Canon 20D owners... - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

11/20/2004 07:50:04 AM · #2

If you go to the highest non-RAW setting you get about 3.5-4.0 MP per pictute. For the 20D

TomH1000

Olympus E-3

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

11/20/2004 07:51:07 AM · #3

I have posted this before and you may find it interesting. It should answer your question about MP.

//db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=07860

Message edited by author 2004-11-20 07:59:06.

Jacko

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

11/20/2004 07:54:49 AM · #4

I don't think it's about the extra 2MP. I do enjoy it though. However, it's just such a badass camera all around. The exposures are great and it handles real well. I upgraded from a 10D.

Be afraid ... be very afraid.

terje

Apple iPhone

11/20/2004 07:58:25 AM · #5

Hey sure the almost 25% increase in pixels makes a difference.
I upgraded from 300D, and now I'm able to crop my pictures more then before, and still retain quality. The more pixels the more detail and the bigger prints you can make. Give me the 1DsII.

Nuno

Nikon D700

11/20/2004 08:04:33 AM · #6

I don't see it also for tne 2 extra MP. I'm sure that this is a better camera than my previous choice (D70). I've tryed and I've been in love since then. But is it worth the extra money?

TomH1000

Olympus E-3

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

11/20/2004 08:08:22 AM · #7

Originally posted by terje:

I agree that it gives you more cropping room but strongly disagree about print size. I have seen billboards made with 4MP cameras. It all has to do with viewing distance. Your not going to view a 16"x20" 6" from your face anymore then you would view a 4"x5" with a magnifying glass.

rich

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

11/20/2004 09:25:54 AM · #8

I upgraded from a D60, so for me the extra 2 MP was really the least of my reasons to upgrade. I was already getting very good prints at 12x18 with the D60.

My main reasons were things I missed in not upgrading to the 10D in between and some of the other new features in the 20D. The short list for me is:

0.2 second startup time
5 FPS shooting rate (That's just huge)
Better AF and more AF points
10x preview (preview stinks on the D60)
Beter ergonomic design, tighter package and a tad lighter
And finally, to quote Jacko, it is much more badass than the D60 :-)

There are lots of other improvements and things to love in the upgrade, but those are the killer ones for me.

peecee

Canon EOS-5D

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZF f/2.0 Makro-Planar T

11/20/2004 09:29:13 AM · #9

The friend I bought my 10D from only upgraded to it for the extra frames per sec. and he loves it.

Amason

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

11/20/2004 09:31:22 AM · #10

Originally posted by unholycommunion:

If you go to the highest non-RAW setting you get about 3.5-4.0 MP per pictute. For the 20D

unholycommunion must be meaning that the Large JPG files are 3.5-4.0 megabytes. (not megapixels)

Amason

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZF f/2.0 Makro-Planar T

11/20/2004 09:31:41 AM · #11

Hi Nuno.

20D produces more detail than the previous successor 10D and 300D, especially at higher iso. I bought the 10D in July 2003 and upgraded in mid September to 20D. I'm very happy about that decision, but did I make that decision because of the 8.2 megapixels? No, I didn't, but I can't say it didn't help with my decision. Like terje mentioned, you can crop your photos more than with the 6.3 mp 10D/300D without loosing quality.
You'll have better details at close-up viewing in large prints. Although you are not going to view a large print very close normally, it can't be argued that it's better to have more detail at close-up viewing. It happens all the time when I'm at photo exhibitions that I go very near to some photos to look into the details. Just like people do with paintings.
I agree with terje and the print sizes, you can crop out smaller portion of the frame from 20D than 10D/300D and print it out and still retain quality.

I've got up to 50" photo enlarged at professional lab from my 10D and the quality was very good. Most of my enlargements are 11x17" and I can't see that it matters to have the extra 2 mp for that, but if I am cropping a small portion out of the frame it should matter.

I upgraded to 20D mainly because of how fast it is. It's ready when you turn it on, while 10D takes 2,5 sec to start up, it shoots 5 shots a sec, it is much quicker in writing to and reading from the card, the viewing mode is also much quicker.
I did some test shots before I sold my 10D and the difference between 10D and 20D at higher iso is much more than I expected, so much that that difference alone could justify upgrading for some people. You can see my test shots HERE.

