| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/18/2006 07:33:29 AM · #1 |
Hello....
I currently have the Canon Digital Rebel XT. I am considering upgrading to the 20D; although, I had a Canon rep at my local store last weekend who stated that with the exception of a bigger more durable body and a few more professional controls, that they are essentially the same camera. Same format, same processor (he showed me the chip), same megapixels. I already have Canon lenses so I would like to stick with Canon cameras. Does anyone have any suggestions? Should I stay with the Rebel XT for a while? I of course gush over the 5D! |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 07:41:34 AM · #2 |
I have been thinking about this too, mainly due to the price dropping since the new 30D was released.
I decided not to bother, the only real difference is the size and build of the body. I have never had any problems with the handling of my 350D so there seems little reason to upgrade.
Upgrading to the 5D is a different matter of course, that is a no brainer if you can afford it |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 07:56:09 AM · #3 |
| easily put the 20d dollar for daollar is not worth the extra money in features. |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 08:33:07 AM · #4 |
The only reason I can think of to go from 350D to 20D would be if you are going to be doing a lot of sports action photography and wanted to use the 20D's 5 frames per second continuous shooting feature. A big drawback of such an upgrade would be going from a 2.5 inch LCD to a smaller 1.8 inch LCD. Most of us don't keep our digital bodies long enough for the durability of the 20D's superior build quality to make much difference because we're buying an upgrade for new features long before we wear out our old camera.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 08:38:02 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
A big drawback of such an upgrade would be going from a 2.5 inch LCD to a smaller 1.8 inch LCD. |
The Rebel and the 20D both have a 1.8" screen. I was going to get the 20D but went with the 30D once I nitced the screen was bigger.
DPReview
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 08:42:23 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
durability of the 20D's superior build quality |
regardless of how well something is built, if you drop either of them they WILL break. So how is one "superior"??? (perhaps another thread)
edit to add: the XT also has wireless remote capabilities, the 20d does not.
Message edited by author 2006-05-18 08:43:01.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 08:42:53 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by notonline:
Originally posted by coolhar:
durability of the 20D's superior build quality |
regardless of how well something is built, if you drop either of them they WILL break. So how is one "superior"??? (perhaps another thread) |
One word "INSURANCE"
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 08:59:07 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by notonline:
easily put the 20d dollar for daollar is not worth the extra money in features. |
it all depends on what you are shooting for. if you want above average snapshots, the xt is perfect. if you are going to be shooting action, or pj assignments which may or may not include action, you'll want the 20d. if you are shooting studio and can't afford a mark, you go with the 5d. if budget isn't an issue, you get the appropriate mark. it comes down to what you are going to be doing and how much you can afford. but, dollar for dollar, the xt would NOT do for me what the 20d does. |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 09:07:23 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
Originally posted by notonline:
easily put the 20d dollar for daollar is not worth the extra money in features. |
it all depends on what you are shooting for. if you want above average snapshots, the xt is perfect. if you are going to be shooting action, or pj assignments which may or may not include action, you'll want the 20d. if you are shooting studio and can't afford a mark, you go with the 5d. if budget isn't an issue, you get the appropriate mark. it comes down to what you are going to be doing and how much you can afford. but, dollar for dollar, the xt would NOT do for me what the 20d does. |
the 20d came out overpriced compared to the XT which is why dollar for dollar it is not worth the extra amount for the features.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 09:12:12 AM · #10 |
I think what Skip is saying is if you need it then it is worth it no matter what the cost. Period.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 09:14:42 AM · #11 |
I would go and handle the 20D first in any case, it is larger and heavier than the XT which is one reason I am concidering the opposite change..from my 10D to the XT.
As said it is quite a lump of cash for not much of an upgrade. |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 09:45:00 AM · #12 |
I upgraded from the XT. The quick control dial is awesome so you don't have to waste time going through the menus to change things. Yes, you can do almost everything with the XT the same as the 20d but the 20d is much more convenient (top LCD, quick control dial, bigger buffer, better viewfinder, etc..).
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 09:59:07 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by rex:
I think what Skip is saying is if you need it then it is worth it no matter what the cost. Period. |
exactly. there's no way in hell i would have been able to do the work i do with the xt, where the 20d gets the job done. and i only paid maybe $400 more. yes, the xt is an incredible camera, but it has limits that are hard to overcome. |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 10:33:02 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by rex:
Originally posted by coolhar:
A big drawback of such an upgrade would be going from a 2.5 inch LCD to a smaller 1.8 inch LCD. |
The Rebel and the 20D both have a 1.8" screen. I was going to get the 20D but went with the 30D once I nitced the screen was bigger.
DPReview |
My bad, I thought the 350D had the same new LCD as the 30D and the 5D.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 10:48:51 AM · #15 |
Well, I just dropped my 7D, thought there was going to be no way it survived that fall... it's fine.
