Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: 20D vs 1D MKII  (Read 2910 times)

mikemilton

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
    • http://www.arttech.on.ca
20D vs 1D MKII
« on: October 23, 2004, 07:37:24 am »

well, well, well (See I said that 3 times in a single post hehehe)

I don't have a 20 (I do have a 10 and a 1Dm2)

There are probably some differences from a sensor performance perspective (dynamic range is one area) but my bet is that they are relatively minor compared to other issues and are unlikely to be an impediment to getting a shot (or even apparent in the final outcome of most shots)

On the other hand:
- multispot metering WILL let you manage your exposure better
- the autofocus is faster, more accurate, and works with slower lenses
   - it also has better area coverage
- tracking is better
- the frame rate is higher

to me these were more significant factors

m
Logged

budjames

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 956
    • http://www.budjamesphotography.com
20D vs 1D MKII
« Reply #1 on: October 24, 2004, 05:47:02 am »

I have both the 20D and 1D MkII. At higher ISO settings, the 1DMkII has less noise although the 20D is a huge improvement over the 10D that I used for a year.

For me the main advantage of the 1DMkII is the large buffer and fast motor drive at 8 FPS. With my "L" series Canon lenses, the 1D MkII is much easier to handle because of its larger physical size and built-in battery pack which provides a 2nd shutter release for vertical format shooting.

That said, the 1dMkII is twice the weight of the 20D.

I just came back from 7 days in Cancun, Mexico and the only camera I took was the 20D with a Canon 28-135 IS lens and the 18-55 lens that came with the body. This was a great combo for vacations because of the light weight, small size and built-in flash on the 20D.

The images were execellent although I have not yet printed any out to 11X14 to compare to images shot with my 1DMkII.

They are both great cameras, but I think for different applications.

My 2 pesos.

Bud James
North Wales, PA
Logged
Bud James
North Wales, PA [url=http://ww

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
20D vs 1D MKII
« Reply #2 on: October 25, 2004, 04:21:28 am »

If you're looking to match or beat 6x7 MF, you'll want to get a 1Ds. 8MP will get you close, but not quite there. Since the 1Ds-MkII has come out, prices of the 1Ds have fallen considerably. Something to think about.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
20D vs 1D MKII
« Reply #3 on: October 25, 2004, 12:38:08 pm »

That's only true at ISO 200 or lower. Above that, the noise of the Kodaks is so bad that Canon easily wins any head-on comparison. If you only shoot low-ISO, the Kodaks are OK, but if not, the much faster AF and lower noise of the Canon make them well worth their higher price.
Logged

Dinarius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1212
20D vs 1D MKII
« Reply #4 on: October 26, 2004, 01:22:41 pm »

Just been told that I can buy the Kodak/C from the US with an immediate $1000 cash back. That makes it $3500 instead of $4500 and with the current strength of the Euro, it would cost me (including a 1GB SanDisk card and a card reader and insured USP delivery) €2995.00. A bargain!

Over here the camera costs €4500 without the card and the card reader.

How can I resist?!

D.
Logged

bigtraveller

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
20D vs 1D MKII
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2004, 06:42:59 pm »

Is there a difference between the image quality of the 20D and the 1D MKII. They are both 8mp but is there the sensor in the 1D MKII better?
Thanks
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
20D vs 1D MKII
« Reply #6 on: October 24, 2004, 02:11:12 am »

Don't forget ruggedness and weather sealing.
Logged

Dinarius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1212
20D vs 1D MKII
« Reply #7 on: October 25, 2004, 03:35:25 am »

Hhhhmmmm........

So, if I'm shooting (mostly) artwork and packshots in a controlled studio situation, all for reprodution no larger than A5 (90% of the time) I could use the 20D.

Couldn't I?

I don't need to buy a bigger Canon or one of the Kodaks in order to replace my Mamiya RB67, do I?

Thanks.

D.
Logged

Dinarius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1212
20D vs 1D MKII
« Reply #8 on: October 25, 2004, 05:54:16 am »

Jonathan,

Thanks for that.......

In which case, I'd probably opt for the Kodak. Price is an issue. For the price of the top Canon, I could have the KodakC and a 20D as backup. Not bad.

I have seen a lot of work shot on the KodakN, which is stunning. Easily a match for medium-format, in my opinion.

Seen very little on the KodakC, but I presume it's a match.

As an old Olympus user, I have no loyalty either way. Whichever I choose, I will be starting anew in terms of system. Though the 'L' series lenses are very impressive.

D.
Logged

bigtraveller

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
20D vs 1D MKII
« Reply #9 on: October 25, 2004, 05:00:53 pm »

I guess that all means is that there is NO difference between an image from the 20D vs the 1DMKII. I thought that as the sensor was different there might have been a difference the same way the original 4mb of the 1D was often said to be as good as a 6mb from the 10D. I thought that if there might still be a difference eg a 8mb from 1DMKII would be noticeably different to the 8mb from the 20D sensor.

I shoot mostly studio, so decision made.

Thank you
Louis
Logged

Dinarius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1212
20D vs 1D MKII
« Reply #10 on: October 26, 2004, 02:02:03 am »

bigtraveller,

I also shoot mostly studio, so decision made for me too.

My camera in never off the tripod, so ISO is not an issue.

The Kodak C/Canon 20D combo seems like the way to go.

Thanks all.

D.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up