Canon EOS 20D

Joined
Jul 8, 2004
Messages
181
Location
London, Ontario, Canada
Another step forward on the DSLR front that will make many chasers drool. From the Digital Photography Review Website:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0408/04081909...anon_eos20d.asp

DR Review states: "Canon has today revealed the EOS 20D, the eight megapixel successor to the EOS 10D. The new sensor is however only half the story the EOS 20D has a slightly smaller and lighter body, a brand new 9-point AF system, near instant power on time, 5 frames per second continuous shooting, support for EF-S digital lenses, true RAW+JPEG, a B&W mode and USB 2.0. In total we've counted approximately 30 noteworthy improvements on the EOS 20D. Naturally we have a detailed eleven page hands-on preview of the EOS 20D and will have sample images available in a few days time. Price on the street around US$1,500."

Extensive preview at:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos20d/
 
Also a nice, detailed review at:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...20d-part1.shtml

It looks like it provides rather significants improvements on the EOS-10D, at with the same or lower starting MSRP. Sample / Actual pictures taken with the 20D cannot be released until 8/23/04, I presume because of the non-disclosure agreement. Whatever the case, I'm hoping to have one by next chase season... Glad I waited a little on the EOS10D, since it sounds like it's a signficant advancement from the 10D (some have said it's closer to the EOS "1" line rather than the pre-existing 10D).
 
i was thinking wow! now i can get a real nice price on a 10D. But now i start reading and the 20D is hard to not pass up..
 
Try here for a few sample images. Looks darn good to me. And why shouldn't they? Since the D30 Canon has pretty much been 1-up on everyone else in the industry for consumer DSLRs.

http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eos20d/eos2...d_sample-e.html


Jeff: the time between now and when it comes out is a good period to brush up on your photoshop skills. You really need to be either fluent in photoshop, or be able to shell out the $$ for Capture 1 ( http://www.phaseone.com )raw converter to get the most out of these cameras.

Aaron
 
Wow. I've used the Digital Rebel since it debuted last year. I will definitely sell it in favor of the Canon D20.

More previews:
Review list: http://www.photographyblog.com/comments.ph...id=3479_0_1_0_C
Lots of comments: http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/20D/
Official site: http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos20d/index.html

I'm also excited about the EF-S 17-85 f4/5.6 IS USM lens Canon announced. I considered buying the 28-135 EF version of this lens so this is a no-brainer. I don't expect the IS feature will be useful for weather photography because most of it is done from a tripod (except for those ill-advised 70 mph shots). But I'll have plenty of other opportunities to enjoy freedom that IS supposedly brings.

I plan on using the new camera with a Bogen / Manfrotto 3292 Car Window Pod with 390RC2 JR 3-Way Pan/Tilt Head with Quick Release next spring.
 
I'm still not entirely convinced of the EF-S system that Canon is pushing... I mean, I don't know if I want to plunk down my dinero for a lens that won't fit other Canon models. It does appear that Canon is putting quite a bit of effort in making the EF-S lens system work, but since lenses can last a good 10-25 years, I'm not sure if the EF-S system will be around in 10-15 years. However, I'm pretty confident that the EF 'regular-mount' system, will stand the test of time since it's a more 'normal' lens system ... Of course we'll see if Canon goes EF-S with their next "1" series iteration..
 
There is another new lens proposed beside the IS model, however, at 10-20 mm, which would give back the wide angle shot with DSLR, and then some. Street prices are expected to be around $700 - so you'll have to want it bad - and I totally agree - that is a lot of money for a short fix lens. One would tend to think the trend will be toward larger image sensors in time - but with these new lenses emerging - one can't be so sure that they aren't looking to just make sensors progressively finer grained and keep the smaller size to cut down on other problems. The introduction of the lenses I think suggests they will be keeping them viable for some time into the future - not like the patchwork 18-55 mm lens.

Glen
 
I'd rather buy the 17-40mm lens and then stitch the rare shot that needs something wider than 17mm.

Aaron

Yeah, the projected cost is about the same for both, and then you get the 'L' glass with greater functionality.

Glen
 
Looks like a great camera. Looks like it has some real improvements over the 10D, but for those of you with a 10D don't feel like you are being left in the dust.

The 10D still captures images with amazing quality. I have a 10D and the 20D doesn't offer enough of a change to justify buying a new camera. Especially considering what I use it for. My next camera investment won't by until full-frames got a lot cheaper
 
Can anyone tell me.

Im confused. My background is videography.. Im somewhat new to photography.. Silly huh? anyways...

I invested in a small Sony W1 point and shoot.. It has a BIG LCD screen and other nice features. Thing is.. It just wont cut it for the caliber of photography Im looking for.

Im interested in the 20D and I am starting from scratch.. Can anyone tell me if starting new.. What lenses would you buy? I know you guys talk alot about the 17 -40mm... thats a wide angle? What others would i need?

What is the differences in the lenses you talk about EF glass or L glass? If starting new as an investment what would be the pros and cons? Can i get some educated input please?

Thanks in advance :)
 
Fplowman,
When looking at the focal lengths for lenses, remember that the 20D has a 1.6x multiplier. This makes a 17-40 lens EFFECTIVELY (not physically of course) 17*1.6 - 40*1.6 or 27-64. This is very important to remember, especially as you get into the telephoto range.

Canon's "L" glass is their premiere line. Essentially, it uses the best glass, the best construction, the best everything. Of course, for all of this, you have to pay a relatively hefty price. However, for the best pictures possible, it's vital to have good glass. Their non-L lens line is essenttially the EF-series. Now, Canon does have an EF-S line of lenses, which are smaller and are designed to take advantage of the 1.6x multiplier.

For the money, the 20D is the best DSLR you can buy. Now, if you own Nikon lenses, which I don't think you do, I'd wait a while to see what they come out with. Nikon will undoubtedly come out with a new dSLR to compete with the 20D. However, currently, there is no better dSLR for the money.
 
Thanks Jeff

Originally posted by Jeff Snyder
Fplowman,
When looking at the focal lengths for lenses, remember that the 20D has a 1.6x multiplier. This makes a 17-40 lens EFFECTIVELY (not physically of course) 17*1.6 - 40*1.6 or 27-64. This is very important to remember, especially as you get into the telephoto range.

Im stupid! lol Can you tell me what all them numbers was?? Seriously though are you saying that this 1.6x multiplier somehow digitally converts this EF-S lense into a wide and telephoto?? Dual purpose? Am I correct here?? Also I assume 17 - 40 lense is for wide angle use?? Right?

Im a layman.. Without irritating anyone can someone give me a short course here??


Fred
 
Some folks more versed than myself in photography (e.g. Aaron Kennedy) can surely give better advice than I can, so hopefully you can get more advice...

The 1.6x multiplier doesn't actually change the focal length of the lens, as the camera doesn't have an affect on the physical properties of the drive. That said, it does effectively change it. Now, the effective 27-64 wouldn't really be a full wide angle to telephoto lens. It's more like a weak wide-angle to slightly telephoto, but not much. The 17-40L is one of the more popular lenses, so that alone tells you something about the construction, quality, and utility of the lens. I'm a couple of months away from getting the EOS-20D myself, so I'm also in the process of finding good lenses...
 
Originally posted by fplowman


Im stupid!


Can I quote you the next time we wallow into a political flame fest? ;)


lol Can you tell me what all them numbers was?? Seriously though are you saying that this 1.6x multiplier somehow digitally converts this EF-S lense into a wide and telephoto?? Dual purpose? Am I correct here?? Also I assume 17 - 40 lense is for wide angle use?? Right?

Im a layman.. Without irritating anyone can someone give me a short course here??

Fred

OK. It's late, but I'll give it a go.... :cyclopsani:

Ignore the sensor and just imagine a lens focusing an image onto a flat surface. Depending on the diameter and design of the lens, the image will be fully illuminated and reasonably sharp over a limited area. At the edges, light loss will occur because some of the light entering the lens will be unable to make it to the focal plane. Also, the edges will get softer as various abberations become more apparent as you move away from the central axis of the lens.

So, this leaves you with a 'sweet spot' in which the formed image will be bright and sharp. With lenses designed for 'old' 35mm film, this 'circle of goodness' (TM by Greg) comfortably covered a 35x24mm piece of film. If you placed a somethat larger format film at the focal plane, you'd get a soda-straw effect, and the outside coners would be nearly dark, and very blurry.

With a smaller sensor (one of them digital thangies), the lens' image is identical, but the sensor, being smaller than 35x24mm, intercepts a smaller section of it. That section of the image that does fall on the sensor is all the camera can see. Since the section is smaller, it represents a 'cropped' version of the image 35mm film would see if used with the same lens. You can see that this 'cropped' image is a 'zoom' of the film image and represents a greater magnification of the oriinal scene. Thus, a sensor that is 1.6 times smaller than a 35x24mm chunk of film will produce 1.6 times the magnification when used with the same lens.

