about | support
home
 


  Reviews by: Mscott821  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Mscott821 to your Buddy List
Canon EOS 20D

20d
Review Date: Jan 9, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,409.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Way faster than 10D - turn on, write to card, and multi shoot/hi-speed mode. Very clean high ISO. LCD seems clearer
Cons:
Some of the build is definitely on the light-weight/cheezy side. Shutter is LOUD. Viewfinder no as good coverage as 10D.

I have had numerous P&S cams over the years - I had like a latent love of photography but was always kind of disappointed and didn't know I was a frustrated photog.

About 4 years ago I got my first digital still cam. Actually came in the form of a Sony Mini DV video cam that also did 1mp stills. I ended up using that more for the stills than the vid, so I bought a Minolta Dimage 7i, which was a huge jump from the Sony - 5mp, the ability to control aperture, shutter, etc.

Last year I bought a 10D. WOW!! What an eye opener. I may not be like a lot of you, or maybe I am like alot of you, I dunno..., not sure who most of the readers of this site are, anyway...
Never owned a film SLR in my life - went right to digital. I have always believed in the benefits of digi over film, but then again I am (currently, or rather, I make more money still as a technology consultant than as a photog) a techie, so it is a natural choice for me. Seems like a no brainer now that the quality is there. I have to stifle a laugh when I hear that Sports Illustrated is completely digital for last year or so. National Geo had their first all digital cover article this past year or so... Duh? Like that wasn't going to happen. There are local photogs in the area who wax prolific about film and the process. And therein is the deal - it is not about the images, it is about the process and what it means to them on an emotional level.

Well, back to the 20D...
I came into a little lump of cash and on impulse bought a 20D, which I had actually made up my mind that I would not do because it did not seem like enough to spend the same money all over again (from the 10D that is).

It is not. I will say this: If you have a 10D, unless you are coming up short on some specific feature that the 10D can't handle - speed the most likely candidate, don't bother - the change from the 10 to the 20 isn't worth spending another $1500. Save the money, put it toward the 1D MkII - I almost wish I had held out - but wasn't sure I could justify the expense to either myself or my wife.

Let me qualify - if you are a pro - forget all of this - you need to do what business dicatates. This is for folks like me - advanced amatuers or semi-pro (i.e. - you make your living doing something else, but your 'habit' has a semblance, hopefully, of at least looking like it pays for itself).

So, initial impressions:

Do I love the 20D? Yup. If it was my only cam, I would think photography is the best thing that ever happend to the human race. Honestly, as much as I love the 10D, this is my new primary axe. I feel a little dis-loyal, but the all-but-instant-responsiveness of the 20D makes the 10 feel all but glacial - turn on, time to review, etc. Even the hi-speed mode feels way faster even if the numbers don't seem like a big deal - what is it, 3fps for the 10, 5 for the 20? Makes a big difference, though when you're shooting horses, hockey or race cars.

I have taken about 21,000 pix with my 10D in the past year.

Thus far I have taken 1800 with the 20D, have had it 2 weeks - wow seems hard to believe. You wouldn't do that with film if you weren't pro. Grandson, hockey, local architecture (live in an historic location).

What else?

Not sure if it is familiarity with the 10D or actually an issue - I prefer the metering of the 10D over the 20D. FOR YOU 10D USERS OUT THERE, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE WAY THESE CAMS METER!!!!!!. Same image, lighting, etc. the 10D will meter more evenly and better than the 20D, in high contrast situations we're talking.

Another thing that SUCKS about the 20, is the viewfinder coverage - LESS THAN THE 10D. Again, I don't know what the specs say, but the 20 does not have the coverage of the 10. This may not be an issue for some of you, but I have a real point on my head when it comes to cropping a photo later. I have no problem with post-processing, but cropping a photo is just about apostasy - you lose pixels and you are not presenting that image as was seen/taken. Anyway, this is not a religion (yes, I am involved with a 12 step program to get me through this, but in the meantime) discussion, SO, it's probably not a big deal. BUT if you want exacting composition, the 20D comes up lacking. Get the 1D which is supposedly 100% or very close. I know that the 10D is not 100% either, but it is noticeably better the the 20.

I hate how the 20 is cheezy, almost cheap feeling. I never felt that the 10 was cheap. The 20 feels like corners were cut. Yes, it is not a 1 series, but for $1500, give or take, it should not make you feel that way, we're not talking a Rebel here or something. No offense to the 300 users out there. That camera is fine, it is just in another price point, 35-45% is a pretty big differential, so if there is a difference in build, it is to be expected.
The mode dial is cheezy. The memory door is cheezier. The dial on the back is cheezier. The battery door is cheezier. Fewer buttons may be good sometimes, but it also makes it seem that they (Canon) wanted to cut cost. The dial by the shutter button is lighter wieght. The lighter wieght of the body itself is good, perhaps. The louder shutter calls in to question the substantial-ness of the body - louder noise from the inside means that there is less to block the noise, meaning less build/body. Overall, seems like more plastic in the frame and less metal.

The other big concern - I thought I read somewhere (here or Steve's, or Luminous Landscape) that the 10D was rated for 250,000 pix and that the 20 is rated at 50,ooo!!! What? A $1500 camera that may start to fail after 50,000 exposures? Well, isn't that convenient? (For Canon, that is.) I could burn through this thing in two years!!! I may be wrong, please correct me if I am. But that is pretty sad if true, and perhaps the BIGGEST REASON TO NOT BUY THIS CAMERA. Buy the 1D MkII. It is only about twice the cost. It has many extra perks and it will last 5x longer.

