tested the Canon 20D today

[Robert A]

After taking a picture, does an image appear immediately on the rear display, as it does on the D70?

As a Nikon photographer since 1974 and owner of Nikon D1X and
D70 I tried a pree sample of the Canon 20D today, I was amazed of
the bright clear viewfinder, 5 pictures/sec and the smooth low
shutter noise+ good auto focus performance even in low light.
Little heavy with the batteries pack on but god balance.
I think this camera will be a winner. 20D outperformes my D70 in
every way aspect exept one , flasch sync time.

Soon we have the answer from Nikon and I
hope it will be good as/ or even better than 20D
best regards

 

[Brian Cerveny]

TAKE THIS THREAD OVER THERE.

Why, so they can tell us to take the D70 comparison back to the Nikon forum?

Feel free to click on the next thread down the list.

--
Regards,
Brian Cerveny

 

[Film_Ruled]

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originally made for full frame and then one would just crop/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).

I disagree, At least with Canon, you can shoot a 24mm 1.4 on the EOS3, EOS 1V, EOS1DS and EOS1D MK-II and have it work pretty close to the way it was designed.

Many of us still shoot film along with digital.

Nikon only has a couple of lenses that are digital specific. That means the reast were designed to go on a full frame format and are not bieng represented correctly.

 

[Shutzman]

Naturally with advance of technology, it becomes much cheaper to produce better design and features, so obviously the D70 would have more advanced features than the D100, however, it is not intended to be in the same class. The D100 has the battery grip option (as was mentioned) and that by itself is quite an advantage. The mirror lock is also a very useful feature missing on the D70. Clearly the D70 is a Rebel killer.

I can just hope that the D200 (or whatever the name is) would be a 20D killer. I think Nikon would be wise if it is designed for shooting vertical as a built-in feature, rather than optional grip. That could be the decisive difference between the two.

As a Nikon photographer since 1974 and owner of Nikon D1X and
D70 I tried a pree sample of the Canon 20D today, I was amazed of
the bright clear viewfinder, 5 pictures/sec and the smooth low
shutter noise+ good auto focus performance even in low light.
Little heavy with the batteries pack on but god balance.
I think this camera will be a winner. 20D outperformes my D70 in
every way aspect exept one , flasch sync time.

Soon we have the answer from Nikon and I
hope it will be good as/ or even better than 20D
best regards

 

[Film_Ruled]

but D70 is not the eqvivalwnt to d20!

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.'

I am a Nikon Film user and Canon digital user. I will probably get the 20D because it is a small bodied camera that goes from my 10D's 6.3MP to 8.2. But other than that, it is still not what I need in a perfect world.

No one makes that yet.

F100 or 20D sized body with a good viewfinder, full frame to 1.2 crop chip, 10-12MP, phenomenal battery life, and a fair sized raw buffer. A quieter shutter and mirror operation would be nice. I will keep my 10D as it is great in regards to shutter noise.

 

[Jeremy Kindy]

Like the improved:
fps
af (hopefully)
buffer
ISO performance (well, this one remains to be seen)
digicII
ettl2 metering
more wb control
faster write times (big one here)

bw mode (gimmicky, yes, but intriguing as it allows you to set stuff before the shot and not spend as much time in front of the computer after the shot)

I probably missed some, but you get the idea. Cameras are more than MP, and the 20D fixes most of my complaints about the 10D. And the 6mp of the 10D was never a complaint for me.

I'm still not sure I'll upgrade, but it's very tempting.

While I am certain the 20D is a very nice camera, don't fall for
the pixel hype. Anyone who believes that an 8mp sensor is somehow
much more useful than a 6mp sensor has not done the math.

Calculate the extra AREA available for cropping or enlargement and
it is a big yawn. Not worth worrying about for an upgrade. The
next level of useful resolution increase is around the 10 to 12mp
range.

Don't fall for the numbers trap. It's not linear math, it's area
math. But hey, if you think you can detect a 10% increase in
resolution or feel that an extra inch and a half of print size is
worth an upgrade - go for it.

If Nikon rolls out an 8mp mid-range camera, I will yawn just as
long. I will wait for something around the 11 or 12 mp point
before I begin to get camera envy.
--
Best regards,
Jonathan Kardell
'Most cameras and most lenses are better than most photographers.'

--
Jeremy Kindy

 

[Donald Cooper]

Mike,

We agree that the only real classification that matters to most consumers is price. Now I am from the Canon Forum but just checking it seems that with kit lenses the 300D is around $899, the 70D is around $1299, and the 20D is around $1599. (The $899 is only $100 less than the price a year ago BTW so I'm not sure there is deep discounting at this point. I don't think the 70D with kit lens was ever this low, was it?).

About the same dollar difference separates them, with the 70D and 20D a bit closer, though hardly sigfinicantly. So on price you can go either way I'd say, which is consistent with the cams. I'd think most would say the D70 is a better cam than the 300D and the 20D will be a better cam than the D70.

To some extent the positioning may be more connected to supply than it is to the ability to deliver product features. Canon has the manufacturing prowess to turn out more cams and target the low end, so I imagine for the foreseable future they'll be the price leader. I suspect there's no point in Nikon lowering the price on the D70 because they couldn't fill the additional orders. This raises some pricing issues for the 200. I'd think Nikon would want to price above the 20D, which suggests something of a nicer feature set for that camera.

That bodes well for the folks here.

DSC

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.

Actually the D100 does have one other feature missing on the D70,
mirror pre-fire.

Victor

 

[David Martin]

I suppose it depends what you are comparing it too. It is certainly a whole bunch noisier than my old 10D

As a Nikon photographer since 1974 and owner of Nikon D1X and
D70 I tried a pree sample of the Canon 20D today, I was amazed of
the bright clear viewfinder, 5 pictures/sec and the smooth low
shutter noise+ good auto focus performance even in low light.
Little heavy with the batteries pack on but god balance.
I think this camera will be a winner. 20D outperformes my D70 in
every way aspect exept one , flasch sync time.

