20D First Experiences

[derek_linney]

So, just got my 20D & have been busy shooting test shots with it. My

conclusions:<p>

a) AF is significant improvement on 10D - faster & more accurate<p>

b) AF Focus points seem to be in the "right" place - I always shot

my 10D with only center AF point but suspect I will start letting

camera decide on AF point more often<p>

c) ISO 800 is amazingly good - I usually steer clear of higher ISO's

unless absolutely essential but on the 20D ISO800 is definitely very

useable<p>

d)Its difficult not to take multiple pictures on continuous mode -

its just so fast. It would be nice to have single/low continuous &

high continuous options<p>

e)Lock-up problem occured twice - once when I first inserted a CF-

card into the camera & once when I changed lens & CF-card together

<p>

f)Combined Raw & Proper JPEG is great<p>

g)It is quite a bit noisier than the 10D - its not a "stealth"

camera<p>

h)Start-up time / wake-up time is brilliant in comparison with 10D

<p>

Overall impression: a significant improvement on the 10D (which

itself I have really enjoyed using for the last 18 months)

<p>

Biggest problem: I thought a couple of 1GB CF cards would suffice

but with RAW+JPEG and that ferocious shooting speed they are just

too easy to fill up!

[mike_p2]

Thank you, Derek!

 

Have you tried taking indoor pictures with external EX flashes and the built-in one? Were they underexposed even for a close-range photos and macro?

[paul hart]

Interesting summary, but why should we put up with lock-ups and increased noise?

 

I'm unpersuaded that users who take mainly single shots, who rarely enlarge beyond A4 and/or view their photos mainly on screen (ie folk like me), will find much advantage in the 20D if they already have the 10D. I handled one yesterday at my dealers, and despite knowing the speed with which I can reach for my plastic, he made no effort to persuade me otherwise.

[derek_linney]

Used both built-in flash and 420EX. Exposures seemed pretty good with both and also very much more consistent than the 10D. The built in flash is now a useable tool as the extra height makes it useable with many more lenses - though the 17-40 still casts a shadow at the wide end. Also did some macro shots with MR-14EX/100mm f2.8 which were spot on - this is unusual as I've always had to add 2/3 stop or so with previous cameras (10D and film).

[madwand]

<i>"why should we put up with lock-ups and increased noise"</i><p>

 

I'm with you on the lock ups, although my local Canon service said that "there are no known issues with the 20D". Hmm.<p>

 

But on the increased noise, I think that it could be a feature -- it says "hey listen to me, I'm [like] a pro!". If they could figure out a way to the sound of a fast motor drive for a legitimate reason, I think they might sell more cameras. Maybe a built in air blower that cleans the sensor after each shot? A bunch of times after a lens change?

[jim_larson1]

heheh. increased noise a good thing. hehehe.

 

Frankly, I find the second I mount a 550EX on a camera, I have already attacted more attention than I want. Compound that with a 70-200/4L (or gosh forbid a truely large lens). . . .

 

As for lockups. . .yeah. .from what I read it sounds like this is a firmware problem, probably induced by the way the camera turns off (it may not actually *ever* be off). But I am speculating.

 

But I am with the poster above that the 20D is not *that* attractive for a 10D shooter. The only thing that peaks my interest is the high precision center sensor . . .but if I had a 60D. . . .or no dSLR at all. . . .

 

. . .I never figured on getting the 20D (especially at the full $1500 price tag, which is simple gouging imho compared to the $800 300D). . .but I plan on buying the next camera down the line.

[mike_p2]

Thank you, Derek! I'm sure you used the histogram to make your judgement, right?

 

A couple of new 300D cameras I used to own produced consistent and very significant underexposures with flashes (incl. the built-in one, 380 EX, 550EX and MR-14EX). So, I was waiting for 20D release, but noticed that, in addition to the lock-ups, many buyers pointed out to the same flash underexposure problem (here is one of the threads: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=10328080 ). Needless to say, I was very discouraged by this. In addition to a disappointing dynamic range of todays DSLRs, coping with underexposures and lock-ups is just a bit too much.

 

But, looks like, not all cameras underexpose. And this is good...for those who're lucky. :)

 

Thank you again and enjoy your new camera!

[jim_larson1]

Heh.

 

I really wonder what "normal" flash exposure looks like. Balance between foreground and background is *always* a subjective thing. I have been having a discussion on another forum regarding an underexposed dog in a twilight background. To some, the dog looks underexposed. To the shooter, he was actually PLEASED that the dog was not brighter and did not overwhelm the scene.

 

So, canon builds a flash system that exposes the subject *and only* the subject (ETTL), people complain because they can't figure out that the system looks at the *focus point*

 

Canon listens and builds a flash system that exposes the *entire frame* and people complain because its not exposing the subject properly.

 

Jeez.

 

And personally, I never, ever, trust anything I read on the dpreview forums.

 

I bet it all boils down to people a) Not understanding the system and b) REFUSING to understand the system and c) REFUSING to use the tools provided (such as the histogram and FEC.

 

I have a 10D. I have *learned* about both FEL and FEC. I have *learned* that some environments require FEC and some do not. I always check the *image* and the *histogram* and understand the environment and how the camera is interpeting what I am shooting.

[Greg M]

That's the thing, Jim. Many do not want to *learn*. They just want to compose & have the camera know what's right. If it doesn't then there must be something not right with the *camera*.

[mike_p2]

It would be a perfect world if we could explain every bug, defect or design flaw as being a user fault. Not all users are as dumb and inexperienced as they may appear. Yes, being stupid and naive they lock up their cameras and expect not to compensate every single plain vanilla flash exposure after spending over $1000, but...

 

My guess, purely theoretical, of course, that even...Canon...or Microsoft... can sometimes make a mistake or two. ;)

 

This is not to say that I disagree with both of you.

[jon_austin]

If I were going to upgrade from my 10D to a 20D (I'm not), it wouldn't be because of flash problems (underexposure or otherwise).

 

I think Jim Larson's comments are right on. Proper exposure is interpretive and depends on the photographer's objective, which can vary according to individual preferences and situations. We get our hands on amazingly sophisticated, relatively inexpensive camera gear that can accommodate a variety of "artistic visions," and then we bitch because the equipment can't read our minds!

 

This seems to me to be analogous to complaining when the camera doesn't know whether we want shallow or deep depth of field, because we're too lazy or stupid to change the aperture; or whether we want frozen or blurred motion, and we're likewise clueless to modifying the shutter speed.

 

I learned early on that the 10D's E-TTL flash system isn't omniscient. Then I read a bunch of resources and did a lot of experimentation, until I came to the conclusion that ** for me ** manual mode gives the best, most predictable results. Then I made myself a little cheat sheet of the settings I need for the various flash situations I most often encounter. Now I love flash, and rarely have a bad exposure.

 

But then again, that's just me. I could be wrong.

[jim_larson1]

Just to be clear: The 20D Lock problem sounds like a *real issue* -> and I do not attribute this to user error in any way.

 

20D flash issues are a different story.

 

* * * *

 

I just came back from a festival where I was shooting a fair bit in low light - with and without flash, both Canon "S" series P&S and 10D. Thank goodness for manual modes on both camera's and photoshop's ability to "exposure compensate".

 

Alot of shots had to be taken at fast shutter to freeze motion combined with small aperture (F8) to open depth of field => some shots will definately be 1 to 2 stops underexposed. . .and would have been utterly RUINED if taken in "P" mode.

 

I really was hurting for a 24-70/4L --> sort of wished I had my old 28-105 with me instead of the 17-40/4L, 50/1.8, and 70-200/4L. For the first time in a *long* time, I was frequently working in the 40-70 range and could not sneaker zoom.

 

For some events, I was able to use my 550EX flash. I am always amazed by this piece of equipment. Best item I ever bought for my 10D. With my omni-bounce diffuser removed, it could properly light up the stage from simply crazy distances. I was actually very concerned about disturbing other people -> and only used it for certain performances.

[mike_p2]

Jon and Jim,

 

Get a 300D (not 10D!) and a nice flash, make a few close range and macro shots, and, if you still have any doubts left, we'll continue the discussion. Otherwise, the conversation is pointless. I took my first photography lessons over 35 years ago, so P&S or P modes are not exactly what I do. I assure you that I know the difference between artistic desires and a malfunctioning metering system.

 

Photographers' objectives have nothing to do with this issue. An example. Imagine for a moment that you dial F8, but your lens mulfunctions and closes to F16, instead. As a result, you have a shot that is exposed less than you want/expect, and the DOF is too large for what you needed. Would you, again, discuss this issue from the "dumb operator" point of view or simply blame the equipment?

 

Now too many people are overexcited with DSLRs to the point when they don't notice (or don't want to notice) certain obvious problems. Stupidity like "DSLR's dynamic range is better than one of film" can be heard every day. Even the massive lockups are percieved as something normal and expected of a new $1500 camera. I'm sure the same crowd would blame the photographer from the example above, and suggest him to dial F4, instead of getting his camera to the repair.

 

Don't we get enough of this "all users are dumb" attitude from the manufacturers, so we need to bring it on our forums?

 

Again, I'm not trying to offend anyone. I realize, that it's difficult for you or anyone else to recognize right away the level of expertise your opponent has. But give us a benefit of doubt sometimes. :)

[jon_austin]

To Mike P:

 

Sorry, but I really don't feel the inclination to go out and spend money to buy a lesser body just to help you "prove" your point...

 

Have you ever considered the possibility that you bought a couple of defective 300Ds? The problems you encountered with flash underexposure don't appear as a recurring theme here, unlike the (previous) 10D AF issues and the (current) 20D lock-up problems.

 

And what does a lens malfunction have to do with any point raised in this thread?

 

Sorry if I stepped on your photographically superior toes; I was just offering a comment about the (sometimes amusing) confusion between camera malfunctions/defects and photographer errors/blunders.

[mike_p2]

Jon,

 

Naturally, it is possible that two new bodies bought in different places and at different times had the same defect (even the same amount of underexposure). How likely that it wasn't a design fault and what this (and the present 20D lockups) say about quality control at Canon is another issue.

 

By the way, this 300D problem was described by many other users who actually had an opportunity to check their cameras with flashes. True, it didn't create as much noise as the present lockup problem. But only because lockup prevents one from using the camera, whereas flash underexposure may be clearly seen only under certain circumstances when the flash is used as the main source of light.

 

As you might expect, I received a "it cannot be true; never heard of it; user error; lenses or flash fault" speach from the Canon technical support and some wise guys on different forums. But after hearing that all lenses were CANON lenses, all flashes were CANON flashes and after seeing samples of histograms and actual shots, Canon techs reverted to "hmmm, indeed, it doesn't seem right, send cameras to us (at your expense, of course!)" theme.

 

Maybe this would explain to you my sensitive behavior in this thread and my heightened irritability. I perfectly understand, respect and support your, Jim's and Greg's points of view, but they're not applicable in this particular case since I was trying to discuss a genuine design issue that had nothing to do with user ignorance.

 

Now, all 10Ds I tried didn't have this problem, and I've never seen it to be discussed. I expected the same out of 20D, but, apparently, the link given by me above, was not very encouraging in this respect. Especially, considering that only a limited number of people own the camera at this point.

[jon_austin]

Mike P:

 

If your 300D's were under warranty, then Canon should certainly have checked them out at their expense; if the expense to which you referred was shipping (not to mention the time you'd be without one or both bodies); well, that's just the cost of doing business, I guess.

 

Good luck with whatever future equipment in which you invest.

[jim_larson1]

In rereading this thread. . .I see that I failed to recognize that although we started talking about a 20D, the discussion degenerated into 300D flash performance.

 

One of the "missing features" of the 300D is Flash Exposure Compensation. . .a fairly important tool required to make E-TTL work. I have heard many people "Hack" a fixed +2/3 FEC into the camera. . which is not the way to go.

 

I find that there are situations where FEC is essential for a whole series of shots. . and other situations where no FEC is requrired. Living without this would be painful. The 300D really should be paired with a 550EX flash to get FEC.

 

On a 10D, where you can set FEC, I usually just recommend a 420EX. (although, you will need a fairly convincing gun to get me to give up my 550).

[mike_p2]

Right! Fortunately, my ring flashes and 550EX allowed FEC, so I was able to compensate for the flaw. A forced approach similar to re-inserting batteries in a locked 20D (or dialing F4 instead of F8 in my example above). But I'd be more happy to get rid of the flaw instead of looking for ways around it.

 

I'm glad that we understood each other.

 

Sorry for hijacking your thread, Derek!

[mike_p2]

BTW, 20D, although a replacement for 10D, is a successor of 300D. I'm afraid that Canon might have used some of the DRebel's metering algorithms or philosophy for 20D. The fact that 20D has E-TTL II instead of E-TTL doesn't prevent such transfer of ideas.

 

If I'm correct, it is scary.

[jim_larson1]

Not just correct.

 

Inevitable.

 

One need look no further than that stupid EF-S lens mount (not that I have anything against EF-S: Just the two new EF-S lens (the 18-55 is alright))

 

But they gave us a higher resolution sensor. And a high precision center focus point. And more focus points is ok too.

 

As for Ettl2: Yah know, the ETTL2 has been out for six months and I have not seen a meaningful review!

[mike_p2]

True.

[madwand]

From what I see, the 20D is closer to the ID Mark II than a 300D. That's my theory, and I'm sticking to it upto and during the time that I sell my 20D :)

 

But I'm not entirely kidding -- it's got some of the speed and center AF sensor, and a similar RAW format, and E-TTL II. I looked at the 1D Mark II's history for info about E-TTL II compatibility, and saw that the 20D was similar (with Metz flashes). Right now, in advance of 20D CF performance figures, I'd use the 1D Mark II's figures as a rough guideline for cards that I don't have testing access to myself. These indications don't prove the geneology of the 20D, but in these cases are clearly better founded by looking at the 1D Mark II than the 300D.

[brian_tao]

Jim,

 

Here's my two-word review of E-TTL2: It rocks. ;-)

 

I limited it to two words because I have only shot two weddings with a 550EX on my 1D Mk2. My usual flash (which I had purchased for my D60) is the Metz 54 MZ-3. E-TTL with its FEC'ing to get predictable results was just too much of a hassle, so I used the good ol' auto-thyristor mode on the Metz for excellent results. No fuss, no muss.

 

Now, with a 550EX and E-TTL2, I get great results without having think how the flash will react to the scene composition, or where my metering point will fall, etc., etc. It does appear to give much, much more reliable results than E-TTL (on the 10D, anyway). Off-center subjects, brides in white dresses outside at night, bounced flash with a 15mm fisheye, etc. All those shots came out fine. It was very difficult to fool E-TTL2.

 

Okay, that ended up being a bit more than two words. ;-)