 |
 | 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 / Digital Photo / October 200420D or 1D Mk2?
Does anyone know whether the 1D Mk2 is significantly better than the 20D? I am aware that the frames per second, burst/buffer capacity of the 1D Mk2 are greater than the 20D, but what about picture quality, especially noise with high ISO settings. Also I have read that the 20D has quite a lot of mechanical noise (shutter and mirror slap) - is the 1D Mk2 quieter? > Does anyone know whether the 1D Mk2 is significantly better than the 20D? > I am aware that the frames per second, burst/buffer capacity of the 1D Mk2 > are greater than the 20D, but what about picture quality, I believe it is a full 35mm frame imager with about 14 meg and uses standard 35mm lenses, no digital lenses. As for the rest, I have no idea. > especially noise > with high ISO settings. Also I have read that the 20D has quite a lot of > mechanical noise (shutter and mirror slap) - is the 1D Mk2 quieter?  SignatureJoseph E. Meehan 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math >> Does anyone know whether the 1D Mk2 is significantly better than the 20D? >> I am aware that the frames per second, burst/buffer capacity of the 1D [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> with high ISO settings. Also I have read that the 20D has quite a lot of >> mechanical noise (shutter and mirror slap) - is the 1D Mk2 quieter? You're confusing it with the 1Ds mkII, a natural mistake. The 1D mkII has a 1.3x sensor, the 1Ds mkII a full frame, the 20D, a 1.6x. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >> Does anyone know whether the 1D Mk2 is significantly better than the 20D? >> I am aware that the frames per second, burst/buffer capacity of the 1D Mk2 >> are greater than the 20D, but what about picture quality, > > I believe it is a full 35mm frame imager with about 14 meg and uses >standard 35mm lenses, no digital lenses. As for the rest, I have no idea. No the 1DMark2 doesn't have a full frame sensor, it has a 1.3 crop and is 8MP. Now the 1DsMark2 does have a full frame sensor and is 16.61MP >>Does anyone know whether the 1D Mk2 is significantly better than the 20D? >>I am aware that the frames per second, burst/buffer capacity of the 1D Mk2 >>are greater than the 20D, but what about picture quality, > > I believe it is a full 35mm frame imager with about 14 meg and uses > standard 35mm lenses, no digital lenses. As for the rest, I have no idea. Nope. 8.2 megapixels, 1.3x crop factor. EF mount (not EF/EF-S as 20D). You may be thinking of the newly announced 1DsMkII which is full frame and 16 mp or so -- and $8000. Phil Try google, or similar, and enter "20d vs 1d mk2", or similar ,there seems to be several items. > Does anyone know whether the 1D Mk2 is significantly better than the 20D? I am > aware that the frames per second, burst/buffer capacity of the 1D Mk2 are > greater than the 20D, but what about picture quality, especially noise with > high ISO settings. Also I have read that the 20D has quite a lot of mechanical > noise (shutter and mirror slap) - is the 1D Mk2 quieter? A couple that might be useful... http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB8&Number=27009 0&Main=269975 http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=10272209 > Try google, or similar, and enter "20d vs 1d mk2", or similar ,there seems > to be several items. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > mechanical > > noise (shutter and mirror slap) - is the 1D Mk2 quieter? Its WAY better than the 20D >Does anyone know whether the 1D Mk2 is significantly better than the 20D? I am >aware that the frames per second, burst/buffer capacity of the 1D Mk2 are >greater than the 20D, but what about picture quality, especially noise with >high ISO settings. Also I have read that the 20D has quite a lot of mechanical >noise (shutter and mirror slap) - is the 1D Mk2 quieter? >Its WAY better than the 20D Not if you're trying to resolve small, distant subjects (e.g., bird photography) with a sharp telephoto lens. The 20D has a virtual 1.23x teleconverter that robs no light, and has no abberations. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>Its WAY better than the 20D > >Not if you're trying to resolve small, distant subjects (e.g., bird >photography) with a sharp telephoto lens. The 20D has a virtual 1.23x >teleconverter that robs no light, and has no abberations. The 1D Mark 2 has a 1.3x crop factor, and its got a faster AF tracking system then the 20D >>>Its WAY better than the 20D >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >The 1D Mark 2 has a 1.3x crop factor, and its got a faster AF tracking >system then the 20D Yes, but the maximum potential resolution of a subject with the same lens is lower. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > >>Its WAY better than the 20D > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The 1D Mark 2 has a 1.3x crop factor, and its got a faster AF tracking > system then the 20D Yes, but the 20D has a 1.6x factor. The 1.23 he mentions above is in comparison to the 1D Mark II. As he says...for telephoto applications...this means you get to spend all of your megapixels on a smaller (and therefore more detailed) portion of the scene. >> >>Its WAY better than the 20D >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >your megapixels on a smaller (and therefore more detailed) portion of the >scene. You should be filling the image with what you want, not shooting it wide and croping in post >>> >>Its WAY better than the 20D >>> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >You should be filling the image with what you want, not shooting it >wide and croping in post To a person shooting elusive, distant wildlife with a sharp telephoto, smaller pixel pitch is the only thing that takes them closer to their goal. You can use a teleconverter, but it reduces contrast, and eats up light by spreading it wider. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>>> >>Its WAY better than the 20D >>>> > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >goal. You can use a teleconverter, but it reduces contrast, and eats up >light by spreading it wider. One photographer I know uses a 600mm f4 lens for birds and wildlife. Another uses a 24mm lens on a remote trigger. > >>You should be filling the image with what you want, not shooting it > >>wide and croping in post [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > One photographer I know uses a 600mm f4 lens for birds and wildlife. > Another uses a 24mm lens on a remote trigger. I believe the discussion involved telephoto??? Pay attention. >> >>You should be filling the image with what you want, not shooting it >> >>wide and croping in post [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >I believe the discussion involved telephoto??? >Pay attention. Last time I checked 600mm was telephoto (read before you reply) > >> >>You should be filling the image with what you want, not shooting it > >> >>wide and croping in post [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Last time I checked 600mm was telephoto (read before you reply) And 24mm? >> >> >>You should be filling the image with what you want, not shooting it >> >> >>wide and croping in post [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >And 24mm? 2 Different photographers, and yes 24mm >One photographer I know uses a 600mm f4 lens for birds and wildlife. Better yet with a 20D. Then it's a 738mm f4, relative to the 1DmkII, and an 800mm f4, relative to the 10D/Rebel/D60. >Another uses a 24mm lens on a remote trigger. Wide angle lenses tend to be soft, so the gain will be small. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>One photographer I know uses a 600mm f4 lens for birds and wildlife. > >Better yet with a 20D. Then it's a 738mm f4, relative to the 1DmkII, >and an 800mm f4, relative to the 10D/Rebel/D60. They use a 1Ds, and will be getting the 1Ds Mark2 when its out, they need the resolution. > >>One photographer I know uses a 600mm f4 lens for birds and wildlife. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > They use a 1Ds, and will be getting the 1Ds Mark2 when its out, they > need the resolution. If you want high resolution, the last thing you need is full frame glass. Severe blur in the outer frame negates any number of MPs, unless you think more MPs image blur and distortion better. Even the best lenses in the world are awful in the corners, full frame... http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos1dsmkii_preview/originals/vb2c0088.jpg ...and so on from every full frame image you'll see. Or, to qoute Fred Miranda, "I tested the 1Ds with the 14mm f/2.8L, 24mm f/1.4L and 16-35mm f/2.8L wide-angle lenses and was very surprised by the degree of lateral chromatic aberration revealed. It was not noticeable on the camera LCD while using the new 100% magnification option in the field [firmware hack used to magnify images since the $8,000 Canon doesn't ship with any image magnification option]. However, as soon as I transferred the images and saw them on my monitor, it was obvious. The flaw was apparent right away, and my heart sunk. I had never seen anything like it, and it was the last thing I expected to have to deal with after avoiding scorpions to get my shot in the dunes. I can't even tell you how disappointed I was" The only reason full frame is ever desirable is if you routinely need wider