I have to say that the shoulder strap is nicer than the one that came with the 10D. The 10D had one that has 'iron-on transfer' lettering, the 20D is stitched. Also the entire inside of the 20D strap is rubber lined, or mostly. The 10D had like two spots of anti-slip.

So, longwinded? Sorry.

Summary:

The 20D is infinitely usable. Perfect? No. Worth the cost? Maybe.

If you are concerned about image and not longevity, the 20D is a great camera.

If you want a friend with whom you will be with for many years and you shoot many pix (greater than 15,ooo/year), probably not a good choice if I am correct about the shutter life).

Let me know your thoughts!


 
Canon EOS 20D

20d
Review Date: Jan 9, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,409.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Way faster than 10D - turn on, write to card, and multi shoot/hi-speed mode. Very clean high ISO. LCD seems clearer
Cons:
Some of the build is definitely on the light-weight/cheezy side. Shutter is LOUD. Viewfinder no as good coverage as 10D.

I have had numerous P&S cams over the years - I had like a latent love of photography but was always kind of disappointed.

About 4 years ago I got my first digital still cam. Actually came in the form of a Sony Mini DV video cam that also did 1mp stills. I ended up using that more for the stills than the vid, so I bought a Minolta Dimage 7i, which was a huge jump from the Sony - 5mp, the ability to control aperture, shutter, etc.
Last year I bought a 10D. WOW!! What an eye opener. I may not be like a lot of you, or maybe I am like alot of you, I dunno..., not sure who most of the readers of this site are, anyway...
Never owned a film SLR in my life - went right to digital. I have always believed in the benefits of digi over film, but then again I am (currently, or rather I make more money still as a technology consultany than as a photog) a techie, so it is a natural choice for me. Seems like a no brainer now that the quality is there. I have to stifle a laugh when I hear that Sports Illustrated is completely digital for last year or so. National Geo had there first all digital cover article this past year or so... Duh? Like that wasn't going to happen. There are local photogs in the area who wax prolific about film and the process. And therein is the deal - it is not about the images, it is about the process and what it means to them on an emotional level.

Well, back to the 20D...
I came into a little lump of cash and on impulse bought a 20D, which I had actually made up my mind that I would not do because it did not seem like enough to spend the same money all over again.

It is not. I will say this: If you have a 10D, unless you are coming up short on some specific feature that the 10D can't handle - speed the most likely candidate, don't bother - the change from the 10 to the 20 isn't worth spending another $1500. Save the money, put it toward the 1D MkII - I almost wish I had held out - but wasn't sure I could justify the expense to either myself or my wife.

Let me qualify - if you are a pro - forget all of this - you need to do what business dicatates. This is for folks like me - advanced amies or semi-pro (i.e. - you make your living doing something else, but your 'habit' has a semblance, hopefully, of at least looking like it pays for itself).

So, initial impressions:

Do I love the 20D? Yup. If it was my only cam, I would think photography is the best thing that ever happend to the human race. Honestly, as much as I love the 10D, this is my new primary axe. I feel a little dis-loyal, but the all but instant responsiveness of the 20D makes the 10 feel all but glacial - turn on, time to review. Even the hi-speed mode feel way faster even if the numbers don't seem like a big deal - what is it 3fps for the 10, 5 for the 20? Makes a big difference.

I have taken about 21,000 pix with my 10D in the past year.

Thus far I have taken 1800 with the 20D, have had it 2 weeks - wow seems hard to believe. You wouldn't do that with film if you weren't pro.

What else?

Not sure if it is familiarity with the 10D or actually an issue - I prefer the metering of the 10D over the 20D. FOR YOU 10D USERS OUT THERE, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE WAY THESE CAMS METER!!!!!!. Same image, lighting, etc. the 10D will meter more evenly and better than the 20D, in high contrast situations we're talking.

Another thing that SUCKS about the 20, is the viewfinder coverage. LESS THAN THE 10D. Again, I don't know what the specs say, but the 20 does not have the coverage of the 10. This may not be an issue for some of you, but I have a real point on my head when it comes to cropping a photo later. I have no problem with post-processing, but cropping a photo is just about apostasy - you lose pixels and you are not presenting that image as was seen/taken. Anyway, this is not a religion (yes, I am involved with a 12 step program it get me through this, but in the meantime) discussion, SO, it's probably not a big deal. BUT if you want exacting composition, the 20D comes up lacking. Get the 1D which is supposedly 100% or very close. I know that the 10D is not 100% either, but it is noticeably better the the 20.

I hate how the 20 is cheezy, almost cheap feeling. I never felt that the 10 was cheap. The 20 feels like corners were cut. Yes, it is not a 1 series, but for $1500, give or take, it should not make you feel that way, we're not talking a Rebel here or something. No offense to the 300 users out there. That camera is fine, it is just in another price point, 35-45% is a pretty big differential.
The mode dial is cheezy. The memory door is cheezier. The dial on the back is cheezier. The battery door is cheezier. Fewer buttons may be good sometimes, but it also makes it seem that they wanted to cut cost. The dial by the shutter button is lighter wieght. The lighter wieght is good, perhaps. The louder shutter also calls in to question the substantial-ness of the body - louder noise from the inside means that there is less to block the noise. Overall, seems like more plastic in the frame and less metal.

The other big concern - I thought I read somewhere (here or Steve's, or Luminous Landscape) that the 10D was rated for 250,000 pix and that the 20 is rated at 50,ooo!!! What? A $1500 that may start to fail after 50,000 exposures? Well, isn't that convenient. I could burn through this thing in two years!!! I may be wrong, please correct me if I am. But that is pretty sad if true, and perhaps the BIGGEST REASON TO NOT BUY THIS CAMERA.