Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon EOS D20 vs. Rebel XT

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 4:42:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Two questions come to mind...

I was considering the XT but for about $300 to $400 more I can get the
D20 ? Tho both will be okay for my modest needs, I read that the D20
is good in low light and I like that. Also I thought I could grow
into the D20 in years to come. With this in mind, do you think the
cost differnce is worth it?

Second, for the D20, what is the minimum suggested size CF card to
get? I'm thinking 512 megs tho I'm more likely to go for the 1gb CF
card. I know more is better but any practical advice here? Does
brand or speed of the card really matter and if so, please suggest it.

thanks.

More about : canon eos d20 rebel

April 16, 2005 4:42:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I bought the 20d a few days ago. I also bought 2 cards of 1 GB each. I
plan on getting more cards before I take the camera on a trip. Photoshop is
offering 20d buyers a discount to upgrade. I felt the discount saved me the
extra $350 the camera cost.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 10:03:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

1) The 20D (not D20!) is 50% more expensive than the 350D but offers the
same image quality (same noise). However, the 20D is of much better quality
and has a decent viewfinder.

2) Yes. But Canon seems not to support WA with the 20D (?)

If you buy multiple lenses (three or more) and you take most of them with
you, go with the 20D. If you are looking for a handy, small package that
offers 8MP and great noise reduction, get the 350D.

Check: www.dpreview.com for a comparison between 20D and 350D.

Gregor

<FRG> wrote in message news:1b81611ui9b2pjv06ucc6s68cvj3llaj3r@4ax.com...
> Two questions come to mind...
>
> I was considering the XT but for about $300 to $400 more I can get the
> D20 ? Tho both will be okay for my modest needs, I read that the D20
> is good in low light and I like that. Also I thought I could grow
> into the D20 in years to come. With this in mind, do you think the
> cost differnce is worth it?
>
> Second, for the D20, what is the minimum suggested size CF card to
> get? I'm thinking 512 megs tho I'm more likely to go for the 1gb CF
> card. I know more is better but any practical advice here? Does
> brand or speed of the card really matter and if so, please suggest it.
>
> thanks.
Related resources
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 10:17:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Is that upgrade for Photoshop CS2 or just CS?

If not, with this upgrade of $300 and the upgrade from CS to CS2 of around
$170, the 20D user could get CS2 for $470 instead of $580, which is a $110
saving.

Gregor

"Pat" <dancing@onlinemac.removecom> wrote in message
news:1161akll105bnc9@corp.supernews.com...
>I bought the 20d a few days ago. I also bought 2 cards of 1 GB each. I
>plan on getting more cards before I take the camera on a trip. Photoshop
>is offering 20d buyers a discount to upgrade. I felt the discount saved me
>the extra $350 the camera cost.
>
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 2:43:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

GTO wrote:
> 1) The 20D (not D20!) is 50% more expensive than the 350D but offers
> the same image quality (same noise). However, the 20D is of much
> better quality and has a decent viewfinder.
>
> 2) Yes. But Canon seems not to support WA with the 20D (?)

???? What do you mean?


>
> If you buy multiple lenses (three or more) and you take most of them
> with you, go with the 20D. If you are looking for a handy, small
> package that offers 8MP and great noise reduction, get the 350D.
>
> Check: www.dpreview.com for a comparison between 20D and 350D.
>
> Gregor
>
> <FRG> wrote in message
> news:1b81611ui9b2pjv06ucc6s68cvj3llaj3r@4ax.com...
>> Two questions come to mind...
>>
>> I was considering the XT but for about $300 to $400 more I can get
>> the D20 ? Tho both will be okay for my modest needs, I read that
>> the D20 is good in low light and I like that. Also I thought I
>> could grow into the D20 in years to come. With this in mind, do
>> you think the cost differnce is worth it?
>>
>> Second, for the D20, what is the minimum suggested size CF card to
>> get? I'm thinking 512 megs tho I'm more likely to go for the 1gb CF
>> card. I know more is better but any practical advice here? Does
>> brand or speed of the card really matter and if so, please suggest
>> it. thanks.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia's Muire duit
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 2:43:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The 20D does not support WA or "Write Acceleration" CF Cards.

I use the Sandisk UltraII and have no problems with that.


"Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:g%58e.2856$Qu2.2198@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> GTO wrote:
>> 1) The 20D (not D20!) is 50% more expensive than the 350D but offers
>> the same image quality (same noise). However, the 20D is of much
>> better quality and has a decent viewfinder.
>>
>> 2) Yes. But Canon seems not to support WA with the 20D (?)
>
> ???? What do you mean?
>
>
>>
>> If you buy multiple lenses (three or more) and you take most of them
>> with you, go with the 20D. If you are looking for a handy, small
>> package that offers 8MP and great noise reduction, get the 350D.
>>
>> Check: www.dpreview.com for a comparison between 20D and 350D.
>>
>> Gregor
>>
>> <FRG> wrote in message
>> news:1b81611ui9b2pjv06ucc6s68cvj3llaj3r@4ax.com...
>>> Two questions come to mind...
>>>
>>> I was considering the XT but for about $300 to $400 more I can get
>>> the D20 ? Tho both will be okay for my modest needs, I read that
>>> the D20 is good in low light and I like that. Also I thought I
>>> could grow into the D20 in years to come. With this in mind, do
>>> you think the cost differnce is worth it?
>>>
>>> Second, for the D20, what is the minimum suggested size CF card to
>>> get? I'm thinking 512 megs tho I'm more likely to go for the 1gb CF
>>> card. I know more is better but any practical advice here? Does
>>> brand or speed of the card really matter and if so, please suggest
>>> it. thanks.
>
> --
> Joseph Meehan
>
> Dia's Muire duit
>
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 2:43:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ed Velez wrote:
> The 20D does not support WA or "Write Acceleration" CF Cards.
>
But you can still use WA cards. None of Canon's cameras,
to my knowledge, supports WA. I use WA cards in D60,
10D and 1D Mark II cameras.

