but D70 is not the eqvivalwnt to d20!
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
tested the Canon 20D today
- Thread starter Mikael Risedal
- Start date
Jonathan Kardell
Veteran Member
Of course this is a difference. Now, center your 15 cm print on top of the 20 cm print - WOW, you have 2.5 cm on each end! Call home, stop press, alert the media!
Imagine that as extra cropping area! Yes indeed, I have much more creative freedom here!
Sorry for the overly heavy sarcasm, I just can't get excited when thinking of the 6 mp vs 8 mp issue. Now, when it comes to doubling the number of pixels, you start to hit my trigger point of interest. Doubling your pixels will get you a noticeable increase in resolution (though you still need to quadruple pixels to double resolution) and a useful increase in cropping area.
I mostly agree with your point, though for you the decision is more difficult. The ergonimics of the D2h are to kill for, so an 8 mp D2h would purely be a resolution change. I can see how that might be worth it for many people. I seriously doubt that the Canon 20D can match the ergonomics of the D2h, but I have not tried the camera.
For people like myself, in 6 mp land, the differences are too subtle to be exciting.
--
Best regards,
Jonathan Kardell
'Most cameras and most lenses are better than most photographers.'
Jonathan Kardell
Veteran Member
In an absolute sense, I agree. The specs on the d20 were chosen so that it would FEEL like a big jump intellectually. In actuality, the two machines are not all that far apart. Elsewhere in this thread is a discussion of print size and resolution.
As far as the frame rates go, three vs five (in jpeg only) does not excite me. If you were a sports photographer shooting for a living, you would want 8 frames per second.
I can see how some people might really crave those extra two frames in a one second burst. If you fall into that category - more power to you! I prefer shooting in RAW mode, so I would never see those frame rates anyway.
From what I can gather, the viewfinder is very similar on both the D70 and the 20D. Both are smaller, darker cousins of the finders in the pro level bodies.
I don't really see a compelling reason to drool over the 20D. It is a very nice camera, it will be a success in the market, mostly because of clever specmanship, but also because of competent performance.
I am simply trying to put some real world practical perspective to work here. If five frames per second is really important to you, then you probably need 8 (unless it is for bragging rights). If you really feel that an extra inch and a half of print size is vital to your creativity, you really need a 1Ds (unless bragging rights are involved again).
So: 20D, nice camera, good picture quality, clever specs. Not earth shatteringly better than a D70.
To impress me, I would need 12 mp, 3 frames per second in RAW mode and the ergonomics of the D2h. That would be a worth while jump. This would yield a 50% increase in resolution and a useful increase in cropping ability. I would even settle for the ergonomics of the D70 if the price were right.
--
Best regards,
Jonathan Kardell
'Most cameras and most lenses are better than most photographers.'
Jon,
does doubling the resolution mean doubling the area or doubling the length and width?
Is a 10x10 inch double or four times the size of a 5x5inch papersheet?
Are you one of the guys who says it is possible to print DINA3 with great detail from 4MP?
I personally am someone who thinks that my 4MP d2h is great for DINA4 and for everything bigger its a compromise.
And each additional Pixel (if it has the same quality) will make it a better compromise. I do know though that the pixel of a 1D or d2h are better quality than these of most current 6MP cameras.
does doubling the resolution mean doubling the area or doubling the length and width?
Is a 10x10 inch double or four times the size of a 5x5inch papersheet?
Are you one of the guys who says it is possible to print DINA3 with great detail from 4MP?
I personally am someone who thinks that my 4MP d2h is great for DINA4 and for everything bigger its a compromise.
And each additional Pixel (if it has the same quality) will make it a better compromise. I do know though that the pixel of a 1D or d2h are better quality than these of most current 6MP cameras.
baliknight
Member
- Messages
- 12
- Reaction score
- 0
The specs on the 20D don't really do anything for me. Just another tiny incremental step in Canon's mid-range camera. The fps is a nice feature, and a point of interest for someone buying their 1st DSLR. Canon has given this camera enough umph to justify it's price over the Rebel, but not infringe on the pro cameras. Personally, I would've preferred to see a higher rez, slower camera to fill this niche.
This camera will do well, but it would be tough to consider it worth the upgrade from a D70, D100 or 10D (except focusing accuracy over the latter). Great for someone jumping in to digital, however, but not a "switch" camera like the 1Ds or MkII
This camera will do well, but it would be tough to consider it worth the upgrade from a D70, D100 or 10D (except focusing accuracy over the latter). Great for someone jumping in to digital, however, but not a "switch" camera like the 1Ds or MkII
Mikael Risedal
Veteran Member
You are totally wrong regarding the viewfinder.
If you have the chance , take a look and then tell my what you find regarding a comparison against D70. The difference is huge
best regards
If you have the chance , take a look and then tell my what you find regarding a comparison against D70. The difference is huge
best regards
They are in the same class.
The D70 is in the same class as the 300D.
--
Todd
http://www.muskopf.org
Fine Art Painter, Wannabe Photographer
The D70 is in the same class as the 300D.
