I've read through this entire thread and have several comments based solely on my experience with three 20d cameras.
After reading reviews on this site and others, and having previously owned a Canon Rebel 2000 (300) 35 mm SLR, I decided to purchase a Canon dSLR. The hardest choice was between a Rebel XT and the 20d. I decided on the 20d.
The first 20d I got could not take a sharp picture. I used it with both the 18-55 EFS kit lens, and a Vivitar 28-200 series 1 zoom that I had from my 35 mm camera. Not a single picture looked good, pictures with the flash looked even worse. I also called Canon, and their technical support stated that in the green dot mode it should take better pictures. I exchanged the camera for a second camera.
The second camera was only slightly better. Again Canon said the camera should work better, and they didn't rule out two defective cameras.
I then exchanged the second 20d. Bottom line, the third camera was obviously from a later production run. It had a totally different serial number, and had a later version of firmware (I don't think it was the firmware, only pointing out a later production run). The third camera was MUCH better than the other two. The first two were obviously defective. The third camera was capable of some very good pictures.
However, some of what I attributed to the first two was just the way the 20d works. I do believe that at least when not in the creative zone modes, the camera should work more like a typical camera. It already uses more agressive processing parameters. Basically, I consider the auto modes (at least the green dot) almost unusable.
I am not a novice photographer. I've been using 35 mm SLRs since about 1973. My most recent was a Canon Rebel 2000. That camera, with the 28-200 Vivitar Series 1 lens has taken many beautiful pictures. For snap shot, or fast shots, I can just put the Rebel 2000 in it's green dot or P mode, and shoot. Almost every time I would end up with at least an acceptable picture, and usually a near perfect one. Yes, other times I did use the creative zones, but never felt I HAD to.
If I shoot the same way on the 20d, with even the same lens, I get much worse results. I very quickly learned that unless I was very close, with a lot of ambient light, the flash was useless in the green dot mode. I very quickly started using the creative zones, at least P and bumped the flash exposure up about 1 to 1.5 stops. This helped significantly. I did need to review the histogram to make sure it was not overexposed, look for flashing areas, etc. Further away it gets even worse.
Compared to the built in flash in the Rebel 2000 it has been much worse. I believe this is a very reasonable comparison, and I believe the 20d should work as well, or better. All the hype over ETTL II, and what I get out of the camera is junk unless I manually tweak the exposure.
As far as sharpness, I also tend to agree with the thought that the camera should be sharper.
I knew that the Vivitar lens wasn't the best lens in the world, but like I previously said, I have taken some excellent 35 mm pictures with it.
So, within a week of having the 3rd 20d I ordered some lenses. I bought a Sigma 18-200 f3.5-6.3 DC series zoom, and a Canon 50 mm f1.8 mm prime lens. This is in addition to the 18-55mm kit lens, and the 28-200 Vivitar.
I will admit that with enough tweaking, I have been able to get some truly beautiful pictures out of the 20d, with several combinations of lenses. Still, I needed to sharpen them, tweak exposure and levels in Photoshop CS.
I did print both processed and original out of the camera versions of 4 x 6 prints at BOTH Costco and WalMart! While the out of camera pictures are acceptable in most cases, the difference in sharpness is visible even on a 4 x6. I did not get very aggressive. I used a 1 pixel radius and about 99 - 120 sharpening. I also printed pictures on a Canon I-950 photo printer with even more pronounced difference that the Costco or WalMart, even with a 4x6.
Many of the pictures also come out quite dark and murky. Many of them have enough dynamic range that they can be tweaked in photoshop. Others however are reallly beyond the range of reasonable correction and still getting a good picture.
Pictures with the internal flash are especially poor.
I do believe that at least in the green dot fully automatic mode, the camera should work pretty much like a P&S. It should at least be sharp, focused, and properly exposed, with or without a flash. Not only is this a reasonable expectation, it is what I experience with a Canon Rebel 2000 35 mm camera.
There is no excuse for the internal flash working so poorly. Again, I'm not expecting miracles, but if a take a picture 6 to 10 feet away, I expect a reasonable exposure.
Canon already has a creative zone, an image zone, and full auto. I fully believe that I should be able to put the camera in the green dot full auto mode, and get a picture as good, or better than a P&S.
I am not Canon bashing. I thought enough of my Rebel 2000 to buy another Canon. Even after 2 defective 20ds I stuck with it. I had very serious doubts after the second defective camera. Should I go with the Rebel XT, or even the Nikon D70? I stuck with Canon. After using the camera for a about a month and a half, I LOVE the way it operates. While I have a few gripes about the small dim display, overall I simply love using the camera. It's like shooting with a film SLR. The shutter delay and poor electronic or optical viewfinders are gone.
While I fully expect to run most pictures through a computer, I shouldn't NEED to. The camera does support PictBridge, this would imply that you can print right from the camera. My experience is that you will not get optimal results that way.
Conversely, the pictures from my Fuji Finepix 3800 are near perfect right out of the camera.
, I must have been unclear for you to take that interpretation.
