How far has Canon come from the 20D?

Hadley

Hadley

Messages
226
Name
James
Edit My Images
Yes
I was talking to a friend last night in the pub. He’s about to go off and study photography at Kingston in September, and naturally we started talking about cameras. I have a 20D and he has a 450D.

Eventually we talked about ‘money no-object what camera would you have?’ He responded with ‘the 5D’. when asked why he didn’t want the 1DmkIV he said ‘it doesn’t have HD video’

Which got us talking about the improvements in technology that Canon have made in there DLSR’s, the obvious improvements would be that newer camera’s handle high ISO much better than mine.

However I said that higher FPS and more pixels crammed onto the same size sensors and HD video weren’t so much ‘improvements’ than a superficial way of getting people to upgrade to cameras that are otherwise similar...

Anyways I left that night thinking that he was an idiot because he thought a better camera was one that had HD video and lots of frames per second.

However being new to photography having only started early this year I would like a second opinion. Are these new features a necessary improvement over older cameras, or just a gimmick?
 
if i wanted HD video recording I would buy a camcorder.

Personally for me an ideal camera would have great high ISO capabilities, lots of mega pixels (14M + ) good noise reduction, in body stabilisation, decent high res screen on the back...

Basically give me a K7 - but take out the HD and replace it with better high ISO.


I would say though, you'd notice a big gap between your 20D and say a 40 or 50D......... in terms of performance.
 
1DIV does have HD video - well mine does. This will run and run but SLR video cannot be replicated by camcorders south of RED systems and will be part of the future of digital imaging...
 
I had a 20D for about 5 years, and now have the 5dm2. The difference is amazing, quality simply blows me away
 
Auto focus has come on a lot, which the 1D4 will have full benefit of.

Also looking at the new lenses that canon has released seem to blow everything else away in terms of optical quality that we've never seen before (and might justify the increase in mega-pixels, though i do agree they should stop where they are and concentrate on colour redition, iso performance and AF performance)
 
Lynton said:
I would say though, you'd notice a big gap between your 20D and say a 40 or 50D......... in terms of performance.
Click to expand...

If I was/could afford an upgrade I would probably go for a 40D.
 
Blue Eagle said:
Also looking at the new lenses that canon has released seem to blow everything else away in terms of optical quality that we've never seen before
Click to expand...

I'll admit I didn't really think about lenses when I first posted. The conversation we had was mainly about camera bodies.
 
Tis 'orses fer courses innit guv?
You get the camera that does what you want it to do. Some people HAVE to have HD video as they will use it lots. Personally, I see it as a nice feature but I will pick photos over video nearly every time. Others will go out of their way not to as they will never use it so it is superfluous. For me, image quality is tops. Good af and fps are a bonus too.
Pros like a tough armoured body that'll take abuse whereas us lesser mortals can and will treat it with kid gloves. This is why there are separate ranges of cameras xxxD, xxD and xD etc. You pick the one that YOU need.

Mind you, a few extra toys never hurts :)
 
"I had a 20D for about 5 years, and now have the 5dm2. The difference is amazing, quality simply blows me away"

Really? What improvements did you see? I've always thought that at normal viewing and printing sizes there wouldn't be too much in it.

I've only done one side to side with a 5DII, we took in door shots and we both thought that my 20D with Siggy 50mm f1.4 produced better shots than the 5DII but it was fitted with a 24-105mm zoom which probably put it at a disadvantage.

I'm reasonably happy with my 20D. I can print to A3 and the shots look better than those taken with my 35mm printed to A3. At the moment the only IQ improvements that I could think of would be to higher ISO and dynamic range. Weather sealing would be nice but my 20D has looked like a block of ice and survived, in body IS would be a dream but I think that Canon will be the last to fit it, a higher mp count might enable more cropping but I don't tend to crop much.
 
grum said:
And you would get a much smaller sensor unless you wanted to spend a LOT more money.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the part, if i wanted (and I don't) so is all really hypothetical............:)
 
I have to say that I like Nikon's approach on this one, they found a sensor that really works and stuck with it despite other companies jumping on the mega pixel bandwagon. They have made their improvements around the sensor and picked out things like auto focus, and better weather sealing.

There can be no doubt that the 21MP sensor on the 5D MKii is amazing but for 99% of photographers it's overkill. I don't think I'd ever print more than A3 and so would have prefered a lower pixel density for cleaner images and better ISO performance.

I'm agree with the comments above about video too, I wanted a still image camera.
 
gingerweasel said:
I have to say that I like Nikon's approach on this one, they found a sensor that really works and stuck with it despite other companies jumping on the mega pixel bandwagon. They have made their improvements around the sensor and picked out things like auto focus, higher frame rates etc..

