No Way, My D100 had more DR than my D70 and from all the tests I've seen the D100 was pretty close to what the 20D was showing but it had better contrast...

As for the D70 vs 20D yes it is slightly higher due to the decrease in contrast.

Peter Gregg wrote:
The 20D is a better camera than the D70 so if you can do it you will be happier in the long run. The 20D has better dynamic range than the D70, in fact it is near the top in dynamic range and the D70 is about in the middle but definitely above the D100.

Dynamic range is what will get you the better looking pictures and not the jump from 6mp to 8mp. Going from 6mp to 8mp is not going to hurt, but the results are going to come from the better sensor giving you less blooms and better DR. The 20D is a real steal and can enter into the pro area because it is unusually good. Where the 20D has a weakness is in it's JPG processing system. It could have been much better proven out by the advances in the new 350D. Shoot RAW or tweak your 20D and you will be getting very solid stuff to work with.

~Peter

If you have any manual focus Nikkor lenses, they can be used on your Canon DSLR with an adapter. Of course, you'll be operating the camera manually.

:worried: I haven't heard you give a single valid reason of why you should switch systems.

Okay so I'm pretty sure I'm going to make the switch over to Canon, I have a D70 kit with 70-300mm, I love it. But I need something for bigger prints and more detail and a faster shutter actuation speed, there is a little bit of a lag between actuation and shot. Is the 20D better for the job, of motorsports and sports photography?

The other question is the asking price, or trade value?

Jon,
I have not seen you make a compelling argument as to why you should switch yet. You list a couple of possible reasons, but mostly let others do the talking for you and none of the things you listed are even concrete. In my opinion the only reason someone should switch systems is if there is a SIGNIFICANT benefit which is DIRECTLY related to switching systems. In this case, I don't believe there is solid reasoning behind your decision.

The comparison between 6 and 8 megapixels is hardly signficant. I've seen prints from both and I'm sure if you saw large prints from both you couldn't pick out the one with 8 megapixels vs. the one with 6. There is about a 20% increase in image size between 6 and 8. Is this completely necessary? No. You are fine just where you are.


Thanks guys, the main reason I'm thinking of making the switch is because of the reasone stated above by Joe, and I think I'm going to need that quick shooting ability.

I totally know how that happens, I'm on the field an awesome shot, and I miss the first time and oh.....I have to wait for the camera, and I've missed it!

This helps with the decision. Thanks everyone

Maybe the equipment isn't at fault and it's your timing and anticipation that needs a little polishing.

Jon Arno wrote:
Maybe, but I don't think so.

But thats only one reason, countless others have been mentioned.

You need faster shutter actuation speed? Do you really? When I first started motorsports photography, I used to burst all the time too. My first shot, oddly enough, would usually be the best of each series. As I began shooting more and more and getting experience with the sport and being out there I began to get more series with better first images. I'm barely even bursting anymore. The last event I covered, I did a full five frame burst two times (over a TWO DAY EVENT). It happened to be the last run of the day and I wanted to make sure I had something, but for most of the other runs I was only doing one shot series. You have to wonder why I'm getting the best keeper on the first shot. Is my equipment getting better or is my timing, anticipation, and knowledge of the sport I'm photographing getting better? I would argue the latter considering I haven't upgraded equipment in the last 6 months.

People are too quick to blame equipment for their faults. You purchase a $1,500 camera and expect your pictures to be great because other people with $1,500 cameras are taking great pictures. I more frequently hear people say something on the lines of, "My camera isn't working correctly" or "I need to get a better camera". The majority of the time, the problem has nothing to do with the camera, rather the person behind the lens eitehr doesn't know how to operate it or is too quick to redirect blame.

Secondly a lot of people have commented that perhaps you need better lenses. Your signature states that you are using a the kit, 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 and a 70-300mm f/4-5.6. You seem to be all over upgrading equipment, but you overlook your own signature? There is no doubt in my mind that owning a D70 and a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR would vastly improve the chances of you capturing great motorsports pictures, not that the gear has a lot of impact on the types of pictures that you will be producing.

Unfortunately for you, it seems from your responses that you are determined to switch systems. You have already made your mind up and that is fine. I hope you enjoy your endless quest for the perfect camera, because no matter what system you're in there will always be flaws. Only one thing can counter those flaws, experience.

Phi

I am with the above poster.

It doesn't seem like he actually "needs" anything the 20D or Canon has to offer.

If there were no cost involved in "switching", it wouldnt be any real problem. But this involves taking a loss on the gear, then buying all new gear. That money (im guessing at least $300 is going to be "lost") could easily be spent on things to improve photos, such as a fast, tack-sharp prime, that would yield far better images than a 20D and cheap zoom combo (not dissing the 20D or Canon lenses here...just so you guys don't flame me for that!).

phidong wrote:
jedlawre wrote:
Plus I think you'll like how the 20d fits in your hand.

Pretty subjective.