than about 12mm effective. If not it is much cheaper, and optically far superior, to shoot the center portion of a wider lens. >> >>One photographer I know uses a 600mm f4 lens for birds and wildlife. > If you want high resolution, the last thing you need is full frame > glass. Severe blur in the outer frame negates any number of MPs, Dear Preddiot, There is a wonderful concept called "context". Please study it. Otherwise you will continue to make silly postings referring to issues with very wide angle lenses when others are talking about long telephotos. These lenses are rather different and generalizations about one don't usually apply to the other -- as you should know if you are even 1/10th the photographer you claim to be. Good luck finding a quote about CA on the 600L. Sincerely -- Erik > >> >>One photographer I know uses a 600mm f4 lens for birds and wildlife. > > > If you want high resolution, the last thing you need is full frame > > glass. Severe blur in the outer frame negates any number of MPs, > > Dear Preddiot, <snip> These lenses are rather different and generalizations > about one don't usually apply to the other -- as you should know if > you are even 1/10th the photographer you claim to be. He's not a photographer...AT ALL. > >> >>Its WAY better than the 20D > >> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > You should be filling the image with what you want, not shooting it > wide and croping in post We're talking about telephoto here. When shooting distant critters, the limitation is certainly not because one is shooting wide and cropping...rather it is because the subject is at such a distance that you can use all the extra enlargement and resolution you can muster. The higher cropping factor of 1.6 can be helpful in this case--especially considering that we're talking about the same number of pixels between the two cameras, and where those pixels get used. >>>>>>Its WAY better than the 20D >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > considering that we're talking about the same number of pixels between the > two cameras, and where those pixels get used. I have both a 1D Mark II and a 10D. I can tell you my experience with these two cameras and the resulting image quality using a 500mm f/4 L IS on a good tripod (gotzo 1328 with wimberly head), and with and without teleconverters. The 500 L is a really top lens and extremely sharp. It will be tough to do better. I get sharper pictures with the 1DII than the 10D because of the larger pixels. It is a small effect, but I've definitely noticed it. The 1DII tests at the maximum theoretical noise possible due to photon statistics, see: http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.noise (I just updated this page so if you've been there, check out the new stuff). I do not believe the 20D can have as high of signal to noise because the pixels are smaller. But what makes the 1DII better in my view is that it autofocuses with a 2x extender and stacked 1.4x and 2x extenders. And the autofocus with stacked extenders is still really good. The lower grade cameras will simply not autofocus with the 2x on an f/4 lens, and with stacked 1.4+2x, those cameras can be fooled but on my 10D the focus is slow and fails a lot. I put the 1D2 performance to the test on a recent trip to photograph Alaskan Brown Bears, see: http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear The above page has a variety of no, 1.4, 2x and stacked teleconverter images. All on this page are very sharp and will make great 16x20s. I also had my 10D but feel I could not get anywhere near the same quality images. I believe the 20D pixels are getting too small and the weaknesses in lenses will show up sooner than with the larger pixels of the 1DII. After all, the 10D has a spatial resolution similar to Fujichrome Velvia, ISO 50, film. That means the 20D is higher resolution. That will be pushing some lenses, especially the less sharp consumer grades, resulting in softer pictures. Roger > >>>>>>Its WAY better than the 20D > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > Roger I was in no way trying to imply that the 20D is a generally better imaging device than the 1DMII. The discussion ran into the question of why 1.6x might be helpful for tele. I have no doubt that the larger pixels of the larger sensor have advantages as you indicate and, believe me(!)