eos 1D vs 20D (sorry!)

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by igor_feldman, Dec 4, 2004.

  1. I was considering a 20D when something made me think to look into a
    used 1D. I'm sorry for another silly post of the sort since a thread
    from a while back touched upon it:
    However, it was still a 10D vs. 1D question (some responses touched
    the 20D, though) and the person asking the question shoot sports. The
    overwhelming consensus of that thread, especially from people using
    both cameras, was that 1D was much superior. Yet, 20D is a better
    camera than 10D and I don?t shoot sports where fps and other speed
    factors are crucial. If I DO NOT print larger than 8 x 11, what will
    be the noticeable differences between the two cameras from a picture
    quality perspective? Also, I like B&W if it changes anything. The
    review of the 1D on dpreview talked about high ISO banding. How bad
    is it in practice and in what situations my images will be actually
    ruined by that? I know about multiple advantages of the 1D, but there
    are some disadvantages of the body for me as well to buy it without
    even thinking about anything else (size ? I can handle it if I need to
    but it?s a cone; still a higher price than even a new 20D). I would
    only want it if I get picture quality advantages to print up to 8 x
    11. (I?m an amateur switching from EOS 3 to digital). Thanks very
    much in advance. Igor.
  2. You should be able to work this out but:

    Either of these cameras will probably do everything you need, however the smaller viewfinder of the 20d, when coming from a 3 might be a killer factor. For me it's a luxury I can't afford, but I've never had a high end 35mm camera, so I don't miss it.
  3. the 1D is old generation stuff, when it comes to digital you dont want old generation, legacy, discontinued stuff. for example, the D30 and the D60 are both in a higher class of cameras than the Drebel, but the Drebel is a newer release of better technology. The 1D no longer worth buying because it is antiqudated. There are possibly some point and shoots that can outperfrom the 1D today, in the here and now. I still say to buy the camera you can afford, any one of canon's current offerings. no need to think of performance of one body or the other because price will be the factor you will consider. do you want the 1ds2 at 8000 , or the 1d2 at 4500 or the 20D at 1500 or the Drebel at 650 ? what can you afford?, they will do the job you need it to do. again, never mind buying the old discontinued stuff, it isnt worth the $
  4. Not sure Danny, I am pretty certain that the 1Ds will outperform the 1D Mark II except for noise at high ISOs. In terms of resolution, the 1Ds files are MUCH better. Download the Canon Samples and see for yourself.
  5. Hi Igor,

    Both cameras will give you perfect 8x11's and bigger. Ignore Danny he has obviously never
    used a 1D. Commng from a 3 the 1D would be a more intuative move, I got a 1D after
    useing 1VHS's and the switch was easy. If you used the 3 with a PB-E2 then you know how
    big and heavy the 1D is, if that won't work for you get the 20D. If you don't need the
    brighter viewfinder get the 20D, if you want 1.6 crop get the 20D. If you need world class
    AF get the 1D, if you need a bigger viewfinder get the 1D, if you want the 1.3 crop get the
    1D. If you want wide angle performance from your current lenses, get a 1D.

    These really are the differences, both cameras take perfect pictures, the 20D is a very
    good nearly new pro-summer camera. The 1D is an older generation (though not
    outclassed) out and out pro body, the best of everything available at the time, two and half
    years ago, went into it. My money went on the 1D, I wanted weather proofed 1.3 crop with
    pro AF, but I have recommended the 20D to others for different reasons. You pay your
    money and make your choice.

    Take care, Scott.
  6. Sorry typo, brighter viewfinder get the 1D.

    I'd like to know which point and shoot Danny thinks will out perfom a 1D.

    Take care, Scott.
  7. Scott, thanks very much for your reply. I've enjoyed your responses to many other
    threads before. So, would I be right to conclude that image quality wise, if I print up to 8
    x 11, both cameras are somewhat equivalent? But what about what Phil wrote in his
    review of the 1D on dpreview about high ISO banding? Is that a non-isue for all normal
    situations? I understand what you are saying but I'm surprised, not having personal
    exposure to this kind of digital equipment, of course, that the higher resolution of the
    20D would not show on prints even as small as 8 x 11. Also, I thought that the larger
    size of the 1D would have an effect on dinamic range of images. Otherwise, I do want the
    better build quality, the better viefinder (similar to the eos 3), and the opportunity to use
    lenses in the mode more familiar from using them on 35 mm frames (including better DOF
    for a given lens), all of which I could get better from a 1D than a 20D. Thanks again, Igor.
  8. Well, just to clarify. I'm more likely to shoot people/portraits and nature. Will 1D's lower
    resolution be a problem in those cases? Or, may be, will 1D's better dynamic range give
    me an advantage in those cases? Igor.
  9. Hi Igor,

    Now you are getting down to the bones of it. As I said both cameras will make perfect
    8x11's and you will see no difference in quality. If you need high ISO performance
    then the 20D does edge out the 1D initially, (once you're in the digital world it seems
    there is a program to sort out everything!) I come from a 50-100 ISO film background
    so high ISO performance was not a factor for me, in fact the basic 200 ISO standard
    speed of the 1D has given me a stop i'm not used to. The dynamic range is one I was
    worried about but shooting RAW and blending problem areas has eliminated that
    completley. Shadow details and blocked up shadows are easily adjusted in PSCS RAW
    Plugin, I can't recommend Photoshop CS enough.

    I am fussy and got the 1D as a way of introducing myself to digital not expecting
    fantastic results but not wanting to get too out of touch with new developments, I am
    blown away with the results, I use a 4.4 MP camera that the numbers game says is
    outclassed, it is not. I have shown 8.5x11 prints from the 1D to photo professionals
    (editors and buyers} and they do not believe it is only 4MP but I don't crop, again the
    slide background.