Soon we have the answer from Nikon and I
hope it will be good as/ or even better than 20D
best regards

--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

 

[David Martin]

Yep, it's got a very fast display - around the time it takes to move your eye from the viewfinder.

As a Nikon photographer since 1974 and owner of Nikon D1X and
D70 I tried a pree sample of the Canon 20D today, I was amazed of
the bright clear viewfinder, 5 pictures/sec and the smooth low
shutter noise+ good auto focus performance even in low light.
Little heavy with the batteries pack on but god balance.
I think this camera will be a winner. 20D outperformes my D70 in
every way aspect exept one , flasch sync time.

Soon we have the answer from Nikon and I
hope it will be good as/ or even better than 20D
best regards

--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

 

[David Martin]

if the decisive difference betwwen the D200 and the 20D is whether the vertical grip is built in or not, there ain't gonna be a lot between the cameras then!

I can just hope that the D200 (or whatever the name is) would be a
20D killer. I think Nikon would be wise if it is designed for
shooting vertical as a built-in feature, rather than optional grip.
That could be the decisive difference between the two.

As a Nikon photographer since 1974 and owner of Nikon D1X and
D70 I tried a pree sample of the Canon 20D today, I was amazed of
the bright clear viewfinder, 5 pictures/sec and the smooth low
shutter noise+ good auto focus performance even in low light.
Little heavy with the batteries pack on but god balance.
I think this camera will be a winner. 20D outperformes my D70 in
every way aspect exept one , flasch sync time.

Soon we have the answer from Nikon and I
hope it will be good as/ or even better than 20D
best regards

--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

 

[paratom]

A 24 on a 1D is a 32, thats not the same IMO.

I have a 1D and 1v and still some Canon lenses in my shelve.

The only "allround-midrange-zoom" for a Canon 1D is IMO 24-70/2.8 or 24-85. But these would not be midrange on a 10D or 20D. You would allways have to also bring a 16-35 along.

You could use a 17-40 as midrange for a 20D (it its long enough), but that lens again would not work as a midrange on a Canon 1D.

Canon has 3 digital sensor sizes and one film size combined with two "lens-sizes".

Nikon has 1 digital sensor size and one film size. They offer dx-lenses for the ranges, where ff-lenses would not fit in ideally, which is mid-range zoom and wide angle. The wideangle-dx even works on a film camera.

IMO Nikons way is much more consumer friendly and (at least for my needs) easier to get a good lens setup.

Tell me one fast mid range zoom lens dor 10D or 20D which makes sense.
And the mid range is for many the range used most.

With the Nikon/ 17-55 I have something like from 26mm/2.8 (wide) through 50/2.8 up to 82,5/2.8 (nice for portrait). It is a great allround lens.

IMO it would have been really great, if Canon would do all there cameras with 1.3 factor instead of 1.6

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).

I disagree, At least with Canon, you can shoot a 24mm 1.4 on the
EOS3, EOS 1V, EOS1DS and EOS1D MK-II and have it work pretty close
to the way it was designed.

Many of us still shoot film along with digital.

Nikon only has a couple of lenses that are digital specific. That
means the reast were designed to go on a full frame format and are
not bieng represented correctly.

 

[Rottweiler]

he only owns Nikons, how can it be the wrong forum...

As a Nikon photographer since 1974 and owner of Nikon D1X and
D70 I tried a pree sample of the Canon 20D today, I was amazed of
the bright clear viewfinder, 5 pictures/sec and the smooth low
shutter noise+ good auto focus performance even in low light.
Little heavy with the batteries pack on but god balance.
I think this camera will be a winner. 20D outperformes my D70 in
every way aspect exept one , flasch sync time.

Soon we have the answer from Nikon and I
hope it will be good as/ or even better than 20D
best regards

--
Peter Bendheim
http://www.imagessouthafrica.co.za

 

[l_ombre_jaune]

G. Jobin

 

[Roger Nordin]

Tell me one fast mid range zoom lens dor 10D or 20D which makes sense.
And the mid range is for many the range used most.

Well, perhaps I can provide some ideas for your lens selection. I'm ordering the Sigma EX 18-50/2.8 DC myself (btw, at the long end, it's as long on a 1D as the 17-40/10D combo so it would even work as a midrange zoom for your 1D).

Initial tests seems promising, so at least to me, it makes sense.

Regards,
Roger

--



My on-line albums: http://atb.dyndns.org/photos/index.htm

 

[Oliver Olsen]

Just for Kicks, could you tell us why you would spend $4500 for a
1dMK2 over a $1500 20D, Same sensor right? Is it worth $3000 more?

Nope - it's a different sensor in the 1D mkII (1.3x crop) vs 1.6x crop in the 20D. Otherwise I guess the difference would be like comparing the F80 to the F5 - both will give you great pictures, but you quickly get the idea that only one of these cameras are built for demanding pros (and rich amateurs!).

If you really need a weather-sealed camera (with the option of being a nice weapon if needed), card slots for both SD and CF (with the option of one acting as an instant backup device), large buffer and other features making it a pro's camera, I'd say $3000 might be a reasonable cost. For the rest of us - probably not...

• Oliver

 

[hockeynut]

Since Phil posted his review of the 20D, there've been quite a few people crying and complaining about the increase in noise (20 being louder than the 10D).

You'd think that the world was coming to an end. There were peopel that were threatening to drop Canon, sell their glass, and move on. Hopefully, some of the sad sacks bemoaning the noisiness have read your statements and are haven't sold their Canon equipment yet.