Well, I felt I had to test both of these cameras in a number of real-world situations so I could make my final decision on whether teh KM 7D was for me or not, so I got my hands on a 20D and shot a dogs show, toured a bit of Washington DC, the National Aquarium, the Reagan Building and did ISO noise tests using Program mode and mainly default settings with both cameras. I just wanted to see how each camera interpreted the exposure and WB out of the box, also wanted to see noise and focus accuracy and speed.
I will post images tomorrow, it's 2 am and I need to go to bed, but here are a couple of conclusions I have come to. All in all, both are VERY GOOD cameras that anyone would be happy with. There are just a few minor things that separate the two.
I love the way the Canon is so quiet - something I didn't think would matter, but it does to me. There are many times you either want to take a picture in a place that is very quiet or in a place where you really aren't allowed to take pictures . The last thing you want is the big kerflunk sound that comes from the KM shutter. It sounds so weird that you keep thinking you are shooting at a very slow shutter speed, but it's just the way it sounds. Also, the 20D AF is so smooth and quiet, you keep wondering if it did anything. KM can do the er-er-er-er in and out to hunt and it is LOUD.
Indoors, KM is a little cool in it's AWB. Canon is a little warm, towards yellow. Neither hit the WB right-on, so some adjustments would be necessary for both. If I could not make adjustments and had to shoot at default, Canon's warmth would be easier to live with for me personally.
KM tends to underexpose a little, Canon, overexpose. Again, adjustments can be made for this.
Noise. This is where I noticed the biggest differences. Both are about equal till you reach 800 ISO, but even at 800, most could not tell the difference - both are acceptable. But when you reach 1600 and 3200, the differences are huge. As might be expected, the 8mp Canon has the ability to outdo the KM. At 1600, KM falls apart with noise, and Canon still makes excellent images with almost no noise. At 3200, KM is unacceptable, Canon still looks very good and I would not hesitate to use 3200 if I needed to.
Camera shake - I did not seem to have a significantly higher # of blurry pics from the Canon with no AS and no IS in the lens than I did with AS on in the KM which surprised me. Focus, I probably had a few more aquarium fish-swimming shots in focus with the Canon than with the KM, but I got a few "winner" shots with both.
I do have one suggestion for those who feel the KM images are too soft. Before you turn up the sharpness in the camera, try this: turn OFF noise reduction. In my tests, I could see no reduction in noise, but I did see a huge reduction is sharpness. I think it ships with NR ON as a default, so turn it off and see what you think. You will not see extra noise, but you will see sharper details.
There was only one side-by-side shot that the KM resolved detail in better. I was very impressed with that shot compared to the Canon.
Lastly, the only big problem I have with the 20D is that the one I have appears to backfocus in certain situations. In my noise tests (informal) I had the camera on a tripod with my husbands face behind the AF point and he sat still while I shot at different ISO's. At 200 ISO on the Canon, the shot looked to be backfocused - his ears were sharp, his face was not. ISO 100 and ISO 400 etc were all fine. I know little about the problem, but now that I have seen it for myself, I realize it is something I have never, ever seen before with any camera I have used - it's a very weird phenomenon.
I think the image noise at high ISO's was what has swayed me towards the 20D, but on the other hand, unless I can get one that doesn't back-focus, I would not be happy worrying about unpredictable backfocusing results.
Does anyone know if it is a hit and miss thing within a camera model
or if one does it, they all do it? I have heard they can re-calibrate the camera, but you would think they would start turning out new lots with the corrections made by now. I did not notice the KM doing any back-focusing, although in my tripod tests, one KM picture was drastically out of focus when nothing had been moved or changed.
This was meant to report my findings, somewhat unscientific but an
expression of my experiences carrying around 2 cameras and shooting in many different situations (any idea how hard it is to shoot fast-moving fish???) I felt that, since many agree that the technology
"isn't there yet", but we all know we gotta have a DSLR NOW, I wanted
to make sure for myself, that the money was being spent on a camera I wanted to pick up, not one I dreaded picking up because of inconsistent or sub-par results. This was done for me personally and I had no idea which camera would "speak to me". This will be different with each person - just like some people like one type of car, and their friends wouldn't at all feel comfortable driving that kind. There is no one right or wrong answer, and both of these cameras have given me excellent pictures. If I cannot get a 20D that doesn't back-focus, I will gladly stay with KM. I hope some of this has helped some of you understand what differences I have found and it may encourage you to try your own tests and comparisons.
I will post some images tomorrow.