...I would never hesitate to choose the 1DMII given the choice between the two for a whole list of OTHER reasons. It seemed there was some confusion about the crop factor though... My comments are really limited to this effect. BTW--I've been to Alaska three times recently, but not yet to Kodiak... I'm quite jealous, and will be looking for an opportunity to go... ...Now the challenge is to secure a big fat 400 or 500mm... I feel like Tevia singing... "If I were a rich man...divy-divy-divy-divy-divy-divy-divy-dum..." [....] > ...Now the challenge is to secure a big fat 400 or 500mm... > I feel like Tevia singing... "If I were a rich > man...divy-divy-divy-divy-divy-divy-divy-dum..." I'll be sluffing my rendition of Pink Floyd's "Money"... "Money, get away. Get a good job with good pay and you’re okay. Money, it’s a gas. Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash. New car, caviar, four star daydream, Think I’ll buy me [that photo dream]." OMG, has it been that long? Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >"Money, get away. >Get a good job with good pay and youre okay. "full pay". Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote in >>I have both a 1D Mark II and a 10D. I can tell you my [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > I feel like Tevia singing... "If I were a rich > man...divy-divy-divy-divy-divy-divy-divy-dum..." Mark, My point was that megapixels in a smaller form factor do not necessarily give a better image due to other performance factors. Theoretically speaking, the 20D with pixels about 1.3/1.6 = 0.81 times smaller doesn't necessarily mean more detail in a picture for two reasons: lens sharpness, and the bigger fact that you can use a 2x teleconverter on the 1DII and still autofocus well. A 2x on the 1dII has 15% better resolution than a 20D on the same lens with a 1.4x TC assuming the lens is sharp enough. If the lens is soft on the 20D the resolution difference becomes larger. So my point included why 1.6 crop factor on the 20D is not as good as the 1.3 crop factor plus 2x TC autofocus on the 1DII. If you don't have a TC, and you have a sharp lens, the 20D would give an effective increase in telephoto length of 23% over the 1DII. Roger >"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" >> I put the 1D2 >> performance to the test on a recent trip to photograph >> Alaskan Brown Bears, see: >> http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear >From: "Mark M" mjmorgan2@goaway.cox.unless.no.crap.net > >BTW--I've been to Alaska three times recently, but not yet to Kodiak... >I'm quite jealous, and will be looking for an opportunity to go... Katmai, not Kodiak ... a lot more habituated bears in Katmai, especially at Brooks River (which is where Roger was). > >"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Katmai, not Kodiak ... a lot more habituated bears in Katmai, especially at > Brooks River (which is where Roger was). Ah. > ...Now the challenge is to secure a big fat 400 or 500mm... > I feel like Tevia singing... "If I were a rich > man...divy-divy-divy-divy-divy-divy-divy-dum..." Rent one from North County Camera...they even have a 600, or did. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > > ...Now the challenge is to secure a big fat 400 or 500mm... > > I feel like Tevia singing... "If I were a rich > > man...divy-divy-divy-divy-divy-divy-divy-dum..." > > Rent one from North County Camera...they even have a 600, or did. Do you recall what they charged for it, and the deposit amount? >> > ...Now the challenge is to secure a big fat 400 or 500mm... >> > I feel like Tevia singing... "If I were a rich [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Do you recall what they charged for it, and the deposit amount? $75 a day, no deposit, but you must have a credit card on file with them. But Calumet just bought them, policies may have changed. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com In message <4171ECC3.8060804@qwest.net>, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote: >After all, the 10D has a spatial resolution similar to >Fujichrome Velvia, ISO 50, film. That means the 20D >is higher resolution. That will be pushing some lenses, >especially the less sharp consumer grades, resulting in >softer pictures. I think about sensor resolution in terms of my sharpest lenses, not the duller ones. My 300mm f4L and my Tamron 90mm Di f2.8 macro have more resolution than the 20D can take advantage of. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > In message <4171ECC3.8060804@qwest.net>, > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > duller ones. My 300mm f4L and my Tamron 90mm Di f2.8 macro have more > resolution than the 20D can take advantage of. My 300 f/4 L IS produces a slightly sharper picture on my 1D Mark II than on my 10D. Same with my 500 mm f/4 L IS. By this I mean edges appear sharper; the 10D images appear slightly soft in comparison. Maybe it is due to a better blur filter on the 1DII, but I believe it is mainly due to the larger pixels. Roger > > In message <4171ECC3.8060804@qwest.net>, > > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Roger You are talking about RAW files that have no sharpening applied? >>>In message <4171ECC3.8060804@qwest.net>, >>>"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > You are talking about RAW files that have no sharpening applied? I've observed this with both raw and jpegs. I've really been impressed with the images out of the 1D Mark II. I would like to try my lenses on a 20D too ;-). Roger > Does anyone know whether the 1D Mk2 is significantly better than the 20D? > I am [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > mechanical > noise (shutter and mirror slap) - is the 1D Mk2 quieter? If I can interject a personal opinion, the issue of the mirror slap noise of the 20D is largely overblown. I have this camera, a D30, A2 and 1n film cameras, and had a 10D. The shutter/mirror slap is roughly the same as my A2, a camera lauded for its silence in its day, and a little quieter than my D30. It is a little, and I emphasize little, noisier than the 10D, but the only time this might be an issue is in an environment of near or complete silence, like a library or museum. At a wedding, for instance, it is not noticeable. The 1D mkII is actually louder. (I have a friend who has one, we've compared.) The one clear advantage of the 1D mkII, again, in my opinion, is its larger sensor. This has two benefits. First, a little less noise, esp. at the extremes of ISO, low and high, and use of wide angle lenses. It has a 1.3x crop vs. the 1.6 of the 20D. So a 20mm has an equivalency of a 26mm rather than a 32mm on a 20D. A good place to compare features is dpreview.com where they have a side by side feature. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >From: onepercentf@aol.com (Onepercentf) >Does anyone know whether the 1D Mk2 is significantly better than the 20D? I >am aware that the frames per second, burst/buffer capacity of the 1D Mk2 are >greater than the 20D, but what about picture quality, especially noise with >high ISO settings. http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos20d/page16.asp ... side-by-side comparison, where he concludes the image quality is very similar. >Also I have read that the 20D has quite a lot of mechanical >noise (shutter and mirror slap) - is the 1D Mk2 quieter? The 1D M II seems pretty noisy to me, especially when used in the burst mode. I've only used a 20D for a few shots with a body George Lepp loaned around in Denali a couple weeks ago but it sounded quiet to me compared to the Mark II, but maybe if you measured the noise levels I'd be wrong. If you need a silent camera you should probably get a rangefinder anyway. We have two Mark II's, have taken over 10,000 shots with them so far, and it's a great camera. The advantages for me are the more rugged construction (I've used mine in the rain and snow several times in Alaska), faster frame rate, much better autofocus (the best of any camera I've used), holding AF at f/8 while the 20D won't AF with lenses with min apertures slower than f/5.6 (a big deal if you use teleconverters, which I do often with 500 mm lenses ... it will actually hold AF with the 500 f/4 and stacked t/c's for 1,400 mm @ f/ll ... nice). The Mark II is rated at 200,000 shutter cycles, I think the 20D is rated at 50,000 shutter cycles, so it will last up to 4x longer before shutter accuracy starts to fall off, if you believe these reliability numbers. The 1.3x is either a good thing if you shoot wide angles or not a good thing if you shoot telephotos, which is mainly what I use with my Mark II. On the other hand the Mark II is about a pound heavier and costs three times as much. I'd say that 99% are better off with the 20D (mainly because of the price), the exceptions being people who shoot a LOT of sports or wildlife where the speed and faster AF are most useful, or those who need the extra weatherproofing (wildlife photographers and photo-journalists?). BTW we've been printing 16x20" images made with the Mark II that look great, much better than what we're getting from scanned 35 mm film. 8 Mpixels is really nice ... Bill Interesting read here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=10699541 Phil > Does anyone know whether the 1D Mk2 is significantly better than the 20D? I am > aware that the frames per second, burst/buffer capacity of the 1D Mk2 are > greater than the 20D, but what about picture quality, especially noise with > high ISO settings. Also I have read that the 20D has quite a lot of mechanical > noise (shutter and mirror slap) - is the 1D Mk2 quieter? |
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
|
©2010 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.