Reading mode: Light Dark

Out of the loop - are newer cameras that much better? (20D to now)

Go to last post
C

CybrSlydr

Leading Member
Messages
575
Reaction score
145
Location
Casper, WY, US
I used to own a Canon 20D. I absolutely loved that camera. I had many a good memory and had a great time with it before I ended up having to sell my gear. This was years and years ago (the 30D had just come out).

Now I'm back and considering jumping in again. Looking at prices, my old faithful 20D can be had for around $250 ( BH P&V - $250 ). Not bad when I paid just over $800 for it new with kit lens. Which brings me to my question.

Over the years, has IQ really improved that much over my old 20D? Is a new body like the 7D or 60D worth it? (I'm actually looking at 50D as I want a Magnesium body, not plastic)

All of these new cameras have features I don't want. I don't care about live view. I don't care about 1080p video. I buy a camera to take pictures. And we all know the vast majority of money is better spent on glass than a body. I just feel like buying a new camera I'm spending money on things I won't use - essentially wasting money.

I mean, man, we're on Digic 5 now. I think my 20D had Digic 2. With all of the innovations Canon has made in the intervening years, for someone that's as fond of the 20D such as myself, is what they put in it really worth it?
 
CybrSlydr said:
CybrSlydr wrote:

I used to own a Canon 20D. I absolutely loved that camera. I had many a good memory and had a great time with it before I ended up having to sell my gear. This was years and years ago (the 30D had just come out).

Now I'm back and considering jumping in again. Looking at prices, my old faithful 20D can be had for around $250 ( BH P&V - $250 ). Not bad when I paid just over $800 for it new with kit lens. Which brings me to my question.

Over the years, has IQ really improved that much over my old 20D? Is a new body like the 7D or 60D worth it? (I'm actually looking at 50D as I want a Magnesium body, not plastic)

All of these new cameras have features I don't want. I don't care about live view. I don't care about 1080p video. I buy a camera to take pictures. And we all know the vast majority of money is better spent on glass than a body. I just feel like buying a new camera I'm spending money on things I won't use - essentially wasting money.

I mean, man, we're on Digic 5 now. I think my 20D had Digic 2. With all of the innovations Canon has made in the intervening years, for someone that's as fond of the 20D such as myself, is what they put in it really worth it?
Click to expand...
 
CybrSlydr said:
CybrSlydr wrote:

I used to own a Canon 20D. I absolutely loved that camera. I had many a good memory and had a great time with it before I ended up having to sell my gear. This was years and years ago (the 30D had just come out).

Now I'm back and considering jumping in again. Looking at prices, my old faithful 20D can be had for around $250 ( BH P&V - $250 ). Not bad when I paid just over $800 for it new with kit lens. Which brings me to my question.

Over the years, has IQ really improved that much over my old 20D? Is a new body like the 7D or 60D worth it? (I'm actually looking at 50D as I want a Magnesium body, not plastic)

All of these new cameras have features I don't want. I don't care about live view. I don't care about 1080p video. I buy a camera to take pictures. And we all know the vast majority of money is better spent on glass than a body. I just feel like buying a new camera I'm spending money on things I won't use - essentially wasting money.

I mean, man, we're on Digic 5 now. I think my 20D had Digic 2. With all of the innovations Canon has made in the intervening years, for someone that's as fond of the 20D such as myself, is what they put in it really worth it?
Click to expand...
 
CybrSlydr said:
CybrSlydr wrote:

I used to own a Canon 20D. I absolutely loved that camera. I had many a good memory and had a great time with it before I ended up having to sell my gear. This was years and years ago (the 30D had just come out).

Now I'm back and considering jumping in again. Looking at prices, my old faithful 20D can be had for around $250 ( BH P&V - $250 ). Not bad when I paid just over $800 for it new with kit lens. Which brings me to my question.

Over the years, has IQ really improved that much over my old 20D? Is a new body like the 7D or 60D worth it? (I'm actually looking at 50D as I want a Magnesium body, not plastic)

All of these new cameras have features I don't want. I don't care about live view. I don't care about 1080p video. I buy a camera to take pictures. And we all know the vast majority of money is better spent on glass than a body. I just feel like buying a new camera I'm spending money on things I won't use - essentially wasting money.