Wendy
I will post images tomorrow, it's 2 am and I need to go to bed, but here are a couple of conclusions I have come to. All in all, both are VERY GOOD cameras that anyone would be happy with. There are just a few minor things that separate the two.
I love the way the Canon is so quiet - something I didn't think would matter, but it does to me. There are many times you either want to take a picture in a place that is very quiet or in a place where you really aren't allowed to take pictures . The last thing you want is the big kerflunk sound that comes from the KM shutter. It sounds so weird that you keep thinking you are shooting at a very slow shutter speed, but it's just the way it sounds. Also, the 20D AF is so smooth and quiet, you keep wondering if it did anything. KM can do the er-er-er-er in and out to hunt and it is LOUD.
Indoors, KM is a little cool in it's AWB. Canon is a little warm, towards yellow. Neither hit the WB right-on, so some adjustments would be necessary for both. If I could not make adjustments and had to shoot at default, Canon's warmth would be easier to live with for me personally.
KM tends to underexpose a little, Canon, overexpose. Again, adjustments can be made for this.
Noise. This is where I noticed the biggest differences. Both are about equal till you reach 800 ISO, but even at 800, most could not tell the difference - both are acceptable. But when you reach 1600 and 3200, the differences are huge. As might be expected, the 8mp Canon has the ability to outdo the KM. At 1600, KM falls apart with noise, and Canon still makes excellent images with almost no noise. At 3200, KM is unacceptable, Canon still looks very good and I would not hesitate to use 3200 if I needed to.
Camera shake - I did not seem to have a significantly higher # of blurry pics from the Canon with no AS and no IS in the lens than I did with AS on in the KM which surprised me. Focus, I probably had a few more aquarium fish-swimming shots in focus with the Canon than with the KM, but I got a few "winner" shots with both.
I do have one suggestion for those who feel the KM images are too soft. Before you turn up the sharpness in the camera, try this: turn OFF noise reduction. In my tests, I could see no reduction in noise, but I did see a huge reduction is sharpness. I think it ships with NR ON as a default, so turn it off and see what you think. You will not see extra noise, but you will see sharper details.
There was only one side-by-side shot that the KM resolved detail in better. I was very impressed with that shot compared to the Canon.
Lastly, the only big problem I have with the 20D is that the one I have appears to backfocus in certain situations. In my noise tests (informal) I had the camera on a tripod with my husbands face behind the AF point and he sat still while I shot at different ISO's. At 200 ISO on the Canon, the shot looked to be backfocused - his ears were sharp, his face was not. ISO 100 and ISO 400 etc were all fine. I know little about the problem, but now that I have seen it for myself, I realize it is something I have never, ever seen before with any camera I have used - it's a very weird phenomenon.
I think the image noise at high ISO's was what has swayed me towards the 20D, but on the other hand, unless I can get one that doesn't back-focus, I would not be happy worrying about unpredictable backfocusing results.
Does anyone know if it is a hit and miss thing within a camera model
or if one does it, they all do it? I have heard they can re-calibrate the camera, but you would think they would start turning out new lots with the corrections made by now. I did not notice the KM doing any back-focusing, although in my tripod tests, one KM picture was drastically out of focus when nothing had been moved or changed.
This was meant to report my findings, somewhat unscientific but an
expression of my experiences carrying around 2 cameras and shooting in many different situations (any idea how hard it is to shoot fast-moving fish???) I felt that, since many agree that the technology
"isn't there yet", but we all know we gotta have a DSLR NOW, I wanted
to make sure for myself, that the money was being spent on a camera I wanted to pick up, not one I dreaded picking up because of inconsistent or sub-par results. This was done for me personally and I had no idea which camera would "speak to me". This will be different with each person - just like some people like one type of car, and their friends wouldn't at all feel comfortable driving that kind. There is no one right or wrong answer, and both of these cameras have given me excellent pictures. If I cannot get a 20D that doesn't back-focus, I will gladly stay with KM. I hope some of this has helped some of you understand what differences I have found and it may encourage you to try your own tests and comparisons.
I will post some images tomorrow.
Wendy
Seriously, they're noisy, much better than previous generation of digicams and as noisy as my point-and-shoot shirtpocket camera at ISO400, but anyway, it's all hardly acceptable for any application.
Seriously - there is a small but substantial improvement in microcontrast and detail when NR is turned off, in RAW file exports, and there is a major improvement in significant detail if shooting to JPEG. Someone coined a term for the way NR affects details - 'squabbly' image. It just about gets the idea over straight off.