Digital Rebel vs 20D

[michaeldaggett]

I purchased the Digital Rebel 28 days ago, the camera store says I

can exchange it for the D20. It is going to cost me an additional

$600. I am very new to photography, but really like it. I have read

some reviews of the 20D and I admit I like it, but not sure why. I

have two thoughts, since I am so new, save the money, use the rebel

until I "need" to go to the 20D. And on the other hand, I like

having the "latest and greatest that I can afford" Am I going to

outgrow the Digital Rebal real soon? or and I just being silly..

Thoughs..

[photoreu]

If I was was in your position I would trade up in a heartbeat. Better build, better ergonomics, a ton more features, 8.2 MP's, higher buffer, higher frame rate.. etc, etc... granted this is all dependent on if you'd actually use these features and you can afford it. If you're serious about getting into photography I wouldnt think twice about it... of course this is just my opinion :-)

[mendonphoto]

Come on, let's just admit that, unless you use your camera to make a living, these are toys and that nobody <i><b>needs</b></i> any of it. Do you want it? Can you afford another $600 for it? You know the features. You know the cost. You should decide.

[paul -]

Or, you could apply the $600 toward a couple lenses for your new Digital Rebel and get the Canon Triple Rebate (you are in the U.S., right?) When the individual rebates are tripled, that's $300 back for the camera, plus a minimum $45 per lens. There is no rebate on the 20D.

[paul -]

<a href="http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/slr/CIWC101504.pdf">Canon USA Triple Rebate.</a>

[nabeeko]

Lens! Lens! Lens! If your a newbie, use the DRebel until

you get the hang of ALL the features. The lens is the thing that makes the difference in image quality. Although the 20D may be 8.2mp and have a better buffer, you're not going to see a "world" of differences. Better lenses with a lower body ALWAYS than a better body with lower lens!

[shambrick007]

If you have to ask, then you don't need it.

[shambrick007]

"Come on, let's just admit that, unless you use your camera to make a living, these are toys and that nobody needs any of it."<p>Prob the truest thing ever said on ANY photo.net forum.

[aris_lancrescent]

Mike, I totally agree with the other two:

1. I'd upgrade in a heart beat and get rid of the rebel for the 20D;

2. you won't need most of the features.

 

The baseline is that if you are serious about going into photography, then any camera that doesn't have full manual mode is a toss away. Since both of them have it, then you'll need to see what other function they have for the full manual mode (not anything else).

 

I have used both of them (i don't own them, but my friends got them). I have to say the 20D feels the closest to my 1D Mark II. I can't tell you much about the modes since I only use full manual. But as far as that goes, I think the 20D is by far the better of the two and at $600 more, it is a steal in my opinion. 20D is considered as entry level professional SLR while Rebel is a step lower.

 

In the end, it is really about how well you can use the camera. It is the painter's brush, and only that. The only reason I can see where you would need a better camera is to accomodate for more shooting conditions. On a sunny day shooting still objects, the Rebel can do the same job as my 1DMKII, but in a dark room with only a candle in sight, only the 1DMKII can take a decently exposed shot without a flash. So with this in mind, getting the 20D will allow you to tackle more shooting conditions.

[marknagel]

Bring you camera to the store and check both out side by side. chose the 20d because the speed. The thing I hated about Digital was how slow they were (point&shoots). I bought a highspeed CF card (80x) can held the shutter down in full burst mode (5+- frames per second). I got 61 pictures until it final slowed down. then it was about 1-2 frames per second. If you like having the new stuff, do it.

 

Mark

[kraig_cuddeford]

Lenses and the tripple rebate.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>In your case, it's hard to say. You're new, and chances are that right now, the Rebel is more than adequate and will remain so for some time. You may never outgrow it. There might be better uses for the money, as others have suggested, such as good lenses or maybe photography lessons.</p>

 

<p>I would lean towards suggesting that you keep the Rebel. The 20D is clearly the superior camera, but probably not in ways that, for a beginner, are significant or worth the money.</p>

[steve_mitchell2]

Taking pictures of power boats jumping wakes, I needed the 5+ frames per second. Hence, I got the 20D. I also like the ability to add the 2-battery grip with the incorporated "protrait" shutter release button which will give me the extended "play" time before recharging as well as prevent twisting into a pretzel taking portraits.

 

On the flip side, what several posts above stated, if you do not need those features of the 20D which are not present on the DRebel, save your money, add a few good lenses to the mix, and take advantage of the rebate.

[michaeldaggett]

A reason I was thinking was because from what I understand the Drebel doesn't have automatic Flash Exposure Control, not that I know what that does yet, but I hope to soon. I primarially want to get into portraits indoors, and landscaps, sports as well, but mainly for fun..My thoughs are if I can get into the D20 now for $600 it will be easier than trying to get into it in a couple of years for the full $1500. As far as lenses, I only have the 50mm 1.8 and the 75-300 IS USM. 4.5. This is just what I was able to purchase with the rebel at the time.

