What makes the 5D so much better than the 20D?

11/21/2005 02:55:55 AM · #2

full frame.

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro for Canon

11/21/2005 02:56:14 AM · #3

As I understand, the two are not comparable. 5D is a FF camera, more like the 1 series.
See this thread for more...

A4wheelin

Canon EOS-30D

11/21/2005 02:59:13 AM · #4

What does full frame mean?

11/21/2005 02:59:38 AM · #5

Originally posted by A4wheelin:

Besides the pixel count.

Nothing much. It's apples and oranges, pretty much. They are targeted to different markets.

The primary practical difference here is your wide lenses are wider and your long lenses are shorter on the 5D compared to the 20D. A 16mm on the 5D covers the same angular range as a 10mm on the 20D, but you need a 320mm on the 5D to cover what the 20D does with a 200mm. Net result: glass is more expensive for the 5D if you need reach.

Robt.

11/21/2005 03:00:52 AM · #6

dpreview review of 5d

No cropping factor. 35mm sensor.

11/21/2005 03:02:17 AM · #7

The 5D is overall a superior camera to the 20D. If you are working for a magazine or ad agency, a 20D just wont cut it.

11/21/2005 03:02:37 AM · #8

And the comparison, side by side is here

11/21/2005 03:04:04 AM · #9

Originally posted by A4wheelin:

What does full frame mean?

It has a larger sensor; the size of the sensor is the same as the size of a single frame of 35mm film. This is the nominal "standard". The 20D is a "1.6 crop, APC" sensor. It's the size of a MOVIE frame on 35mm film. The width of the APC sensor is the same as the height of a FF sensor.

This is because movie fim runs vertically where 35mm still film runs horizontally, incidentally. The original use of 35mm film was moviemaking, and the individual frames were the size of our APC sensors. When the first 35mm still cameras went into production, this 1.6x larger frame was considered supersized.

R.

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

11/21/2005 03:05:07 AM · #10

Originally posted by srdanz:

And the comparison, side by side is here

nice one. The shows the 5D kicks arse! 20D is basically slightly better for sports photography.

faidoi

Pentax K10D

11/21/2005 03:05:10 AM · #11

Originally posted by A4wheelin:

What does full frame mean?

What ever camera you use there is no crop factor. 100mm means 100mm, not 150mm or 160 depending on the camera. Good for people that takes wide landscape and other similar shots.

11/21/2005 03:08:10 AM · #12

Originally posted by bear_music:

The primary practical difference here is your wide lenses are wider and your long lenses are shorter on the 5D compared to the 20D. A 16mm on the 5D covers the same angular range as a 10mm on the 20D, but you need a 320mm on the 5D to cover what the 20D does with a 200mm. Net result: glass is more expensive for the 5D if you need reach.

Robt.

Robert,
5d is 4368 x 2912, on 35.8x23.9 mm
20d is 3504 x 2336 on 22.5 x 15mm

So, the effect is not 1.6, but more like 1.25x (when you take into account sensor resolution)

edit to add: net effect still exists, I only reduced the ratio. 1.25 is the comparison of 5d and 20d with the same lens.

Message edited by author 2005-11-21 03:09:48.

11/21/2005 03:09:03 AM · #13

Originally posted by alexsaberi:

The 5D is overall a superior camera to the 20D. If you are working for a magazine or ad agency, a 20D just wont cut it.

The 5D may be overall a superior camera (it sure ought to be at the price) but in terms of image produced there's very little difference between the two, all in all. There's not enough of a difference to make it a motivating factor for the average amateur, I don't think.

And your statement that the 20D "won't cut it" working for "a magazine or an ad agency" isn't true. LOTS of professional work gets done with 20D cameras. Not all magazines are "Vogue" and not all agencies are Doyle, Dane, Bernbach (or whatever they are called now). At the high end of the professional scale, cost is no object and you are correct. But very few people live there, and there's a lot of lower-level cameras being used by people who earn good money with them.

Robt.

11/21/2005 03:13:46 AM · #14

Originally posted by srdanz:

Originally posted by bear_music:
The primary practical difference here is your wide lenses are wider and your long lenses are shorter on the 5D compared to the 20D. A 16mm on the 5D covers the same angular range as a 10mm on the 20D, but you need a 320mm on the 5D to cover what the 20D does with a 200mm. Net result: glass is more expensive for the 5D if you need reach.

Robt.

Robert,
5d is 4368 x 2912, on 35.8x23.9 mm
20d is 3504 x 2336 on 22.5 x 15mm

So, the effect is not 1.6, but more like 1.25x (when you take into account sensor resolution)

edit to add: net effect still exists, I only reduced the ratio. 1.25 is the comparison of 5d and 20d with the same lens.

Well, I don't know about that, but the 5D is "full frame" (35mm negative size is 24x26mm) and Canon themselves say the crop factor on the APC sensor is 1.6, so, and 22.5 x 1.6 = 36, so I'm not sure where you get 1.25 from? Is that an area calculation? Must be. But crop factor isn't about area, it's about a linear dimension, at least as commonly used.

