10d v 20d

I am sometimes amazed reading the threads especialy when a new product appears on the scene. I have had the chance to view and compare both cameras and I was most suprised that with regard to picture quality i could not see a difference. The 10d in fact felt more substantial in my hands. I feel the changes are perhaps a marketing ploy and only if you were photaraphing sports events it could be perhaps worth while. If not then the change would be money badly spent. I feel they could have kept going with the 10d until a substantial improvement was made and I have to ask, is that posible?

Richard said:

I am sometimes amazed reading the threads especialy when a new
product appears on the scene. I have had the chance to view and
compare both cameras and I was most suprised that with regard to
picture quality i could not see a difference. The 10d in fact felt
more substantial in my hands. I feel the changes are perhaps a
marketing ploy and only if you were photaraphing sports events it
could be perhaps worth while. If not then the change would be money
badly spent. I feel they could have kept going with the 10d until a
substantial improvement was made and I have to ask, is that posible?

Click to expand...

I consider the 20D to offer substantial improvements over the 10D, including image quality. My 20D images appear to have more dynamic range, have much less noise and/or much more pleasing rendition of that noise (especially at higher ISO), and offer more room for cropping. The overall handling of the cameras is better, and quicker, with a better menu layout (after you get used to the smaller size and lighter weight of the 20D). Autofocus is better and more sensitive, particularly in lower light. I also like the placement of the additional autofocus sensors, which I find valuable for flash shooting as well as non-flash compositions. As for flash shooting, E-TTL2 is a noticeable improvement over E-TTL1. Write speeds to the CF card are MUCH faster now. And so is start up. Probably most significant to me is that I shoot at ISO 800 and even ISO 1600 much more than I ever did with my 10D. The high ISO images look that good. All in all, these are all significant improvements to me, and I don't even shoot sports events. I've been shooting with a 10D for over a year, and I was in need of a second body. I appreciate that I was able to get a much improved camera for the same price, rather than merely the same camera that I bought over a year ago. Obviously, if you're happy with your 10D, stick with it. But I hardly think buying the 20D was "money badly spent." In fact, I find my 20D is a much better value than the 10D. And just because you don't think the 20D is "substantial" enough in improvements doesn't mean you should deny the rest of us the opportunity to take advantage of these improvements. Choice is good. Improvement is good. I don't want them coming out with an updated body every four years like they were the Olympics.

Sounds like you're looking for moral support for a decision not to spend $1500. I think Oprah has a forum.

Richard said:

I am sometimes amazed reading the threads especialy when a new
product appears on the scene. I have had the chance to view and
compare both cameras and I was most suprised that with regard to
picture quality i could not see a difference. The 10d in fact felt
more substantial in my hands. I feel the changes are perhaps a
marketing ploy and only if you were photaraphing sports events it
could be perhaps worth while. If not then the change would be money
badly spent. I feel they could have kept going with the 10d until a
substantial improvement was made and I have to ask, is that posible?

Click to expand...

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

You are not doing a fair comparison. You should compare what 10D has for $1200 and what 20D has for $1500. Are the improvements worth the $300 difference? I think so.

Of course, you already have a 10D, spend $1500 to get the $300 improvement does not seem to worth it, but you get a new camera. So many people like you that do not feel to upgrade maybe making a smart decision. But I do not see 20D is just marketing scheme try to get to upgrade.

I do not have a 10D, and when I compare 10D and 20D, it is an easy decision to pick 20D over 10D.

Richard said:

I am sometimes amazed reading the threads especialy when a new
product appears on the scene. I have had the chance to view and
compare both cameras and I was most suprised that with regard to
picture quality i could not see a difference. The 10d in fact felt
more substantial in my hands. I feel the changes are perhaps a
marketing ploy and only if you were photaraphing sports events it
could be perhaps worth while. If not then the change would be money
badly spent. I feel they could have kept going with the 10d until a
substantial improvement was made and I have to ask, is that posible?

Click to expand...

Sorry, but there are very big differences in a number of areas with the 20D over the 10D - as I have my 10D right next to my 20D:

White balance is nailed on the 20D and flat/blue on the 10D.

exposure is much better on the 20D - blown highlights are much better controlled.

Shutter speeds are greatly improved

iso noise is stunning. I can get much faster shutter speeds with a lot less noise than before.

Speed of use is not related to image quality. But being on in less than .4 of a second and taking 12 photos and immediately being able to scan thru them without having to wait is actually a VERY big thing once you've used it. Makes the 10D feel like it's struggling in comparison.

Last but not least, you can now hit the "Info" button after displaying the image and toggle between Display WITH shutter/Ap. setting displayed on the screen, Image with histogram AND AND AND Display WITH NO VALUE SETTINGS AT ALL. This is wonderful since I always hated having to see images with the numbers over the top of the image.