[paul -]

<i>the Drebel doesn't have automatic Flash Exposure Control</i><p>FEC is Flash Exposure <i>Compensation</i> - the ability to have the flash put out a little more light or less light than the meter thinks is appropriate. The Digital Rebel body doesn't come with the feature, but can get it with the <a href="http://www.bahneman.com/liem/photos/tricks/digital-rebel-tricks.html">"Russian Hack" firmware, </a>or simply by using a high-end Canon flash like the 550EX or 580EX.<P><i>My thoughs are if I can get into the D20 now for $600 it will be easier than trying to get into it in a couple of years for the full $1500.</i><P>You already <i>paid</i> for the Digital Rebel, so the 20D costs you a Digital Rebel <i>plus</i> $600. That's still $1500 or so.<p>A couple years from now, $1500 will buy you a camera that will make the (by-then) obsolete 20D and Digital Rebels look like toys.<p>The lenses you could buy today would still be just as good in a few years, and unlike digital cameras, won't be obsolete technology.<p>My impression is that you <i>want</i> the 20D, and are looking for moral support to justify that decision.<p>It's <i>your</i> money, spend it as you wish - you deserve it!

[michaeldaggett]

Paul,

 

I am (after reading your first post) leaning towards getting another lense and maximizing the rebate. Because the trade diffrence is actually $830 once you factor in the fact that right now with the rebel I have the $230 rebate coming to me. If I go to the D20 I lose that as well.. So im looking for another lense to make the rebates triple.

[aris_lancrescent]

In this case get a mid range L series lens. They are well worth the money. Your 75-300mm is pretty good, so no need to upgrade that to an L lens (which is $2500 for a new 28-300L). Get a 28-75/135/etc zoom and that should carry you far enough to get acquainted with all the features.

 

If you get the Rebel, don't worry about getting the 580EX flash. My understanding is that it can't use the flash's E-TTL II functionality. And that's pretty much all you are paying for for the 580EX.

[michaeldaggett]

Thanks for all of the input, this forum is really neat for that one reason. I want to change gears, but rather than posting another question, here goes.

 

I have the 18-55 kit lense

50mm 1.8 lense

75-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM

 

I use the 50mm for portraits, I use the 75-300 for outdoor sports. I think I would like a good indoor zoom. I really would like to get away with the $500 price range, so I was thinking of the Canon - 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM EF Lens or the Canon - 28-200 f/3.5 - 5.6 USM EF Lens . The 28-200 is $100 cheaper, but it doesn't have IS. I like the IS on my 75-300 so I think it woud be better to cut down the range to get the IS. 28-135 for indoor zoom "should be adequate" shouldn't it.. Thoughs..

[mendonphoto]

<i>As far as lenses, I only have the 50mm 1.8 and the 75-300 IS USM. 4.5.</i><br><br>

Did you get the kit lens (18-55mm) too? You will want something in that range for landscapes. If you don't have it, consider it or the 17-40mm f/4.0L.<br><br>

The Russian firmware hack works quite well for giving you manual Flash Exposure Compensation. In my opinion it is the biggest reason to install that firmware.<br><br>

<a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/"><u>This</u></a> is an excellent article that will help you understand what, in my opinion, is the most confusing technical aspect of modern day photography - flash photography.

[mendonphoto]

...I guess I posted that last one just after you did. That answers my question about the kit lens.<br><br>

By "indoor photography" do you mean pictures of people indoors? If so, IS could be helpful (I think it usually gains you a stop), but not as much as it is on your 75-300mm. The reason is that you still need 1/30 - 1/120 of a second to freeze people - especially people that aren't posing. For that reason, I'd look for a lens with a constant aperture of f/2.8 to simply allow for the faster shutter speeds.<br><br>

The 28-75mm f/2.8 by Tamron is an optically superb lens for the price of a midrange zoom ($300). Bob Atkins just posted an comprehensive review of that lens on this web site about 2 weeks ago.<br><br>

[michaeldaggett]

We were typing at the same time... As far as indoor more like indoor candids, at parties and such. For this lens, I need to get one that qualifies for the canon rebate, since I have the Drebel and the 75-300 one more qualified lense gets me more rebate. So I have to stick to Canon. I also have the 420EX flash.

[mendonphoto]

Don't let the rebates make your buying decisions for you. Rebates are nice, but Canon (and other companies) wants you to think that the more money you spend, the more money you save. That's just ridiculous.<br><br>

Check out <a href="http://photonotes.org"><u>photonotes.org</u></a> for excellent Canon EOS camera and lens information. Look at <a href="http://www.photozone.de"><u>photozone.de</u></a> for pretty reliable ratings of almost all lenses currently available.<br><br>

The 28-135mm Canon in question looks like a decent lens, but still not very fast. I'd still take an excellent lens with a constant aperture of f/2.8 over it even if it cost me a little more.<br><br>

The 3 lenses from the list of qualifiers that I would think are great lenses for the price are:<br><br>

17-40mm f/4.0 L<br>

70-200mm f/4.0 L<br>

85mm f/1.8 (excellent portrait lens)<br>

[jon_austin]

<i>"... unless you use your camera to make a living, these are toys and that nobody needs any of it."</i><p><p>

 

I <i><b>need</i></b> my toys ...

[aris_lancrescent]

Mike, word of advice, do NOT get a wide angle lens. If you do, you will be wasting your money. The Rebel got a lens factor of something in the range of x1.6 or higher. If you spend $500 on a good lens that can go all the way down to 14mm, the actual max you will obtain is 22. If you get a 22mm (theoretically), you'll end up with a 35mm. And so on. In short, don't bother with wide angle lenses unless you have the $8000 1Ds Mark II or the $7000 1Ds.

[mendonphoto]

Aris, I have to respectfully, but <i><b>very</b></i> passionately disagree. For landscape photography, the 24-50mm range is the workhorse. A 17-40mm zoom, on the Digital Rebel with the 1.6X crop factor, will get him the equivalent of 27-64mm. That covers most of the landscape range and, in my opinion, makes it very useful.