1. Better AF.
2. HDR sensor.
3. ISO 50.
4. Full frame.
--
My gallery- http://www.unnecessarybeauty.com/
2. HDR sensor.
3. ISO 50.
4. Full frame.
--
My gallery- http://www.unnecessarybeauty.com/
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
20D owners - what would you want in your next camera?
- Thread starter Joss Delage
- Start date
Endrick Man
Leading Member
A more competent "nut" on the end of the shutter button - it is all that is needed!!
Ian
Ian
I don't wish so much. As a birder I only wish my next camera to have the AF (ring of fire) just like the MKII. I don't care about other options.
Jan
RCDinsmore
Leading Member
There are only a few improvements I can think of that could be done while keeping it in the xxD line
1. All the current improvements from 30D (esp. larger LCD and 3 vs 5 fps)
2. Mirror lock-up button / additional programmable button
4. Better AF
1. Full frame at current 20D/30D pixel density - able to do 3 fps
2. Button to allow automatic 8 MP 1.6 crop from the center
4. Pop up flash for fill flash and to trigger slave flashes
1. All the current improvements from 30D (esp. larger LCD and 3 vs 5 fps)
2. Mirror lock-up button / additional programmable button
- they could just use the print button - easy fix
4. Better AF
- don't care about # of sensors really. I just use the center one
1. Full frame at current 20D/30D pixel density - able to do 3 fps
2. Button to allow automatic 8 MP 1.6 crop from the center
- this should be able to go 5 fps
4. Pop up flash for fill flash and to trigger slave flashes
canonballs
Leading Member
I apologize for a somewhat OT question, but I would be interested to hear meaningful answers.
--
canonballs
--
canonballs
picsaregreat
Well-known member
More easily to see viewfinder. I mess up more pictures when going from inside to outside because I forget to check my ISO and shutter speed. All I get is a white picture. Maybe this user will learn somehow to check.
John Sheehy
Forum Pro
I have a 400D as backup to my 20D, and I don't regret the fact one bit that the 20D is now only $180 more. I am really getting sick of my 20D's deteriorating dust problem. The camera generates 95% of the dust and all of the oil on my sensor, IMO. The 400D is supposedly made with materials that don't shred or spray inside the chamber. That makes me excited about the 30D successor. ( I certainly hope it doesn't have all those bogus ISOs, though).
Less readout noise would be a boon. Not only does it give you more DR, especially at lower ISOs, therefore making it safer to under-expose, but it makes files smaller, too.
This isn't going to happen; not without increasing pixel pitch, or losing resolution through binning or downsampling (which could be done outside the camera, anyway). Minimum real ISOs climb as cameras become more efficient in capturing light. The only way to effect those open apertures and long shutter times are with neutral density effects. There is no advantage, noise- or DR-wise, in doing this. Bring your own ND filters, and you are already there.
--
John
kopper
Leading Member
ABSOLUTELY!
A readable display in the viewfinder in ALL lighting conditions and including ISO.
You'd think this would just be common sense - and I'm sticking with my 20D until Canon corrects it.
kopper
--
http://www.kopperhead.com/Current%20Photos/CurrentIndex.html
http://www.kopperhead.com/PhotoArchive/ArchiveIndex.html
A readable display in the viewfinder in ALL lighting conditions and including ISO.
You'd think this would just be common sense - and I'm sticking with my 20D until Canon corrects it.
kopper
--
http://www.kopperhead.com/Current%20Photos/CurrentIndex.html
http://www.kopperhead.com/PhotoArchive/ArchiveIndex.html
John Sheehy
Forum Pro
1) RAW RGB histogram, with a readable highlight clipping level; not the totally worthless dotted, single line on current histograms. Three lines thick, and at the actual clipping level (many Canons clip RAW data well below 4095. I'd rather have a user setting for the clipping, for each ISO. Then one could work within the limitations of their favorite converter if they wanted. Or even just a line on the histogram to mark the user-selectable limit.
2) User-adjustable offset to metering. It is pathetic the way my 20D and 400D meter the same way (for about 1.25x the stated ISO), but the RAW data is a half-stop weaker in the 400D than in the 20D. I'd like to be able to set all cameras so that they meter the same for RAW exposure. EC has to be set about a half-stop higher on the 400D.
