E0S 20D vs EOS E350D - main differences?

Hi

 

Apart from price, what exactly are the differences (or benefits) of

getting the 20D compared to the 30D(EOS Digital Rebel XT)?

 

Also, I am pressuming that a DSLR will produce far superioir quality

photos than my Sony 7.2mpx p&s DSC-W7? Or is that a stupid question?

 

Thanks!

 

Matt

The main differences are: 20D has magnesium body, 350D (not 30D) has plastic body. 20D has rear control wheel, 350 D does not. 20D has pentaprism viewfinder, 350D uses pentamirror viewfinder (this means that the 20D's viewfinder is brighter.) 350D is also smaller. Too small for some people (such as myself. An EOS 3 is almost too small for my hands in some positions.) There may be more subtle differences that people with more hands on experience can impart to you, but thems the basics. In short, both are great cameras and you'd probably be happy with either (considering your current gear.)

> 350D (not 30D)

 

Oops! Yes 350d.

 

Great, cheers for the insight Andrew.

First of all, there is no 30D. The Rebel XT is the 350D, and there is a many-year-old D30

as well. Using the right designations will help you avoid confusion.

 

<p>There are many places to find <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/

compare_post.asp?

method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos20d%2Ccanon_eos350d%2Csony_dscw7&show=a

ll" target="_blank">direct comparisons<a> (that link includes the DSC-W7), so I will not

go into that directly. Do a search on this site for many many similar questions with

answers.

 

<p>As for quality, in many cases you will not be able to see a difference in quality

between pictures with your Sony and picture with a Canon DSLR. However, when you start

to use your camera in more extreme situations, like low light or high-contrast, you will see

a huge difference, and the DSLR will win every time.

 

<p>Quite simply, there are pictures you <b>can't</b> take with a pocket camera that

will look great with a DSLR.

<blockquote>

Also, I am pressuming that a DSLR will produce far superior quality photos than my Sony 7.2mpx p&s DSC-W7? Or is that a stupid question?

</blockquote>

Not necessarily. The DSLR will definite outperform the DSC-W7 at higher ISOs and you can get better lenses for the DSLR but the biggest determination of the quality of the photograph is the photographer. The DSLR will focus better if you want to take action shots. <P>

 

<blockquote>

Apart from price, what exactly are the differences (or benefits) of getting the 20D compared to the 30D(EOS Digital Rebel XT)?

</blockquote>

 

Bob Atkins has an article on this <A HREF="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/eos_digital_rebel_xt_vs_20d.html"> here</A>

Great, thanks guys.

The only differences between the two are ergonomic. Most people find the interface of the

20D to be a bit better. The 350D is much smaller. Some people, such as myself, view this as

a great benefit, because a smaller, lighter camera is a camera you're more likley to carry.

Other people prefer a bigger camera, for reasons I've never quite understood.

 

In terms of the image pipeline, they are effectively identical. Whether the ergonomic

differences are worth $400 to you is a personal decision. In my case, I decided to spend that

$400 on lenses instead of the body.

ERGONOMICS

 

The cameras performance is similar, how you get the results (as a photographer) are not. You need to handle them yourself to check this out.

 

As others have said, the P&S produces sharper images straight from the camera (it exaggerates it's own ability with aggressive sharpening and saturation). Either DSLR will outperform it, if your photographic technique is good, your post-processing is competent and you use quality lenses. Otherwise, you might well be disappointed - do a search many are.

I had this decision to make and one thing that swung it for me was the magnesium body of the 20d, and if you stick a heavy 24-70L lens on the end you will notice the difference.

 

As regards camera size, well i am one of those big handed people who find mobile phones and tiny calculators a pain and the same applies with cameras

I can't add a lot beyond the reasons for my choice of a Digital Rebel XT over the 20D. I

could have chosen either, but I selected the DR because:

 

1. I do a lot of my photography while hiking/backpacking and the fact that it is about a

half pound lighter is significant.

 

2. The smaller dimensions did not bother me.

 

3. The image quality should be essentially equal - both can use the same lenses, share the

1.6 crop factor, and have 8 megapixel sensors.

 

4. DSLR bodies tend to be somewhat "disposable" these days in the sense that, unlike film

bodies of few decades ago, the desire to replace them comes more frequently as pixel

density and other features improved. I don't expect the XT to be my main camera body for

long.

 

The XT is a bit harder to set up due to a slightly clumsier interface. For the kinds of

photography I do that wasn't much of an issue.

 

I've had this camera since early this year and have taken thousands of photos. I'm still very

pleased with it.

 

Dan

I purchased the 20D a year ago and absolutely love it. I have since also used the 350D from a friend and it takes equally good pictures. As Phil hinted, making the jump from Point&Shoot cameras to DSLRs can be a bit disappointing if you are expecting the same, out-of-the-camera usability of the pictures. However, once you get used to it, you can go a lot further with the DSLR.

 

As for differences between the 20D and the 350D, the 20D seems to be a bit more user friendly if you want to experiment with the manual modes. The 350D is a lot lighter and less expensive, which leaves the budget for better lenses. The primary reason I chose the 20D is the ability to take 5 pictures per second. This is really useful in high speed sports photography. In conjunction with this ability is the larger buffer, which allows you to take more consecutive pictures.

The 20D has less noise at high ISO.

 

Pierre

It's noit just ergnomics, there are some noticeable performance differences too which would make a difference in some applications.

 

For a few things 20D has...

 

- a higher frame rate/faster buffer. (5fps vs. 3fps, 5-6 RAW or 20+ JPEG vs. 10 JPEG & 3-4 RAW)

- Higher flash sync speed (1/250)

- Higher max shutter speed (1/8000)

- 2 more AF points

- Higher max ISO (3200)

- allegedly less noise at higher ISO

 

However, the XT can use a cheap IR remote and you have to spend a pile of money to have a wireless remote on the 20D. That is really stupid IMHO.

"The 20D has less noise at high ISO."

 

I haven't observed this. Do you have any evidence for that? And even if it were true, is it due to noise reduction algorithms or actual differences in the sensor?

 

I have to say, I greatly prefer the XT due to its smaller size. When I do need a firmer grip on the camera, then the XT with battery grip is still preferable to me to a 20D (with or without grip).

I was bemused to see several people here claim the the 350D is essentially a lighter 20D. Not surprising, they seem to be current 350D owners. ;)

 

All the Canon DSLR's are excellent, which one you need depends on what you are doing.

 

For the hobbyist the 350D is a fantastic value. It provides all the features and qualities one should expect from a quality DSLR at an affordable price.

 

For the professional (or aspiring) the 20D is also an excellent value. It's construction and sealing is much better than the 350D, it has less noise at higher ISO's AND an expanded ISO range, it has significantly better control layout (possibly the number one reason to purchase if you using your camera commercially), the camera is faster, it has better AF, start up is nearly instant...need I go on?

 

The best advice I can give is, if you can't understand the difference between the two...then you don't need the 20D - buy the rebel. :)

dpreview's comment on 350D vs 20D noise was

 

<blockquote>

As you can see there's almost no visible difference in noise levels between the EOS 350D and EOS 20D, our measured results (see graph below) show that the 350D's noise levels are very slightly higher between ISO 800 and 1600.

</blockquote>

 

The lack of a 3200 ISO might be a disaster or might never be an issue depending on your shooting style. I have not seen any comparison of the dynamics range and noise between underexposing by 1 stop at 1600 ISO, and applying + 1 EV in the RAW converter, and exposing at 3200 ISO. <P>

 

There are cheaper alternatives to Canon's wired remote so you need not drop more than $15. <P>

 

I think that for most purposes the image quality of the 2 cameras is identical.