I mean, man, we're on Digic 5 now. I think my 20D had Digic 2. With all of the innovations Canon has made in the intervening years, for someone that's as fond of the 20D such as myself, is what they put in it really worth it?
Click to expand...
Biggest difference is, of course, double the resolution to 18 mp in the 60D/7D (20 mp for the 70D) while also giving better high ISO performance than the old 20D. If you're not interested in video, don't use it. It's virtually a free additional feature. wrt live view and articulated monitors, those are very useful additions even if you don't think you need them now.

If you must have magnesium body (why?) then picking up a used or refurb (if available) 50D would be a good way to go, and more economical than a 7D.

--
Unapologetic Canon Apologist :-)
 
Last edited:
Well, the short answer is: it depends.

I used a 20d for years, then a 1dIII and now a 5dIII.

The 5dIII image quality is in another league. The amount of image detail, dynamic range and shadow detail is truly impressive - and that is compared to my 1dIII (which was in another league from the 20d). So, technology has certainly helped improve things - especially when you don't nail everything perfectly in-camera or if you have a subject that requires high dynamic range.

And, as mentioned by others - the megapixels definitely help.

Having said all the above, Canon's aps-c sensors for the last couple generations have really lagged behind the competition. The Sony sensors used by them, Pentax and Nikon really do seem to out-perform Canon. This is not to say they are bad - they're just not as good as the competition. The 20d had class-leading sensor performance.

Now, the other thing Canon has done - big shout out to Nikon for forcing Canon to do it - is they really had to push high end focusing down to non 1 series cameras. xxxD cameras today carry the 60d type focus system. 7d and new 70d carry a much more advanced focus system. 5dIII finally brought a pro-grade focus system to 5-series (although 1dx still beats it by most reports).

Of course, not everything is roses. Canon replaced the higher-quality metal body in the 20d with less robust construction in the 60d.
 
John_A_G said:
John_A_G wrote:

Well, the short answer is: it depends.

I used a 20d for years, then a 1dIII and now a 5dIII.

The 5dIII image quality is in another league. The amount of image detail, dynamic range and shadow detail is truly impressive - and that is compared to my 1dIII (which was in another league from the 20d). So, technology has certainly helped improve things - especially when you don't nail everything perfectly in-camera or if you have a subject that requires high dynamic range.

And, as mentioned by others - the megapixels definitely help.

Having said all the above, Canon's aps-c sensors for the last couple generations have really lagged behind the competition. The Sony sensors used by them, Pentax and Nikon really do seem to out-perform Canon. This is not to say they are bad - they're just not as good as the competition. The 20d had class-leading sensor performance.

Now, the other thing Canon has done - big shout out to Nikon for forcing Canon to do it - is they really had to push high end focusing down to non 1 series cameras. xxxD cameras today carry the 60d type focus system. 7d and new 70d carry a much more advanced focus system. 5dIII finally brought a pro-grade focus system to 5-series (although 1dx still beats it by most reports).

Of course, not everything is roses. Canon replaced the higher-quality metal body in the 20d with less robust construction in the 60d.
Click to expand...
Not that I'm ignoring the other posts, I just have quick question as this discussion continues - you say that the APS-C sensors are lagging, how are Canon's full-frame sensors (6D+)?

I appreciate everyone's thoughts thus far - please, keep them coming. :)
 
I completely agree with CybrSlydr.

The benefits of the newer bodies is the LCD. Image quality wise, the 20D with good to great glass is still a wonderful camera when compared to the others. I still have my 20D and a 7D. I don't even use the extra features on the 7D and can't say that the AF is faster due to the way I shoot events; I'm not a crazy rapid shooter.

No matter what, once you have great glass on any of these cameras and you properly use it images will look great. Function wise I see no huge difference because I shoot more deliberate than some.
 
If you're talking anything below ISO 800, nope - I still use my 30D, went for better lenses rather than upgrade the camera. I would sure like to have Live View to use my macro extension tubes; an electronic level would also come in handy as many of my 10-22 shots come out tilted. I would also like to be able to take pictures in low light.

While video sounds nice, particularly in the 70D, I think one needs to master photography to even start talking about video, which among other things requires good audio.

The other way of looking at it is you can get a decent used camera for peanuts - lenses, well those don't come down in price...
 
I use my 20D constantly, because it is very old and way overdue to die. Thus I am not afraid to keep it under towels and blankets of the back floorboard, and thus available at all times.


This girl happened to walk across the country road and then turn to look back at my car.

So the 20D is great.

