danny_rose Posted October 11, 2004 Share Posted October 11, 2004 I'm an eos film user but I am on the market for either a new 20d or a second hand 1d. In New Zealand the price is similar, perhaps slightly more for the 1d. I will be using it for professional fashion and portrait photography. Both cameras have the features I need but would like to know how the image quality compares? I understand the 20d has 2 times the pixels but the 1d has the bigger sensor, which would also be handy for wide angle shots etc. So I guess I need magazine quality and the ability to print poster size if I have to. So is there much or any difference in overall image quality? Thanks for your help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedro_moreira Posted October 11, 2004 Share Posted October 11, 2004 just off the top of my head.... I'd say there's a lot of difference between 4 and 8 megapixels. I'm no pro, but i don't think the 1D can give you quality images at those sizes... the 20D, maybe...(not sure about poster-size...) the 1Ds (11 megapixels, soon to be replaced by the 16.7 megapixel 1Ds MkII)is probably more along the lines of pro-level studio equipment... but has a price tag to match.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herman_hiel Posted October 11, 2004 Share Posted October 11, 2004 I went for a 1D because of the build, the all-weathersealing and the high fps rate. Without having used the 20D, it seems the better choice for your purpose. Good luck with your choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
working with attitude sin Posted October 11, 2004 Share Posted October 11, 2004 For having do a lot of graphism in the past, i can say the more dpi you have, the best it is! i had a four megapixel nikon cam before and it was good for that time but for make a full page image... you just dont have enough flexibility. With bigger image you can crop the way you want and stay in 300dpi. In fact even with 8mp, full page in 300dpi is like put too few butter on a big slice of bread. I prefer do in 240dpi and nobody never notice! Fo poster, it depend... i saw a lot of printing process going from 72dpi to 200dpi... its depend of the utility but if its for Photography poster, you know those ones with idylic landscape, montains over a lake in the dawn... forget about the 4mp. Allez hop! Good luck in your choice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodolfo_negrete Posted October 11, 2004 Share Posted October 11, 2004 the 1D is a way better camera all around .the 20D is a 10D with newer technology which enables it to max the hell out of that small chip it has. kind of of having a pentum 4 3.6 gig Vs a Pentium 3 with 800megahertz obiously the 4 is best but if you are running it with windows me or windows 98 wont be very useful now if you have a pentium 3 with linux or XP PRo then it works alot better. kind of the old thread regarding windows vs macs the hardware is the same but the OS is different. The digic2 technology and the other advances makes the 20D better becuse of the quality of the pictures.Also if you buy a 20D more likely you will have a company to back up the warranty contrary to the 1D that alone makes it worth buying the 20D over the used 1D. I have a 10D and my nice just bough herself a small 10s canon camera worth like $300.00 dsl and I just love the contrast and clearer pictures it takes compare to my 10D and all is due to the new improvements of the technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiswick_john Posted October 11, 2004 Share Posted October 11, 2004 "ability to print poster size if I have to" - forget the 1D then - infact forget the 20D - you need the 1Ds or 1Ds Mk2 for this kind of size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark u Posted October 11, 2004 Share Posted October 11, 2004 ...or maybe a Kodak SLR/C at a somewhat lower price point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 To date, the 1D seems to me to give the best bang for the buck. Larger and brighter viewfinder, better construction, better AF system, less problem with wide angles are more important - IMHO - than more MP, E-TTL II etc. Problem is only to find one which was not heavily used. Happy shooting , Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tan Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 I don't own a 1D but I would think that 8 megapixels and Digic II will give you better, lower-noise images than 4 megapixels with a Digic I sensor, in spite of the slightly larger sensor. What you need, really, is a 1Ds or 1Ds Mk II. And prime lenses, like the 50, 85, and 135, as you will need very sharp and high resolution lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patkane Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 The first question is, will the files be adequate for your clients. Get some samples off of the internet and play with them. Most people I know equated the 1D and 10D images, I've read the 1D Mark II and 20D are very similar. I've seen 2.5 meter tall prints from a 10D and they looked pretty good to me.<p>The second question is whether or not you beat the crap out of your gear. If you do, buy the 1D or get used to replacing the lesser bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bestactionshots Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 20D wins on versatality while 1D wins on AF speed in sports shooting. Test your 1D in dim lit HS gyms and see what I mean. Test ISO 1600 and 3200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now