    So the upshot is this, neither is streched by making 8x11's in MP, dynamic range or
    noise in the vast range of situations, photoshop is a graet asset in bringing the best
    out of these cameras, but don't expect 20x30's from either at high iso's without a lot
    of work. Specifically I have not had a banding problem with the 1D but I don't use
    high iso much and no you will see no difference in pixel count on an 8x11 print even
    though the 20D has twice the number, I don't understand why but I learnt that by
    looking at the prints from both.

    Take care and thanks for your kind words, Scott.
  10. I mainly shoot HS sports action shots. I own and shoot with both bodies 20D and 1D. I came from G5, 300D, and 10D to now. I'm a more of price/performance value oriented and I don't have unlimited budget so I must choose one body to fit what's best for what I'm doing. I just sold 1D to get more lenses.

    Here's my criteria list:

    75% Excellent performance for ISO 1600 and 3200.
    20% Excellent AF performance to keep up with speed in sports.
    5% Others like body, weight, grip, ect...

    Here are my questions and answers:

    1. Do I need better weather sealing body of 1D?
    No. Because I've shot in cold rain in MN with 300D and 10D before. 20D built is very similar to 10D and it should be doing fine in all sorts of weather.
    2. Do I need faster frame rate of 1D 8fps consistently?
    No. 5pfs is good enough since I don't do burst often.
    3. Do I need fast AF?
    Yes. Both are very faster than 10D. However 1D is slightly faster especially with Hockey. I will give 1D advantage here.
    4. Do I need good high ISO performance?
    YES! With HS sports where I make my most money, their games are in the worse lighting condition and I consistently shooting at 1600 and 3200. For basketball, it's 3200 now. Hockey 1600. Soccer and Football 3200. This is where 1D fails miserably.
    5. Do I need a huge body of 1D?
    No. I need a camera that don't scare people away. 1D body is very heavy and huge.
    6. Do I need battery/vertical grip?
    Yes. 20D grip is a joke with its problems so I'm waiting for the redesigned one. I really miss the vertical grip with basketball.
    7. Do I need good battery performance?
    20D BP-511 kicks 1D NP-E3 butt from here to China...and back. NP-E3 max is 500 shots and the size is twice of BP-511. NP-E3 is heavier as well.
    8. Do I need spot metering?
    9. Do I need better dynamic range?
    Yes. Both can deliver. However 20D is slightly better in color management. 1D tends to give a green cast if you're shooting JPEG. For best results, shoot RAW with 1D all the time and you can correct during post-processing. I'll give 20D advantage here.
    10. Do I need high speed flash sync?
    No. I can't shoot flash for all my HS games.
    11. Do I need 1.3X vs 1.6X crop factor?
    Doesn't make any difference to me. Although 1D viewfinder is larger. I like that.
    12. Do I get lock-ups?
    1D never locks up on me. 20D has a few times with Err99 and I had to pop the battery and looking like a dork. I don't like it but I'll overlook it for now.

    I hope you find this helpful in making your decision. You can review all my shots at WWW.BESTACTIONSHOTS.COM
  11. I forgot to add one more:
    13. Which gives better color quality?20D with its latest DIGIC II processor. 1D is 3 years behind 20D.
  12. I am usin EOS 1D & it's resolutoin has never been an issue to me & I'm making 100x150 cm prints.To see it yourself open attachement in file in Photoshop set dimensions to 100x150 cm set resolution to 180 dpi & zoom in 50% as that is approximate size of 100x150cm print.
  13. Guys, thank you so much for all your inputs!
    I?ve been away from my computer and am afraid that nobody remains in the thread any longer. But if you are still here? Btw, sorry in advance for unsophisticated or silly questions about digital stuff and thank you for your patience.
    Best Action Shots, thanks for all the advises. Most of them are sport shooting related though, and as I said I don?t usually do sports at all. Btw, I?ve seen your samples of dogs racing or running, I?m not sure how those things are called, on dpreview. Great captures!
    Bojan, thanks for the image. It?s just great. I almost decided on 1D just after seeing it. :) No, I?m serious. I like the colors a lot. Is that heavily processed to get such sophisticated colors or they are such because of the qualities of 1D?s sensor?
    If some of you guys are still here, let me ask you a couple of more questions. I?ve been reading different forums on the topic and went to B&H to hold the 1D M2 (same size and weight) and asked the salesperson about his opinion. The salesperson said 20D is definitely better for the following reasons (I?m not suggesting he knows better than many people on this forum, I don?t think he does. It?s just he said something I don?t think is right but I didn?t know how/want to argue with him). He said the same blah-blah about new vs. old technology, which I don?t buy as a magic argument not requiring specific points. He also said that the 20D has a larger dynamic range than the 1D. How can that be? Doesn?t the DR has to do with a size of individual pixels, or how much charge they can hold, or how many photons they can count before filling up at each exposure? Another thing I kept seeing in different threads is these arguments about how images look ? which is the most important thing for me to make this choice. People said images right from the 1D are sharper than from the 20D because of different alias filters on the two cameras. But cannot the in-camera sharpen parameters be set so that the images? levels of sharpness look similar? Why is that an issue? Also, people mostly those who favor the 1D, talk about ?digitally looking images? from the 20D? I?ve looked at 20D samples at dpreview, I see that they are very clean but I don?t understand why they look ?as if they came from a digital camera.? And the last thing, there is only one image of a person of all the 20D gallery on dpreview. Yet, there are quite a few of photos with people in the sample gallery of the 1D? Is that just a coincidence or Phil hints/thinks/means that the 20D may not be the best camera for portraits? The last thing I?m even afraid to say, but I didn?t really like the images with people from the 1D gallery (nothing in particular. It?s just a feeling). If anybody familiar with them, what do you think about them?
  14. Hi Igor,

    It's a tough choice isn't it ?

    My experiance is similar to Bojan's the colours are great from the 1D, I found the 20D a
    colder but they are very easily adjusted if you shoot RAW with either camera.

    With regard the DR, I think you are in danger of over analising the situation, neither
    camera is noticeably better or worse than the other, a bit like MTF charts and real world
    use, one might test better in some circumstances but the differences do not, in general,
    show up in practice.

    The opinion of the guy in B&H should be taken in the context of sales, if you buy a 20D
    he might make some money if you buy a 1D he will not. Again he is almost certainly
    repeating some sales splurge that does not necessarily show up in real world use.

    I don't see the 1D images as sharper, my experiance is that the in camera sharpening on
    the 20D is more than in the 1D, though I have been pleasantly surprised by how sharp the
    1D images are. But that really only applies to jpeg's, don't forget that all the camera
    parameters are adjustable after shooting if you use RAW, so the in camera sharpening
    should not affect your decision making.

    The more you mess around with the processing of your files the more you realise you
    really can make digital images have any 'look'. The images that you are noticing have been
    processed, or not, a certain way but you will be able to make your shots look however you
    want them to given some practise.

    Haven't seen the 1D portraits you are talking about, but I shot this earlier today and the
    true likeness is frightening, in tones, colours and feel. So I really like my 1D portraits.

    Take care, Scott.
  15. Oops, forgot to attach the file!
  16. This is a 100% crop with no photoshop sharpening. I don't need much more from a camera than this! Take care, Scott.
  17. Scott, wow! Thanks for the images! They are just amazing! This is exactly the feel and look I would want from my camera. I don?t mean any numbers, I mean the feel. Yours and Bojan's images make me wonder what people mean when they talk about ?aged technology.? I like the way 1D conveys reality. What else can technology give me if I don?t need more MPs? And number wise, 20D has more pixels, that I may not need, and less noise at high ISOs, which is nice, and 1D has better focusing, which is also nice, and 1.3 crop factor, that I would really like. Scott, thanks again for your advises. You were more than helpful.

    Guys, what I?m now wondering is whether 20D can make images like that or similar. Again, I don?t mean detail or super sharpness, or anything of this sort. I mean such beautiful tones and sophisticated colors that convey reality in such an immediate way. Any good examples out there? Thanks again. (I?m not trying to have a contest here. I?m trying to make a decision that turned out to be more difficult than I had anticipated). Igor.
  18. Hi again Igor,

    If you do a search here on photonet for Giampiero Scuderi he has a lot of portraits that
    were taken with, a 10D and or a 20D.

    People that talk about old technology normaly are just talkers, they are not actualy useing
    the gear that they have such strong opinions on.

    As I keep saying, the decision is realy down to price, size, crop factor, AF ability,
    viewfinder etc, the picture quality you will get from either camera (especialy at 8x10) will
    not be noticable or quantifiable.

    Take care, and keep thinking! Scott.
  19. Igor, If you're not shooting sports then I suggest don't get a camera built for sports shooters. 1D was built strictly for fast action shots back in 2001. I should have this camera but it can't deal with dim lit fields and gyms and ISO 1600 and 3200. I have to get 1DmkII to fill all my needs and if I do I will be working three jobs to pay for the debt!

    Check out the ISO performance of 20D at 3200

    It's one amazing digital technology.
  20. Scott, I just looked at Giampiero Scuderi's works. I'll be honest with you, I didn't like them. It's obviously, much more likely that it's a problem with me and not with Giampiero's photos but... I don't know how to express what I felt looking at them but I would use these words to describe them: visually unappealing, overly processed, there is nothing even close to the immediate feeling of connectedness to the image and its reality that I felt when I saw your photos, looking digital. I can actually see all sorts of post-processing artifacts along edges of subjects on many of those images. As soon as I see something like that, it kills everything for me that the image might carry. Here are a couple of examples that I would think have those qualities:
    And even this one:
    They all look like toy images to me, for some reason. You disagree with these assertions, right? Btw, it doesn?t necessarily says anything about the camera he?s using. Igor.
  21. Best Action Shots, the images are truly amazing! Almost unbelievable for 3200! I don't know what to say. I'm still a bit concerned, I guess, because I've seen some even prosumer cameras (my friends Sony F-717) can do amazing things with some types of lighting with some sorts of objects/textures. The images you showed are untouchable for their sheer ISO performance. But setting is a high contrast situation with very bright textured objects. I?ve seen the Sony work well (not at 3200 of course :) in this sort of situations but look much less confident when it came to people and difficult lighting with a very tender tonal setting. Just my feeling. The truth is, I just don?t know and am trying to learn this stuff. Thanks. Igor.
  22. I'm just saying the 1D is old. the 20D is new. the man did ask 1d or 20D, what's he gonna do with a 4 mpx camera ?
  23. Igor, BTW if you get 1D, be prepared to buy fast glass. I will be shooting 20D ISO 3200 with 300/4L lens. I'm a starving sports shooter :)

    I'm looking for saving by shooting high ISO with slower lens 300/4L Non-IS $650 vs 300/2.8L IS $4000.
  24. I mean like yeah, I'm sure the 1D was a great camera at it's time. and if there werent anything better, it'll still be worth buying. If you see the posts above they all say the 1D is great ! except for this and except for that. and at 4 mpx how confident are you printing 8x11 ? you'll interpolate to get 300 DPI, I mean it just makes sense to buy the current technology. The 1D.. 4 mpx, grainy at high iso, meanwhile the 1DmkII is out, and the 20D gives better images at a lower price. this is fast moving technology, it isnt a VCR sale.
  25. Danny, I totally see your general point. The 20D is amazing for what it is and digital
    technology does move very fast. I am just not sure how to use that true but general
    observation to help myself answer the question I'm asking. You say 4 MP are not enough
    even print 8 x 11 while people on this thread above and others on other forums I saw, who
    have been using the 1D, definitely say otherwise. Again, non of them is saying that 4 MP
    are better than 8 MP. They are stating simple facts based on their experience that the 4
    MP of 1D do produce very good images that are printable even larger than 8 x 11. But at
    that size, they say, I should be definitely fine. Several examples above, I find amazing.
    Don't you?
    Scott says that he astonished some publishers with his images out of his 1D. I don't even
    need to publish anything. I take photos for my own satisfaction and what I saw so far
    from people saying that 1D is just fine for this kind of use is more than I expected for
    many qualities unrelated to MPs. Do you think people saying that 4 MP are enough for 8 x
    11 don't know what thay are talking about? I saw their photos, I just don't think it's true.
    Btw, here is another link to a set taken by someone with a 1D, that was linked to on a
    similar thread on dpreview:


    Best Action Shot, since I'm not into sports, I probably cannot feel your pain :). Coming
    from film, and n ot being a pro, the fastest film I've ever used was 800, and 1600 once.
    for me, great 1600 and usable 3200 is a luxury I haven't even learned to desire :). I've
    managed with 400 - 800 film with the set of lenses I have and I think that 1D would not
    prevent me from keeping on going at the same leasurely pace :). I don't think 1D's noice
    becomes a problem, from what I've read, before somewhere 1250, or does it? So, I can
    probably live without that amazingly clean high ISO, as long as I like what I'm getting at
    the 200 - 800 - 1000 range. So far, I've liked more what I saw coming from a 1D, at that
    more or less normal range, than from a 10/20D. I'm sure it can change. Oh well... Will be
    greatful to hear more thooughts. Igor.
  26. Igor,I just saw jour earlier posting asking me if the image was "heavily processed" & the answer is NO that is original straight out of camera image only "processing" was camera's sharpening.I don't know why there is no EXIF information on image properties as that shows almost all of the parameters used & if the image was modified in any way.Anyway here are some of the parameters :ISO 250, f10 1/80 , AI servo (don't ask),auto white ballance,EF 17-40mm f4 L USM @ 40mm ...If you want to see it yourself let me know your e-mail & I'll send you the picture with EXIF info.
  27. It's all subjective really. One man's trash is another man's treasure. Some say you can print a 8x11 with the 1D, and you CAN. but the resulting image quality is lower than if you used the 20D. it's in the pixels, the more pixels you have the more detail you have. some people cant tell the difference between a 200 DPI print and a 300 DPI print. some people can. but basic rule is that for the best print possible, use 300 DPI. and at 8 x 11 size, 8 Megapixels just covers that and a little bit more. ( 4 mp will cover a 8 x 5.5 )

    anything less than 300 DPI is just to the observer really, say a 100 dpi poster print viewed from far away is acceptable, but that dont mean that "The 1D can print up to 16x20" that would be misleading.

    as for the images you viewed above and on the other sites, remember they are being shown on a monitor at 72 dpi. ( low res )

    I believe Scott when he says that he astonished some publishers with his images out of his 1D. Like I said, it's all subjective. publishers dont only care about DPI, I bet his pics got some real good subject matter also !

    any camera can be good for your own satisfaction. but I cant live with myself if I print a 8x11 at anything less than 240 DPI.

    It just all depends on the person. I once showed newsprint to a friend to tell him about pixels, he said the newprint looks really good. It just goes to show, it's all up to you what you think is acceptable or not.
  28. Also before I get flamed, I dont correct my spelling on internet forum posts I apologize for the mispellings, I also write in a verbal informal manner as opposed to correct writing, so forgive the grammar, and I dont get too technical with the terms and jargon so forgive the obvious mistakes. Like, I mean I know the correct stuff, I just dont wanna use it all the time. and igor, I mean PPI not DPI but I always just say DPI for no good reason.
  29. "Best Action Shots, the images are truly amazing!" - at the small size his shots are posted at on the net you can't tell anything about the image quality - a P&S would likely get the same results. Lets see some 100% crops so we can see the real quality.
  30. Hey Danny,

    I'm not flaming you but do try and get your facts straight, a 1D image printed at 240 dpi at
    its native resolution comes out at 10.267 x 6.867 inches. NOT 5.5 x 8 inches. Any printer
    set on scale to fit media will produce a perfect 8 x 11 without any photoshop interpolation
    (yes I understand this is interpolating) but I have not found an imageing professional who
    can tell the difference at 8 x 11.

    Take care, Scott.
  31. And another thing, publishers absolutely do care about resolution, the ones I deal with will
    not accept anything less than 300 dpi because that is what they have been told NOT what
    they see, that is why they were so surprised by the shots I showed them. They also always
    look to crop so want some extra sizeing to allow for it. The most common comment is
    "what is the file size" so I say 23 mb because that is the size of a 16 bit RAW uncropped

    Take care, Scott.
  32. Here are the links to actual files from camera. They are about 3MB each.
    ISO 100 Photo
    ISO 200 Photo
    ISO 400 Photo
    ISO 800 Photo
    ISO 1600 Photo
    ISO 3200 Photo

    Chiswick John , dec 06, 2004; 07:06 a.m.
    "Best Action Shots, the images are truly amazing!" - at the small size his shots are posted at on the net you can't tell anything about the image quality - a P&S would likely get the same results. Lets see some 100% crops so we can see the real quality.
  33. Here are the 100% cropped files of a small part from photo:

    20D ISO 100
    [​IMG] 20D ISO 200
    [​IMG] 20D ISO 400
    20D ISO 800
    [​IMG] 20D ISO 1600
    [​IMG] 20D ISO 3200
  34. Best Action, That's What I'm Talking About ! lets see a 1D even try to match that kind of quality ! Great examples ! Technology Rules !

    Scott: you said it yourself: "1D image printed at 240 dpi at its native resolution comes out at 10.267 x 6.867 inches" and "the ones I deal with will not accept anything less than 300 dpi" and I did say at 300 dpi, the 1D will cover a 8 x 5.5 I didnt say at any lower res.

    If you have a choice scott, would you prefer to print at 300 or 240 ? and not talking about some home printer either, for ALL your printing tasks both at home, and at the pro offset machines.

    Well, the poster igor was deciding to PURCHASE a 1d or a 20D, can you honestly say that you can recommend the 3 year old 1d as a purchase knowing full well that it costs 1600+ on the used market meanwhile the 20D is 1450 for new? If canon offered a 250 dollar upgrade for the 1D to change out the sensor for a 8 megapixel would you not do it?

    Although you never met someone who can tell the difference, I also know people who claim that cubic zirconias and diamonds cant be differentiated with the naked eye, or that the fake rolex looks the same or whatever. It all depends on who you talk to.

    The man is about to dump 1500 plus on a camera, Although the 1D is a good camera, I Myself cannot tell him to buy a used 4mp camera for that price no matter what the reasons. and if he does buy that 1d scott, and he then wants to print larger one day. are you going to buy it from him so he can then move on to a 8mp + sensor camera ?

    Can you say that 4mp noisy sensor of the 1D is better than the 8mp smooth sensor of the 20D ?

    I know it is fancy to have a "1" on the camera, or that the weather sealing is better or bla bla bla, but isnt photography about the photo?

    I'm not saying that the owners if a 1D need to upgrade, It is still serviceable I know. but THE MAN IS ABOUT TO DUMP 1500 BUCKS on a CAMERA TODAY ! DECEMBER 06 2004.
  35. Got another test for you! I called it SPEEDY DOG TEST.
    The main objective is to compare the AF speed between the two cameras and mostly can 20D keep up with 1D.
    Overall I've found it can keep up but have more OOF photos. 1D AF is truly amazing and 20D is not far behind.

    1D Speedy Dog Test

    20D Speedy Dog Test
  36. Ok Danny, Firstly, Igor wanted to know how the 1D compared to the 20D printed out to no larger than 8x11, my experiance is that I have not met one person, including imageing professionals, who can tell the difference between 1D and 20D image quality at that size. You are talking numbers but not showing anything, how much have you used BOTH cameras? Second, I tried to make the point, that a lot of imageing pros have been told they have to work at 300 dpi, this is not backed up by their eyes, you need to go up to very high printing standards to be able to really see the difference between 240 and 300 dpi. I know this from my own experience, not because I read it somewhere on some bullitin board. Though I am not the only person who has realised this, check out Dan Hellers web site and his opinion on dpi for one. Third, I stated 240 dpi because that is what you said you would print an 8x11 out at. The amount of interpolation needed to print out to that size really is well within the algorithms of all but the most basic printers and manipulation programs. Fourth, I don't doubt that the 20D benefits from a couple of years of R&D but are you saying a 2 year old Mercedes is rubbish because there is a brand new Ford out ? I'm not argueing that the 20D has better high iso performance than the 1D, it does, and I said in my first post that if that was important to Igor he should get the 20D, he subsiquently said the high iso performance was not that important to him, so there is no overwhelmingly good reason to go for either camera. Five, the vast majority of times I could care less about 240 or 300 dpi, I will interpolate up to 36x24 inches at 240 and the grain is not much different from 35mm slides blown up that big, the more important factor seems to be the sharpening, it has a bigger effect on enlargments than interpolation, well it does in PSCS, but what would I know, I'm only doing it? Six, not only would I recommend Igor get a 1D if there was an overwhelming reason too, in previous posts I have suggested both as the better answer to a specific request, but how do you think I got mine? The tooth fairy. I paid for it, and I got it after useing the 20D. I have used and understand both cameras. I decided the 1D was a better answer for my photography than the 20D, why could that not be the case for Igor? Seven, if a $250 1D upgrade was available, yes I'd buy it, does that mean it is rubbish without the upgrade ? No of course it's not. It will do everything Igor states he wants, I wouldn't recommend a D60 (for different reasons) but a lot of people are buying them and are very happy with them, are they all idiots ? Can their cameras still take good pictures ? Of course they can. You are really hung up on this newer is better trip but as Igor said if the 1D can do all he wants why not ? Your main reasoning seems to be because it it old and can't do the job. Several posters here and in other threads that actualy use the cameras being talked about know you are wrong. Eight, if imageing pros can't tell the difference and Igor has said that he has no publishing asperations then so what. If a fake compound golf club is made buy the same people in the same factory with the same materials and it is indistinguishable from the genuine article by pro golfers, does it matter if it is a fake ? What is a fake ? Why is it relevent ? You have bought into the numbers game and repeat what you have been told, some of us are out there playing around useing the firmware upgades and the improved software and not being dictated to by the "rules" but relying on what we actualy see. Nine, you haven't used the 4MP camera so who cares what your opinion is ? If Igor wants to print bigger , despite saying he did not want to then guess what, he can. There are an aweful lot of people who print out 1D files at 12x18, guess what, they look great. Don't argue the numbers game until you have seen one, as I said earlier in the thread I don't understand why the prints look so good but they do. It does not all turn to mush after 8x5 at 300dpi you know. Ten, Igor has stated that he preffers the look he is seeing from 1D images over 20D images, you tell him that the 1D is worse, oh yeh you already did didn't you. The 1D is not noisey at lower iso's, the 20D out preforms the 1D at higher iso, I've agreed that so many times now, I even mentioned it before you did, so what? Igor has said that high iso performance is not a deciding factor for him. Please stop making the same point. But Igor seems to be thinking the 1D sensor will give him what he wants, who are you to tell him he and his eyes are wrong ? Eleven, yes photography is about the photo and Igor is obviously looking for a camera that will give him a specific feel to his pictures, so far he has said he has seen that feel in1D images and not 20D images, so which camera do you think will serve him better ? There are also other specific advantages the 1D has over the 20D other than weather sealing, those were the factors that made me put my money into the 1D. Am I wrong despite the fact that I am happy ? Twelve, yep Igor is going to buy a camera, he can decide which will be best for him, I went through the same process recently and guess what ? The 1D was the right answer for me. Thirteen, I have not said "Igor get the 1D" what I have said, in answer to his specific enquiries, is "yes the 1D will do all the things you want it to, as will the 20D" Take care and either put up or shut up, Scott. P.S. At least Best Action posts pics illustrating his points ! Even though the thrust of his argument ( better high iso performance in the 20D) has already been said by Igor to not be that important to him.
  37. I know Igor will want this photo for Christmas.

    Happy Holidays Everyone!
    20D ISO 3200 50mm f/5.6 1/13sec
  38. Scott: Nice set of opinions you have there, well anyway, I still stand with NO for the 1D, and Yes for the 20D . Igor, if you really need the benefits of the 1D, I think you would be happier with the 1DmkII.
  39. Actually Igor should do his own tests like what I've done and pick the best price/performance based on his own criteria. To each his/her own I guess.
  40. That, Best Action, is the smartest thing you've said and I agree 100%. You did your
    homework and came out with the 20D for your reasons, I did my homework and came out
    with the 1D for my reasons. Igor is trying to do his homework whilst Danny keeps
    comming out with regurgitated garbage and has probably never touched either camera.
    Now he says don't drop $1500-1800 on a body, go spend $4000+. Amazing...

    Take care, Scott.
  41. >Igor, if you really need the benefits of the 1D, I think you would be happier with the 1DmkII.

    Danny, I?ve never thought of it but I suspect I would be happier with the Mk2. I even think I could be happier with a 1Ds Mk2. Guess what, I?m sure I would also be much more delighted to drive a 2005 BMW 330 Ci than the 1995 Nissan Maxima I?m driving. Life ain?t perfect, we all know that :).

    Best Action Shots, thanks for the Christmas pic. The 20D?s ISO performance is still up there in the skies :).

    Everyone, thanks very much for your input! It was a great and very fruitful for me discussion. I think I even made up my mind about a camera thanks to this thread :).

    Take care and see you around,
  42. Only 3 things to add ....

    ... Igor, tell us in time how you made up your mind :)

    ... all of you ... just keep cool. A lot of valid opinions were voiced and discussed, but there's really no need to start insulting each other...

    ... for me, this thread is interesting as well ... after leaning very heavily towards the 20D because of its high iso capabilities ... but still knowing that a 1D would be *very* nice to handle ... now with the photos posted, I'm wavering a bit again ;-(

    Scott, could you post a high ISO /low light picture from the 1D?

    Best regards,
  43. Hi Andy, I'm sorry if I have offended anybody, I did not mean to, where I come from telling somebody to put up or shut up is meant literaly and is not insulting! But it really gets me annoyed when people who clearly have no experiance of something lecture on about it, it is very counter-productive. Anyway onto your request, I don't know how to align different pics like Best Action but half his pics don't come up on my server so I have to post examples individualy. This is an inside shot taken at 1600 iso, the first post should be the entire frame, the second a 100% crop, the third a crop at 800 iso, the fourth a crop at 400 iso. The 3200 setting on the 1D is a personal function, I have not included this but if you want me to just say. The EXIF data shows, .2 sec at f 2.8 at 1600 iso, I think that puts it at EV 0>1 so you don't get to use them much dimmer! There is a -2/3 compensation but even that is generous as the scene is much darker than it looks. Hope this all works and hope it helps. Take care, Scott.
  44. Second post, 100% crop from above frame 1600iso EV 0>1. The white band through the frame is the corner of my house! OK so I didn't spend too long setting this up. I must be honest I am pleasantly surprised by how good these are compared with fast film, I am going to do some portraits at high iso and low EV with the intention of converting to B&W to see how they feel. There is no processing atall in these shots, no corrections, levels, or cleaning. Take care, Scott.
  45. Third post, 800 iso 100% crop. Take care, Scott.
  46. Fourth post, 100% crop at 400 iso. Take care, Scott.
  47. "put up or shut up" I still dont know what that really means, to "put up" to me means to endure agony such as "I have to PUT UP with my boss." but any which way, I cant speak for others but I did at one time look into a 1D as a purchase about 2 months ago since the price dropped down in the used market. After reading the reviews on Dpreview, I decided on the Digital Rebel Instead. Everyone has their opinons and mine is that any 4 MP camera is not worth 2 grand, not now anyway. I decided on the rebel because I do alot of studio work, portraits using cold lights, I print at 6x9 max. I myself decided that 6 MP would be enough to cover and even crop a little, FPS isnt important because my monolights dont recycle any faster than the rebel can shoot, and that because I am indoors I dont need water resistance. Using the powerful cold lights I am able to just stay with iso 100 for noise free shots so the noise free 20D sensor was not important to me. There was no advantage for me to go any higher than the rebel, and after canon's juicy rebate I was able to get one for 405 dollars. I chose not to go legacy/discontinued cameras because pricewise it didnt make sense, and I do not wish to interpolate the images for sending to the professional image printers at 300 DPI/PPI. the 1D is very old. it is just one camera above the D30 in the timeline of canon. 4 MP is not enough for my 6x9 printing needs at the various printers with whom I do business. and god forbid if I had to crop that 1D image. for ME and IMHO, the Digital Rebel satisfies all my needs for the in studio camera, and it is a vast improvement over the ancient olympus E10 I was using, it was a thousand dollars less than the 20D, One thousand Six Hundred dollars less than the 1D which I cant even use at all.

    Now I harbor no ill feeling nor ill will for those who would disagree with my opinions, that is what makes this world an interesting place. I enjoy a good debate, I even learn alot from many debates I have had in many forums. It is always good to see other people's point of view and at that, I shall close with one last statement "everyone's different and thus will have different points of views and that is all right in my book !"
  48. Hi Danny,

    It wasn't your opinions I had a problem with but your obvious and now admitted lack of
    experiance with the cameras in question. I do not criticise you for dismissing the 1D in
    your case and you are obviously happy with your Drebel (another camera that I have used
    a fair amount) but it does seem strange to me how vociferous people can get when they
    don't have any hands on knowledge, but like you say the world is made up of many
    different sorts and it is better for it.

    Put up or shut up, means put up some evidence of your experiance or stop talking about
    stuff you have no knowledge of.

    Anyway, take care and have a great Christmas and New Year. Scott.

    P.S. If you want to Email me your address I will post you some 8x11 prints from the 1D, it
    MIGHT make you think a little differently.
  49. I'm sorry to say but I have one word for 1D high ISO performance: uuuggglllyyyy! :)

    I love its AF though! 1DmkII would be the best ideal camera but it costs way too much for my budget.
  50. Oh heavens, I cant believe this statement "I had a problem with but your obvious and now admitted lack of experiance with the cameras in question."

    What does experience with a particular model of camera have to do with what I have to say? I dont need to shove a 1D up my @ss to know it is a 4 MEGAPIXEL camera.

    And 4 megapixel camera no matter the brand still has 4 megapixels.

    I dont need to take a 1D out to dinner and kiss it to realize it will not suit my partiuclar wants and needs.

    for MY NEEDS I print at 300 DPI/PPI. I WANT MY FILES to be 300 DPI/PPI when I send them to the printers.

    the 1D simply do not have enough pixels. and I didnt need to give it alimony payments to find that out either.

    Look, like I said before. What the 20D can provide at TRUE 300 DPI the 1D can only provide at 200 DPI. When sending my files to my printer people, If I had the 1D, I would have to software interpolate to achieve 300 PPI, which means ONE THIRD of that image will be a computer's guess at what those extra pixels will contain. That always results in a softer image than it can be and it is well documented in unlimited books, sites, forums and is also common knowdlege.

    thus without Waking up everymorning and calling the 1D honey, I am able to say, NO FOR THE 1D for Igor since if he wants the best possible print quality at 8x11 inches.

    Man, how hard was that to understand ?
  51. Danny you are so much fun,

    Apologies to anybody who gets email notification of this rubbish, I just can't help but
    reach out to Danny in the hope of showing him some light, I fear I will fail.

    By your number logic the Pro 1 P&S is better than your Rebel and it is as good as your
    preciously vaunted 20D, but it isn't, neither is the Sony 828. Why not? Because the sensor
    and pixel sizes play a large part in determining printing quality, this is not my opinion, it
    is a verifiable fact. Now one of the points that the 1D has in its favour is that the sensor is
    % wise a good bit bigger than the 20D and this helps it alot, that was my point about your
    experiance, you have not seen an 8x11 print from a 1D so how can you say it is no good?
    You are just relying on your number arguement and not making any allowance for
    increased pixel quality, I stated that I was surprised by the 1D quality, I also said that I got
    it not hoping for great results (like you I didn't expect them) but to keep up with digital
    workflow etc. Well the results proved me wrong. I don't covert the 1D, it is not a dream
    camera, I don't call it honey, it does not have an easy and coseted life with me and I
    certainly don't sleep with it, it works for it's living and it will print very good 8x11. Why
    can't you accept that ? I have not said that it
    will suit your needs, as you insist on 300dpi and no interpolation, fine, but it would I am
    sure, satisfy Igor if he chose to go that route.

    Man, how hard is that to understand ?

    Take care, Scott.

    P.S. I take it you don't want to take up my offer of a print.
  52. I could not resist to say that, Scott, I really liked the high ISO images you've posted. They look very natural to me and more like film. That's exactly the look I seek from a camera I will pay so much for! I think they are not just ok or good, I think they are beautiful. The 100% crop of ISO 400 looks really film-like rich. The ISO 800 and 1600 start to pick up noise, but again, they do it in a film-like graceful manner.

    Best Action Shots, I think your 3200 images are technically impeccable and there is nothing bad I could say about them. But me personally, and I cannot tell you why, I didn't really like them. They do look a bit unnatural to my eye, or at least, they have the look I don't like for some very subjective reason. I agree that my position is impossible to prove and that's why I would never try to persuade someone who likes them to buy a 1D and not a 20D. I do appreciate you posting them though, it did help me to make up my mind, and thanks for all your input!

    Danny, I'm sorry if I cannot prove my point but I just like the look of 1D photos :).

    Scott, thanks again for all the contributions. I'm very glad I posted my question here. This discussion and images helped me a lot to make up my mind.

    As you guys must have guessed, I?ll get a 1D :).
    Thanks again, Igor.
  53. "Apologies to anybody who gets email notification of this rubbish" I accept your apology.. :) well, now that this is done and over with, Igor, I hope you and your master be very pleased with your 1D "film like" images decision. I think you should be true to yourself without consideration of what other people think. Buy what you like, I can totally see your point in the "film like" look that you like so may all the heavenly powers that be bless you and your future 1D.

    Scott: I am very sure the interpolated prints from a 1D will look very good. No need to post anything anywhere, Just that I would imagine that if the 1D interpolated pics looks very good, I assume the 1DmkII non interpolated pics would naturally look better. After all, if it isnt an improvement, then what is the point of making sensors of higher megapixels ? I am sure it isnt just a marketing scheme. And by better, I mean better the way I personally like my pictures to be, which is as accurate a represenation of the actual scene as possible, and higher megapixels helps me fulfill that wish. The higher the better I say.

    Some people much prefer a softer image, mostly I see women love pictures of themselves to be 3 stops overexposed and slightly out of focus. for them I suppose a D30 would be a great camera. So like I said, to each their own, there is NO right or wrong, and as long as the camera helps your own unique photographic artistic vision and desired purpose, then that is the right camera for you.

    I cant imagine ansel using a 110 film camera.
  54. and I do understand the Whole Larger sensor thing. but I like to believe that to really compare a larger sensor, the sensor really should be much larger, such as a point and shoot little tiny teeny weeny sensor vs a canon SLR sensor. but the 20 D is 22.7 x 15.1 and the 1D 28.7 x 19.1 I PERSONALLY find that to not be very significant compared to the 4 extra megapixels, better processing, and better iso capabilities of the 20D vs 1D. and of course better meaning better for me and my own artistic vision and wants/needs.
  55. Danny,

    So you are now saying a 1D can't take a sharp image. I give up, go back to your Drebel
    (you should have waited for the black one) your Tokina zoom with the red tape round it
    and your cardboard cutouts of the lenses you want. You are the one with equipment envy
    not me.

    Take care, Scott.
  56. A 1D sensor is 60% bigger than a 20D. Going by your figures.
  57. Scott: Oh jesus, you are worse than my last girlfriend, she too takes everything I say and twists it all around till I'm the bad guy ! I am sure the 1D does take sharp - enough pics, just that I personally believe that an identical image taken with a 1D then taken with a 1DmkII, the resulting prints, the 8 mp image would be sharper due to the extra 100 pixels per inch would be the accuracte and true pixels as it is from the scene rather than a computer's blend of surrounding pixel information.. would I didnt do the math but if you say 60 percent then fine ! Also I didnt wait for the black dreb, but I got one later anyway, and I DO NOT have equipment envy, I have equipment appearance appreciation ! I do very much enjoy not only how equipment functions, but also how they look, and the perception of people as they view it. Perception is a part of what I do for a living. I exist in a world where image matters, visial appearance plays an important role in whatever and this and that..... bla bla bla yeah, I gotta go, late for an appointment...
  58. Danny and Scott, Both cameras are great depending the buyer's taste. Guys give it a rest.
  59. My apologies BA, I will post nothing further on this topic.
  60. Ugh, all this rubbish about noise, ISO, not to mention every other technical aspect of cameras! Take a look at some of the best images in the National Geographic and you'll see all kinds of "technically awful" images - GRAIN out the wazzoooo! low lighting..occassionally poor exposure, etc. But they remember that isn't what it is all about...its about the subject! If you don't get the shot - who cares how technically perfect it COULD HAVE BEEN?!
  61. Hey Igor!

    Enjoy your D1!
    I've had the pleasure of shooting with a D60, 10D, 20D (briefly), 1Ds and 1Dmk2.
    Yes, the high noise of the 1Dmk2 is best. But the bigger advantage over the 10D (and 20D) is the better image quality. Due to a larger sensor I think.
    The 1Ds was slightly better in respect to transistion sharp <-> unsharp, but far worse than the 1Dmk2 (even slightly worse than the 10D) 'colour-wise'
    I think you've made a wise choice: If you like what you see, it's better....
  62. very interesting read, The good the bad between a few cams over the 1D being outdated and old stuff. I will tell you why I bought my 1D and two previous 1D's, I had the 20 and ended up selling it to go to 1D, The 20 is a fine camera no doupt. But for me comming from 10D it didn't satisify my needs. I'll be honest by saying alot of my problems was me and had I kept the 20 I am sure I would have liked it. After getting the 1D and using the latest firmware and dpp sophware it was a killer combination for me. The camera is just incredible, I love the weight, the features and the size, going back to 10D for snapshots feels like toy. The beast is fast, writes fast and at only 1,300 now is my idea of a happy camper... I bought the 10D new at 1,400 and watched it slide to almost nothing, so no more new cams for me, i'll wait for the MKII to come down to under 1,500 which it will for sure and then I will buy it, and keep 1D for backup, I have learned patience is a virtue here.. its just a matter of time... Love the 1D, the smaller files sizes the quick speed and the AI focus, just excelent.. I have only one complaint and its the battery life, it sucks, but with the cost of new batteries now at only 25 bucks per batt. its no problem... For anyone considering a 1D with prices falling to under 1,000 very soon grab one... you will find it hard to use anything other than a 1 series.. as one user said here you may find a P&S under right conditions to come close to the 1D, but those right conditions are not always right, and with 1D you'll have many more right conditions. The 1D does what I want for the price I wanted, and not what others need.

    Gotta love the 1D

Share This Page