That said I would still move up to at least a 50D. The menus are so much better and the back screen is great. Plus it does a self cleaning of the sensor each time you turn it on. And it handles noise somewhat better and has higher ISO available.

Also, there is a program to see how many shutter actuations are on a camera, but it only works for 40D and newer. It is really nice to know just how used a camera really is.

I just bought a 40D with 22K clicks for my son off eBay for $250 USD.

The 50Ds seem to be closer to $400, but if the jump from 200 to 400 USD will not kill you I would get at least a 40D and preferably a 50D.

If you do not mind manual focus you can get some pretty good values in legacy lenses and get a focus confirm adapter. I did that with a Olympus 50mm f/1.4 and a Mamiya 135 f/2.8 and have gotten some good shots. But do not try for fast moving stuff like kids and pets.




Mamiya 135/f2.8 on 20D heavily cropped.

enjoy whatever you get!

whvick
 

Attachments

  • 2676136.jpg
    2676136.jpg
    2.4 MB · Views: 0
Alastair Norcross said:
Alastair Norcross wrote:
Alastair Norcross said:
CybrSlydr wrote:

I used to own a Canon 20D. I absolutely loved that camera. I had many a good memory and had a great time with it before I ended up having to sell my gear. This was years and years ago (the 30D had just come out).

Now I'm back and considering jumping in again. Looking at prices, my old faithful 20D can be had for around $250 ( BH P&V - $250 ). Not bad when I paid just over $800 for it new with kit lens. Which brings me to my question.

Over the years, has IQ really improved that much over my old 20D? Is a new body like the 7D or 60D worth it? (I'm actually looking at 50D as I want a Magnesium body, not plastic)

All of these new cameras have features I don't want. I don't care about live view. I don't care about 1080p video. I buy a camera to take pictures. And we all know the vast majority of money is better spent on glass than a body. I just feel like buying a new camera I'm spending money on things I won't use - essentially wasting money.

I mean, man, we're on Digic 5 now. I think my 20D had Digic 2. With all of the innovations Canon has made in the intervening years, for someone that's as fond of the 20D such as myself, is what they put in it really worth it?
Click to expand...
I still own a 20D, though I don't use it anymore (my son has it). That still is a great camera. By the way, how did you get it new with a lens for $800? I've also owned the 50D, and now the 7D. The 50D is a decent step up from the 20D. The main differences I saw and liked were the AF and the much better LCD. Even if you don't use live view, you will appreciate how much easier it is to review your shots on the 50D's 3inch LCD, which can zoom right in for critical focus. The AF is also improved, with all the points being cross-type. I found that made the outer points more reliable than on the 20D, though I never really had any complaints about the 20D's AF. The 15MP give you more cropping room, and greater possibility for very large prints (though I have perfectly good 20 X 30 posters even from my 6MP Digital Rebel). I found the high ISO performance was up to a stop better for a given viewing size. The 50D feels almost exactly the same in the hands as the 20D, which is a good thing. The 7D has even better AF than the 50D. About as good as you can get, short of the 1DX or 5D3. It's also very fast, and has a nicer viewfinder. I probably noticed a bigger difference overall between the 50D and the 7D than between the 20D and 50D, but most of it wasn't in picture quality (though the 7D does have a bit better IQ than the 50D).

I hope this helps. Good luck.
Click to expand...
+1

The one thing I found moving from the 50D to the 7D, was that the 7D was just enough larger and heavier that I didn't feel it was a good everyday camera. It is great for sports photography, but, I ended up purchasing a used Rebel XTi to have as a everyday camera.

The 50D is a great camera. It hasn't dropped significantly in prices, partially because Magic Lantern has added new life to it. It is the only APS-C camera that can shoot continuous near 1080P RAW video, due to its fast UDMA 7 CF card interface.

The 50D has always been a great photo camera, and still has a frame rate and RAW buffer that stands up to many newer cameras.
 
Just to give further direction, when I buy a camera, I buy to take the best picture possible. IQ is the #1 concern only followed by price.

When talking about my 20D vs the newer cameras of today I wonder how much better a picture they take.

Thank you all for your continued contributions! I'm liking what I'm reading.
 
CybrSlydr said:
CybrSlydr wrote:

Just to give further direction, when I buy a camera, I buy to take the best picture possible. IQ is the #1 concern only followed by price.

When talking about my 20D vs the newer cameras of today I wonder how much better a picture they take.