The (Canon) EF-S lenses are designed to be smaller (and, much more to the point, cheaper) than the 'standard' EF lenses that film based cameras established. These smaller lenses are disigned to produce a smaller 'circle of goodness' and cannot fully illuminate a 35x24 format sensor, be it film or silicon based. This may or may not be a problem in the future. Sensor sizes are creeping up for a number of technical reasons and many people think that they will wind up at 35x24, or maybe 32x24 - very close to the 35mm film format. Your $500 EF-S lens just won't work with that 2006 Canon model that features a full-frame sensor. (Even today, Canon, Nikon, Kodak, and others(?) produce pro-level DSLR cameras with 35x24mm sensors. 'Fortunately' you don't need to wory about them unless you want to take out a second mortgage on your house.)

To counteract the 1.6 magnification factor, and give digicam shooter a 'proper' wide angle option, camera manufacurers are producing EF-S (Nikon has a similar line, AFAIK) like lenses with very short focal lengths, like 10~40 zooms. These when used with a 1.6 scale digital sensor, this would provide the same image FOV as a 16~64mm lens on a film camera. Building such a lens (10~40mm) to cover the film format would require a large, very spendy, design. However, with the reduced COG requirement, an EF-S lens system can be build much smaller and at a semi-affordable price.

-Greg (Reveling in the price CRASH of manual focus Canon gear as the thundering herds 'go digital' and sell solidly built (ohhh, metal!), perfectly functional equipment for next to nothing! :) )
 
lol.. thanks guys

So I know its hard to give you my money and say shop for me.. But starting new.. New EF-s glass will give me a possible one lense solution.. or should i get the L glass? I understand somewhat your above posts.. But it still leaves me indecisive..

Thank you again for your help
 
Originally posted by B Ozanne
RE: 1.6x crop factor

Gerg, nice explanation. Here is another one, hope it doesn't out-do you, but a picture is worth a thousand words.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial.../dslr-mag.shtml

Gerg? ;)

No worries! :thumbright:
I had a diagram like that in mind, but got lost in trying to describe it, rather than just hunt down a pic. :confused4:

-Greg
 
Originally posted by fplowman
lol.. thanks guys

So I know its hard to give you my money and say shop for me.. But starting new.. New EF-s glass will give me a possible one lense solution.. or should i get the L glass? I understand somewhat your above posts.. But it still leaves me indecisive..

Thank you again for your help

Don't know how much help this will be - but I'm probably going to get a 20d myself. I already own several lenses - all EF (haven't stepped up to L glass). I think the EF glass is pretty good - as long as you don't shoot wide open. If you plan to use the camera for low light handheld shots - then you might be better off getting the better glass if money is no object.

I really haven't seen a good demonstration of the value of the L glass for digital applications. The image resolution even with 8.25 MP is still far from that of 50 speed film grain - so I don't really know if the difference in glass is really distinguishable from the digital noise.

Wide angle shots are nice for storm pics - but if you plan on using photoshop for image editing - then the stitching algorithms are good enough compensate assuming you have time to take a few shots before the scene has changed too much. I've never tried this with a rapidly changing storm environment - but maybe someone else here has. The new EFS 10-22 mm lens allows you to recapture rectilinear wide angle with the smaller sensor - but they are expensive. For the money, you could get a 17-40 mm L glass lens. So, the end question is whether this new smaller chip size is something that will be staying around for the long haul - or is it just a substitute until the bigger chips get easier to pack with sensors. If a sub - you'll be stuck with useless lenses from the EFS line - but the fact they even came out with these new quality lenses (not the crap 18-55 they try to package with the camera) to me suggests they plan to keep the smaller sensor cameras around for a while.

Glen
 
Originally posted by fplowman
lol.. thanks guys

So I know its hard to give you my money and say shop for me...

I'll e-mail you my address. $16,000 should make for a good start. Furthermore, I'll only charge a 5% commision. That'll buy me 4~5 more lenses for my ancient FD system. ;)


But starting new.. New EF-s glass will give me a possible one lense solution.. or should i get the L glass? I understand somewhat your above posts.. But it still leaves me indecisive..

