Who's switched from Canon XT to 20D and was it worth it?

[richard_hoover]

And why please?

 

I am doing a lot of event / concert shooting and I saw an article in

Popular Photography mag. [May or June] that indicated the 20D

focuses quicker and more accurately than the 20D, especially in low

light as well as noticeably less noise at 1600 [not that the XT is

bad].

 

Wonder for those that have switched from XT to 20D whether they

found this to be true and otherwise, consider the 20D worth the

price difference.

[hakon_soreide]

I haven't switched from XT to 20D. In fact I just ordered the XT, but from the shots I've seen, noise rendition between the XT and 20D are pretty close at ISO1600 - and that's when looking at shots at actual pixel size on the screen. That usually means that in a print, the difference would be basically impossible to discern and, for those worried about it, there's always NeatImage.<p>

When it comes to focusing speed, I understand that lenses with f-ratings of less than 5.6 will focus faster on the D20, but I doubt that the autofocus difference will make much of a difference to anyone. It's probably still faster than many other cameras in the past that many people were perfectly happy with.<p>

Hakon Soreide<br>

Bergen, Norway<br>

<a href="http://www.hakonsoreide.com">www.hakonsoreide.com</a>

[mendel_leisk]

Just incase you haven't seen it:

 

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/digital_rebel_xt/

[PuppyDigs]

The 20D viewfinder is much nicer and the QCD a massive blessing if you use EC or M

mode.

[richard_hoover]

Saw it. Not sure why you thought it was helpful; the 'focus' is all over the place.

 

Want more focus on the issues I am interested in and comments from people that have significantly used both . . . and not just have one and are speculating on the other or looked at / held both in the store as opposed to actual 'field' use.

 

Is There something wrong with trying to focus the question more.

[fp_anderson]

Puppy Face , aug 31, 2005; 05:14 p.m. wrote:

 

The 20D viewfinder is much nicer and the QCD a massive blessing if you use EC or M mode

 

 

---

 

Hi, what is QCD?

 

Also has anyone here found a source for refurbished 20d bodies (other than Adorama)?

 

thanks

F.P.

[jon_austin]

QCD = Quick Control Dial: that big, round dial on the back of the 20D, to the right of the back LCD panel.

[goulden]

i use both the 20D and the 350D for concert event shooting

 

the only main differences is the 20d is more comfortable in my hand (with batt-grip) when being used for long periods. the 5fps of the 20d is very useful compared to the 350D but i don't see any major difference at all in AF abilities of the two

[richard_hoover]

James: That's particularly the type of testimony I'm trying to see what the consensus is. Quicker controls, better viewfinder and more fps would be pluses, but not enough to make me trade up.

 

Significantly better noise at 1600 and better or quicker focusing [i.e. less chance of missed shot] in shooting people/events would make it worth it to me.

[trenternst]

Having used both, I can tell you that the 20D is a much nicer camera to use. It just feels

nicer. It is much more intuitive (changing Aperture on the XT was a pain in the butt in

manual). The 20D says "professional". Feels professional.

 

Looks professional.

 

Yeah, baby, I'm a professional photographer. Can't you tell by my...camera?

 

Does it take better pictures? Arguably yes, but that depends on whose hands the cameras

are in. I didn't see great differences between the two at 1600, but I don't have the most

refined eye for digital noise. I didn't have them around at the same time to compare them

head to head.

 

Is it worth the switch? Again, depends on what type of shooter you are, and what sort of

budget you have. Do you find yourself getting annoyed at the small buffer on the XT? Do

you find the XT hunting for focus, and is that because of the lens, of the camera, or of the

settings? I'd be more than happy to take concert shots with a XT and a 70-200 2.8 L.

 

But I'd be happier with the 20D and the 2.8 L.

 

Would I be happier with a 20D and a, say 100-300 F4.5? Probably not. The more I shoot,

the more stock I put in the lens. The lens makes or breaks the picture. The camera? Will be

replaced in a year by something even beefier and torquier.

 

But that's just my opinion.

 

Is it worth the price difference? Well, I haven't bought one for myself, if that means

anything. I got to play with both the XT and 20D at work (and the 20D is still around). I

still have a d30 that works perfectly fine for most of my shooting, though I have been

looking long and hard at the 20D lately. There's enough little things that bug me about the

XT that, given the choice, I'd go for the 20D.

 

In fact, given the choice between the XT and an old 10D, I'd probably take the 10D

because of the interface issues, even though I'm losing 2 mp.

 

Again, just my preference. You might not have any issues with the XT, and if you don't,

then don't switch just because the 20D is slightly better.

[alexdi]

I'm partial to the 20D because I can't physically hold the XT. Had it been the size of the original Rebel, I'd have bought one.. instead of the original Rebel. Or a 20D.

 

I initially thought I would miss the QCD, but that hasn't been the case at all, for two reasons:

 

1) In every context that I've wanted manual exposure, I've had plenty of time to set it.

 

2) I don't like to fiddle with aperture and shutter at the same time.

 

DI

[randy_jk]

Here is a "backward" perspective. I have been shooting with a 20D for nearly a year. I

previously owned a 10D, 1D and 300D. I recently picked up the XT as a backup to the 20D

and have been very happy with it. Its not as nice as the 20D but there is a huge price

difference so thats to be expected. But it is enough alike the 20D that it doesn't feel like a

downgrade to use it.

 

Now if I had the XT, sold it for a loss and picked up the 20D, it would be hard to consider this

to be a huge upgrade. I mean the 20D has some nice features but its debatable what the

value of these are, more nice to have than items that translate into better photography.

[jim_larson1]

All I know is that I have a 10D.

 

Whenever I pickup a drebel or a xt, I feel no desire to upgrade. I contemplate an upgrade when I pickup a 20D. . . but I don't contemplate long enough to review my finances (like I did when I saw the 24-105/4L-IS)

 

As a hobbiest. . .I place a high value on the "feel" of the camera. Intellectually. . .I know the XT is better than the 10D. I probably can take better pictures with a XT. And it costs less than what I am willing to spend on a 24-105/4L-IS. Still don't want a XT.