A number of fellow LACDG members (non-official camera club for Los Angeles) told me that of all the upgrades, the 10D to 20D update was the biggest in regards to image quality and ease of use. I have to agree with them.

I was not going to upgrade, but I purchased 3 lenses (triple rebates, baby!):
50mm f1.4
17-40 f4L
70-200 f4L

And with the higer iso with lower noise, I can use these f4 lenses in places I could not before to get great shots.

LASTLY - at 8.3 megapixel, I can take shots with the 70-200 f4 with a teleconverter and crop them and still have much better resolution photos than with the 10D so the need for a larger 100-400mm lens might not be needed.

The 10D is a great camera and I agree 100% that is FEELS better in your hands becuase of the ergonomic layout, but man - you have to not be in denial that there are SERIOUS upgrades under the hood of the 20D that make it a very very worthwhile upgrade.

Gotta get back to work,
John Lehmkuhl
--
*********************************************************
Los Angeles Canon digital SLR Group -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lacdg/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/realkuhl
Lens Example Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/realkuhl/lens_examples

zwen said:

You are not doing a fair comparison. You should compare what 10D
has for $1200 and what 20D has for $1500. Are the improvements
worth the $300 difference? I think so.

Of course, you already have a 10D, spend $1500 to get the $300
improvement does not seem to worth it, but you get a new camera. So
many people like you that do not feel to upgrade maybe making a
smart decision. But I do not see 20D is just marketing scheme try
to get to upgrade.

Click to expand...

Another way of looking at it is that the 10D was designed almost two years ago, and technology has improved since then. So when you are investing in a 20D, you are buying into almost two years of technological refinement. Plus, a lot of people who have the D60 did not find the 10D to be enough of a difference, so they did not upgrade at that time. Now they are upgrading with the 20D. So there is nothing wrong with skipping a generation before upgrading. And with shorter times between models, you don't have to wait as long as if they upgraded less often (like Richard was suggesting keeping the 10D around for longer without an update).

I mean really, it only has 30% more gross megapixels, significantly better noise control, starts 10 times faster, writes 400% faster, shoots nearly 200% faster, has a substantially improved AF system, faster flash sync, E-TTL2 support, better viewfinder, more dynamic range, instantaneous image review (you could wait nearly a minute on the 10D), and a host of other improvements.

Why did they bother?!

Richard said:

I am sometimes amazed reading the threads especialy when a new
product appears on the scene. I have had the chance to view and
compare both cameras and I was most suprised that with regard to
picture quality i could not see a difference. The 10d in fact felt
more substantial in my hands. I feel the changes are perhaps a
marketing ploy and only if you were photaraphing sports events it
could be perhaps worth while. If not then the change would be money
badly spent. I feel they could have kept going with the 10d until a
substantial improvement was made and I have to ask, is that posible?

Click to expand...

--
Things that make you go, hmmmm...

Shoot with a 20D for one week then go back to the 10D. The 10D is a good camera, but you will feel like you have a snail by the tail!

MarvC

The 10D is a cash cow.

I meant to say the 20D is a cash cow...I need to get my camera insults straight.

The speed for sports and the speed of review is wonderful. If you are happy, stay where you are. I found it enough to want to upgrade.

Most of the time[90%+] the 10D is fine.10-22mm WA ,faster ,more MP's are great on the 20D. I too like the "feel" of the 10D better.

You can think of 20D as baby 1DmkII machine.
20D costs 1/3 of 1DmkII.

Richard said:

I am sometimes amazed reading the threads especialy when a new
product appears on the scene. I have had the chance to view and
compare both cameras and I was most suprised that with regard to
picture quality i could not see a difference. The 10d in fact felt
more substantial in my hands. I feel the changes are perhaps a
marketing ploy and only if you were photaraphing sports events it
could be perhaps worth while. If not then the change would be money
badly spent. I feel they could have kept going with the 10d until a
substantial improvement was made and I have to ask, is that posible?

Click to expand...

I have both the 10D and the 20D and other than the 10D being sooooooooo much slower, heavier, bulkier, noisier, having a weaker flash algorithm, slower and less accurate AF and Servo mode, shorter battery life, it's essentially the same camera.. lol.. =P

seriously, i could never go back to the 10D just for the slow review speed and buffer clear/CF write time..

it doesn't make me a better photographer, but i don't care.. =P

jay

GagBagger said:

I mean really, it only has 30% more gross megapixels, significantly
better noise control, starts 10 times faster, writes 400% faster,
shoots nearly 200% faster, has a substantially improved AF system,
faster flash sync, E-TTL2 support, better viewfinder, more dynamic
range, instantaneous image review (you could wait nearly a minute
on the 10D), and a host of other improvements.

Why did they bother?!

Click to expand...