--
Todd
http://www.muskopf.org
Fine Art Painter, Wannabe Photographer
Mikael Risedal
Veteran Member
Exactley , and the 20d with the new D200
so my conclusion and hope are that Nikon new D200 has a viewfinder crisp and clear as the new 20D.
best regards
so my conclusion and hope are that Nikon new D200 has a viewfinder crisp and clear as the new 20D.
best regards
a t o m i c
Veteran Member
Stefan Klein
Leading Member
The 1Ds's is not smaller, but the one of the 1D (as well as 1D MK2) is smaller, but still much larger than the D1x's.
Stefan
Stefan
Darrick
Forum Enthusiast
TAKE THIS THREAD OVER THERE.
Uncle Frank
Veteran Member
No, one's a proven performer, while the other is a press release.
--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Charter Member, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Gallery at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/nikon
--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Charter Member, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Gallery at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/nikon
Jonathan Kardell
Veteran Member
I am with you on this. The trigger point for "useful" upgrade, in my opinion, is double the pixels. This will translate into approximately a 50% increase in resolution. (quadruple the pixels to double resolution) It will also result in enough extra space to allow more flexible cropping.
While there is no doubt that the quality of the pixels is a crucial factor in the quality of the picture, in actual resolution terms it will still resolve at it's native pixel density. I love the quality of images that I see from properly exposed D2h and 1D cameras. No argument there. I personally crave more resolution than my 6 mp camera can deliver. This means (to me) something in the range of 12 mp. If I can also get better quality, I'll gratefully accept it.
--
Best regards,
Jonathan Kardell
'Most cameras and most lenses are better than most photographers.'
I am also not thrilled with those lenses but there is a 3rd option, a 10-22mm but it is also a slow (not f/2.8) lens.
Greg
Greg
--
To me it seemed, that at least in the first generations, the viewfinder of cameras was in relation to the crop factor. I think this was/is the case, because the bodies/viewfinder were originally made for full frame and then one would just crop/ blackout the unused area/frame.
If I look throuhg my 1D and my d2h I can not see such a "big" difference, (I can clearly see a difference but not a big one) in size. Looks more like 1.3 vs 1.5. The magnification could be different too, dont know about that.
Where I can see a difference that for some reason the color of my Canon viewfinder has a green/cold color-cast. The one of my Nikon is more accurate for some reason I dont know.
In the end I have to say that using either the 1D or d2h (or D30) before. When not switching all the time between different lenses then one gets used to what one has IMO.
Another thing I do not like about Canon is that they have 3 different crop factors in their lines - ff,1.3 and 1.6. Very hard to plan about lenses.
If I buy a 17-55 lens for Nikon today, I at least know it would work on all of their digital bodies. I also could add a D70 as backup to my d2h and would be fine. I also get PRO-DX-lenses for Nikon, not for Canon so far.
And I also could use the light Nikon-kit lens (which seems to be a good lens) on a pro body if I wanted.
Now with the 17-55/2.8, 12-24, a not too slow and pretty good kit-lens, with the 200/2.0 VR, 1.4, 1.7 amd 2.0 Converter I think Nikon does beat Canon in the lens line up again (IMO).
If I look throuhg my 1D and my d2h I can not see such a "big" difference, (I can clearly see a difference but not a big one) in size. Looks more like 1.3 vs 1.5. The magnification could be different too, dont know about that.
Where I can see a difference that for some reason the color of my Canon viewfinder has a green/cold color-cast. The one of my Nikon is more accurate for some reason I dont know.
In the end I have to say that using either the 1D or d2h (or D30) before. When not switching all the time between different lenses then one gets used to what one has IMO.
Another thing I do not like about Canon is that they have 3 different crop factors in their lines - ff,1.3 and 1.6. Very hard to plan about lenses.
If I buy a 17-55 lens for Nikon today, I at least know it would work on all of their digital bodies. I also could add a D70 as backup to my d2h and would be fine. I also get PRO-DX-lenses for Nikon, not for Canon so far.
And I also could use the light Nikon-kit lens (which seems to be a good lens) on a pro body if I wanted.
Now with the 17-55/2.8, 12-24, a not too slow and pretty good kit-lens, with the 200/2.0 VR, 1.4, 1.7 amd 2.0 Converter I think Nikon does beat Canon in the lens line up again (IMO).
fotogenetic
Veteran Member
The D70 does everything the D100 can and more. The D70 matches the D100 feature for feature with the exception of build and the ability to use a vertical shutter release. There really is no comparison to the 300D right now.
http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com
--
http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com
Victor Yeo
Member
Actually the D100 does have one other feature missing on the D70, mirror pre-fire.
Victor
Mike Griffin
Forum Enthusiast
I disagree too, the D70 was at the same price point as the 300D before Canon started heavily discounting the 300D therefore the D70 and the 300D are comparable. Interestingly this fact is also lost on those in the Canon forum who also insist on comparing the D70 to the forthcoming 20D. All this speaks volumes for the D70.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum