5d, 20d or 1d MK II
Discussion
joust said:What features are most important to you, e.g., fps, full frame, burst rate, solid build, size, weight?
Thoughts????
J
1D II is an excellent camera, but very big, heavy and more obvious. 5D I suspect will be very good too - apparently image quality isn't far off the 1Ds II, but it doesn't have the same build/weather sealing of the 1D II, nor the speed. It is however similarly sized to the 20D.
Both of these are a step up from the 20D, but a lot more money...
Money isn't really the issue, but I was wondering if people thought the 'step up' from the 20D was worth it.
I can't quite get the difference between the 1d II and the 5d - they both are around the same money, but clearly the 5d is smaller and lighter and so may be better suited to me?
I've never played with a 1D, so unsure when people say it's "bigger and bulkier" how big and how bulky it is.
Clearly, with the 5D you don't really "lose" anything from the 1.6x that the APS-C ones give you as you can crop the image post shot and get the same resolution as you could with the 20d.
It's one of those things that I want to move up from the 300d, as I've had it 20 months now and am happy this is the way to go, but I'm torn between perhaps doing a 'small' step to the 20d and just making the leap to a 1DII or 5D?
Hence my "thoughts" post!
J
>> Edited by joust on Friday 30th September 20:35
I can't quite get the difference between the 1d II and the 5d - they both are around the same money, but clearly the 5d is smaller and lighter and so may be better suited to me?
I've never played with a 1D, so unsure when people say it's "bigger and bulkier" how big and how bulky it is.
Clearly, with the 5D you don't really "lose" anything from the 1.6x that the APS-C ones give you as you can crop the image post shot and get the same resolution as you could with the 20d.
It's one of those things that I want to move up from the 300d, as I've had it 20 months now and am happy this is the way to go, but I'm torn between perhaps doing a 'small' step to the 20d and just making the leap to a 1DII or 5D?
Hence my "thoughts" post!
J
>> Edited by joust on Friday 30th September 20:35
How big is the 1d you say.....
Imagine the 20D with the battery pack on, and your still not there
The 5D seems to be aimed at the wedding photographer as I see it, it doesn't offer the weather proofing of it's bigger brother but still offers the same image.
The 1D series also lack an on board flash, now thats not a problem to a hardened news jorno who'll be kitted out to the max, or the portrait snapper with a fancy light set up, but in the real world when you need to just grab that shot of "Auntie Lil" dropping her false teeth it might be the feature that makes the picture.
The 20d is a huge step up from the 300, it's also a move I'm still tyring to make the best of after almost a year
Imagine the 20D with the battery pack on, and your still not there
The 5D seems to be aimed at the wedding photographer as I see it, it doesn't offer the weather proofing of it's bigger brother but still offers the same image.
The 1D series also lack an on board flash, now thats not a problem to a hardened news jorno who'll be kitted out to the max, or the portrait snapper with a fancy light set up, but in the real world when you need to just grab that shot of "Auntie Lil" dropping her false teeth it might be the feature that makes the picture.
The 20d is a huge step up from the 300, it's also a move I'm still tyring to make the best of after almost a year
joust said:
I can't quite get the difference between the 1d II and the 5d - they both are around the same money, but clearly the 5d is smaller and lighter and so may be better suited to me?
The obvious difference is resolution (12.7mp Vs 8.2) and full frame. If you want to travel, use wide angles for higher quality landscapes, buy the 5d. If resolution's not so important and you want bullet proof, fast action capturing ability, and uses longer lenses; buy the 1DmkII. The difference in quality between the 20D and 1DmkII is marginal but with the 20D you would miss the (action) shot.
Bacardi said:Why do you say that? I do a lot of photography at motorsport events and there seems to be quite a few 20d's around.
The difference in quality between the 20D and 1DmkII is marginal but with the 20D you would miss the (action) shot.
What is the issue with the 20d for action shots?
J
Justin,
Hopefully I'll be at the Noble Owners Club meeting so you can use my 20D as much as you want, to see what you think.
Personally, except for pro work (massive enlargements) I can't think of any real reasons for anything more than the 20D (doesn't stop me wanting a 1D mkIIs though
)
Martin.
Hopefully I'll be at the Noble Owners Club meeting so you can use my 20D as much as you want, to see what you think.
Personally, except for pro work (massive enlargements) I can't think of any real reasons for anything more than the 20D (doesn't stop me wanting a 1D mkIIs though
) Martin.
Bacardi said:
joust said:
What is the issue with the 20d for action shots?
Does it do 8.5 FPS?
Nope, but it does 5fps / 6 shot bursts in RAW, and 5fps/ 25+ in Large fine JPEG, which will vary to a greater or lesser extent depending on the quality of CF card used.
20D is more than capable of shooting Airshows & Motorsports.
As for the 20D/5D/1DMK2(&MK2N) comparison..here's a massive over-simplification for you.
20D. Advanced Amateur or Pro's back-up.
5D Wedding & Studio portrait stuff, maybe light sports use (only 3fps)
1DMk2 + MK2(N)...Serious Pro sports camera. Absoloutely superb piece of kit.
MPixels mean little, there are plenty of pros still using the original 4Mp 1D (Mk1)...speed is the key for sports.
>> Edited by monkeyhanger on Friday 30th September 22:54
joust said:Well, it really depends what you want to get from it. Does the 1D II or 5D offer *you* anything over the 20D. For most people, they won't.
Money isn't really the issue, but I was wondering if people thought the 'step up' from the 20D was worth it.
joust said:The 1D series is pretty heavy (~1.5kg for the body), but they feel nice to hold, and very well balanced with a largish lens fitted (e.g., 70-200). I actually feel that my old EOS 30 (similar size to 20D) is too small and light when I go back to it after my 1Ds.
I can't quite get the difference between the 1d II and the 5d - they both are around the same money, but clearly the 5d is smaller and lighter and so may be better suited to me?
I've never played with a 1D, so unsure when people say it's "bigger and bulkier" how big and how bulky it is.
joust said:Not quite - the 20D has more pixels for a certain area I believe, but my view is that all things being equal, a bigger sensor is better - after all, the only reason we have smaller sensors is because 35mm sized ones were expensive to manufacture. Then again, if you shoot mainly with telephoto lenses, and aren't bothered much with wide angle, then you probably won't be as interested in full frame as people who shoot landscape for example.
Clearly, with the 5D you don't really "lose" anything from the 1.6x that the APS-C ones give you as you can crop the image post shot and get the same resolution as you could with the 20d.
In short, my view of the 3 cameras is that the 20D is a very good camera and well worth upgrading to from the 300D. If you want more speed and "hewn from rock" build quality, then the 1D II is your friend, but if ultimate image quality is more important, then the 5D will be the better choice, at the cost of some performance.
i'll chip in on the sensor size stuff (pun not intentional 
)
i think I atually prefer the 1.5x sensor size from a compositional point of view, but I am more than happy to trade that for the hugely improved image quality you can get with large sensors (and hence large pixels) in particular with respect to noise
>> Edited by dcw@pr on Friday 30th September 23:23
) i think I atually prefer the 1.5x sensor size from a compositional point of view, but I am more than happy to trade that for the hugely improved image quality you can get with large sensors (and hence large pixels) in particular with respect to noise
>> Edited by dcw@pr on Friday 30th September 23:23
dcw@pr said:Your profile states that you
but I am more than happy to trade that for the hugely improved image quality you can get with large sensors (and hence large pixels) in particular with respect to noise
>> Edited by dcw@pr on Friday 30th September 23:23
are a photographer .... so you probably read the
British Journal of Photography -
Most DSLR tests and reviews in that publication point
to the fact that the larger sensor size seems to
create more problems than it solves, and there really
is nothing in it between the main two sizes;
if anything, under most real life situations the
smaller size gives a 'better' result.
Thanks,
All interesting stuff.
Ed - you say a full frame is better for landscape. Is this because it just 'feels' better being viewed at "full frame", or is it that to get the same field of view on a APS-C sized frame you need to go 1.6x lower lens length, and hence you will start to get the "fisheye" effect sooner?
The following article gives the impression that for the same lens, a bigger sensor size is "better"
www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/size_matters.html
On the 'can I crop a 5d to get the same as a 20d" I've done the maths
APSc = 22mm x 15mm = 330mm^2
"35mm" = 36mmx24mm = 864mm^2
12.8MP / 864 * 330 = 4.8MP
So, seems you lose 3.4MP on doing that, so that will presumably be noticable (it works for the 1DIIs, but that's a bit out of my price range!)
Given the price, I think I'm wandering off towards the 20D, but for the shere pleasure of framing the shot full frame, just like my old SLR, I'm still strangely drawn towards the 5D...
Why do manufacturers make life so hard!
Any other thoughts welcome.
J
All interesting stuff.
Ed - you say a full frame is better for landscape. Is this because it just 'feels' better being viewed at "full frame", or is it that to get the same field of view on a APS-C sized frame you need to go 1.6x lower lens length, and hence you will start to get the "fisheye" effect sooner?
The following article gives the impression that for the same lens, a bigger sensor size is "better"
www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/size_matters.html
On the 'can I crop a 5d to get the same as a 20d" I've done the maths
APSc = 22mm x 15mm = 330mm^2
"35mm" = 36mmx24mm = 864mm^2
12.8MP / 864 * 330 = 4.8MP
So, seems you lose 3.4MP on doing that, so that will presumably be noticable (it works for the 1DIIs, but that's a bit out of my price range!)
Given the price, I think I'm wandering off towards the 20D, but for the shere pleasure of framing the shot full frame, just like my old SLR, I'm still strangely drawn towards the 5D...
Why do manufacturers make life so hard!
Any other thoughts welcome.
J
V6GTO said:No. With a 50mm lens on a normal DSLR what you see with your left eye through the camera is exactly the same as what you see with your right eye looking at the scene.
Surely( don't call me Shirley) it's the same for all DSLRs, WYSIWYG?
Martin.
It's hard to describe - get a 300d and a SLR and look through them one by one, the 300d (and all other APS-C SLRs) "shrink" what you are seeing.
J
elderly said:I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind this. There is only one reason that the manufacturers go for a smaller sensor, and that is cost.
Your profile states that you
are a photographer .... so you probably read the
British Journal of Photography -
Most DSLR tests and reviews in that publication point
to the fact that the larger sensor size seems to
create more problems than it solves, and there really
is nothing in it between the main two sizes;
if anything, under most real life situations the
smaller size gives a 'better' result.
Obviously, a good small sensor may well be better than a bad big sensor, but all things being equal, bigger is better.
ehasler said:That's the conclusion of this
Obviously, a good small sensor may well be better than a bad big sensor, but all things being equal, bigger is better.
www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/size_matters.html which seems sensible to me.
J
joust said:Actually, that's a good point about the "feel" - the full frame cameras do have bigger view finders, and this does make a difference to framing and focusing your shot. You really do have to try it to see for yourself though.
Ed - you say a full frame is better for landscape. Is this because it just 'feels' better being viewed at "full frame", or is it that to get the same field of view on a APS-C sized frame you need to go 1.6x lower lens length, and hence you will start to get the "fisheye" effect sooner?
The main reason I say that full frame is better for landscape is that your existing wide angle lenses work as they were designed. Obviously, you can now buy extra-wide angle (e.g., 10-22mm) lenses designed for the 20D/350D etc..., so it's not so much of an issue these days.
Really though, I'd say you're best bet is to get down to a store that has them in stock and try them out. You may find that you love the view you get on the 5D (or 1Ds II if you can't find anywhere with the 5D yet), or that you really like the feel of the 1D II.
FF, 8.5fps and 1.5kg body weight are all things that I think you need to try out for yourself, whereas things like the pixel count and iso range etc... can all be debated until the cows come home on internet forums
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff