20d or 5d

[arimus]

Okay, I've finally persuaded the wifey to let me have a digital SLR

body. Now to the difficult bit - do I go for a 20d which will give me

a bit of cash left over for another lens or two or for the 5d. I tend

to prefer wildlife photography which means the 20d gives me a

headstart with the 1.5x multiplier freeing me up from having to fork

out alot for a long telephoto.

 

I've seen plenty of reviews on the 20d and it looks a good camera and

has all the features I need (spot metering isn't too important to me)

whereas I can't find much on the 5d (too new for alot of the review

sites).

 

So anyone able to offer me any sane advice?

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Well, if you get the 20D, like you say, you can buy another lens or two, plus your existing telephoto lens(es) will provide greater reach. You could achieve the same thing by cropping an image from the 5D, but you'd end up with fewer pixels for the same field of view. So the 20D sounds like a good option. Keep in mind that with the 5D you'll need to get something wider than you have now if you want to maintain the same field of view on the wide end, so account for that when planning your purchase. My widest lens was the 28-135, so before buying my 20D, I got the 17-40.</p>

 

<p>I have nothing against the 5D, and if Santa were to bring me one I would gladly use it. But it's a heck of a lot more expensive, and it sounds like in your case the money would be better spent on more glass.</p>

[steve_unsworth1]

If you can afford it my advice would be to buy the 5D. The 20D has a crop factor but lower pixel count, you could probably crop the 5D image to get a similar effect with a similar pixel count as the 20D when needed :-)

[ymages]

I see no reason except FF to buy the 5D, the 20D is an incredible camera for a normal price, or wait a few month and buy the coming soon 20D

[lotsawa]

With the 20D you have definitely an advantage on the telephoto side.

 

>> The 20D has a crop factor but lower pixel count, you could probably crop the 5D image to get a similar effect with a similar pixel count as the 20D when needed :-)

 

Of course you can crop, but if you crop the area of the 20D's sensor out of the 5D's image, you have less pixels than the 8 MP of the 20D (as Steve D. has pointed out before). The pixel density of the 20D is higher. Don't ask me for the exact numbers, but they have been calculated and published here and elsewhere on the Net.

 

Also the 20D has a higher frame rate per second (5 fps vs. 3 fps) which might be of help for wildlife.

 

Don't know if there is a significant difference in noise (I am mean the audible noise, not the visible) that might be an issue in wildlife photography.

 

I for one don't see why you should get the 5D.

[jbq]

For wildlife (where I assume aggressive cropping will have to happen), the higher pixel density of the 20D and its higher frame rate could be an advantage.

 

The price difference between the two will let you add good telephotos to the 20D while staying within the price range of a 5D body alone (70-200/2.8 plus 300/4).

[arimus]

Thanks guys, looks like my leaning towards the 20d is the right one so will go with that and decent lens or two.

[peter_white2]

The viewfinder is rather small on the 20D. So if you do any manual focusing, the 5D will be much better.

[jbq]

Actually, the magnification of the 20D viewfinder is much better than that of the 5D. If I assume that when shooting wildlife you'll be cropping anyway, the 20D will actually allow easier manual focusing.

[gary petersen]

The 20D is an excellent camera and would be a better choice for wildlife or whenever you need more reach. The money saved will buy you some excellent glass which is more important than the body anyway.

[steve_unsworth1]

Jean-Baptiste, that's not been my experience. I find my 5D easier to focus manually - using an f2 manual focus lens - than my 20D. Not sure why, but I do.

 

Omeone was asking about mechanical camera noise. The 5D is quite a bit quieter than the 20D.

[ymages]

then for 200 euros you buy an angle finder and ger 2.5 extra magnification .... i shall certainly do it one day

[gdanmitchell]

If you aren't going to make fairly large prints (or crop a lot for smaller prints) I suspect that

the advantages of the larger sensor may not be that significant for you.

 

Dan

[arimus]

With regards to the last answer about print size... assuming no cropping what's the largest reasonable print I can expect from both?

[jbq]

I'd expect 12x16/12x18 from the 20D and 18x24/18x27 from the 5D, for pictures shot with excellent lenses and good technique.

[martin_doudoroff1]

I have a Digital Rebel (the original one) and a 5D. If possible, I encourage you to try out both

the 20D and 5D bodies at a camera store. You will find them very similar in most regards,

and their primary differences as machines are obvious. From the tenor of your question, I'd

say the most sensible choice is to buy a 20D (or wait for its rumored imminent replacement)

and save the balance for lenses, which are a MUCH more important set of choices than the

body will ever be. It doesn't sound like you already own a pile of Canon EF lenses, so I

recommend you start with either the kit lens or the 50mm f/1.8 and learn to use the camera

and sort out your needs before doing any serious lens shopping.

[arimus]

My current lens line up is:-

 

28 - 135 IS

70 - 300 Sigma (Crap - will go when I get my digital body)

105mm/f2.8 Sigma macro - nice lens and has been chipped by Sigma to work with my EOS30 and works on friends 10D so should work on 20d (hopefully).

20 - 35mm Tamron wide angle.

 

So my next lens will be either a 300mm prime and a 1.4x or a 100 - 400 IS depending on how much money the wife lets me have ;).

[jim_larson1]

For photographing wildlife. . . .

 

a 20D with a 100-400/5.6L-IS ($1300+$1600 = $2900) will blow the doors off a 5D with a 70-300/IS lens ($3300 + $650 = $3950).

 

For the $1000 you will save. . .you could buy a 17-40/4L, a 50/1.8, and a 420EX to round out the kit.

[guitarlover]

Guys-

Isn't there a difference between the crop factor and magnification factor? Does the XT and 20D really magnify more than the normal lens or is it only simply cropping the picture giving us the false impression of magnification?

 

Also, digital cameras or notorius for obsolense. Considering this- Isn't it better to get the Digital XT and save another $400 which you can invest on perhaps a macro lens which will enable you to take bug pictures?

[gluteal cleft]

"I'd expect 12x16/12x18 from the 20D and 18x24/18x27 from the 5D, for pictures shot with excellent lenses and good technique."

 

This is probably nit-picking, but going from 12x16 to 18x24 is a 50% greater linear dimension, when in fact the 5D only has 25% more pixels in a linear direction.

 

steve

[jbq]

Steve: that's a good point. Personally, I'm willing to print larger sizes at a lower resolution, which is why I made the suggestion. I've done some 160 dpi tests (real-world crops from my 5D), and viewed at the normal viewing ditance for 18x24 they look good, which is how I concluded that for my eyes 18x24 was within reach for the 5D.

[jim_larson1]

Crop factor and magnification are very different. Where it becomes an issue is with DOF issues.. . . a 50/1.8 on a 20D will have a similar perspective to a 85/1.8 on a 5D. . .but the DOF will be deeper (which is bad in most cases).

 

Assuming that image quality is not suffering due to resolution issues. . .then the lenses you pair with the camera should be the deciding factor.

 

As for XT vs 20D. . .heh. . I always consider that a personal preference issue.

[beaglefur]

With all due respect to Mr. Atkins, (because his website is the first place I saw this comment posted) I hate seeing over and over on this forum that the 20D has higher pixel density and will therefore outperform a cropped image with similar coverage from a 5D, simply based on pixel count. Has anyone actually done a crop with a FF sensor and then compared it to a APS-C sensor? We all know that pixel count alone doesn't tell the story when it comes to image quality.

 

I sure would like to see photographic evidence with my own eyes rather than simply seeing people parrot back that comment over and over. I find it hard to believe that there is anywhere near the difference that people claim...in which case, the "longer reach" argument of telephoto lenses on APS-C would no longer hold water.

 

Just my $0.02...and I will be the first to admit if I'm wrong. Sure would like to see proof though.

[andrew robertson]

The cropped sensor could be an advantage if you ONLY shoot telephoto.

 

For the rest of us, who shoot a variety of scenes, a full frame sensor is much more attractive

than a mini sensor.

[jim_doty]

Richard:

 

Which camera is best for you depends on what you shoot and how. Rather then re-write what I have already written, I will just send you here:

 

http://jimdoty.com/Digital/20d_5d/20d_5d.html

 

Jim