 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / August 2005Canon EOS 20D - is this review fair?
Excerpts from a review of the EOS20D from a leading UK magazine: "Unfortunately, exposures are not quite as accurate or reliable as we might expect from an EOS camera. The 20D is prone to slight underexposure, particularly with wideangle lenses." Autofocus: "the camera occasionally appears to disagree with the user about what is the subject and we found the best way of working is to switch off the auto AF sensors and select our own using the new toggle control." "...the extra pixels do make a difference to the potential image quality, but they also mean that users will have to put a bit more effort into making the potential image quality the final image quality. Although it is possible to obtain acceptable results simply by using in-camera controls for sharpness and contrast, it really is worth taking the time to process your image post-capture in a decent software program. If you do this, you will find that the 20D is capable of quite remarkable results." FOR: very fast start up; high resolution; massive amount of control. AGAINST: mirror action noisy; B&w filters not effective; no spotmetering. Overall Specs 28/30 Build 18/20 Handling 18/20 Performance 27/30 Total: 91% The 350D got 88% with complaints of image softness "It may be better than the processor infested 300D but not better than the clarity of image produced by the 10D". I can't decide which camera. Comments, please. > Excerpts from a review of the EOS20D from a leading UK magazine: > > "Unfortunately, exposures are not quite as accurate or reliable as we > might expect from an EOS camera. The 20D is prone to slight > underexposure, particularly with wideangle lenses." Haven't observed this, my self, but I've only used Sigma 17-35 f2.8-4 and Canon 16-35 f2.8L, no fixed focal length wide angles. What I have seen is a tendency to underexpose in ambient light situations with Speedlites and less that f2.8 lenses. > Autofocus: "the camera occasionally appears to disagree with the user > about what is the subject and we found the best way of working is to > switch off the auto AF sensors and select our own using the new toggle > control." Again, haven't observed this, either, except when I press the shutter button repeatedly. The camera seems to say, "Ok, you didn't like that subject or focus pattern, let's try this one!" It keeps changing what it is focused on until you decide it is properly done. I, too, have turned off the auto sensors, but I did that as a matter of course in the beginning. > "...the extra pixels do make a difference to the potential image > quality, but they also mean that users will have to put a bit more [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > software program. If you do this, you will find that the 20D is > capable of quite remarkable results." Very true. > FOR: very fast start up; high resolution; massive amount of control. > > AGAINST: mirror action noisy; B&w filters not effective; no > spotmetering. Mirror seems to be a little on the noisy side, louder than my D30, for instance, but quieter than my old 1n film camera. Not sure what they mean by B&W filters not effective, if they mean add on filters in front of the lens, maybe. I haven't really tried to shoot through a red filter, and convert to B&W in Pshop. If I shoot in color, I just use the channel mixer in Pshop when I convert to B&W. If they mean the built in software based "filters," then I disagree. I've found them to work pretty well, though not as well as a 25 red on Plus X. The black and white mode on the camera, set with the yellow filter, does an admirable job of emulating Ilford XP-2. No spot meter nearly kept me from buying the camera, but I needed two, and couldn't afford to get two 1D mkIIs... I do miss having a spot meter for my portrait and figure work, but, otherwise, the camera is very capable. > Overall Specs 28/30 > Build 18/20 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I can't decide which camera. Comments, please. I have no experience with the 350D, so I can't comment on that one...  SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >> Excerpts from a review of the EOS20D from a leading UK magazine: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > tendency to underexpose in ambient light situations with Speedlites and less > that f2.8 lenses. I have pretty much the same experience. Exposure is generally correct on the jpg for non-flash situations, which is often about a third of a stop less than where I actually want it in the RAW, but I have my 580EX set pretty much permanently to +1EC, because every single shot I take with it is otherwise underexposed. >> Autofocus: "the camera occasionally appears to disagree with the user >> about what is the subject and we found the best way of working is to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > until you decide it is properly done. I, too, have turned off the auto > sensors, but I did that as a matter of course in the beginning. I *have* observed this, both on my 85mm f/1.8 prime and on my 75-300 IS. The 75-300 is particularly bad about it, and since it has only a first generation USM, it's *really* slow when it decides to hunt. This is only true using all points for autofocus; if I use a single point, and don't screw up my own aim, it's fine. It's also fine if at least two autofocus spots cover your target. If you have a target small enough that only one dot would cover it, and you use all points, it will pick different spots at different times, and sometimes drive you batty. On the other hand, I've never used a camera that didn't have this problem, and it's not hard to work around. >> AGAINST: mirror action noisy; B&w filters not effective; no >> spotmetering. > > Mirror seems to be a little on the noisy side, louder than my D30, for > instance, but quieter than my old 1n film camera. I'll agree with this assessment as well. It's not so loud as to be a nuisance, in my opinion, but it's certainly a very solid click, and it's not a stealth camera by any means. > No spot meter nearly kept me from buying the camera, but I needed two, and > couldn't afford to get two 1D mkIIs... I do miss having a spot meter for my > portrait and figure work, but, otherwise, the camera is very capable. It may be because I'm not a skilled enough photographer