Last year I spilt a whole cup of hot sticky red wine all over it... I couldn't have got more liquid on it if I'd tried. It's fine although some of the controls are still a bit sticky. It's built like a tank. There's no way a 350D would have survived that, but a 20D might have. However, I'd be tempted to spend that upgrade money on a new lens or a really nice flash or a studio light.
Message edited by author 2006-05-18 10:50:27.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 10:58:34 AM · #16 |
Skip,
what work couldn't you do w/ the XT, but did with the 20D? The main function differences are the ISO goes to 3200, the Shutter speed goes higher than the XT, and there are more custom functions and more frames per second.
Just curious what couldn't be done w/ the XT.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 11:17:23 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
Skip,
what work couldn't you do w/ the XT, but did with the 20D? The main function differences are the ISO goes to 3200, the Shutter speed goes higher than the XT, and there are more custom functions and more frames per second.
Just curious what couldn't be done w/ the XT. |
Higher burst rate in continuous mode, larger and faster buffer for the images.
R.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 11:26:16 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by notonline:
Originally posted by coolhar:
durability of the 20D's superior build quality |
regardless of how well something is built, if you drop either of them they WILL break. So how is one "superior"??? (perhaps another thread)
edit to add: the XT also has wireless remote capabilities, the 20d does not. |
I was thinking of how long a camera will last when I spoke of the 20D's build quality. Mine has almost 70,000 shots on it. It is supposedly rated to go 100,000 so I am beginning to think about how much longer I can expect to shoot with it. Financially, I'm not ready to move up to a 1D MkIIn but maybe I could replace it with a 30D if I had to. Right now I'm in a frame of mind to just keep going with it so, looking back, I'm glad I didn't get a Rebel. Also, I just like the feel of a larger, heavier camera in my big hands. But that's just me.
I'd be interested if anyone would care to share their opinion comparing the focusing capabilities of a 20D and an XT?
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 11:48:49 AM · #19 |
On the XT there are quick access buttons so you don't really have to go through the menu to change AF, ISO, metering...
Big drawback on the XT is no hot synch for firing strobes. If you do a lot of studio work it might be worth the upgrade for that alone.
Personally I like that the XT is smaller and lighter. Yeah, it's not as sturdy as the 20D, but it's sturdy enough for a camera.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 01:57:15 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
Originally posted by notonline:
easily put the 20d dollar for daollar is not worth the extra money in features. |
it all depends on what you are shooting for. if you want above average snapshots, the xt is perfect. if you are going to be shooting action, or pj assignments which may or may not include action, you'll want the 20d. if you are shooting studio and can't afford a mark, you go with the 5d. if budget isn't an issue, you get the appropriate mark. it comes down to what you are going to be doing and how much you can afford. but, dollar for dollar, the xt would NOT do for me what the 20d does. |
Not that I do a lot of studio work, but I use my 30D for everything, and I know for a fact that at least two of the local studio photographers around here are also using 30D. |
|
|
|
05/19/2006 03:48:33 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:
Originally posted by skiprow:
Originally posted by notonline:
easily put the 20d dollar for daollar is not worth the extra money in features. |
it all depends on what you are shooting for. if you want above average snapshots, the xt is perfect. if you are going to be shooting action, or pj assignments which may or may not include action, you'll want the 20d. if you are shooting studio and can't afford a mark, you go with the 5d. if budget isn't an issue, you get the appropriate mark. it comes down to what you are going to be doing and how much you can afford. but, dollar for dollar, the xt would NOT do for me what the 20d does. |
Not that I do a lot of studio work, but I use my 30D for everything, and I know for a fact that at least two of the local studio photographers around here are also using 30D. |
yea but the 30D is not the camera in question. |
|
|
|
05/19/2006 05:54:15 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
Skip,
what work couldn't you do w/ the XT, but did with the 20D? The main function differences are the ISO goes to 3200, the Shutter speed goes higher than the XT, and there are more custom functions and more frames per second.
Just curious what couldn't be done w/ the XT. |
the xt is fine for probably 95% of everything anyone would normally do. it's that last 5%, though, that is critical to me...
action photos or candids in very poorly lit situations. action photos in burst. high-speed synch for slight fill-flash. enough weight to counter-balance longer lenses.
i've shot an xt. i've seen some absolutely, incredible stuff done with an xt (check out bear, bradp, or e301, to name a few). it's a nice piece of equipment. but, it simply can't go the last mile, when compared to a 20d. and, if you want to try to make it go that far, at some point, you'll have to ask yourself if it's worth the effort.
as for the 30d, well, that's the 20d replacement, and i know a number of people who feel that its "limited" enhancements over the 20d are worth the extra dough. it still comes back to what you are trying to do, how hard you want to work, and what you can afford. |
|
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: 08/30/2025 12:45:19 PM EDT.
