D70 vs. 20D, Strictly Image Quality

[eddie g]

I'm selling my D70 and buying a 20D. I'm just about to pull the

trigger but I wanted to get your thoughts on ONLY the image quality

differences. Is it a dramatic difference, or a barely noticeable

difference? If you've owned both the Nikon D70 and EOS 20D, what's

your opinion on differences in dynamic range, color fidelity, moiré,

and what else would you note in the differences on solely the image

quality?

 

As always your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

[bestactionshots]

20D quality in on the same scale as 1DmkII. Now as for Nikon D70, there's no competition. Canon has the best high ISO performance.

[hughes]

Eddie,

why do you find the D70 inadaquate? how big do you print? I have a D70 and quite like it, I couldn't see any real advantage in replacing it with the Canon unless maybe a Mark11 1ds.A freind of mine just bought a 20Ds for a job and it's a great camera but not that much better than the Nikon in fact i would say the D70 is easier to get good quality out of the box. If your D70 is inadaquate maybe there is a fault with it. I regularily print to 13x19 which is big as my printer will go and have no problems with quality. The other factor is glass do you use cheap zooms or decent lenses a big factor in quality. My advice is to stick with what you've got.Please don't take this wrong but why not just go out and take some pics instead of worrying so much about cameras they are only a Small part of the equation.

 

good luck Steve

[hughes]

Eddie,

why do you find the D70 inadaquate? how big do you print? I have a D70 and quite like it, I couldn't see any real advantage in replacing it with the Canon unless maybe a Mark11 1ds.A freind of mine just bought a 20Ds for a job and it's a great camera but not that much better than the Nikon in fact i would say the D70 is easier to get good quality out of the box. If your D70 is inadaquate maybe there is a fault with it. I regularily print to 13x19 which is big as my printer will go and have no problems with quality. The other factor is glass do you use cheap zooms or decent lenses a big factor in quality. My advice is to stick with what you've got.Please don't take this wrong but why not just go out and take some pics instead of worrying so much about cameras they are only a Small part of the equation.

 

good luck Steve

[jim_larson1]

They both will produce equally worthless images. If, however, you buy one of the optional lenses that are available for these cameras, you will find that they both take great photos.

 

Of course, image quality is a function of the particular lens you place on the camera.. . . cheap lenses are worse than expensive lenses (generally). . . .and have a bigger impact on the final output than the sensor or the imaging hardware.

 

Color fidelity: Impacted too much by lens to comment further.

 

Dynamic range: They both suck. But if you want someone who does comparisons read Phil Askey's reviews: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page25.asp

 

Note that if you read the reviews here carefully, it is apparent that Phil uses default settings for post processing. The minor differences noted in sharpening, color, and saturation will be washed out depending on how you post process the images.

 

I would not bother to upgrade a D70 to a 20D, unless there are features in the 20D that really appeal to you . . or you need to change camera systems to take advantage of Canon telephoto lenses . . while losing the advantages of the superior Nikon wide angles and flash system.

[pto189]

>>I would not bother to upgrade a D70 to a 20D, unless there are features in the 20D that really appeal to you . . or you need to change camera systems to take advantage of Canon telephoto lenses . . while losing the advantages of the superior Nikon wide angles and flash system.<<<br>If you need to compare between Canon and Nikon, one simple quote from Jim is sufficient.

[patricks]

Eddie, I've used/owned both Nikon and Canon DSLRs.

 

First of all, the D70 is a little gem, in many ways. My only gripes about it is the overall digital strategy and product release process of the Nikon company per se.

 

The 20D will give you a bit larger files to work/crop with, a bit less noise/cleaner images at ISO 100 vs. the D70's ISO 200, a tad larger viewfinder (but generally they are both not very good), but also a different interface/handling.

 

All DSLR bodies are transent, buy into to the brand/lenses you like for long term. Camera bodies will keep on leap frogging each other for years to come, and moving to the latest/greatest thing will make your head hurt and distract your photography.

 

Do the analysis and try to stick with it.

[bobatkins]

It would be worth doing if you wanted to get into the whole Canon system of bodies and lenses, but not if the goal was simply to get slightly better shots. I'd say the difference in image quality between a D70, a digital Rebel (or digital rebel XY), a 10D and a 20D with lenses of similar quality would be fairly small most of the time. Certainly not night and day. Maybe 5pm vs. 6pm.

[eddie g]

Jim that was a very useful link. In fact, I printed the pictures in 8X10. There is, without question, a noticeable difference.

 

Patrick, you have good points. I appreciate your input. I have decided to go with Canon lenses for the long run. My primary reason for wanting to change now is because I only have 3 Nikon lenses right now but I know I will want to add about 3 to 4 new lenses per year. So down the road I will not want to sell a bunch of lenses and start over. Also, while I can't afford the 1Ds Mark II right now, I will in less than 2 years be purchasing a full frame Canon. No I am not a pro, but yes I have good eyes and the prints I saw from the 1DsII at 13x19 were stunning to say the least.

 

Bob, I agree with you. Even thought I see a significant difference in the 8X10 prints from the aforementioned photos, my primary reason for changing is the full frame capabilities of the Canon lenses. So since I've decided to exit Nikon and start with Canon, I wanted to know if I should go to 350D or 20D. That's why I wanted y'alls thoughts on the image difference. But thanks to Jim, I now have undisputed evidence in my mind.

[min_wong1]

Hard to say. It depends on the lens too. Also, the photographer's skill of taking shots and editing shots.

[mark_chappell]

All other things being equal (lens, etc.), the difference in image quality will be slight.

You'd probably only notice it at quite large enlargement sizes.

 

Note: I don't have either of these cameras but I do have a 10D (6 megapixels) and a

1DMkII (8 megapixels) and there isn't a lot of image quality difference (other than that the

1DMkII eats up CF card space considerably more voraciously).

[jim_larson1]

Eddie;

 

After reading your two posts. . .all I can say is W-O-W.

 

You are going to purchase 3-4 lenses per year? With a full frame digital in your near future?

 

How many lenses do you think Canon has in it's entire product line of suitable quality for the 1Ds-II? Do you know how much these lenses cost? You're not planning to waste time on cheapo lenses like the 17-85/EF-S are you?

 

You are getting so far into digital and this is the *first time* you saw a link to DPreview?

 

Really. . if you are saving for a 1Ds-II. . .then don't waste your money on a 20D. You will be $1300 closer to your goal.

 

Do want to take some killer portraits? Buy a 1D-II and a 85/1.2L. Best $5K you will ever spend.

[photobyalan.com]

<i>"They both will produce equally worthless images. If, however, you buy one of the optional lenses that are available for these cameras, you will find that they both take great photos."</i>

<p>

You're wrong, Jim.<p>

If you drill a pinhole in the lens cap and shoot with that instead of a lens, your pictures can be classified as "fine art", and they will be worth at least six times as much as a photo taken with a lens. ;)

[eddie g]

Jim, I am a step below amateur so I guess they call that novice. 1)So maybe that's why I have no idea how many lenses Canon has. 2)I don't know how much the lenses cost but I was assuming $200 to $10,000. 3)And no, I wasn't planning on getting cheap lenses. Lets see, if I buy 3-4 lenses per year and I live 70 more years, then I'll have a lot of lenses right. 4)No it's not the first time I saw a link to DPreview. But it is the first time I saw those two photos. 5)I appreciate your advice on managing my finances but I got that covered. 6)yes I want to take some killer portraits. And thanks for your recommendation on the body lens combo....sounds pretty nice.

 

So in a couple years, I'll have a 20D as back up and a full frame Canon with a nice lens collection. And until then, my novice skills will be assisted by a slightly better camera. I need all the help I can get. Let me guess what your thinking...it don't matter how good the camera is if the photographer is novice. Well, that's only partly true because when I upgraded to the D70 there was a significant difference in the quality of my photos....both me and Canon will be improving over the next couple years so the timing will be just right.

 

Bob & Mark, thanks for sticking to the topic. ("...your thoughts on ONLY the image quality differences...")

[eddie g]

Steve, I have a couple of prints that are 24X36, some that are 20x30, some 16x20 but most are 8x10. My 3 lenses are all Nikon. 50mm f/1.4D, 300mm f/4.5 AI EDIF, 18-70mm G ED IF AF-S DX. I am out there taking pics I have already taken 4,500 with my D70. But I also have fun playing with the equipment.

[sf_photo1]

Hi Eddie-

 

I can not speak for the 20D but I have a D70 and a Canon 300D and several lenses for both.

 

I also have a 28PC Nikkor and an Nikon<>EOS adapter. If you have no experience with this lens it is remarkable.

 

Tripod tests I made with this lens on both cameras show the Canon has superior image quality - 100 ISO and the CMOS sensor I think make the Canon images better.

 

You did mention "Strictly Image Quality" so there it is. I can not think the 20D would be less.

 

 

What I want is one of those new Epson cameras which will allow me to use my Leica M lenses - but I need a large cash infusion first.

 

 

 

Andrew

 

San Francisco

[yakim_peled1]

Everything I hear and read suggests that there will be no major image quality differences. If that is your sole worry I'd keep the D70 and invest in better lenses.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[g_w2]

sf photo

 

 

where can one get a Nikon>Canon EOS converter?

 

Does anyone else have any ideas?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

 

gw.

[dkord]

Check out this site:

http://www.cameraquest.com/adaptnew.htm

I've never bought from them, but toying with the ideal of the Leica R adapter.

 

Here so info also:

http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-manual-lenses/

[ilkka]

If buying several $1000-10 000 lenses a year is not a problem to you (I raised the lower limit since you promised not to buy cheap lenses) why not keep the D70 and buy the 20D and see for yourself? Then you can really make a right decision yourself instead of relying on people who most likely have not compared the two side by side. Better still, why not keep the two and choose the best lenses from Nikon's and Canon's lineup and eventually use them with D3X and 1DsMarkIV. With high end digital SLRs lens quality is going to be very important determinant of overall image quality.

[adam_black]

Hello, I just spent hours comparing the image quality of the 20D and the D70.... here is my conclusion - could any one confirm my resuls? as I was a bit shocked at what I saw:

 

(1) 20D produces rather soft results, colour is also soft. The image itself lacks precision - for example, lines in a barcode images gets displayed like zig-zags... you can no longer see lines... this effect was not due to lack of focus, it is the post processing/perhaps image compressoin that essentially destroyed the pattern... As a result, I concluded that the 20D is worthless....

 

(2) Nikon - D70: I did the same test with the D70, and it consistently produced the same barcode lines as in the real world... not a single image was off...

 

I did this test as I was about to buy the 20D with 17-85 USM/IS lens, as well as the 75-300 USM/IS lense... but due to the test results, I decided not to buy it.... The Nikon image quality (excluding the ISO problem due to the difference between the cmos and ccd technologies) seems to be superior. I did come across several posts on the net (cnet.com) and in a news group - where the 20D was mentioned for auto-focus and soft image problems. The soft image problems due to the image processing code can be rather difficult to fix - and makes me real worried about getting the canon.

[eddie g]

Adam, what lens did you use on the 20D and what lens did you use on the D70? I think ILkka makes a good point in that the lens is a very important determinant in higher end DSLRs. My 20D arrived Friday so now that I have both the D70 and the 20D I'll be doing some tests and I'll post my findings soon.