yet to make use of all the subtleties, but this turned out to be mostly a non-issue for me. After a little while, you sort of recognize the situations where the lightmeter is going to guess wrong, and automatically nudge the exposure up or down a little, or bracket. SignatureZed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org> PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >> >>> Excerpts from a review of the EOS20D from a leading UK magazine: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 580EX set pretty much permanently to +1EC, because every single shot I > take with it is otherwise underexposed. We just bought a 16-35 f2.8L and 24-70 f2.8L and guess what? All of our flash exposures are spot on with EX flashes. What I've found is that the camera goes to 60th sec and maximum aperture. If the max ap isn't large enough for a proper exposure, oh well. I checked it out with my 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS, at 70mm, it would read 1/60 @ f4.5, the same lighting with the 24-70 would be 1/60 @ f2.8. No flashing readouts, nothing. >>> Autofocus: "the camera occasionally appears to disagree with the user >>> about what is the subject and we found the best way of working is to [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > On the other hand, I've never used a camera that didn't have this > problem, and it's not hard to work around. That's why I disabled the multiple points right off the bat. I've never had a camera with multiple point that guessed right more than 50% of the time. And the 20D is better than the others I've tried. The 75-300 seems to be, by all reports, rather slow, no matter what you do. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > "Zed Pobre" <zed@resonant.org> wrote in message >> This is only true using all points for autofocus; if I use a single [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > a camera with multiple point that guessed right more than 50% of the time. > And the 20D is better than the others I've tried. I've found that multiple points helps get the focus properly between two depths when you're about to shoot at a wide aperture against multiple subjects and are worried about depth of field, and at least the interface to this is something Canon did get right -- it's really quick to select a new point, or all points, without taking the eye from the viewfinder. I did have my first experience having problems with autofocus on a single point today, though: it was the 85mm f/1.8, which I had been warned once before had a nasty tendency to hunt, but hadn't really had a problem with up until now. I was trying to shoot a spider pretty much at the minimum focus distance against a somewhat bright backdrop, and even with centerfocus the lens kept zipping out and making the spider absolutely invisible to focus on a leaf behind it. After two or three back-and-forth shifts like this, I just switched to manual. This is the first time I've had that problem since I bought the camera, however. > The 75-300 seems to be, by all reports, rather slow, no matter what you do. This is true, and is the one reason I've been holding off on the Sigma 80-400: it has no HSM, and although it has a fast motor, it's only on par with first-generation USM, and hunting at long focal lengths is a major nuisance. SignatureZed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org> PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Guest" <plg@blueyonder.co.uk> Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 5:34 PM Subject: Canon EOS 20D - is this review fair? > Excerpts from a review of the EOS20D from a leading UK magazine: > > "Unfortunately, exposures are not quite as accurate or reliable as we > might expect from an EOS camera. The 20D is prone to slight > underexposure, particularly with wideangle lenses." Canon engineers chose to err on the side of underexposure as blown highlights are truly blown and that's a good decision. > Autofocus: "the camera occasionally appears to disagree with the user > about what is the subject and we found the best way of working is to > switch off the auto AF sensors and select our own using the new toggle > control." Manual focus is an option on the 20D. > "...the extra pixels do make a difference to the potential image > quality, but they also mean that users will have to put a bit more [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > software program. If you do this, you will find that the 20D is > capable of quite remarkable results." Post-processing is accepted as normal for cameras of this ilk. > FOR: very fast start up; high resolution; massive amount of control. Agreed. > AGAINST: mirror action noisy; B&w filters not effective; no > spotmetering. It is a noisy camera (mechanical ... shutter release). In-camera B&W settings are not often used by most users (again, post-processing). Right, no spot meter. > Overall Specs 28/30 > Build 18/20 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I can't decide which camera. Comments, please. >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Peter Guest" <plg@blueyonder.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Canon engineers chose to err on the side of underexposure as blown >highlights are truly blown and that's a good decision. In other words, the *real* Canon ISO is not as high as it appears, meaning that claims of low noise at high ISO are baseless. To be fair, the same is true of the Nikon D70. >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Peter Guest" <plg@blueyonder.co.uk> >>> "Unfortunately, exposures are not quite as accurate or reliable as we >>> might expect from an EOS camera. The 20D is prone to slight >>> underexposure, particularly with wideangle lenses." >> >>Canon engineers chose to err on the side of underexposure as blown >>highlights are truly blown and that's a good decision. >In other words, the *real* Canon ISO is not as high as it appears, >meaning that claims of low noise at high ISO are baseless. No, this can't be implied. Whether the camera underexposes or not is not logically connected to the ISO sensitivit as such. Indeed, I have seen reports on the net, at dpreview and elsewhere, that Canon's ISO numbers actually are slightly _higher_ than stated. Jan Böhme Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik. Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur. >No, this can't be implied. Whether the camera underexposes or not is >not logically connected to the ISO sensitivit as such. Yes it is. If the camera is set to ISO 1600, and it's metering for ISO 800, there is nothing 1600 about it, but a lie, and so is the "noise at ISO 1600". AFAIAC, the *only* way to compare is to set the same f-stop and shutter speed, on all cameras compared. The bottom line is that noise starts as a noise-to-signal ratio of the sensor, and from there, is increased by digitization errors and quantization. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>No, this can't be implied. Whether the camera underexposes or not is >>not logically connected to the ISO sensitivit as such. > >Yes it is. I have the deepest respect for your knowledge on sensors and noise, but here I cannot back down, because what you say strikes me as incorrect for purely logical reasons, and I have no reason to believe that I am inferior to you in purely intellectual terms. >If the camera is set to ISO 1600, and it's metering for ISO >800, there is nothing 1600 about it, but a lie, and so is the "noise at >ISO 1600". This is a non sequitur. There is no way to tell whether a camera which is "set on ISO 1600, and [...] metering for ISO 800" underexposes, overexposes or exposes correctly, based on only this information. If the true ISO really is 1600, it overexposes. If the true ISO is 800, it exposes correctly. Only if the true ISO is lower than 800, the camera would underexpose. Thus, it is neither justified to claim that an underexposed image is caused by the camera metering for a lower ISO than set ISO. >AFAIAC, the *only* way to compare is to set the same f-stop and shutter >speed, on all cameras compared. Yes, indeed. And in the comparisons of that kind that I have seen at dpreview.com, Canon consistently omes out as slightly _more_ sensitive than other cameras with the same stated ISO sensitivity. Hence, the fact that Canon cameras in some instances underexpose cannot be related to the their ISO sensitivity, as this would lead them to overexpose, if there were a direct causal correlation. >The bottom line is that noise starts as a noise-to-signal ratio of the >sensor, and from there, is increased by digitization errors and >quantization. This may very well be a very valid bottom line, but it is not a bottom line that is pertinent to this particular discussion. Jan Böhme Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik. Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur. >In other words, the *real* Canon ISO is not as high as it appears, >meaning that claims of low noise at high ISO are baseless. That may have been somewhat true of the 10D; it metered at ISO 100 like my Sekonic meter at ISO 64, but my 20D meters the same as the Sekonic. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Peter Guest" <plg@blueyonder.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >settings are not often used by most users (again, post-processing). Right, >no spot meter. If you were taking a shot of something dark on a light background, would you just guess and tack up the exposure to compensate? This is the one thing that might prevent me from buying one. It's good that the camera seems to underexpose to preserve hightlights, but in certain sun-shadow situations, the exposure difference can be up to 9 f-stops so blowing highlights to obtain detail in something dark may be the only choice, but you have to be able to expose for the darker object. -Rich >If you were taking a shot of something dark on a light background, >would you just guess and tack up the exposure to compensate? >This is the one thing that might prevent me from buying one. Why would the 20D be any worse than any other camera for this? It's probably one of the better DSLRs for dynamic range, because of the relatively low noise. >It's good that the camera seems to underexpose to preserve >hightlights, but in certain sun-shadow situations, the exposure >difference can be up to 9 f-stops so blowing highlights to obtain >detail in something dark may be the only choice, but you have to be >able to expose for the darker object. Would you really use the camera's default metering literally for this? You can see for yourself what the camera really does, and work around it. Set the contrast to -2 and look at the JPEG in the review. Or bracket. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > >If you were taking a shot of something dark on a light background, > >would you just guess and tack up the exposure to compensate? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< Almost 9 months with two 20Ds and previously 1 year with a 10D shows me the EOS d series metering is highly questionable in it's overall accuracy. It is also very likely when set to "matrix metering" to produce results similar to over exposure. This could be mistaken for incorrect ISO rating. If you use matrix metering in concert with a FX series speedlights in ETTL mode, the exposures will look the reverse of using it without a flash in matrix metering. This really weird behaviour is not limited to just one camera. Both my 20Ds cannot be relied on to meter correctly all the time. Canon are unable to 'fix' this situation either so it must be part and parcel of the cameras. Despite this, I doubt that the ISO settings up to ISO 800 are inaccurate. Over that I think a lot of the claimed ISO is software enhancement. I have never found the dynamic range of these cameras to be greater than other brands. I don't think it equals some. -- Douglas... "You finally make it on the Internet when you get your own personal Troll". Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites! > I have never found the dynamic range of these cameras to be > greater than other brands. Then again, you've never tested it objectively either. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >Almost 9 months with two 20Ds and previously 1 year with a 10D shows me the >EOS d series metering is highly questionable in it's overall accuracy. It is >also very likely when set to "matrix metering" to produce results similar to >over exposure. This could be mistaken for incorrect ISO rating. Well, for the 10D, it is. It meters at about 2/3 the stated ISO. The 20D seems to be right on the mark, in my experience. The absolutes of the two cameras are pretty close; I think full RAW number saturation in the green channel at the ISO 100 setting is pretty much the same in both, from memory (except that the 10D doesn't quite reach 4095; it clips data at values something like 4006, 4005, 4003, 4002, and 3997, depending on what vertical line a pixel is in - strange. These lines are not scaled differently at all; just clipped differently. At the higher ISOs, the data actually reaches 4095. >If you use matrix metering in concert with a FX series speedlights in ETTL >mode, A seasoned photographer would use manual flash power if always at the same distance from the subject. No influence from subject brightness. >the exposures will look the reverse of using it without a flash in >matrix metering. This really weird behaviour is not limited to just one >camera. Both my 20Ds cannot be relied on to meter correctly all the time. >Canon are unable to 'fix' this situation either so it must be part and >parcel of the cameras. Maybe it a paradigm shift that you can't deal with, from what you were accustomed to. I don't have any problems with flash, except that I have to bump the compensation uniformly for all flash shots. The main drawback is that I can't shoot something white with ETTL and "expose to the right" by setting the +2 FC that I really want to. It's annoying to lose a stop of + FC, but nothing that I would change SLR systems over. > Despite this, I doubt that the ISO settings up to ISO >800 are inaccurate. Over that I think a lot of the claimed ISO is software >enhancement. It is. On the 10D, "ISO 1600" has the same amplification as "ISO 800", just metered a stop darker, with RAW numbers doubled. "3200" is 1600-level amplification, metered for 3200. The 10D does a gain-based ISO 1600, but pushes its "3200". This is a partially moot point, though, as it isn't really cheating, in the sense that the same sensor voltage range is used as would be if there were full amplification instead of multiplication. The capture gets shortchanged by one bit of bit-depth. It would be slightly better if full amplification were used, most likely, but this is probably at the beginning of the rollof of the diminishing returns curve, and Canon didn't want to bother with a better amplifier to do this, or just thought that there would be no improvement (I think there'd be a small improvement, useful mainly for binning or downsampling more accurately) We could test all digital cameras by metering externally for a manual exposure at an EI of 25,600 (which none, AFAIK, expicitly have), setting all to their highest ISO, to compare their extreme low-light performance (extreme only in a traditional sense; I could read a book in the type of lighting that requires this EI). There is nothing unfair about this; we would be comparing what the cameras can do in very low light. >I have never found the dynamic range of these cameras to be >greater than other brands. I don't think it equals some. Dynamic range is just that; a range. It is not defined by one end from an arbitrary middle point, but the distance between the 2 extremes that meet some kind of image quality criteria. It is not "the highlight headroom" of a particular metering mode. Given a common bit depth, the image with the most dynamic range is going to come from the camera with the least noise. Dynamic range also breaks down into full color and monochrome ranges, based on white balancing. A 20D shooting under magenta light will have the highest full-color dynamic range (and the least chromatic noise). Shooting under green light would increase the greyscale dynamic range, as the red and green channels digitize completely different ranges of sensor voltages; the shadows coming mainly from the green channel, and the highlights coming mainly from the red channel, with blue falling in the middle. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >Shooting under green light would increase the >greyscale dynamic range, as the red and green channels digitize >completely different ranges of sensor voltages; Sorry; I don't know why I wrote "sensor voltages" here; that should "light levels"; the sensor voltages digitized are the same in all three channels. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >Excerpts from a review of the EOS20D from a leading UK magazine: > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > >I can't decide which camera. Comments, please. The report is about as fair and objective as any you will see. The magazine you quoted is "Amateur Photographer". Most of the magazine's advertising income is derived from display adverts from dealers selling new and (mostly) used equipment. Adverts by manufacturers take up far less space, so the magazine is not in any way beholden to any manufacturer of new gear. Amateur Photographer's reputation of fairness in reviews goes back many years. Its Editor is prepared to listen to any (rare) accusations of bias (usually the result of the review sample being out of specification) and revisit reviews accordingly. One example is the review of the Olympus E-300 where the performance rating was increased when the camera was re-tested with new firmware. The review you mention is part of a special feature on DSLRs at or below the £1500 price point. Two cameras deserved the highest rating given, which was 95%. One (which strictly speaking should not have been included because of its price tag being somewhat in excess of three times the £1500 limit) was the Canon EOS 1Ds Mk II. No surprise there. The 1Ds Mk II was there to benchmark the others by showing just what could be achieved with a 24 x 36mm 'full frame' sensor. The other DSLR achieving the highest 95% rating was the Olympus E-1, which gained very high marks for performance. The extremely high image quality, and the realism of those images, drew the highest praise. Of course that is no surprise to those of us who use the E-1, who have known all along that this is one very special camera. > Excerpts from a review of the EOS20D from a leading UK magazine: > > "Unfortunately, exposures are not quite as accurate or reliable as we > might expect from an EOS camera. The 20D is prone to slight > underexposure, particularly with wideangle lenses." Depending upon the scene being captured, I've seen a slight underexposure occur at wide angles. Shrug ... nothing that can't be tweaked in Photoshop. Blown whites, which may occur with any digital camera is what bothers