Question on EOS 20D

[drew]

[font color=\'#000000\']Sorry, do not understand the question. Can you make it clearer?[/font]

[Madness]

[font color=\'#000000\']20D has a sensor that is smaller than 35mm film (same size as 10D, Digital Rebel etc) therefore it is not quite like shooting film. Focal lenghts should be multiplied by 1.6, DOF is bigger etc.[/font]

[Elie7Elie]

[font color=\'#000000\']ok, here, I went back to Canon's website and I looked at both the 1Ds and the 20D.

Here what they say about the 1Ds censor:
"The EOS-1Ds advantage begins with a full-frame CMOS sensor - developed and manufactured by Canon - with an imaging area of 24 x 36mm, the same dimensions used by full-frame 35mm SLRs"

Here's what they say about the 20D cesor:
"This 2nd generation APS-C size sensor (22.5 x 15.0mm) has the same 3:2 ratio as film cameras, enabling an effective angle of view that is 1.6x the normal EF Lens focal length"

Now isn't that a bit misleading?  I saw same ration as film cameras and understood that to mean SLR camea.  I guess in this case they mean the point-and-shoot film cameras?  Now why on earth would I want to compare a digital SLR camera to a point-and-shoot camera?

I understand that they go on to say "angle of view that is 1.6x the normal EF Lens focal length"  but the first thing that I saw was "same as film camera" and that's what really registerd in my mind.[/font]

[Jonathan Wienke]

[font color=\'#000000\']

I understand that they go on to say "angle of view that is 1.6x the normal EF Lens focal length"  but the first thing that I saw was "same as film camera" and that's what really registerd in my mind.

Sorry, that's your problem. Aspect ratio has nothing to do with sensor size. The 20D's sensor is exactly the same shape as 35mm film, but 35mm film and the sensor of the 1Ds are 1.6x larger than the sensor of the 20D. Canon's web site is exactly correct, and not misleading in any way.

Sensor = device for gathering light and converting it to a digital image.

Censor = someone who decides what people are and are not allowed to see, read, or hear.[/font]

[Elie7Elie]

[font color=\'#000000\']sensor vs. censor, I do know the difference between the two and it was just a typo.  This not an English Grammar forum.  So long as the message is understood, who cares about the spelling . . .

Ok, so they are referring to the aspect ratio, but don't they all have the same aspect ratio?  3:2 for the D30, D60, 10D, etc.?  So why even mention it then?  I do agree with Andy, the editing could have been better.

No big deal really, I still would have bought the camera anyway, I was just disappointed, I would rather have a full frame sensor 24x35.[/font]

[didger]

[font color=\'#000000\']

The more technology progresses the closer the smaller sensors come to their larger counterparts in terms of noise etc.

This is bound to be true.  There is surely no fundamental difference in the technology of making large or small sensors.  Just as is the case for computer chips, there seem to be some fabrication problems related to large size, but these are being solved and larger chips and sensors will surely become cheaper.  It will surely become possible to make large and small sensors with the same pixel density and same low noise charactaristics and similar cost figures (per pixel).  Given that, however, large sensors will always remain superior since there's a larger absolute number of pixels (even if the same pixel density) than small sensors.  This results in images that can be enlarged to a bigger size with a bigger sensor, just as medium format film is superior to 35mm film because of greater enlargability due to greater surface area.  The critical figure is how many pixels altogether, not pixel density per se.

The limit with pixel density is that eventually it becomes impossible to make lenses that can equal the resolving power of the sensor.  This point has very likely been reached with the 1ds MKII.  Even if the new generation of lenses optimized for small sensors turn out to be close to the practical maximum resulution for glass, then having similar quality lenses with a larger sensor is still much better, just as it would be much better to have MF cameras with the same sensor pixel density as the best 35mm cameras.

In conclusion, given similar sensor technologies (noise, pixel density) and similar lens technologies, a larger sensor area (or film area for that matter) will always be proportionately superior to a smaller sensor area.  The economic view is another matter.  I'm neither thrilled with 1ds/1ds MKII prices nor the weight for that matter.  Image quality is another issue, however.  Does anyone believe that the new Nikon with 12 Mpixels and those special small sensor zoom lenses will come close to the performance of a 1ds with good prime lenses?  Wanna bet?[/font]

[Elie7Elie]

[font color=\'#000000\']I have been using the EOS 10D for about a year and I sold it a week ago and bought the EOS 20D.  Just took the first few pictures today and so far I love it!  Now, one of the main reason I bought it is because supposably it shoots the same as a film camera (no augmentation) just like the 1D does. But is that not the case?  Here's the quote from Canon's website "This 2nd generation APS-C size sensor (22.5 x 15.0mm) has the same 3:2 ratio as film cameras, enabling an effective angle of view that is 1.6x the normal EF Lens focal length"

So, does taking a picture with the EOS 20D the same as taking a picture with a film camera let's say a Rebel K2?[/font]

[boku]

[font color=\'#000000\']No - the 20D uses a small sensor with a 1.6 crop factor, just like your 10D.

the main reason I bought it is because supposably it shoots the same as a film camera (no augmentation) just like the 1D does

Whomever told you that is wrong. In fact, the 1D also has a crop factor: 1.3. You have been misled or misunderstood.[/font]

[Elie7Elie]

[font color=\'#000000\']Hello Bob, thanks for the reply.  No one told me that, I just read it from the Canon's website.  Is it misleading?  Please go back to my original post and read the quotes I put in " ".  I copied them from the Canon USA website.  So did I misunderstand what they are saying?
Elie[/font]

[boku]

[font color=\'#000000\']ok, here, I went back to Canon's website and I looked at both the 1Ds and the 20D.

Here what they say about the 1Ds censor:
"The EOS-1Ds advantage begins with a full-frame CMOS sensor - developed and manufactured by Canon - with an imaging area of 24 x 36mm, the same dimensions used by full-frame 35mm SLRs"

Here's what they say about the 20D cesor:
"This 2nd generation APS-C size sensor (22.5 x 15.0mm) has the same 3:2 ratio as film cameras, enabling an effective angle of view that is 1.6x the normal EF Lens focal length"

Now isn't that a bit misleading?  I saw same ration as film cameras and understood that to mean SLR camea.  I guess in this case they mean the point-and-shoot film cameras?  Now why on earth would I want to compare a digital SLR camera to a point-and-shoot camera?

I understand that they go on to say "angle of view that is 1.6x the normal EF Lens focal length"  but the first thing that I saw was "same as film camera" and that's what really registerd in my mind.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Your original post mentioned 1D not 1DS. These are two different cameras. 1D crop factor is 1.3; 1DS crop factor is 1.0 (same as 35mm).

All of these: D30; D60; 10D; 20D; 300D; 1D; 1DS have a 3:2 aspect ratio, the same as 35mm film.

Digicams generally have a 4:3 aspect ratio. Different proportions, not as elongated.[/font]

[Steve Kerman]

[font color=\'#000000\'](Edited because I decided that I was just piling-on.)[/font]

[AJSJones]

[font color=\'#000000\']ok, here, I went back to Canon's website and I looked at both the 1Ds and the 20D.


"This 2nd generation APS-C size sensor (22.5 x 15.0mm) has the same 3:2 ratio as film cameras, enabling an effective angle of view that is 1.6x the normal EF Lens focal length"[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']It's simply poor editing on the part of Canon in that sentence.  Editing is intended to remove potential ambiguity.  In this case the sentence could easily convey the meaning that it is the "3:2 ratio that enables the effective ..  1.6x .."  while what they meant was "the APS-C sensor ... enables".  Better editing would have put "sensor" closer to "enable" and moved the 3:2 clause elsewhere...

I don't think it's deliberately misleading, just accidentally so...

Andy[/font]

[flash]

[font color=\'#000000\']

Ok, so they are referring to the aspect ratio, but don't they all have the same aspect ratio?  3:2 for the D30, D60, 10D, etc.?  So why even mention it then?  I do agree with Andy, the editing could have been better.

Because most digital cameras do not have this ratio although all DSLR's do. Consumer and "prosumer" digital cameras have a ratio closer to 6x4.5 format cameras as do most medium format digital backs, and these cameras are in the vast majority of all digital cameras made today compared to the DSLRs available.

What Canon and the other manufacturers mean to imply is that the image created by a Canon DSLR will have the same aspect ratio as if you were using a 35mm film camera so that those moving from 35mm film will not have to crop the image to acheive the same aspect ratio as they are already used to.

As to whether a full frame sensor is better to have, this is debatable, now that Canon and independant manufacturers are making lenses suitable for the smaller sensor sizes. A smaller sensor makes sense from an economic point of view certainly. The more technology progresses the closer the smaller sensors come to their larger counterparts in terms of noise etc.

I'd much rather see a 20D with a much larger viewfinder than a bigger sensor, personally.

Gordon[/font]

[drew]

[font color=\'#000000\']OK, I understand the question now. There is nothing ambiguous in the Canon statement. The first part tells you the sensor size exactly (smaller than 24x36 35mm film frame), the second part tells you that the aspect ratio of the sensor is the same as that film frame and the third part tells you the effective focal length multiplier in relation to a 35mm film SLR. All factually correct.
I think it is fair of Canon to assume that anybody in the market for a 20D is an enthusiast photographer and therefore has a certain level of knowledge.
Full frame DSLRs remain available and remain significantly more expensive. However, the 20D is a really good camera and you should be satisfied with your purchase if that was the limit of your budget.[/font]