3) Auto-ISO manual exposure mode. I don't want bogus 1/3-stop ISOs ala the 30D for this. If they don't find a way to have progressively increasing and uncompromised noise at all ISOs, I'd rather have a system where the camera used a user-list of compromises on Av and Tv values to effect the same kind of push/pull you'd get with the bogus ISO. 1/3 stop of exposure can have far more impact on IQ than 1/3 stop of DOF or shutter speed. For example, I could make a list of what to compromise to get a full exposure (based on an EC setting like we use now in AE modes) with the one-stop ISO increments:
1 aperture
2 shutter speed
And if the camera felt the need for ISO 1250, it would use 1600 and open the aperture 1/3 stop, and if it needed ISO 1000, it would lengthen the exposure by 1/3 stop. You could put "nothing" in the list, too. OR disable the list completely and opt for the bogus ISOs, or one-stop granularity of exposure indices.
4) FEC that, as an option, is relative to the actual achieved exposure, rather than the attempted exposure. When you are working in very low light and you can't get a good ambient exposure at ISO 1600, the less light you have, the more your flash fill dominates the scene. To a certain extent, I'd rather have noise than white or red eyes and glare. A slider that was a fader between achieved and attempted exposure, with another setting to tell how many stops to allow exposure failure by before the slider is ignored any for any further flash reduction, could help get better balance in marginal cases.
--
John
2) User-adjustable offset to metering. It is pathetic the way my 20D and 400D meter the same way (for about 1.25x the stated ISO), but the RAW data is a half-stop weaker in the 400D than in the 20D. I'd like to be able to set all cameras so that they meter the same for RAW exposure. EC has to be set about a half-stop higher on the 400D.
3) Auto-ISO manual exposure mode. I don't want bogus 1/3-stop ISOs ala the 30D for this. If they don't find a way to have progressively increasing and uncompromised noise at all ISOs, I'd rather have a system where the camera used a user-list of compromises on Av and Tv values to effect the same kind of push/pull you'd get with the bogus ISO. 1/3 stop of exposure can have far more impact on IQ than 1/3 stop of DOF or shutter speed. For example, I could make a list of what to compromise to get a full exposure (based on an EC setting like we use now in AE modes) with the one-stop ISO increments:
1 aperture
2 shutter speed
And if the camera felt the need for ISO 1250, it would use 1600 and open the aperture 1/3 stop, and if it needed ISO 1000, it would lengthen the exposure by 1/3 stop. You could put "nothing" in the list, too. OR disable the list completely and opt for the bogus ISOs, or one-stop granularity of exposure indices.
4) FEC that, as an option, is relative to the actual achieved exposure, rather than the attempted exposure. When you are working in very low light and you can't get a good ambient exposure at ISO 1600, the less light you have, the more your flash fill dominates the scene. To a certain extent, I'd rather have noise than white or red eyes and glare. A slider that was a fader between achieved and attempted exposure, with another setting to tell how many stops to allow exposure failure by before the slider is ignored any for any further flash reduction, could help get better balance in marginal cases.
--
John
A moderately rich, clueless one who keeps me in dry, dust-free storage all of the time and hardly takes photos - just enough to ensure that my batteries never drain completely and the moving parts don't seize up. Let the other cameras die in a blaze of glory.
Failing that, someone who doesn't blame me for 99% of the bad photos that's not my fault.
Failing that, someone who doesn't blame me for 99% of the bad photos that's not my fault.
1 - Anti dust sensor cleaning
2 - Anti dust sensor cleaning
3 - Better spread of AF points
4 - Auto ISO
5 - Better viewfinder
2 - Anti dust sensor cleaning
3 - Better spread of AF points
4 - Auto ISO
5 - Better viewfinder
Justme
Forum Pro
I'd settle for more sensitive AF points like the centre one on the 20D. That anti dust sensor cleaning I think will make its way into the 30D replacement.
I still use the wheel to select AF points because I don't like using that small joystick button....not fast enough or accurate enough....hey, wouldn't it be great if Canon implemented voice-activated AF point selection (oops, you did say stay realistic but I bet something like that can be implemented).
How about a glare resistant LCD so it can be viewed clearly in bright daylight?
--
I know you mean well but please do not embed my images into the forum. Thanks for respecting that.
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/some_recent_shots
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/great_gray_owls
ThaQuest
Senior Member
Well, I Just got my 30D a few days ago, but what the heck! Here goes...
