Image Quality of 20D compared to D60...worth the upgrade?

[mark_jacobs1]

I know this is going to be a question leading to a lot of

subjectivity in the answers, but thought I'd ask anyway. I've had a

D60 since around the time the first came out (and boy if I knew then

how quickly DSLR's would come down in price!). I was happy for about

the first year and then started to get frustrated with fine details

in, less than ideal light, landscape shots. I would get sort of a

watercolor effect in the fine details of trees and foilage that would

ruin any enlargement over 8x12. I'll dig up an example later today

and add it to this thread.

 

So I switched to Pentax 67 and that of course solved what I'm

assuming to be a resolution problem. Now after a year with the Pentax

I'm sick of film labs and no time to get them, as well as scanning

film. So now I'm researching the 20D and used 1Ds cameras. It looks

like the 1Ds would definitely solve my problem but if my usual print

size fits a 13x19 sheet of paper, I'd like to know if a 20D wouldn't

also work for me.

 

So all that background info to mainly ask... is the image quality of

a 20d really all that much better than a D60? I know you get a few

extra pixels but it's not all that significant of a jump in that

regard from a D60. How about its ability to get the best quality out

of those pixels compared to the D60?

[mark_jacobs1]

After re-reading what I wrote, I should change the part about the D60 having problems with muddy detail in some landscape shots. I said less than ideal light which is pretty misleading. I mean this happens mainly in low morning light situations. Change over to mid day, bright sun, and the camera performs a whole lot better. I just perfer that it cooperate in the morning light.

[beeman458]

Personally, I'd wait for one more iterration of sensor body development unless you've got more money to throw at the problem. Coming from a D30, I know of the affect that you speak of.

 

I'm expecting Canon to come out, in the next year or so, with a twelve megapixel 3D which Canon's promised not to come out with. I suspect that it'll be the better of the 1Ds in that it will have better dynamic range and high ISO noise characteristics. And instead of the four grand that you'd pay today for a used 1Ds, I suspect that you'll be paying $2,500.00 (US).

 

So the question is; Can you wait or do you need the sensor body today? If you can't wait and the green is burning a hole in your pocket, get the 20D, for the extra pixels and dynamic range. But rest easy as Canon is sure to announce another round of sensor body upgrades over the next twelve to eighteen months.

 

Also consider a printer upgrade if you haven't done so in the last six months.

 

Myself, I'm back at a 10D and a S9000 as I patiently await the next generation or two to be rolled out for public consumption.

[miles_hecker]

I own a used 1DS, my wife has a 20D.

I print landscapes on a Epson 2200 & 7600.

I also have a Pentax 645N to compare to.

 

 

The 20D will make very nice detailed prints at 13x19 max.

It's sensor and electronics are way better than the D60/10D.

I found the D60/10D unacceptable for landscape beyond 8x12.

 

 

The 1DS will go to 20x30 max with no problem.

It is lightyears in tonality above and real resolution beyond the 10d/20d/d70/s2. Not even in the same league. The relative number of pixels is not indicative of the overall quality!!!

 

I've compared them all with real prints.

 

The 1DS is equal to a 645 drum scan in real resolution and

can be better in sky tonalities.

 

So based on your needs, I'd think the 20D is good for a modest $$ and the 1DS a bargain for bigger prints IF you don't have to sell the house to get it.

 

Good luck..<div></div>

[mark_jacobs1]

I probably have another 6 months before I'd be ready to put down the money for a new camera so maybe by then I can try out a 20d and see for myself how it compares to the D60. Of course if I'm waiting 6 months, might as well wait a while longer and see what Canon puts out next.

 

Thanks for the responses so far. I found a decent example of the muddy detail I had mentioned. It was shot at 1/500 with a 70-200mm f/4 at f/8.<div></div>

[mark_jacobs1]

...and here's the 100% crop.

[mark_jacobs1]

I'll try that again, here's the full view

[beeman458]

That seems to be more a characteristic of a lack of contrast in post.<p>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1313049&size=lg">Example D30 image</a><p>

[andrew robertson]

With proper processing, I can make stunning 20x30s from my 10D. I have had

photographers ask me if I use medium format or large format! When I tell them 'neither,

6.3MP APS C digital' they are always stunned. The 20D is only a little better - slightly

faster, a bit more resolution. It's also twice as loud at least as the 10D, and is quite a bit

lighter (a disadvantage IMHO).

 

I was completely sure I would upgrade this spring, but after actually using the 20D in the

field, I am sure I won't. It's just not 'better' enough. Spend your cash on lenses and wait

for the EOS 3D.

[mark_jacobs1]

Thomas, I agree that the D60 prefers scenes with higher contrast. Unfortunately I don't.

[mark_jacobs1]

If anyone has made the switch from a D60 to a 20D, I'd be really interested in hearing about their experience with it. I know that in a lot of ways it's a vast improvement (auto focus, faster response), so I'm looking for opinions, by those who have owned both, on it's image quality compared to the D60.

 

I agree with what I think everyone has mentioned here. A 3D would be the best thing... if it existed.

[jon_austin]

The 20D is noticeably louder than the 10D, but I don't think it's *twice* as loud (at least, it doesn't seem so to me).

 

And while the 20D is 13% less massive than the 10D, with a battery installed and a decent (read: heavy) lens mounted, the relative difference is barely perceptible, if at all.

 

Agree the 20D is only "a little better" than the 10D, with the speed improvements being the most significant to me, especially the power-up/wake-up time to ready, the burst rate and the reduced delay when reviewing images.

 

I was completely sure I would *not* upgrade to the 20D, but that changed when my wife presented one to me as a gift. It's not that much better than the 10D, but it's difficult to give back once you have it in hand. I'm very confident I'll be able to sit out the 20D's replacement, possibly even the model after that.

 

In the mean time, I'm having a devil of a time selling my 10D without "giving it away." That, combined with the rapid decline in 20D pricing, brings me to the conclusion that the 20D isn't selling nearly as well as its predecessor.

[nello]

Well, there's only so much juice you can squeeze from an orange. Rather, a

lot of folks just can't afford to buy a new DSLR every year.

 

Also, now that most new 10D are finally out of stock (B&H just recently sold

out) the 20D price decrements seem poised to reach more customers.

 

Anyway, as a D60 owner myself, I would like to emphasize that this thread is

meant to compare image quality between D60 and 20D. If anyone has

experience to share about these two cameras in particular, I'd love to hear it.

(And may good karma fall upon he who can compare skin tone performance)

 

 

Thanks.

[beeman458]

Mark? Are you processing your images? I captured the crop you posted and it needed normal leveling, and saturation adjustments.

 

What are your in-camera settings?<div></div>

[beeman458]

I finished the image with a contrast mask and final leveling. I do leveling in steps from the left side first and then a final to preserve highlight detail.<div></div>

[andrew robertson]

Nello, the sensor and DIGIC processor are the same in the D60 and 10D, so even though I

describe the 10D the comments I make apply equally as well to the D60.

[nello]

Andrew,

 

I am under the impression that 10D has better image quality than D60 despite

(some) similarities in hardware. Particularly, I've heard that the D60 has

worse high iso performance. I don't believe the two cameras are equal in this

respect.