Thank you all for your continued contributions! I'm liking what I'm reading.
Click to expand...
How much have you improved as a photographer since then? ;-)

Half serious and half kidding. In good conditions the 20D is capable of taking just as good of photographs as the newest cameras.

Newer cameras give you more megapixels to crop, making up for poor composition or adding a little reach to lenses. Newer cameras give you better high ISO performance, but, nothing that exceeds the capability of good off camera lighting. Newer cameras have Lens Micro Focus Adjustment, which can help if your lenses focus is a little off.

One of the nice things about Canon is as they add new features to cameras, they incorporate those in Canon Digital Photo Professional (which has improved significantly over the years). So if you shoot RAW, or even have RAW files from your past 20D, you can process them in DPP and get the latest noise reduction and sharpening routines, as well as access to tools like Canon's Digital Lens Optimizer .
 
TTMartin said:
TTMartin wrote:

How much have you improved as a photographer since then? ;-)

Half serious and half kidding. In good conditions the 20D is capable of taking just as good of photographs as the newest cameras.

Newer cameras give you more megapixels to crop, making up for poor composition or adding a little reach to lenses. Newer cameras give you better high ISO performance, but, nothing that exceeds the capability of good off camera lighting. Newer cameras have Lens Micro Focus Adjustment, which can help if your lenses focus is a little off.

One of the nice things about Canon is as they add new features to cameras, they incorporate those in Canon Digital Photo Professional (which has improved significantly over the years). So if you shoot RAW, or even have RAW files from your past 20D, you can process them in DPP and get the latest noise reduction and sharpening routines, as well as access to tools like Canon's Digital Lens Optimizer .
Click to expand...
I'll be honest - since I've sold my gear, I've not done much of any photography outside of my smartphones. I also never had any formal training when I was using my 20D either. So, I would say I've lost a bit. I've never done any "professional" (paid) photography but I enjoy it. I see myself like firmly in the enthusiast group.

I typically shot in Apeture priority and let the camera do the rest. Manual on a few occasions. I had the 18-55 kit lens, the 50 f/1.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8L (non IS). I thought controlling DoF was the most important part. And I was typically ok with the ISO the camera chose as well as shutter speed (I also had a decent tri-pod).

Again, it's just that from experience and reading many other posters over the years, the smart money is on the glass. You buy cheap glass, you get cheap results. So I'm just trying to justify spending over $1000 on a body and then more for good glass when I could just buy another 20D for $300 and spend $1200 on good glass.

Thank you all for your continued contributions - you've swayed me enough that I'm now looking long and hard at the 70D or the 7D.
 
CybrSlydr said:
CybrSlydr wrote:

I'll be honest - since I've sold my gear, I've not done much of any photography outside of my smartphones. I also never had any formal training when I was using my 20D either. So, I would say I've lost a bit. I've never done any "professional" (paid) photography but I enjoy it. I see myself like firmly in the enthusiast group.

I typically shot in Apeture priority and let the camera do the rest. Manual on a few occasions. I had the 18-55 kit lens, the 50 f/1.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8L (non IS). I thought controlling DoF was the most important part. And I was typically ok with the ISO the camera chose as well as shutter speed (I also had a decent tri-pod).

Again, it's just that from experience and reading many other posters over the years, the smart money is on the glass. You buy cheap glass, you get cheap results. So I'm just trying to justify spending over $1000 on a body and then more for good glass when I could just buy another 20D for $300 and spend $1200 on good glass.

Thank you all for your continued contributions - you've swayed me enough that I'm now looking long and hard at the 70D or the 7D.
Click to expand...
I own the 7D, but, my recommendation would be for the 70D.

The 70D gives you most all of the features of the 7D, in a smaller and lighter camera.

You get increased resolution from the 70D with its 40 million photosite / 20 megapixel sensor. The 70D also has more even noise at high ISO, it takes both noise reduction and sharpening better than the 7D. Meaning you gain a full stop advantage with the 70D.

Both cameras have the same degree of water and dust resistance.

The biggest differences is you can probably pick up a used 7D for a lot less than the 70D. But, the trade off is a much larger and heavier camera.

One comment on lenses. Canon has significantly improved the image quality of their STM lenses. You get first generation L lens image quality from the STM lenses. So, don't be quick to dismiss the 18-55 STM 'kit' lens of the 70D. Which may save you money over buying a 7D and upgrading the lens.
 
Last edited:
TTMartin said:
TTMartin wrote:

I own the 7D, but, my recommendation would be for the 70D.