R.

11/21/2005 03:22:24 AM · #15

Originally posted by bear_music:

Robert,
I was trying to compare the long lens effect, or 'reach'. And I am talking linear here, too. Let's talk object width for example.
With 20d, if the object is (x) cm wide, it will translate into (y) mm on the 20d's sensor. With 5d, the same object will occupy (y)/1.6 mm on its sensor.
However, the pixel density on 5d is higher, so the effect of FF sensor is reduced by some factor (3504/4368).

Another way to explain this is:
on 20d, 3504x2396 photo will cover (x) wide object
on 5d, 4368x2912 photo will cover (x)*1.6 wide object

now, you crop your 4368x2912 to 3504x2396 and only (x)*1.25 of the view remains for the same image quality as of 20d's.

Makes sense?

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/21/2005 03:28:20 AM · #16

Originally posted by srdanz:

Originally posted by bear_music:
Well, I don't know about that, but the 5D is "full frame" (35mm negative size is 24x26mm) and Canon themselves say the crop factor on the APC sensor is 1.6, so, and 22.5 x 1.6 = 36, so I'm not sure where you get 1.25 from? Is that an area calculation? Must be. But crop factor isn't about area, it's about a linear dimension, at least as commonly used.

R.

Robert,
I was trying to compare the long lens effect, or 'reach'. And I am talking linear here, too. Let's talk object width for example.
With 20d, if the object is (x) cm wide, it will translate into (y) mm on the 20d's sensor. With 5d, the same object will occupy (y)/1.6 mm on its sensor.
However, the pixel density on 5d is higher, so the effect of FF sensor is reduced by some factor (3504/4368).

Another way to explain this is:
on 20d, 3504x2396 photo will cover (x) wide object
on 5d, 4368x2912 photo will cover (x)*1.6 wide object

now, you crop your 4368x2912 to 3504x2396 and only (x)*1.25 of the view remains for the same image quality as of 20d's.

Makes sense?

I suppose, but it's leading astray of commonly accepted terms I think. It's sort of confusing. I'm not sure what practical point you're making. The practical point of saying "1.6 crop factor" is that a 5D needs 1.6 x the focal length of the 20D to cover the same angle of view. That's easy to understand, and it's true.

If the point you're making is that 5D has "better" resolution than 20D, I'm not disputing that; I just don't think, from what I've seen, that it is enough of a difference to worry about for the average shooter in the real world.

But I'm on thin ice on matters mathematical and technological, so...

Robt.

shaver

Canon EOS-5D

11/21/2005 05:34:45 AM · #17

Ok, the full frame is only one of the improvements to the 20D. You guys have not considered a couple of others.
1. The 5D is capable of ISO 50 (fifty).
2. The 5D has 6 additional invisible Assist AF points located inside the spot-metering circle that are very useful for taking action shots - great for sports even with 3 FPS. The 20D can shoot faster but the 5D will get more shots in focus thus making it better for sports.
3. The preview screen is so much larger.

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

11/21/2005 05:43:47 AM · #18

Originally posted by shaver:

Also the write speed is superior? right?

sounds bloody excellent! May buy one b4 xmas. In fact I am going to buy it now! oh YEAH!!!!!!

Message edited by author 2005-11-21 05:44:31.

BigK

Canon EOS-40D

11/21/2005 06:16:09 AM · #19

{quote}The 5D is overall a superior camera to the 20D. If you are working for a magazine or ad agency, a 20D just wont cut it. {/quote}

I work for an ad agency and our photographer uses a 10D so what're you saying?

:)

Message edited by author 2005-11-21 06:17:11.

Simms

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/21/2005 06:50:41 AM · #20

Originally posted by Guyver:

I know Mr Saberi and I know he has just bought a 5D, hence the reason he is bigging it up. However I agree the 20D is adequate for a working photographer. But I remember a time, not that long ago, that Mr Saberi and I worked on a wedding with our lowly 300D's, what have you got to say about that then Alex eh?? :)

11/21/2005 06:56:24 AM · #21

All I am saying is that I have meet a couple of pro photographers for certain magazines, and their editors are starting to turn away cameras like the 20d and certainly the 300d.

so there mr simms!!!!

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/21/2005 06:57:02 AM · #22

Originally posted by Guyver:

I am saying that ad agency is crap!!!

:-)

Simms

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

11/21/2005 06:58:36 AM · #23

Originally posted by alexsaberi:

Originally posted by Guyver:
{quote}The 5D is overall a superior camera to the 20D. If you are working for a magazine or ad agency, a 20D just wont cut it. {/quote}

I work for an ad agency and our photographer uses a 10D so what're you saying?

:)

I am saying that ad agency is crap!!!

:-)

OUCH!!!

hokie

Nikon D2X

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

11/21/2005 07:31:59 AM · #24

Ad agencies are not measured by pixel count. It all depends on their work.

We still sell work that was done with a D100. Usually it all depends on file size required.

Plus, anybody that thinks 3fps is enough for most sports doesn't shoot sports very much :-D