View Full Version : Canon 20D...is it still worth buying?
flipflop
11-21-2007, 16:54
Hi,
I just purchased a canon 20d with the stock crappy zoom...I bought it used...but is has under 4k exposures. It seems like a nice camera but would I be better saving and buying a 30d or 40d or a nikon d40x or d80 or d200?
Just looking for your input and if you think the 20d are still worth owning?
Thanks!
Is there something that you'd be missing with a 20D compared to a 30 or 40?
flipflop
11-21-2007, 17:01
I dont know...is there? the larger sensor?
The 30D or 40D won't give you much more than the 20D IMHO. Yes there are more pixels, and yes the LCD is bigger but these are minor upgrades. Oh and the AF is supposed to be improved but unless you shoot high action sports you won't notice. I have been owning a 20D for almost three years now and I still believe it is a fantastic camera. I don't feel the need to upgrade at all, instead I am spending my money on rangefinders :-D
The Canon 30D and 40D are being replaced as we post. If you spend your time worrying about staying up with the model/feature race on dslrs, you better be pushing a huge pile of money in a wheelbarrow, because that's what it's all about. Mfrs, trying to stay alive. It's doubtful if there are many new features you can't live without, or might likely never use. And who said the zoom that came with the 20D is crappy. You certainly didn't get those ideas from reading the good reviews on the 20D at www.dpreview.com or www.steves-digicams.com.
I presume you paid a decent price for the 20D, which makes us all beneficiaries of good fortune when the new models come out. It's a huge rat race to separate you from the contents of your wallet, and people are forking over fistfuls of dough like they actually have it to spend, instead of feeding their babies and paying the rent.
I bet that in the year you get acquainted with your 20D, you won't find anything you can't do with it, and if you do, the 50D and 60D's will have dropped the price on the 40D by megabucks. Use it. If you don't like the lens, there are some GREAT aftermarket lenses at very fair prices that give a better bang for the buck than Canon glass, not that Canon glass is not good..... just over priced like all OEM accessories.
You sound just like me when I was young and used to introduce my new wife to people I met. "Hi, this is my new wife Alice.... Best I could do with the car I owned at the time!"
I dont know...is there? the larger sensor?
Sensor size.... The digital photographers equivalent of Penis Envy!!! 4/3's rules. Smaller cameras, and all the image quality one needs for most purposed.
flipflop
11-21-2007, 17:10
Hmmm...well truthfully...the reason I bought the 20d was because of all the good things I had heard about it. I have been a Nikon guy my whole life but the d70 sucks in comparison I have used one and did not like it. I buy everything used because I dont like watching things I buy drop in price like the US dollar. :P
I was just wondering if I could blow images up larger with a newer camera? From what I have seen the camera is capable of taking some nice photos.
everything is worth buying when if the price is right.
Sensor size.... The digital photographers equivalent of Penis Envy!!! 4/3's rules. Smaller cameras, and all the image quality one needs for most purposed.
Hardly.. is there a 24/1.4 lens for the 4/3 system(I should actually say 12/1.4)... Not even close I'm afraid.
trev2401
11-21-2007, 17:20
Hmmm...well truthfully...the reason I bought the 20d was because of all the good things I had heard about it. I have been a Nikon guy my whole life but the d70 sucks in comparison I have used one and did not like it. I buy everything used because I dont like watching things I buy drop in price like the US dollar. :P
I was just wondering if I could blow images up larger with a newer camera? From what I have seen the camera is capable of taking some nice photos.
I own 2 20ds and a 10d, and the 20d's excellent for its iso800 shots (11x17s with not much Noise ninja/pp). To me, the 20ds were and still are workhorses, cheap, semi-ruggard, and most importantly, very good noise control, although they give the 'plastic' feel characteristic of canon images.
Don't worry about the falling prices, heck, i just bought another 20d 1 month back for 300$ mint. Yes, the prices are going to fall like bricks thanks to canon's once a year upgrade policy, but who cares? just spend the rest of your money on lenses or on printing and improving, or buy more leica gear. :)
Yeah, the newer cameras have better lil bits and pieces with 2 more mps, but hey... if i can still get a beautiful 16x20 with my older 1dmk1, i don't see the 20d lagging much behind the 6 month & 10 month younger 30 and 40d counterparts. FWIW, i've done 16x20s with no interpolation with the 20d.
flipflop
11-21-2007, 17:23
wonder if I would be happier with a leica m6 +35mm or 50mm lens? I have a g1 i love shooting with because of the sharp images. but i hate scanning negs! I let target do it now...
imajypsee
11-21-2007, 17:27
I bought it in Sept '04 and have put lots of clicks on it. For low light it beats the 30D, which I also use for the better auto focus. (I may buy a 40D at some point.)
This photo was made with the 20D at ISO 800, no flash.
http://www.pbase.com/jypsee/image/63433350/medium.jpg (http://www.pbase.com/jypsee/image/63433350)
click the photo for a larger view; and to see the whole gallery from this session
everything is worth buying when if the price is right.
Hardly.. is there a 24/1.4 lens for the 4/3 system(I should actually say 12/1.4)... Not even close I'm afraid.
No, but there's a LEICA D SUMMILUX 25mm/F1.4 ASPH for 4/3 system!
trev2401
11-21-2007, 17:35
No, but there's a LEICA D SUMMILUX 25mm/F1.4 ASPH for 4/3 system!
Now that's a sweet lens.
40d is a very nice camera. It is a significant upgrade.
It has very usable high ISO speeds similar to the 5d. It also has a higher dynamic range than the 20d and 30d. That a big deal in my books. It has beautiful colour rendition and the af improvements in low light will be helpful.
It's an evolution, but that doesn't mean the less-evolved camera is not still an excellent camera.
flipflop
11-21-2007, 17:38
I was really thinking of getting the canon ef 35mm f/2 as my next lens because its pretty much a 50mm with the crop factor pretty fast and is supposed to be relatively sharp and it fits my budget...any of you have any experience with this lens?
No, but there's a LEICA D SUMMILUX 25mm/F1.4 ASPH for 4/3 system!
which becomes a 50mm FOV when you consider the 2x crop factor of the 4/3 system.. which is why i said 12/1.4.. there is no such lens, not even close to it..
The 35/2 is noisy.
The 28 f2.8 USM and the 20 mm USM are really better choices.
Canon has mostly ignored their fixed focal lengths but their wide zooms are very good. The 17-40 f4 USM IS is a fantastic budget lens, the image shake reduction helps balance the slow speed.
There are a lot of other options out there, but you pay for them.
trev2401
11-21-2007, 17:42
I was really thinking of getting the canon ef 35mm f/2 as my next lens because its pretty much a 50mm with the crop factor pretty fast and is supposed to be relatively sharp and it fits my budget...any of you have any experience with this lens?
yup, nice lil sharp lens. Great on a 1.6 crop. =)
fdigital
11-21-2007, 17:44
20d is great. No worse than the 40d. The d200 is good, but image quality really degrades as the ISO goes up.
The 20d is equal to the 30d. The 30d is more or less equal to the 40d. More MP doesn't equal a bigger sensor, they all use the same sized sensor. 40d just crams more pixels in it. You wouldn't notice a difference in prints.
The 35/2 is noisy.
The 28 f2.8 USM and the 20 mm USM are really better choices.
Canon has mostly ignored their fixed focal lengths but their wide zooms are very good. The 17-40 f4 USM IS is a fantastic budget lens, the image shake reduction helps balance the slow speed.
There is no 28 f2.8 USM it's a 28 f1.8 USM and it's a very capable lens.
There is no IS version of 17-40 f4. There is a 17-85mm IS in the EF-S mount.
The 35/2 doesn't have a USM motor and one important thing to keep in mind that a lens with USM motor also allow manual focus in AF mode, while the ones without USM motor has to be in either a manual or auto focus mode.
trev2401
11-21-2007, 17:46
The 35/2 is noisy.
The 28 f2.8 USM and the 20 mm USM are really better choices.
Canon has mostly ignored their fixed focal lengths but their wide zooms are very good. The 17-40 f4 USM IS is a fantastic budget lens, the image shake reduction helps balance the slow speed.
There are a lot of other options out there, but you pay for them.
I think you meant the 17-85 IS. The 17-40 L F4 is sharp and in many instances, out performs its 16-35 2.8 L Mk 1 counterpart. ( i guess thats why they came out with a 2nd version.. )
The 35 F2 is a tad noisy yes... but hey... the focusing throw is sooo short, you'll hardly really notice it unless u're shooting in a quiet hall.
fdigital
11-21-2007, 17:51
No, but there's a LEICA D SUMMILUX 25mm/F1.4 ASPH for 4/3 system!
Canon has the 24 1.4L, 35 1.4L, 50 1.2L and the 85 1.2L. All are some of the best lenses in their focal lengths out of ANY system. The 24 1.4L just tested better than the equivalent ZF distagon and contax versions in the 16:9 lens tests.
trev2401
11-21-2007, 17:53
Canon has the 24 1.4L, 35 1.4L, 50 1.2L and the 85 1.2L. All are some of the best lenses in their focal lengths out of ANY system. The 24 1.4L just tested better than the equivalent ZF distagon and contax versions in the 16:9 lens tests.
kindly post a link... thanks =)
fdigital
11-21-2007, 17:54
I was really thinking of getting the canon ef 35mm f/2 as my next lens because its pretty much a 50mm with the crop factor pretty fast and is supposed to be relatively sharp and it fits my budget...any of you have any experience with this lens?
The 35 f2 is an excellent lens for the price. They have good performance wide open and stopped down a little, very sharp. The focussing is louder than it's USM equivalents but it's not by any means loud. You wouldn't go wrong with one.
Thanks for correcting me ywenz, I was hasty and didn't get my details right.
I meant the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM. It has got the beautiful L glass and is relatively inexpensive, around $700 new.
Yes, the 16-35 is a fantastic lens. I was avoiding the expensive lenses because it sounded like price was a concern here. All those fixed primes fdigital mentioned are lovely too but cost a mint.
I have the EFS 17-55mm USM IS f2.8. It is an expensive lens but has given fantastic results with L glass (without the same build quality).
flipflop
11-21-2007, 18:06
Yeah, zooms are nice but I dont like the bulk...im kind of used to shoot primes..and really like the 35mm focal length of my Contax G...wondering if the 28mm would be a better choice but its a 2.8 vs. 2.0...any thoughts?
The USM (sorry again, it's f1.8) version is definitely better. The f2.8 sounds like a dental drill.
fdigital
11-21-2007, 18:10
kindly post a link... thanks =)
24 1.4L vs Nikon 17-45 afs f2.8 vs zuiko 24 2.8
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/24mmcup/final/24mm_final1.html
24 1.4L vs ZF 25 2.8
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/zf25_canon24/zeiss_zf25a.html
- I think the ZF gets a slightly better overall mark for a slightly better performance from f8-f16 BUT the canon lens is still a 1.4 and has much better corner performance up that point.
24 1.4L vs Contax 21 2.8
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/cz21vc24l/cz21_canon24l_a.html
- Contax scores higher in conclusion BUT it's still a 2.8 max av lens, the canon is a 1.4. I'd say it does really admirably in these tests.
Good bit of reading for you!
kindly post a link... thanks =)
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/index.html
trev2401
11-21-2007, 18:18
ooo nice reading!!!
thanks!!
However i'm surprized no-one has posted a test for the EF 24mm vs Kneekon's 28mm 1.4. Yeah, it's a 1.4, but hey.. the 17-35's a zoom.. just my 2 cents.
personally, i bought a 24mm new 2 years back , and returned it to CPS twice due to issues. (1st was a focusing error straight out of the box, 2nd was SEVERE softness wide open on my 1v/1ds.) The other copies i received as loaners ALL had different results wide open, till F8. =(
I guess these are just the usual QC (Lemon/cherry) issues us canon users face oh so often.
The Zuiko's cool though =)
flipflop
11-21-2007, 18:22
anybody know anything about mounting CONTAX lenses on the Canon 20d using an adapter?
Thanks!
trev2401
11-21-2007, 18:24
anybody know anything about mounting CONTAX lenses on the Canon 20d using an adapter?
Thanks!
Yes, you can use the C/Y adapters from cameraquest, fotodiox, or the generic chinese ones from fleabay..
however, i would get the ones with the focusing confirmation as the 20d's Vf is just tooooooooooo tiny, even if u manage to fit the camera with a split prism focusing screen.
fdigital
11-21-2007, 18:29
Indeed canon CAN have some QC problems, however I think you got the raw end of the deal there. Out of every canon L lens I've bought, they've all been outstanding. I think there have been about 5 or 6 of them.
HOWEVER, you have to take into account other lenses too that can be adapted to the canon. With a 10 dollar ebay adapter I got a little while ago, I thought I'd do a quick test to see what my $60 Olympus Zuiko 28 f3.5 performed like throughout the apertures compared to my 17-40 f4L at 28mm. Was done on my full frame 5d.
The results were surprising.... The zuiko was better wide open all over. At f5.6, both similar in the center, zuiko resolving much more detail in the corners and that carried on through the apertures. the canon was warm, zuiko was neutral. The zuiko had better distortion characteristics. The 17-40 f4L was almost impossible to make flare, the Zuiko being single coated flared easily.
Pretty admirable performance by the $60 zuiko.
Anyway to the poster of this thread - Have you considered buying something like a nikon/olympus/pentax or even leica Prime to put on your 20d? They're pretty cheap 2nd hand, and sometimes give awesome performance.
flipflop
11-21-2007, 18:32
Yes I have thought about this any you would recommend?
fdigital
11-21-2007, 18:34
This threads getting way ahead of me...
trev2401
11-21-2007, 18:36
I don't think i'm the only one (check out the rants on FM), but then again... i did buy the 24mm when it first came out...I even had to send both my cameras in for calibration, which tends to be a common thing till now for most 1d mkX owners with the 35, 24, and 85 Ls. Perhaps first batch blues?.... who knows..
yeah other primes will give outstanding performances with canon's sensor... but seriously, look through the 20d's vf, and try to MF. It's tough... :(
If anyone's found a way to replace the focusing screen, let me know too.
fdigital
11-21-2007, 18:37
For a fast wide - normal if you can't afford a 24 1.4L, have a think about the olympus zuiko 24 f2 or 21 f2. Both are exceptional and tiny. Otherwise contax are about the best you'll get but really expensive. I still say you wouldn't be losing much by going an EF 35 f2 or even one of the 24 f2.8s though - they are quite good.
Oh, one more is the sigma 30 1.4. Excellent lens if you get a good copy (seems to be all QC issues with this lens were ironed out a while ago.
fdigital: what adapter did you get for the Zuiko lens? Did you have to modify the 5D in anyway to make it work with these non canon lenses?
I still use my 20D as my workhorse camera, just used it last week for a commercial shoot and it was a champ. Good body, great images, don't get the 30d, it has the same sensor, get the 40d if you want a better camera or better yet the 5d.
fdigital
11-21-2007, 18:45
fdigital: what adapter did you get for the Zuiko lens? Did you have to modify the 5D in anyway to make it work with these non canon lenses?
I bought one for 5 dollars off ebay from Hong Kong. My advice if you wanted to get serious with it would be to get a really good one like the camera quest ones. Mine is alright, but isn't perfectly tight - the lens wobbles a tiny bit. Apparently heaps of people have got cheap ones that are perfect.
The 5d takes just about most lenses made. There are a few exceptions like some of the pentax's which need a part ground off the back to clear the mirror.
I have a 20D and 40D at the moment. I understand the 30D is pretty much identical to the 20D, with a few minor tweaks, the biggest of which is spot metering.
Overall, the 40D is significantly better IMHO. Much better dynamic range, especially at high ISO. Better viewfinder. Much better colour. Very very fast and responsive camera (which shouldn't matter to me, but somehow the thing feels alive in the hands).
My one quibble is that the 20D's AF gave me more predictable results. Possibly smaller AF sensors?
My 20D still work fine - could use a good sensor cleaning, but otherwise still chugging. Without looking at the EXIF, you'd have a hard time distinguishing a 20D vs 30D vs 40D shot.
The EF35/2 is a great little lens, very sharp and compact. I replaced it with a Sigma 30/1.4 when it broke.
Earlier this week, I picked up a lightly used 1D classic (not Mark II, IIn or III) just for the faster AF and fps. There are some amazing bargains to be had in older dslrs, just like the 70's RFs.
the canon 20D has been my work horse since it came out, its a great camera and really is something you can kick around and it keeps coming for more, except when mine went past 55,000 frames and the shutter button started acting up, but other then that, solid.
By the way, adapters with lenses, fun, I am trying it out myself right now. Look for m42-eos adapters with focus confirmation, then m42 lenses because there are millions of them out there from everyone including yashica, pentax and zeiss then go wild with gas since it all so cheap in m42 land....I mean like zeiss tessar 50 f2.8's from all sorts of eras for less then 30 bucks....how can you go wrong?
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.