Great review! Thanks for helping me sort out this issue!

great review Brian! makes me want to buy one... but I can't keep up with the new model every year that Canon is coming up with!

Kenergy_007 wrote:
great review Brian! makes me want to buy one... but I can't keep up with the new model every year that Canon is coming up with!
Having wandered down the D60 -> 10D -> 20D path myself, I can honestly say that the 20D is the first truly worthwhile upgrade in this series of cameras. D30->D60 gave you more pixels but noisier photos (some have said) plus a drop in the maximum ISO and not much better AF. D60->10D improved the AF a bit and gave us ISO 3200 again, plus one extra shot in the buffer. The 300D was just a dumbed down version of the 10D. But the 20D... wow. Really, the only thing that is a small step backwards is the 6-shot raw buffer. Everything else that I can think of (and I mean everything) is an improvement over the 10D. And all for less than what the 10D cost when it was introduced.

Anyone who has been holding out for an upgrade to their D30/D60/10D/300D and is in the market for a new camera in that price range... wait no longer: the 20D is the one.


Edited by taob on Sep 19, 2004 at 05:28 PM GMT

Smaller raw buffer, no spot meter, almost as if Canon had to leave out certain features to protect sales of the Mk ll.

taob wrote:
But the 20D... wow. Really, the only thing that is a small step backwards is the 6-shot raw buffer. Everything else that I can think of (and I mean everything) is an improvement over the 10D.

rjk55425 wrote:
Smaller raw buffer, no spot meter, almost as if Canon had to leave out certain features to protect sales of the Mk ll.
Well, there is no spot meter in any of the 10-series cameras anyway, so it isn't really a step backwards there. And do you really blame Canon? I think they are already in danger of cannibalizing some of their 1D Mk2 sales with the 20D, it's that good.

Great review.

I also own both, and in some circumstances perfer the 20D due to its lighter weight and 1.6 FOV crop making my tele lens seem longer. The biggest downfalls of the 20D you mentioned, the lack of an ISO readout in the viewfinder and no spot meter. Another serious 20D downfall is the inability to adjust ISO in less than full stop increments.

rico wrote:
Brian, are you a professional writer? That review is both lucid and precise. Wow.
Heh, thanks for the compliment, Rico! No, I am not a trained technical writer. However, I do work in an area of IT (information security and business continuity) that relies heavily on concise documentation and presentation material, so I guess that's where my practical experience comes from. Plus I was a science geek when I was in school... no shortage of practice writing up lab reports and papers there.

well that was the most informative if not the most enjoyable review i've read yet.
thank you for your time Brian.

Leo Reinhard wrote:
I wish you still had you 10D to shoot identical shots in bright sunny high contrast for me to see if the 20D will give enough improvement for me to upgrade.
I had lunch with my friend who bought my 10D, and I did get a chance to take one comparative shot between the 10D and 20D. I'll post the results later, once I've had a chance to look at both of them.

Nice review and it does look like the 20D is the body where Canon decided to AF accuracy and installed the 1 series type focus engine.

the 10D sold in the us for 1499. I did get the kit for 1530 which is a real price break

Cool. Please don't forget to post the results and of course you comments no matter what the results.

rjk55425 wrote:
You must have a big nose to touch the LCD screen of the MK II! Mine doesn't come close on the 1D and I remember how annoying LCD contact was on the 10D previously.

If I angle the 1D Mk2 down a bit, then the tip of my nose will touch the back of the camera. But on the 20D, my nose is always smushed up against the LCD. It really would not have been difficult for Canon to have added another centimeter to the eyepiece...

Mine arrives tomorrow and I have been experiencing a bit of buyer's remorse since some of the recent opinions I have read indicate the camera falls far short of 1 series performance, in the area of auto focus in servo mode.

I have not tried the 20D in a fast moving sports situation yet, but perhaps I can get out to one of my company's softball league games this week and give the 20D a whirl. I suspect that the 1-series will yield a higher percentage of keepers than the 20D, but that the 20D will be miles ahead of the 10D. And of course the AF behaviour on the 1D is configurable, whereas you have to live with whatever the defaults are on the 20D. But if you're a concert shooter or a wedding pro or a studio photographer, and can't afford the 1Ds, the 20D is a very capable beast and will leave you with enough money for a couple more "L" lenses.

