eos 1D vs 20D (sorry!)

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:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AGah

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.

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.

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 $

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.

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.

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.

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

sensor

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

my

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.

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.

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.

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 <b>I must choose one body to fit what's best for what I'm doing.</b> I just sold 1D to get more lenses. <br><br>

Here's my criteria list:<br>

<br>

<b>75% Excellent performance for ISO 1600 and 3200.<br>

20% Excellent AF performance to keep up with speed in sports.<br>

5% Others like body, weight, grip, ect...<br></b>

<br>

Here are my questions and answers:<br>

<br>

<b>1. Do I need better weather sealing body of 1D?</b><br>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.<br>

<b>2. Do I need faster frame rate of 1D 8fps consistently?</b><br>No. 5pfs is good enough since I don't do burst often.<br>

<b>3. Do I need fast AF?</b><br>Yes. Both are very faster than 10D. However 1D is slightly faster especially with Hockey. I will give 1D advantage here.<br>

<b>4. Do I need good high ISO performance?</b><br>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.<br>

<b>5. Do I need a huge body of 1D?</b><br>No. I need a camera that don't scare people away. 1D body is very heavy and huge.<br>

<b>6. Do I need battery/vertical grip?</b><br>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.<br>

<b>7. Do I need good battery performance?</b><br>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.<br>

<b>8. Do I need spot metering?</b><br>No.<br>

<b>9. Do I need better dynamic range?</b><br>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.<br>

<b>10. Do I need high speed flash sync?</b><br>No. I can't shoot flash for all my HS games.<br>

<b>11. Do I need 1.3X vs 1.6X crop factor?</b><br>Doesn't make any difference to me. Although 1D viewfinder is larger. I like that.<br>

<b>12. Do I get lock-ups?</b><br>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.<br>

<br>

I hope you find this helpful in making your decision. You can review all my shots at <b><a href="http://www.bestactionshots.com">WWW.BESTACTIONSHOTS.COM</a></b>

I forgot to add one more:<br>

<b>13. Which gives better color quality?</b></br>20D with its latest DIGIC II processor. 1D is 3 years behind 20D.<br>

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.

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?

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

little

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.

Oops, forgot to attach the file!<div></div>

This is a 100% crop with no photoshop sharpening.

 

I don't need much more from a camera than this!

 

Take care, Scott.<div></div>

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.

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.

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!<br>

<br>

Check out the ISO performance of 20D at 3200<br>

<a href="http://www.softechie.com/Photos/Samples/Canon20DTests/ISO"><img src="http://www.softechie.com/Photos/Samples/Canon20DTests/ISO/Canon20DISO3200.jpg"></a><br>

<br>

It's one amazing digital technology.

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:

http://www.photo.net/photo/2453230

http://www.photo.net/photo/2453227

http://www.photo.net/photo/2453223

And even this one:

http://www.photo.net/photo/2546978

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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

to

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:

 

http://ralphventura.smugmug.com/gallery/130745

 

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.

So,

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.