The 70D gives you most all of the features of the 7D, in a smaller and lighter camera.

You get increased resolution from the 70D with its 40 million photosite / 20 megapixel sensor. The 70D also has more even noise at high ISO, it takes both noise reduction and sharpening better than the 7D. Meaning you gain a full stop advantage with the 70D.

Both cameras have the same degree of water and dust resistance.

The biggest differences is you can probably pick up a used 7D for a lot less than the 70D. But, the trade off is a much larger and heavier camera.

One comment on lenses. Canon has significantly improved the image quality of their STM lenses. You get first generation L lens image quality from the STM lenses. So, don't be quick to dismiss the 18-55 STM 'kit' lens of the 70D. Which may save you money over buying a 7D and upgrading the lens.
Click to expand...
Wow - the STM are that good? I loved my 70-200. I wondered what in the world that STM stuff was.

Loading…

farm1.staticflickr.com

Loading…

farm1.staticflickr.com

Those are a couple of my favorites and probably my best shots - they were both taken with the 70-200. You're saying the STM lenses are at least, if not better, than those?
 
CybrSlydr said:
CybrSlydr wrote:
CybrSlydr said:
TTMartin wrote:

I own the 7D, but, my recommendation would be for the 70D.

The 70D gives you most all of the features of the 7D, in a smaller and lighter camera.

You get increased resolution from the 70D with its 40 million photosite / 20 megapixel sensor. The 70D also has more even noise at high ISO, it takes both noise reduction and sharpening better than the 7D. Meaning you gain a full stop advantage with the 70D.

Both cameras have the same degree of water and dust resistance.

The biggest differences is you can probably pick up a used 7D for a lot less than the 70D. But, the trade off is a much larger and heavier camera.

One comment on lenses. Canon has significantly improved the image quality of their STM lenses. You get first generation L lens image quality from the STM lenses. So, don't be quick to dismiss the 18-55 STM 'kit' lens of the 70D. Which may save you money over buying a 7D and upgrading the lens.
Click to expand...
Wow - the STM are that good? I loved my 70-200. I wondered what in the world that STM stuff was.
Click to expand...
STM actually refers to the type of focus motor. It is not directly related to image quality. But, they are newer lenses with computer design and manufacturing, that is what gives them the jump in image quality.
CybrSlydr said:
http://farm1.staticflickr.com/203/462471722_83b1a05a4c_b.jpg

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/79/245926181_6bba4de572_b.jpg
Click to expand...
Great pictures!
CybrSlydr said:
Those are a couple of my favorites and probably my best shots - they were both taken with the 70-200. You're saying the STM lenses are at least, if not better, than those?
Click to expand...
Based on Canon's MTFs, Yes! Keep in mind when comparing full frame MTFs with EF-S MTF to just compare the same distance from the center. i.e. only look left of the 15mm line on the full frame MTF.

While the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM has a smaller maximum aperture it is longer and wider, and has image stabilization.

EF 70-200 f/2.8L

EF 70-200 f/2.8L

EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM

EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM

EF 70-200 f/2.8L

EF 70-200 f/2.8L

EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM

EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM
 
Last edited:
I'm really liking what you folks are telling me - that 70D looks like an outstanding buy with either of the kit lenses (both are getting above average reviews). I'm used to the kit lens being more of a paperweight than actually useful (hence why I was looking at body-only cameras).
 
Yes. For example for a couple hundreds more you can get a 50D which is in every way MUCH better than your 20D.
 
Don't dismiss live view - it is a boon for critical sharpness when focusing for landscape or macro - consider it an electronic version of a magnifying loupe.

Sensors have improved in terms of resolution and to some extent in dynamic range.
 
CybrSlydr said:
CybrSlydr wrote:

All of these new cameras have features I don't want. I don't care about live view.
Click to expand...
It is EXTREMELY useful when having to manual focus.
CybrSlydr said:
And we all know the vast majority of money is better spent on glass than a body.
Click to expand...
Only to a point. I'd take a 7D with a kit lens over a 20D with 24-70F2.8 L
CybrSlydr said:
I just feel like buying a new camera I'm spending money on things I won't use - essentially wasting money.
Click to expand...
A good lens won't deliver higher ISO, better noise reduction, more MP, which gives you a LOT more leeway in how you can process the image. It won't give you better Auto Focus. It won't give you a bigger display to review your images.

Don't fool yourself - if you go with a new camera you will wonder what you ever saw in the 20D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top