me and the 20D tends to try and offset that condition. Sometimes to overcome that situation one may try resetting the camera exposure settings or as I often do, resort to using graduating filters (but sometimes I don't have my bag nearby to get at the filters). In extreme cases, I'll take two shots at two different exposures and layer them in photoshop. Using that method depends upon how much of the shot is overblown and the importance of the shot. If the area is small and inconsequential I might chose to ignore it. (If it sounds like chimping, that's what it must be) :) > Autofocus: "the camera occasionally appears to disagree with the user > about what is the subject and we found the best way of working is to > switch off the auto AF sensors and select our own using the new toggle > control." The camera is designed to do a search focus (generally, it focuses at the closest image) but if that's a problem to the user, then the camera can be set to have only one focus point, just about wherever the user wants to set it. Most users that I know center the focus point if they don't like the search. As for me, I use both methods depending upon the scene. In people shots, most of the time I'll center the focus point. In still life and sometimes in sports, I like the floating focus feature. I'm surprised the camera wasn't faulted for not having Canon's eye control. > "...the extra pixels do make a difference to the potential image > quality, but they also mean that users will have to put a bit more [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > software program. If you do this, you will find that the 20D is > capable of quite remarkable results." Yup. But there are times, when the user may plan on printing on the spot using one of the portable 4x6 printers being marketed. That's what I do at family and friends gatherings. Everyone wanting pictures gets to go home with them. Then camera controls should be used to adjust for contrast, brightness, or sharpness 'cause ya ain't gonna do much for those things in a small portable printer. The 20D has presets that seem to workout fine. > FOR: very fast start up; high resolution; massive amount of control. > > AGAINST: mirror action noisy; B&w filters not effective; no > spotmetering. Mirror action noisy? That may be, but the action is music to my ears. I'm from the old school and I'm used to hearing the mirror/ shutter action. Hearing that noise is like getting a transmitted signal that says 'Gotcha.' For "sneak" shots I'll use a different camera, probably my Olympus 5050 with the electronic shutter sound turned off. As for the built in color filters normally used in B&W , they do appear ineffective. Lets just say, though they help in a minimal way, they are not as effective as using conventional filters, so ... use conventional filters. No spot metering .... that's true, yup it sure is. Strange as it may seem, in a couple of situations where I thought I wish I had spot metering, by adjusting the exposure or just bracketing I've worked around not having that feature. When you place limitations upon your thinking apparatus, you've indeed placed limitations upon your capability. > Overall Specs 28/30 > Build 18/20 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I can't decide which camera. Comments, please. I would venture a guess that the 20D is the second successful marketing digital SLR camera that Canon has in its inventory. I'm just guessing mind you but it sure looks that way to me. The Rebel seems to be the leader of the pack. However, between the two, I'll take the 20D any day, and twice on Sunday. :) Interesting stuff... When I posted opinions like these about a month after the 20D was released, I got howled down by the disciples of EOS. Whenever I even suggested the hallowed 20D might not be all it's cracked up to be, I get accused of posting "non scientific" tests. OK... The 20D is an absolute crap camera from wedding photography when compared to Nikon and Fuji cameras. Canon's answer to my complaints is to buy a 1D MkII or 1Ds because these are "the professional" cameras. That's OK too except I bought a 1D MkII last Christmas when the second 20D died and it is very little different to the 20D. Certainly not $6000 better, if better at all. Ho, hum... No one cares so why do I? Because it's my livelihood and I'm fed up with the bullshit from Canon and all their puppets. I care that skin tones are not supposed to look like everyone is suntanned. I care that when I rely on the camera's metering, it needs to work. I care that the $800 Speedlight, heralded as "smart" can't even get the flash duration right most of the time... I'd settle for some of the time if it was predictable. Thursday last, I jumped ship. True! I ordered up a new Nikon D2X with enough glass and a new speedlight to ensure I'll never be able to afford to replace my car this year (again). I used a demo model for several hours, side by side with my 20D and 1D before deciding this is "The Camera" worth the cost of changing over to Nikon. It even feels like a real camera instead of a pretend one like a 20D with "Grip". What a joy that the speedlight actually meters properly. How bloody magnificent that a model with one arm, 3 stops away in shadow is the same colour and actually looks like the colour of her skin as well. I better stop slamming canon stuff if I'm to recover any of my (considerable) investment in it. Yeah... Canon is really fantastic stuff. Their 25 year inks that last 3 months are well suited to their cameras which have a shutter life so short, you really do need to replace the things every year for reliability. "Canon Pro Paper" the box said. I know now any product with "Pro" in it's name is aimed at the wannabe market. Yes... I bought a new r 2400 Epson printer too. It'll go nicely with the new camera. -- Douglas... "You finally make it on the Internet when you get your own personal Troll". Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites! > Excerpts from a review of the EOS20D from a leading UK magazine: SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Interesting stuff... > When I posted opinions like these about a month after the 20D was [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > up with the bullshit from Canon and all their puppets. I care that skin > tones are not supposed to look like everyone is suntanned. Lower the in camera saturation. Or stop shooting Australians, who, like Californians, have a rather permanent tan... ;-) I care that when > I rely on the camera's metering, it needs to work. I care that the $800 > Speedlight, heralded as "smart" can't even get the flash duration right > most > of the time... I'd settle for some of the time if it was predictable. If you use this with your f2.8 L lenses, you might find that it works just fine. And it was predictable, otherwise, always 1-1.3 stops off. > Thursday last, I jumped ship. True! I ordered up a new Nikon D2X with > enough [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > her > skin as well. Good, now maybe you'll stop bitching about Canon stuff, and go take some pictures. > I better stop slamming canon stuff if I'm to recover any of my > (considerable) investment in it. Yeah... Canon is really fantastic stuff. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >> Excerpts from a review of the EOS20D from a leading UK magazine: >> Interesting stuff... >> When I posted opinions like these about a month after the 20D was [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] >> camera. -- >> Douglas... Some thingsnever change. Dooglas still betrays his location at the center of the Universe: any subject eventually becomes all about him ... SignatureFrank ess > Some thingsnever change. Dooglas still betrays his location at the center > of the Universe: any subject eventually becomes all about him ... It's not just the center of the universe thing, it's that his claimed experience is so counter to what many others have experienced. H and I have shot weddings for nearly a year with our 20Ds, and, other than the out of the box problems last September, and that annoying EX underexposure thing, they've worked flawlessly. And the 24-70 f2.8 L that Douglas claims is so seriously flawed is, in my experience, stunning. And, by the way, using f2.8 lenses seems to have solved the underexposure problems, too. His contention that the problems that one other poster was having with the 20D and a 70-200 was due to the poor fit of the lens mount on the 20D, when questioned by me, resulted in an avalanche of name calling and vitriol, when all I did was advance the thought that, since I had used L lenses (but not the 70-200) on both 1 series film cameras and the 20D, that his idea may be wide of the mark. One can't disagree with him, or you are a shill, or worse. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com You've been doing pretty well yourself in the field of navel gazing Frank. Quick to fire off a retort, slow to respond to questions about your own geographical centre. -- Douglas... "You finally make it on the Internet when you get your own personal Troll". Mine's called Chrlz. Don't pat him, he bites! > Some thingsnever change. Dooglas still betrays his location at the > center of the Universe: any subject eventually becomes all about him > ... > > -- > Frank ess >Interesting stuff... >When I posted opinions like these about a month after the 20D was released, >I got howled down by the disciples of EOS. Whenever I even suggested the >hallowed 20D might not be all it's cracked up to be, I get accused of >posting "non scientific" tests. OK... I guarantee you that no matter what kind of test or how scientific you make it, if you find fault with them you will be attacked. "B-but, what was the white balance?" "Did you use a tripod?!" "You didn't use the right colour space!" "If you had used raw, it would be different!!" Even if you simply let two different manufacturer of cameras take shots in "auto" mode. All of a sudden, there are excuses for why the program mode just does not produce the results desired. There are ALWAYS excuses. The most desperate one of all, and it comes at the end is, "you must have gotten a bad one." This is concerning products that are manfucturered completely by computer and uniformly produced to the 0.001% mark. A "bad" one! -Rich >>Interesting stuff... >>When I posted opinions like these about a month after the 20D was [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > 0.001% mark. A "bad" one! > -Rich Then, if he didn't get a bad one, then we got two very good ones, since we haven't experienced any of the problems he has had with our 20Ds. So which is it, since they are manufactured to the same tolerances? SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>Interesting stuff... >>>When I posted opinions like these about a month after the 20D was [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > haven't experienced any of the problems he has had with our 20Ds. So which > is it, since they are manufactured to the same tolerances? From your previous post Skip, where you claim it's OK to have an $800 Speedlight sometimes work 1 - 1.3 stops out and sometimes work correctly, depending on the lens you use and the fact your own cameras were faulty from the factory suggests to me your expectation of getting "two very good ones" is a little tainted by the God of EOS, wouldn't you say? If I spent as much on a car as I have on Canon gear and the car only traveled at the speed limit if I had green seat covers on it, I'd be equally as pissed off as I am that I spent over $10k on cameras with clear and frequently identified faults. You might open your eyes to some of the complaints on DPreview about these cameras. I am not alone. What do you do with your out of focus shots which had the little red thingy light up on the correct point but the lens which cost 20% more than the camera didn't focus on it? SignatureDouglas, Zero care factor for negative responses from anonymous posters. >>>The most desperate one of all, and it comes at the end is, "you must >>>have gotten a bad one." This is concerning products that are [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > from the factory suggests to me your expectation of getting "two very good > ones" is a little tainted by the God of EOS, wouldn't you say? Good point, but not an usolvable problem. And one to which I did, indeed, refer. But what I said was in reference to your litany of problems, none of which we have had. So, in comparison to to yours, I'd still say we either got two very good ones, or you got some very bad ones. > If I spent as much on a car as I have on Canon gear and the car only > traveled at the speed limit if I had green seat covers on it, I'd be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > thingy light up on the correct point but the lens which cost 20% more than > the camera didn't focus on it? I haven't had to do anything with those "out of focus shots," because I haven't had any that weren't my own fault. Certainly not the fault of a lens that cost $200 less than the camera body, not 20% more. To what lens are you referring? SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > I haven't had to do anything with those "out of focus shots," because I > haven't had any that weren't my own fault. Certainly not the fault of a > lens that cost $200 less than the camera body, not 20% more. To what lens > are you referring? Probably not a good idea to go there Skip. Sort of like the good cameras, bad cameras thing. 