The whole choice between Nikon and Canon is pretty subjective, as is the choice between film and digital.

Jon
I am with Phi.

All you need is a shelter and something to eat. So if your capability of making pictures is directly related to this - well then yes, you need it. (but then go for the pro-kit)
Otherwise you (and most of us, me included) "just have to have it" So don't ask - you will buy it anyway .

But do tell us how it went and show us the results - and show us that we were wrong. It will give me a good pretext to buy one too

Phi - I see you shoot with the 20D - as I do

the issue isn't bursts or tiing or anticipation. a good shutter finger will always mean better shots

BUT

it's that the D70 has lag AFTER you press the shutter release. sure, it'll do a burst, or it'll do a single frame - but you have to wait about a second after you shoot before you can shoot another frame.

with my 20D and when I'm shooting sports or other "action" I'll often pop off shots manually without using a burst but at speeds of 2 or 3 fps. you can't do that with a D70.

I know users that shoot with a D70 and though they like their cameras, that shutter lag is their biggest compaint.

try it out next time you're at the camera shop.

ture, one camera body alone may not be a big enough reason for me or you to switch entire systems - but, given that a 20D outperforms a D70, D100, D2H - while a 10D, 20D are better - the D2X is the only Nikon that can out-do a 20D (in my opinion, anyways). The Canon 1 series are the best - but expensive - as is a 20D.

for action the 20D kills anything nikon except the D2X or the D2H (but only 4 meg).

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/215519

I made the switch to Canon in Aug and have never looked back. Just finished moving most of my Nikon lens only have a few left. Love my Canon gear...20D is a nice camera and believe you would enjoy it...

phidong wrote:
...The comparison between 6 and 8 megapixels is hardly signficant. I've seen prints from both and I'm sure if you saw large prints from both you couldn't pick out the one with 8 megapixels vs. the one with 6. There is about a 20% increase in image size between 6 and 8....


Really? Strange. 6 to 8 = 33.33...% more. Or I'm missing something here?

RomanM wrote
Really? Strange. 6 to 8 = 33.33...% more. Or I'm missing something here?

Indeed, 6 to 8 is 33% more if you count pixels.
But the improvement in linear resolution is much less than that. You have to compute the square root of 1.33 and you get something around 1.17, which amounts to a 17% increase in linear resolution.
If you want to print at the same resolution as a 10" print of your D70, you can go up to 11.7" (increase in area of 33%, in length of 17%).
Not much.

Not enough to switch in my opinion. Not even enough to upgrade to a new camera (look at the number of 10D, D60, 300D around... not to mention some people report being very happy with D30).

I would also like to point out that the D100 is said to be about to be replaced this year. It could be a worthwhile upgrade from a D70 (maybe with more resolution than 20D).

I would not go too fast.

A camera is just a tool to get a job done, nothing more but nothing less. So define what the job is and select your tools accordingly.

success HK

I work with both systems and own Canon gear. As much as I love the Canon system, really if I had a D70, I wouldn't switch to the 20D. Unless there is some very specific feature you need from the 20D or something of the D70 really annoys you, I would recommend you to stay where you are. You must be a pixelpeeper to see the differences in image quality and it probably isn't worth the money. I guess it's better to wait for the next upgrade from Nikon or switch to a pro model if you really need an upgrade. That will probably a step that adds much more value and is a real upgrade instead of a subtle gradual migration to just another system.

Peter

Peter de Weerdt wrote:
I work with both systems and own Canon gear. As much as I love the Canon system, really if I had a D70, I wouldn't switch to the 20D. Unless there is some very specific feature you need from the 20D or something of the D70 really annoys you, I would recommend you to stay where you are. You must be a pixelpeeper to see the differences in image quality and it probably isn't worth the money. I guess it's better to wait for the next upgrade from Nikon or switch to a pro model if you really need an upgrade. That will probably a step that adds much more value and is a real upgrade instead of a subtle gradual migration to just another system.

Peter

Good comments Peter

FWIW: I've got a D70 and other than it's slightly sluggish "speed" it's a great little camera. I would not switch it for a 20D.

HOWEVER:
**** For sports, I would recommend the 1DMII or the D2H. 8 FPS is soooooooo awesome!!!! ......... once you rip off a burst at that rate you will NEVER go back. The D2H is THE best sports bargain right now. If you have the $ then the 1DMII is the better body.

Regards
JohnG

Jon,

This is not a democracy, if you want a 20D, and believe that it will improve your ability to capture a moment in any way, you should buy one. None of the people here telling you to improve your skills will be holding your camera when you press that shutter release. There is no need to search through this thread to find a valid reason; if you want it that is reason enough. You aren't spending taxpayer's money here so I don't know why people are getting down right argumentative in telling you what you should do. To me, two lenses does not a system make. IF you are going to switch, now is the time to do it based on the few items you have. Being comfortabe with your gear is more important than some kind of loyalty to your existing gear.