1) Better Dynamic Range (although it already has good performance)
2) Bigger viewfinder (not a huge problem though)
3) New location for the on/off switch (really annoying!) Make a switch around the shutter like Nikon, and include the LCD light option as well.
4) Bigger buttons on the back of the camera
5) Print button replaced by TWO customizable buttons
6) I could care less about megapixels. Stick with 8 and I'm still happy.
7) Better high ISO performance (as if it already wasn't good enough)
Here's hoping for all these features on the 40D next year!
--
Daily Photos of China ---> http://www.xanga.com/jessewarren
1) Better Dynamic Range (although it already has good performance)
2) Bigger viewfinder (not a huge problem though)
3) New location for the on/off switch (really annoying!) Make a switch around the shutter like Nikon, and include the LCD light option as well.
4) Bigger buttons on the back of the camera
5) Print button replaced by TWO customizable buttons
6) I could care less about megapixels. Stick with 8 and I'm still happy.
7) Better high ISO performance (as if it already wasn't good enough)
Here's hoping for all these features on the 40D next year!
--
Daily Photos of China ---> http://www.xanga.com/jessewarren
Wayne Larmon
Forum Pro
At least Nikon has a term for it. What would Canon call it? ST-E2 mode? Meaning that the pop-up camera flash is capable of controlling external E-TTL flashes. The Nikon D80 can do this.
And in camera IS. I'm watching the competition and this is likely the single thing that would make me switch. I can live without the Commander mode, because this can be solved rather inexpensively. But there is no fixing the lack of in camera IS. Well, not unless Canon retroactively adds IS to every existing lens. And all the EOS mount third party lenses, also. In camera IS is a big deal.
Wayne
And in camera IS. I'm watching the competition and this is likely the single thing that would make me switch. I can live without the Commander mode, because this can be solved rather inexpensively. But there is no fixing the lack of in camera IS. Well, not unless Canon retroactively adds IS to every existing lens. And all the EOS mount third party lenses, also. In camera IS is a big deal.
Wayne
...is have more time to take the pictures and spend less time pp. So, if I could get that Velvia (or Portra, or whatever) right out of the camera without spending so much time at the computer I would be happy. Sounds more like a DPP issue than 20d. Right now, it seems I'm spending more time looking at a computer screen than looking through the viewfinder.
i'm surprised nobody has mentioned (1) SPOT METERING?
Along with that i would also like :
(2) More accurate metering
(3) Improved CMOS technology to curb the highlight blown-out issue which is apparent in CMOS, at least comparable to Sony's CCDs found in Nikon bodies.
Cheers.
Along with that i would also like :
(2) More accurate metering
(3) Improved CMOS technology to curb the highlight blown-out issue which is apparent in CMOS, at least comparable to Sony's CCDs found in Nikon bodies.
Cheers.
adam c
Leading Member
I love my 20D, but I would probably upgrade for:
Reset to chosen default settings (preferably about 3 of these!) so that after a day of shooting, a quick trip to the menu will revert ALL settings on the camera back to my favourite starting points. Better still if there were at least 3 of these, so the whole camera could be almost instantly customised for 3 or more differnt shooting environments.
Auto ISO
Built in IS
Wireless flash control
I'm not too fussed about full frame, if I wanted that I'd be looking at the 5D, not the 20D/30D replacement.
Weather sealing would be great, but I'm prepared to accept this is possibly also for the upper levels.
WHAT I DON'T NEED:
More megapixels! Very rarely do I need more than I have.
More shots per second. Nice, but would in no way affect my decision.
Reset to chosen default settings (preferably about 3 of these!) so that after a day of shooting, a quick trip to the menu will revert ALL settings on the camera back to my favourite starting points. Better still if there were at least 3 of these, so the whole camera could be almost instantly customised for 3 or more differnt shooting environments.
Auto ISO
Built in IS
Wireless flash control
I'm not too fussed about full frame, if I wanted that I'd be looking at the 5D, not the 20D/30D replacement.
Weather sealing would be great, but I'm prepared to accept this is possibly also for the upper levels.
WHAT I DON'T NEED:
More megapixels! Very rarely do I need more than I have.
More shots per second. Nice, but would in no way affect my decision.
martin surovcek
Senior Member
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum