Just about image quality

[Photon-hunter]

Hi folks, and sorry in advance if this matter has allready been covered elsewhere.

I have been shooting with a 20D for a good while now with great happiness.I do fine-art black and white images,print with Epson R2400 K3 inks and never go further than A3 (Normally print slightly smaller).My 20D has been used heavily and I am about to purchase another body.I consider 30D and 5D as the candidates...

I think I understand very well the basic differences between theese cameras.Full frame is not something I would kill for,have a good selection of lenses,some EF-S ones I am happy with and live happily in "crop-factor-land"...

I shoot mainly (very) long exposures at low ISO,night scenes,macro and landscape. I am not interested in the bigger printing capabilities of the 5D.I just want to know if doing the same stuff I am doing now(succesfully) I will perceive an "objective" improvement in image quality over the 20D.Will two A4 print done in equal circumstances with both cameras show a REAL WORLD difference?

I am also very interested in the 50 ISO of the 5D as I normally use ND filters to achieve longer exposures.Is it usable,comparable to the 100 ISo quality?

The only thing that bothers me about the 20D is the long exposure Noise reduction that takes a long time after the shot.Keeps slowing me down.Does the 5D have the "real time"NR as in the 30D?

Please all I need are objective answers about the bare IQ and not arguments that try to convince me about the 5D purchase.I will have to sell my Leica M7 and M lenses to finance this purchase so the cheaper 30D would allow my to invest in some other gear (prime glass and a few spares...)

Thanks i advance for your answers.

Erik.

[mahleu]

From my breif experience with a 5d, the tonal range is a lot better than my 350D, it doesn"t seem to blow the highlights as readily.

[thompsonkirk]

From what you say about the size you want to print, I can see no point in a 5D.  I use one because I print larger than that, but the image-quality gain over 20D iin my smaller prints is negligible.

[Photon-hunter]

Thanks for your kind answers...

I think I will go for 30D.

Time will tell....

All the best.

erik.

[John Sheehy]

Thanks for your kind answers...

I think I will go for 30D.

Time will tell....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80830\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The 30D has no IQ advantage over the 20D; just better AF and a larger review screen, and a few more features.  The extra ISOs are a sham; they are just poorly executed ECs behind the scenes that damage data, under-expose, and clip highlights, and make highlight headroom and DR inconsistent between ISOs.

The 400D, despite some of its other drawbacks, has excellent ISOs 100 and 200; less shadow noise than any other Canons except the mkII cameras in the 1-series.

It meters conservatively for the RAW sensitivity, so you need to use more EC to get the normal amount of highlight headroom (and take advantage of the low noise of ISOs 100 and 200).