24~70 f2.8 "L" series. The part I have the most trouble with is where a Sigma EX, DG lens works flawlessly on these cameras and costs $650 AUD. The fabled "L" lens which costs $2600 AUD is the one I have the most trouble with. The only difference (other than focus unreliability and barrel distortion in the Canon)I can find between the two is the noise of the focus motors. Somehow there are unanswered questions here that Canon can't address or provide any suggestions about. There doesn't seem to me to be any point in persevering with a brand for which the best source of fault rectification information is other users. How bloody arrogant to have recognized faults in the battery grip and do nothing about them for 6 months? Both of mine only work on the right side battery, even after being "fixed". Hell Skip... My list of complaints is longer that the camera's feature list! Maybe you are more tolerant than me? SignatureDouglas, Zero care factor for negative responses from anonymous posters. >> I haven't had to do anything with those "out of focus shots," because I >> haven't had any that weren't my own fault. Certainly not the fault of a [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > "fixed". Hell Skip... My list of complaints is longer that the camera's > feature list! Maybe you are more tolerant than me? No, I'm not really, and this is what led me to my comment that we got two good ones, the only time my grip failed me was when I had a Stroboframe Quick Flip and Quantum T4d on it, the frame/flash inadvertently flipped suddenly, pulling the grip away from the camera in a way I had been unable to do, manually. The AA attachment didn't work when I first got it, normal AAs don't power it up, but I got some new 2200 maH NiMHs, and it works just fine, now. And I don't have any issues with my 24-70L except some softness on the edges, http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/46082020/original (Image untouched JPEG straight from camera.) Easily taken care of with USM, and way better than the 16-35 L, by the way. True, I'm not crazy about the add on appearance of the grip, but other than that one happenstance, it hasn't given me any grief since I got it. The lockups we had at the beginning were taken care of on the second (first non abortive) firmware update, and the cameras have performed without a hitch, since. We used them in blazingly hot weather (100F+) , humid and rainy, dry, the only thing is we haven't used them in cracking cold. We live in Southern California, after all. If it weren't for that pesky flash underexposure with EX flashes (that's why we use Quantums) and non f2.8 lenses, I'd say the cameras were as close to perfect as it is possible to get. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Excerpts from a review of the EOS20D from a leading UK magazine: > > "Unfortunately, exposures are not quite as accurate or reliable as we > might expect from an EOS camera. The 20D is prone to slight > underexposure, particularly with wideangle lenses." Oddly mine in many situations tends to overexpose by about 2/3 stop. My D60 tends to underexpose by the same! Better to get the histogram as far to the right as possible (without blowing it) to avoid posterisation. > Autofocus: "the camera occasionally appears to disagree with the user > about what is the subject and we found the best way of working is to > switch off the auto AF sensors and select our own using the new toggle > control." AF sensors can only guess at what you mean and often guess wrong - AI is not that clever yet. Best way is to select the AF point yourself and in any case the centre point with an f2.8 or faster lens gives a more accurate AF. I prefer to shoot with the centre point. You can use the multi-controller to quickly choose any other point. The multipoints are useful for fast moving objects, eg flying birds. > "...the extra pixels do make a difference to the potential image > quality, but they also mean that users will have to put a bit more [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > software program. If you do this, you will find that the 20D is > capable of quite remarkable results." I do not know of anyone other than people who have just moved from a P&S who would expect a done image directly out of the camera to be usable. The concensus is to shoot RAW and post process and with the 20D this is very easy since it is fast enough. If you cannot afford a RAW converter there is the excellent and entirely free RAW Shooter Essentials from Pixmantec. Canon's DPP is okay but bettered by the others. > FOR: very fast start up; high resolution; massive amount of control. > > AGAINST: mirror action noisy; B&w filters not effective; no > spotmetering. The camera offers a very effective B&W mode. The miorror is noisy but not that bad. Spot metering would be nice but I do not miss it. Besides there is so much about the 20D that is good. > Overall Specs 28/30 > Build 18/20 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I can't decide which camera. Comments, please. > Excerpts from a review of the EOS20D from a leading UK magazine: What's unfair? 1- It has a known underexposure bias and is equipped with exp-comp, so adjust as required. 2- Auto focus dependance is a bad habit, esp. if you use multiple points. I doubt the camera scores high on mind reading either. 3- Post capture processing. Makes sense. It does depend on what you're subject matter is and the end use, of course. 4- Spot metering: yes this is definite negative, esp. as highlights are so easilly blown out. OTOH, for most shooting that most people do, a review of the result in the monitor provides quick feedback. Should you buy it? Sure. Or no. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> Excerpts from a review of the EOS20D from a leading UK magazine: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Cheers, > Alan. Your answers are over simplistic Alan. The cameras are not predictable in their wandering exposure values. Nor can they be relied on to focus properly when the toggle is active for selection of focus points. The "grip" now in the process of a recall is really a very poor substitute for a decent body design. It's not until you use a 'real' Professional camera like a 1Ds or Nikon D2X that you discover how rough the consumer DSLR cameras actually are. Unless Canon come up with some production controls and post assembly testing procedures, any replacement for the 20D or 1D II will be no better. With Nikon now a really viable alternative to Canon in the Professional range, it won't be long before they get some stiff competition in the consumer DSLR range too. SignatureDouglas, Zero care factor for negative responses from anonymous posters. >>> Excerpts from a review of the EOS20D from a leading UK magazine: >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > testing procedures, any replacement for the 20D or 1D II will be no > better. You're comparing apples and oranges Dougie. The OP was asking about the 20D v. other 'consumer' Canon's such as the 350D and 10D. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>> Excerpts from a review of the EOS20D from a leading UK magazine: >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >Professional range, it won't be long before they get some stiff >competition in the consumer DSLR range too. Speaking of quality control, what is "E99?" It popped up on a Canon I was using (Rebel XT) and I keep hearing about it from users. What does the code mean? You have to remove the lens, turn the camera off and on again. -Rich >Speaking of quality control, what is "E99?" It popped up on >a Canon I was using (Rebel XT) and I keep hearing about it >from users. What does the code mean? You have to remove the lens, >turn the camera off and on again. Why would you have to remove the lens? The lens is "gone", electrically, when you pull out the battery. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > Speaking of quality control, what is "E99?" It popped up on > a Canon I was using (Rebel XT) and I keep hearing about it > from users. What does the code mean? You have to remove the lens, > turn the camera off and on again. > -Rich It means insufficient communication between lens and body. The only time I've gotten it is with non Canon lenses, but some have gotten it with some Canon lenses, often in conjunction with dirty contacts. The only time I got it was with a Tokina 28-70 f2.6-2.8, I cleaned the contacts, haven't had a problem since... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com By any chance did you have a 70-200 F2.8 IS USM L series lens attached? - it's a known issue with this lens for some. > >>> Excerpts from a review of the EOS20D from a leading UK magazine: > >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > turn the camera off and on again. > -Rich > By any chance did you have a 70-200 F2.8 IS USM L series lens attached? - > it's a known issue with this lens for some. I thought it was the non IS version that had the problems... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message news:ZFAHe.25485 > I thought it was the non IS version that had the problems... I was (am?) seriously considering the lens - so I was ploughing through the feedback on it. Most raved about it, but then someone chipped in about the Error 99s which spurned a whole new sub-thread. Gist of it was "if they switched off the IS it was OK" - so must of course be the IS version - a few had the non-IS version and none reported any problems. It seemed that in most cases those who had the problem got it after having had the lens for quite some time, and the subject to contacts between lens and camera (and the need for them to be cleaned) seemed to be the most likely cause/solution, although it didn't seem to be the magic answer for all (alignment was mentioned as well). It was high on my wish list, but having tried the non IS version I came to the conclusion I'm prob better off with the 100 - 400 L series for nature work, and a 24-70 L for day to day stuff (after my F1.2 100mm L for portraits). I could trade in my Rolex for all three, but problem is I don't have a Rolex :( > "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message news:ZFAHe.25485 > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > don't > have a Rolex :( Hmm, I'm considering the lens, too. I have the 24-70 and 100-400, but sometimes, the latter is overkill, plus I need the extra speed. I shoot weddings, and one can't guarantee that the subjects will remain motionless for any length of time, especially right after the ceremony... ;-) SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com Just wait until the groom gets the bill - there should be a moment of stunned silence shortly afterwards! >> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message news:ZFAHe.25485 >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > weddings, and one can't guarantee that the subjects will remain motionless > for any length of time, especially right after the ceremony... ;-) Usually, it's the brides father, and the trick is to get him to stand still for it! <G> SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Just wait until the groom gets the bill - there should be a moment of > stunned silence shortly afterwards! [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >> motionless for any length of time, especially right after the ceremony... >> ;-) I wish! No, it was just the kit zoom. There is a rumour that it has nothing to do with dirty sensors (the camera I was using was brand new) and has to do with the lens-locking mechanism and mounting methods of the sensor pads on the lenses and lens mount of the cameras). -Rich >By any chance did you have a 70-200 F2.8 IS USM L series lens attached? - >it's a known issue with this lens for some. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >> turn the camera off and on again. >> -Rich |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.