in his post!?:

Message edited by author 2004-10-24 18:05:18.
 10/24/2004 09:57:12 PM · #11
bump
 10/24/2004 10:10:12 PM · #12
Originally posted by Amason:
I bought Canon EOS 10D in July 2003, that is a great camera, I did use it a lot for more than a year. When EOS 20D was announced I was a little bit interested in upgrading, and when it became available on Sept 14th in the States I bought me one at B&H.
The main reason for upgrading was the speed differences. I have been doing some birding and I missed some good moments with the 10D just because it took the camera 2.5 sec to start up. But 20D is ready immediately. With 20D I can take 5 fps against 3 fps (10D), that is also very good in birding and other stuff. 20D is also quicker to write on the card.
I didn't think there would be as much difference as it is with the noise. But I did some test shots before I sold my 10D that shows that there is definately a huge difference at the higher iso settings.

Here are shots that I took with 10D and 20D at Iso 3200, this is full frame (no cropping) and the difference is clearly visible even at 640 pixels size:


Here you can see a close up side-by-side comparison of a 100% size crop out of the two images above:


And the difference is also visible at Iso 800:


The difference is even more after I did some levels changings. I changed the levels settings to 0 - 1,25 - 150 on the Iso 3200 images here:


The noise difference is very obvious and the 3200 iso setting is more useable on the 20D. But what I found interesting is that when I did those comparing shots with Aperture-priority the 20D chose a slower shutter speed than 10D, there is definately a change in the metering factory settings between the cameras also. Both cameras were set on Evaluative Metering mode. Now, have anyone of you read that they changed this between the cameras?


The only thing this test shows is that the 20D has better noise filters built in. Take your 10D photo and run it through Neat Image and I'll bet you see little difference in the that and the 20D photo. It is not likely that the 8mp chip produces less noise then the 6mp chip does.
10/24/2004 10:25:53 PM · #13
I think the real question here is, "what are those statues doing in the first two photos?"

;)
10/24/2004 10:29:05 PM · #14
that just gets me more stoked for when i actually get my 20d.
 10/24/2004 10:31:10 PM · #15
Originally posted by TomH1000:
The only thing this test shows is that the 20D has better noise filters built in. Take your 10D photo and run it through Neat Image and I'll bet you see little difference in the that and the 20D photo. It is not likely that the 8mp chip produces less noise then the 6mp chip does.


There is more to image noise than the chip itself. Noise is also added by added by the analog amplification circuitry and the analog-to-digital conversion process. I agree that it's not likely there is a dramatically lower noise level in the chip itself (given that the pixel size is slightly smaller). The lower observed noise levels are likely a result of improved on-chip and supporting circuitry, as well as software noise reduction. I would doubt that software-based noise reduction plays a great role, other than fixed-pattern noise subtraction, since that would inevitably result in reduced image detail.
 10/24/2004 10:47:06 PM · #16
Originally posted by TomH1000:

The only thing this test shows is that the 20D has better noise filters built in. Take your 10D photo and run it through Neat Image and I'll bet you see little difference in the that and the 20D photo. It is not likely that the 8mp chip produces less noise then the 6mp chip does.


20D had its Noise Reduction setting OFF in the test shots as I mentioned in the text on the photos. Noise isn't a standard thing on the chips, there are differences between chips without a doubt, both between brands and cameras within brands. There's no way that it's just some noise filter that made this difference both in color and noise in this test image, Neat Image wouldn't be able to make the 10D image look the same as the 20D:

But if it would have been just some noise filter that makes this difference, then it should also be taken as a good thing, I wonder how it would have been with the 'Noise Reduction' ON, I didn't try that.
 10/25/2004 12:14:59 AM · #17
Originally posted by space amoeba:
I think the real question here is, "what are those statues doing in the first two photos?"

;)


Good catch! :D
 10/25/2004 07:31:10 AM · #18
Originally posted by PerezDesignGroup:
Originally posted by space amoeba:
I think the real question here is, "what are those statues doing in the first two photos?"

;)


Good catch! :D


Yes, I think many photographers have been playing with this statues of the "band"...
 10/25/2004 07:45:37 AM · #19
Originally posted by TomH1000:
It is not likely that the 8mp chip produces less noise then the 6mp chip does.

Ever heard of something called "progress"?
 10/25/2004 08:17:46 AM · #20
THank you!!! This really convinces me that as soon as I am able I need to upgrade. I have been shooting mostly live performances and the noise at the high iso's is awful...

Sure do appreciate you taking the time to post your comparisons.
10/25/2004 03:07:24 PM · #21
Originally posted by JC_Homola:
THank you!!! This really convinces me that as soon as I am able I need to upgrade. I have been shooting mostly live performances and the noise at the high iso's is awful...

Sure do appreciate you taking the time to post your comparisons.


Thanks, it's nice to see that someone appreciate it.

10D at iso 3200 is only for shooting in daylight conditions, I almost never used it at 1600 or 3200.
 10/25/2004 04:22:42 PM · #22
I appreciate this post as well. However, I didn't really need to see it :) That is a significant improvement and I certainly could take advantage of that, but I'm not going to upgrade at this point. I plan to wait until the 20D successor arrives since I have only had my 10D for a year now...
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/13/2025 07:22:29 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 09/13/2025 07:22:29 AM EDT.