I highly recommend 20D, it's a pure gem!

Jacko

11/20/2004 09:49:59 AM · #12

Can't put a price on love, dude. :D

Originally posted by Nuno:

I don't see it also for tne 2 extra MP. I'm sure that this is a better camera than my previous choice (D70). I've tryed and I've been in love since then. But is it worth the extra money?

KiwiChris

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/21/2004 06:34:34 AM · #13

Hi-ho,

I upgraded from a 5mp camera, but used a 300D quite a bit before purchasing, and looked quite hard at the D70 as I had no lenses to tie me to a manufacturer.

In the end the 2Mp difference wasn't the issue that swung me. The 20D simply felt better to use. It feels right, if that makes sense. From the limited time I had with it the D70 didn't feel as good ergonomically, and I found that it wasn't as quick feeling as the 20D, there were tiny delays in responce to some actions which are not there in the canon.

Some differences that swung me:

- Speed, it's quick, previewing, shooting, turning on, writing to the CF. It is pretty much always waiting for more.
- The viewfinder. Someone shrunk the viewfinder on the D70. I wear glasses and the bigger/brighter the viewfinder the better. The first time I fondled a D70 in the shop I noticed it imediately.
- Low noise... The sample images I downloaded before I bought the camera were unbelieveable. Now I've got the camera I still can't believe it! I used to shoot a fair bit of ISO1600 and ISO400 film, and this thing produces weirdly clean images compared to film. The D70 reviews and sample images were not as good in the noise department.
- Lenses... Although I've cheaped out on my first set of glass (kit + 90-300/4.5-5.6USM + 50/1.8) the options for Canon seemed to be better fit to what I want, and more within my reach than the top level OEM glass for the Nikon.
- E-TTL II. Once I get some ring USM glass, this promises to solve all manner of problems with event shooting, which I'll be doing next year part time.

As always, just my 2c worth...

Natator

Canon EOS-5D

11/21/2004 06:46:40 AM · #14

I agree with the general sentiments above.

I upgraded from a 10D, which is a fantastic camera to start with.

The improvements over the 10D are already listed ....

In practice I have found it to be a bigger step up from the 10D than I had anticipated. It rocks!

Marjo

Canon EOS-7D

11/21/2004 08:21:38 AM · #15

I love it, too. Buuuuutttttt, I seem to be having a loooooong learning curve. Granted, I've been really busy and haven't been able to devote enough time to the manual. I'm not comfortable, yet.

KevinRiggs

Canon EOS-1Ds

11/21/2004 09:10:42 AM · #16

I haven't upgraded. I've picked one up with the BG-E2 and it just doesn't do it for me. Now I also tried out the 1DII and loved it. Since I don't shoot sports, I think the 10D will be fine and save me another $1400 or so. I'm sure several of those people who have gotten the 20D will be submitting award winning photographs (of course, many of them have already submitted award winning photographs with 10D or even digicams so that may have more to do with it) ;)

Just a note, the 20D only has 14% more resolution than the 10D, not 25%.

I think I'm just gonna keep saving for one of those 1-series bodies (1Ds II is only $7500 new).

Kev

rich

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

11/21/2004 09:58:20 AM · #17

Originally posted by KevinRiggs:

Just a note, the 20D only has 14% more resolution than the 10D, not 25%.

Kevin,

Not trying to be antagonistic here :-), But I disagree. It's not about the long axis and short axis dimensions as individual measurements in regards to resolution.

By the same logic presented in your image the 16.6 MP 1DS MK2, which has a max long axis resolution of 4992, would only have 62% more resolution than the 10D, when that clearly is not the case.

You could also easily say the 20D has 30% more resolution than the 10D or D60:

10D: 3072 X 2048 = 6291456
20D: 3504 X 2336 = 8185344

8185344 / 6291456 = 1.301, or 30.1% increase

It's all about how you present it I suppose, but saying the difference is only 14% does not (in my opinion) accurately represent the actual increase in pixel count provided by the 20D.