Cubfan wrote:
Wow, a real-live "paparazzi."

Yeah, and the best thing is that you're allowed to take pictures of hot women, and not get slapped. Well, most of the time.

Annette Bening
Kate Bosworth
Laura Linney
Claire Danes

great review, really! could you tell me, how to get such well lightened pictures? they all look like taken in a studio but as you said, theire shot in the field!

do i have to use a flash, or is it just the knowledge and use of internal illumination at the right moment?

Thanks so much for the detailed review!

Cheers!

I want to know about the lighting too. That candid of Connie Nielsen is one of the one of the most beautifully lit candids I've seen.

Thanks,
Doug

Doug and LeadToDeath,

There was no special setup about the Connie Nielsen photo (no time or room for that!)... it was taken after sunset (around 9:00 pm, I believe) under the white media tent that houses the red carpet in front of the theatre. There was tungsten video lighting providing the ambient illumination, and I filled it in with a Metz 54 on-camera flash from the left of the frame (because the camera was rotated that way), dialed down to -2 stops compensation. This is using the Metz's auto-thyristor mode, since it does not support E-TTL2 on either the 1D Mk2 or the 20D.

With the exception of the Annette Bening shot, all the other shots seen here have some fill flash applied as well.

Hey Brian. I am still interested in the comparative results. Please (:<)

Leo Reinhard wrote:
Hey Brian. I am still interested in the comparative results. Please (:<)

Yep, I have a few things coming up, but I've been away in Ottawa most of this week on business (and will be here until Sunday). I don't have any tools to accurately measure dynamic range, but I do have a sample image from the 10D and the 20D, and also some between the 20D and 1D Mk2 that may be enlightening.

Your spec for Shutter Releases is wrong, Canon says the 20D is good for double the number of Shutter Releases then the 10D was good for, I would have to say that 50,000 to 60,000 was a good number for the 10D so that would make the 20D good for between 100,000 to 120,000 Shutter Releases.

Other then that it is a pretty good review.

Canon Digital wrote:
Your spec for Shutter Releases is wrong, Canon says the 20D is good for double the number of Shutter Releases then the 10D was good for, I would have to say that 50,000 to 60,000 was a good number for the 10D so that would make the 20D good for between 100,000 to 120,000 Shutter Releases.

Well there you go... another improvement Canon's made to the 20D. Still, not nearly as nice as the 200000 cycles on the 1D Mk2.

It was not to long ago that 120,000 shutter cycles was considered great for their pro level cameras, I guess Canon is stepping up to the plate for those of us who don't need all the bells on their pro level bodies.

I say good job Canon, it is nice to know that they want to give us a top notice product.

Canon Digital wrote:
It was not to long ago that 120,000 shutter cycles was considered great for their pro level cameras, I guess Canon is stepping up to the plate for those of us who don't need all the bells on their pro level bodies.

I say good job Canon, it is nice to know that they want to give us a top notice product.

Maybe it's just practical. Digital SLRs will experience more shutter actuations than their film counterparts because of the nature of digital vs. film.

Tom

Wow Brian,

Good review and good shots to go along with it. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts and images with all of us on this forum.

I just received a 20D this week, which I plan on using as a backup to my 1DMKII for my event and assignment work. Haven't had a chance to put the 20D through its paces like you have, but I'm impressed so far. I think it will be a great carry around camera when I'm not actually working as it is so small and light and it seems to have great image quality. A lot of camera for the money. I'm also waiting for the new 1DsMKII which I will use primarily for architectural/landscape work. Was planning on using the 1DsMKII as a backup for my event work (as I did with the 1Ds which I just sold), but I'm thinking that the 20D will do just fine as the backup to the 1DMKII, just have to get use to the different control layout.

Thanks again,

Tony Bonanno

Thanks for that *excellent* report!