There can be no doubt that the 21MP sensor on the 5D MKii is amazing but for 99% of photographers it's overkill. I don't think I'd ever print more than A3 and so would have prefered a lower pixel density for cleaner images and better ISO performance.

I'm agree with the comments above about video too, I wanted a still image camera.
Click to expand...

It's use comes from how much you can crop it rather than how large you can print. On anything but a perfect lens the corners will be going a bit soft on a full-frame camera - with a 12mp sensor printing at large size you'll need that information. With 22mp you can just chop them off and nothing is lost (assuming the composition suits it, of course).
 
I don't think there's an issue with video in DSLRs. It's an easy and cheap (relatively speaking) way to get professional looking videos (good in low light and able to create DOF effects) without paying a hell of a lot of money for a dedicated video cam.

Video on DSLRs is as much a gimmick as IS is, imo.
 
woof woof said:
"I had a 20D for about 5 years, and now have the 5dm2. The difference is amazing, quality simply blows me away"

Really? What improvements did you see? I've always thought that at normal viewing and printing sizes there wouldn't be too much in it.

I've only done one side to side with a 5DII, we took in door shots and we both thought that my 20D with Siggy 50mm f1.4 produced better shots than the 5DII but it was fitted with a 24-105mm zoom which probably put it at a disadvantage.

I'm reasonably happy with my 20D. I can print to A3 and the shots look better than those taken with my 35mm printed to A3. At the moment the only IQ improvements that I could think of would be to higher ISO and dynamic range. Weather sealing would be nice but my 20D has looked like a block of ice and survived, in body IS would be a dream but I think that Canon will be the last to fit it, a higher mp count might enable more cropping but I don't tend to crop much.
Click to expand...

I was happy with my 20D for everything, however when I bought the 5dm2 it changed my expectations. I can shoot at 3200ISO and not have to run noiseware on it. I can crop and still end up with 10mp+ on it.
 
I'm not too bothered about cropping as it's something that I rarely do. Is there any IQ improvement at lower ISO's and if so what?
 
HD video on dSLRs seems to be like marmite, I happen to love it - I wouldn't buy a dSLR that didn't have it, and it would be as impotant to me as the still images - show me a camcorder for under £1200 that I can get footage as clean and sharp in low light as this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Kq-8xf4ENo
 
Last edited:
After the 1Ds MkII and the 5D MkI THEY ALL WENT SOUTH!!:p

Some more spectacularly so than others but south all the same...
 
:gag: :thinking:

not sure I'd agree with that. One of the things I really do like about older Canon DSLRs is the button layout, with the buttons to the left of the screen. I like that.
 
I don't think one is better than the other necessarily, it depends what you need it for. For example, if you want to crop a lot, or take some video clips of your holiday etc etc then one camera would be 'better', whereas if you want a larger body as the extra comfort means you enjoy photography more, then that one is 'better'.

In order for one to be better than the other, you need a set of requirements, and each person will have different requirements from their camera :)
 
joescrivens said:
I think you might be the only person who thinks the 5d mkI is better than the Mk2 :lol:
Click to expand...

But of course it is!:D

OK, but seriously, a mate of mine has one and I love the fact that the colour on the rear screen for frikkin once is an accurate rendition of the pc screen image...Nikon got this right years ago!

Personally I have just never seen or had the need for 20+ Mp...:shrug:
 
Not a fan of HD on a DSLR and would never put on the list of criteria when upgrading my current setup, however, I accept that its here to stay and some people like the feature.

Yes.... all these new features are nice, live view, HD video......, but personally the advances in ISO performance and autofocus accuracy are more important to me.

But also the lens is the king, put a **** lens on a top of the range camera, you're more than like still get a **** image even with all the bells and whistles of the top body.

So its the lens and what you do with the camera (from a 350D, 20D to the 1DMKIV) that's more important, because there's still are large number of people who have all the expensive kit and can't use it.

Ok there are certain situations where the top tech definitely gives you the edge, but only in certain situations.
 
antonroland said:
Personally I have just never seen or had the need for 20+ Mp...:shrug:
Click to expand...

i doubt few people do!

There are people though who use the 5d for shooting huge canvases, so it has to be there otherwise what would they use?
 
pete.rush said:
There's still are large number of people who have all the expensive kit and can't use it.
Click to expand...

Absolutely..

I had a D700 with a 70-200vr 2.8. Did it make me a better photographer..
No not really.

I realised this and downgraded my kit to a D90 and cheapish sigma lenses and pocketed £1400. Ok agreed I lost some low light capabiltiy, but apart from that, there wasnt a great deal of difference.

Now Im starting up again after a short absence, Ive bouught a cheap body (450D) and Im going to concentrate on building up good glass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top