20D vs 1D mark II

[robert_nancarrow]

Both these cameras have about 8m pixels but the 20D is a 1.6 crop vs

the 1.3 crop of the mark II. Can anyone who has switched from one to

the other tell me the differences in viewfinder size/brightness and

whether the 1.3 sensor has better picture quality/noise because of

larger photosites? Bob.

[kemmerichphoto]

http://blogs.wdevs.com/am/articles/6350.aspx

 

I use the 20d and I have taken it through rain, sleet, snow, and hot sun with no malfunctions.

[aaron_lam]

I went from the 10D to the 1DMKII. I know the 20D is suppose to be a big improvement from the 10D but one of the biggest reason for my switch was the viewfinder (and 1.3x crop). The 1DMKII is about as near a perfect camera as I could imagine (I am sure until something else comes out next year). Actually... I couldn't see myself outgrowing this camera anytime soon. Back to your question... the viewfinder is brighter and larger. Not as bright or as large as my 1n but much closer than the 10D. There is very little noise even when shooting at ISO1600. The images are still very usable and relativly clean. It is definitely better than the 10D but not sure if it is better than the 20D.

 

If you can afford it... I don't think you would regret getting the 1DMKII. The only drawback is its weight.

 

Good Luck!

 

 

aaron

[mendel_leisk]

I've just acquired a 20D, could not justify the expense of the 1D mkII, I'm rank amateur, still...

Anyway, one other difference (mentioned here?): with the 1D MKII, it's 1.3 crop should mean your images will be a little sharper, compared to 20D with 1.6 crop, using the same lens. The reason being that you are utilizing more of the lens' output area.

[antony_bichon]

Robert,<BR>

<BR>

I own the 1DmkII (mkII) and recently purchased a 20D. This is my experience and why both camera.<BR>

I love the mkII. I am a great fan of the 1 series from Canon, it handles like nothing else. I had a 1D before acquiring the 1DmkII, and still own a 1v/HS. 1 series handling is both natural/intuitive and fast.<BR>

The reason that pushed me to purchase the 20D is that:<BR>

1) size, weight and bulkness of the mkII. It is an awesome camera when I go out and want to DO photography. But when I am with friend or at parties I don't want to drag the bulk of the mkII. The 20D is perfect for that.<BR>

2) in a couple of recent shoot I would have been better with a second camera<BR>

<BR>

The 20D handling is disappointingly slow (in comparison to the mkII) but I was (almost) ready for it. I guess it is just a matter of getting used to it.<BR>

The 1.6 crop factor needs to get used to as well after being used to a 1D (mkI or II) for more than 3 years now. Thinking of getting a wider lens then.<BR>

The picture quality is there on both camera, no problem on that side.

I can't comment on the ruggdness yet of the 20D (received it on monday!).<BR>

I would add a couple of links to Luminous Landscape where Michael Reichmann has done a pretty good job on both.<BR>

1D mkII here <BR>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/canon-1d-mkii.shtml<BR>

and multipart 20D here<BR>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/20d-part1.shtml<BR>

[sharlene_marcucci]

I currently use a Rebel 300D and am looking to go the next step. Financially, reason dictates the 20D but still curious if the markII would be a smarter move. How much of a difference is there from the Rebel 300D to the 20D?

[steve_rutledge]

Have a 10D, 20D and 1Dmk2.

 

The 20D went back to the store because after 6 weddings there was so much play between

the vertical grip and the body that I was fearing a perminant separation! The build quality

of the 20D is ok, the grip is a hunk of plastic trash! With a flash bracket on, there is way

too much flex. (And I was on my second grip because the first one was one of the

"washerless" ones)

 

Image quality was very close, but the 1d seems to have a lot more dynamic range. I'm

blowing out alot less bride's dresses after the upgrade.

 

The viewfinder is much better, and my 24-70 2.8 is now the PERFECT wedding lens again.

All in all I'm glad to be rid of the 20d!

[robin_sibson1]

Coming from the 1v - and indeed a long line of Canon pro cameras back to the original F-1 - I naturally thought about the 1DII. Price was a consideration, but the real reason for not springing for a 1DII was size and weight. I found the 1v+PB-E2 too heavy and clumsy in almost all situations - I only ever used it with the 100~400 - and decided that the plain 1v was my normal limit. Last autumn I got fed up with waiting for Canon to produce what I really wanted and bought a 20D. There are lots of limitations that I find annoying, but the bottom line is that its digital sensor gives me better pictures than film on the 1v (high-end lenses, and Royal Gold 200/400 as my usual film stocks), and being able to change ISO whenever I want is a real revelation. When I can get at least that image quality in a camera body that handles the way I like, I will be upgrading. Don't mind the 1.6 factor at all in itself - actually very helpful with long lenses that are never quite long enough for wildlife - but the viewfinder is a problem, and I do not know whether that problem is solvable at that sensor size.

[yakim_peled1]

I played with a 1v about 10 minutes about 3 years ago. That was enough. I got hooked. It just felt right in my hand. As if Canon designed it just for me. And that viewfinder.... To cut a long story short, I fell in love, no other way of phrasing that. When you think about this, it's illogical. The damn thing is a lifeless object. I know that but it doesn't help. I'm still in love

 

I currently have Elan 7e but when I'll buy a DSLR it will surely be a 1. My head tells me to go for the 1D but my heart screams: No! Add 2K and get a 1Ds. Then again, I am far from being wealthy and have a wife and 3 kids :-(

 

I am in agony. I don't know what to do. I'll wait till this summer's announcements and then decide.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

 

 

BTW, after that 1v experience the 20D indeed feels like a toy although it makes excellent pictures. I'm sure I don't need more than the 20D has to give but the lust for 1 just kills me....

[ymages]

I own the 20D ..and i had te G3 before .. the step is incredible ... but the next one will be what will follow the actual 1D !

 

.... i have just to start saving money from now :-)

[jim_larson1]

"The reason being that you are utilizing more of the lens' output area."

 

Depending on the lens. . .in many cases quality will FALL because you are moving out of the lens sweet spot.

 

 

Pick up a 1D-II. Sit the 20D next to it. That will be very, very revealing. Size, weight, viewfinder. HUGE differences.

 

Also. . .1D-II is built for SPEED. 8fps raw. Till you fill the card. That is FAST. You are paying for it.

 

Finally. . there is a very non-trivial difference in the AF systems.

[mark_chappell]

I pretty much agree with Jim Larson. The 1D II is better with wideangles because of the 1.3

crop factor (at least in terms of FOV), but the 20D is better with telephotos (again because of

the FOV reduction provided by the 1.6 'crop factor'). The AF on the 1D is spectacular, but not

quite perfect. Noise is low, even at high ISO. Weight is high. And Jim is correct that if you

use the 8 frames/second capability a lot, you will quickly fill your CF cards, and your

computer's hard drive.

 

I got the 1D II mainly because it will AF at f8 (500/4 + 2X), but am very fond of the 8 fps for

photos of flying birds.

[rocco1]

<p>Ok, 5 years later. <br>

Had the 20D, took more than 120000 pix with it. This week I took up a 1D Mk2N. Took about 1000 pix. <br>

Wouldn't want to swop back again.</p>