Having said all that, I am also one who does not see this increase in MP a real reason to upgrade from the 10D, not for my printing needs anyway.

KevinRiggs

Canon EOS-1Ds

11/21/2004 01:14:47 PM · #18

Rich,

There are different ways to measure different facets of the capabilities of a sensor. You seem to be talking about area of a sensor. That doesn't take into account that in length or width you cannot crop 30% of the photo and have the same shot as a 10D; its not 30% longer or taller, it has 30% more square area. Neither your method nor mine makes any allowances for pixel pitch which, frankly, appears to give the 20D the upper hand on the 1DII if not the 1DsII. I don't think the math is as clear cut as your estimation seems to make it out. One camera may hypothetically take a photo that corresponds to the 11x14 which means that the other will actually take a photo that would correspond to 12.54 x 15.96. Sometimes it gets confusing for people who ask about cropping a photo and they hear a number like 30% and figure that if the 10D takes an 11x14 then the 20D should take something like a 16x20 (at least with a few people I've talked to who discussed purchasing the 20D). In either of the main dimensions that people use to discuss photographs (length x width) the 20D is only 14% more image just like the 1Ds II is only 60% more.

If you are concerned with cropping a shot out of a composition I'd say that any 6mp camera should give you more than enough resolution to work with and as you increase your skills at composition you'll end up taking a shot much closer to the final product that you want so it won't be as much of an issue. Granted, the 20D will easily afford you better material to work with since it uses the same 1.6 crop factor and pixel pitch as the 10D and packs in more pixels.

Kev

snackwells

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

11/21/2004 01:42:36 PM · #19

Originally posted by richterrell:

Originally posted by KevinRiggs:

Just a note, the 20D only has 14% more resolution than the 10D, not 25%.

Kevin,

Not trying to be antagonistic here :-), But I disagree. It's not about the long axis and short axis dimensions as individual measurements in regards to resolution.

By the same logic presented in your image the 16.6 MP 1DS MK2, which has a max long axis resolution of 4992, would only have 62% more resolution than the 10D, when that clearly is not the case.

You could also easily say the 20D has 30% more resolution than the 10D or D60:

10D: 3072 X 2048 = 6291456
20D: 3504 X 2336 = 8185344

8185344 / 6291456 = 1.301, or 30.1% increase

Just to clarify, Kevin, the 25% increase that sparked this particular debate was as quoted from Terje: "almost 25% increase in pixels". You then corrected Terje by stating that it was a 14% increase in resolution, not 25%. Pixel count and resolution are two separate calculations.

By Rich's math, that's actually about a 30% increase in pixels, not resolution as he incorrectly states.

The 30% increase in pixels translates to about a 14% increase per dimension.

Message edited by author 2004-11-21 13:45:30.

rich

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

11/21/2004 02:29:11 PM · #20

Originally posted by snackwells:

Originally posted by richterrell:

Originally posted by KevinRiggs:

Just a note, the 20D only has 14% more resolution than the 10D, not 25%.

Kevin,

Not trying to be antagonistic here :-), But I disagree. It's not about the long axis and short axis dimensions as individual measurements in regards to resolution.

By the same logic presented in your image the 16.6 MP 1DS MK2, which has a max long axis resolution of 4992, would only have 62% more resolution than the 10D, when that clearly is not the case.

You could also easily say the 20D has 30% more resolution than the 10D or D60:

10D: 3072 X 2048 = 6291456
20D: 3504 X 2336 = 8185344

8185344 / 6291456 = 1.301, or 30.1% increase

Just to clarify, Kevin, the 25% increase that sparked this particular debate was as quoted from Terje: "almost 25% increase in pixels". You then corrected Terje by stating that it was a 14% increase in resolution, not 25%. Pixel count and resolution are two separate calculations.

By Rich's math, that's actually about a 30% increase in pixels, not resolution as he incorrectly states.

The 30% increase in pixels translates to about a 14% increase per dimension.

You are correct, I was assuming pixel count and resolution were synonomous - I see now they are not the same thing.

I still see that increase as not insignificant at all. Just not the major reason I upgraded, either.

xiphias