Thank you again for your help

Yea, the EF-S 17~85 would cover 90% to what you'd want to shoot. IMO, that would make a good 'first and only' EF-S lens. Buy it with the camera and consider it disposable. If/when Canon decides to move to a larger sensor standard, the lens will not work with the your future camera.

The L series lenses are Canon's fastest, sharpest, most snooty, primo lineup and you'll pay big bux for the red ring. Standard EF glass will work fine.

If you want a 'proper' wide angle FOV, you'll almost certainly need one of those 10~40mm EF-S zooms. You could buy an EF ~15mm or 16~35 zoom, but you'd only get a ~28mm equivalent: wide-ish, but not really making it for scenic use. Check the first sections of http://canonfd.com/lenswork.htm for a good rundown on lens theory.

Here's the FOV (with 35mm film) vs. focal length page.
[Broken External Image]:http://canonfd.com/lenswork/LensWork014E.jpg

-Greg
 
Thanks again guys... I want to take pics like I see that Mike Hollingshead and of course others have taken.. He in particular though has some awesome storm photography..

so.. EF S 17 -85 and a 10 -40 would cover most my needs for this camera?

Im not really sure i am worried about the better camera coming along and having to buy new glass.. Basically making the glass I buy proprietary for this camera.. If I sell the camera Ill sell the lenses.. might take it in the pants though.

What does a 17 -40 L glass cost?? curious?

Im not likely to want to spend any more than 2500 or so on my setup/...

Wow now i need to think about media to save it on.. Its not cheap either.

Fred
 
Originally posted by fplowman
Thanks again guys... I want to take pics like I see that Mike Hollingshead and of course others have taken.. He in particular though has some awesome storm photography..

so.. EF S 17 -85 and a 10 -40 would cover most my needs for this camera?


I don't see the need for overlapping FL ranges. Without knowing anything about these specific lenses (or their prices), I'd get the EF-S 10~22 and an EF 24~85 or 28~135 (slight cringe at the zoom range) zoom and call it done. Throw in a 200 f2.8 and possible tele-multiplier if you feel the need.

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controlle...fcategoryid=111

IMO, I'd steer clear of the 28~200 type stuff on general principle - to a degree, the greater the zoom range, the lower the image quality. (This is open to great debate, I'd imagine.)

If you're feeling rich, and absolute image quality matters, get the EF-s 10~22 zoom (for wide angle) and a stepped set of fixed focal length EF lenses: 35, 50, 85, 135, 200, and a 1.4 or 2x tele extender. All this is dependent on the sort of shooting you'll be doing. I usualy shoot fairly static subjects and have time to swap lenses (no zooms in my FD set) and can "zoom with my feet" to meet intermediate needs. If you're into action, or just want to avoid carying a bunch of extra glass, a zoom or three is the way to go.

-Greg


What does a 17 -40 L glass cost?? curious?

Dunnow. Cruise over to http://www.bhphotovideo.com (one of the the more reliable mail order house) and have a look. Adorama is also a good option. Http://www.newegg.com is also very well thought of and has bodies, but apparently no lenses. You can find cheaper, but only by dealing with shady operators. You could mail order the body and then pay your local camera store a visit. Play with their stuff, see what you like, and, if the prices aren't totaly outrageous, buy a lens or two as a 'thanks.'


Wow now i need to think about media to save it on.. Its not cheap either.

There are a number of 'extra' expenses lurking in the grass. A SOLID tripod ( > $120$) is essential for any sort of macro or low light shooting.

-Greg
 
Originally posted by fplowman


so.. EF S 17 -85 and a 10 -40 would cover most my needs for this camera?

It is an 18-55 that they throw in for $100 bucks. Mike H. posted elsewhere he uses this lens with his digital Rebel, and I think he's relatively happy with it overall.

The 17-40 mm L lens runs about $700.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller...u=279582&is=USA

This overlaps with the other's range - so don't by both - one or the other.

Canon EF-S lens 10-22 mm is a bit more:

http://www.adorama.com/CA1022AFSU.html

This lens will be good for wide angle - but not much else.

The "good" midrange (17-85 mm) zoom in the EFS series (excluding the cheapie above) is $600.

A media card in the 2 Gb range, which is probably adequate, runs in the $200 range.

So, with $2500 you can't get everything - but you might just want the body ($1500) with the good midrange zoom ($600) with a media card ($200) which keeps you in your price range.

Glen
 
Back
Top