for the OP:
How much memory you get depends on what you do and
whether you use RAW format. For example, sports action
or wildlife action you might take a lot more images than
if just landscape stills. RAW+ jpeg fine is about
10 megs (on my 1DII) so a 512 card gives only about 50
images. Jpegs only about 3 to 4 times that.

I've encountered people on national parks who were
desperate for additional memory cards, or wanted to
know if I had a laptop and could offload images onto
a CD.

So buy more than you think you need. Since CF memory is
under $100 per gigabyte, it is cheap to get at least a
couple of 1GB cards.

Roger
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 5:27:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ed Velez wrote:
> The 20D does not support WA or "Write Acceleration" CF Cards.
>

Oh I see WA = Write Acceleration; who would have thunk. :-)


> I use the Sandisk UltraII and have no problems with that.
>
>
> "Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:g%58e.2856$Qu2.2198@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
>> GTO wrote:
>>> 1) The 20D (not D20!) is 50% more expensive than the 350D but offers
>>> the same image quality (same noise). However, the 20D is of much
>>> better quality and has a decent viewfinder.
>>>
>>> 2) Yes. But Canon seems not to support WA with the 20D (?)
>>
>> ???? What do you mean?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If you buy multiple lenses (three or more) and you take most of them
>>> with you, go with the 20D. If you are looking for a handy, small
>>> package that offers 8MP and great noise reduction, get the 350D.
>>>
>>> Check: www.dpreview.com for a comparison between 20D and 350D.
>>>
>>> Gregor
>>>
>>> <FRG> wrote in message
>>> news:1b81611ui9b2pjv06ucc6s68cvj3llaj3r@4ax.com...
>>>> Two questions come to mind...
>>>>
>>>> I was considering the XT but for about $300 to $400 more I can get
>>>> the D20 ? Tho both will be okay for my modest needs, I read that
>>>> the D20 is good in low light and I like that. Also I thought I
>>>> could grow into the D20 in years to come. With this in mind, do
>>>> you think the cost differnce is worth it?
>>>>
>>>> Second, for the D20, what is the minimum suggested size CF card to
>>>> get? I'm thinking 512 megs tho I'm more likely to go for the 1gb
>>>> CF card. I know more is better but any practical advice here? Does
>>>> brand or speed of the card really matter and if so, please
>>>> suggest it. thanks.
>>
>> --
>> Joseph Meehan
>>
>> Dia's Muire duit

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia's Muire duit
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 5:46:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <3V18e.4621$t85.62@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
"GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>1) The 20D (not D20!) is 50% more expensive than the 350D but offers the
>same image quality (same noise).

Are you sure? The impression I got from the samples was that the 350D
had a little more noise, but less patterned.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
April 16, 2005 11:44:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>
> I've encountered people on national parks who were
> desperate for additional memory cards, or wanted to
> know if I had a laptop and could offload images onto
> a CD.


I can fill up 2GB in a few hours with raw plus jpeg. It's a bummmer to
run out.
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 12:06:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

FRG wrote:
> Two questions come to mind...
>
> I was considering the XT but for about $300 to $400 more I can get the
> D20 ? Tho both will be okay for my modest needs, I read that the D20
> is good in low light and I like that. Also I thought I could grow
> into the D20 in years to come. With this in mind, do you think the
> cost differnce is worth it?
>
> Second, for the D20, what is the minimum suggested size CF card to
> get? I'm thinking 512 megs tho I'm more likely to go for the 1gb CF
> card. I know more is better but any practical advice here? Does
> brand or speed of the card really matter and if so, please suggest it.
>
> thanks.

Today I carried one of each for a four-hour episode, each with
moderately heavy glass. I'm almost ready to choose the 350/XT if limited
to one.

No image inspection yet, but the 20D with grip and 24-70 2.8L is a
delight to use, easily controllable both physically and
photographically, and it gave me quite a workout. I need to do that kind
of work every other day for a month to get in shape.

The XT is also a fine piece of machinery. It did not require the kind of
physical effort the 20D did. It will be difficult to chose one over the
other on the basis of results, is my impression from first looks. I
think the XT's controls are a little less handy (the 20D thumbwheel is
almost too easy).

Both are completely controllable, one way or another, and complex.
Practice, practise, practize.


--
Frank ess
April 17, 2005 1:49:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

What I have seen is that the 350D has much less banding in its pictures, and
no lock up problems.



<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:qj5261l8qaie91kfopioajdll46kn3mlm7@4ax.com...
> In message <3V18e.4621$t85.62@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
> "GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>1) The 20D (not D20!) is 50% more expensive than the 350D but offers the
>>same image quality (same noise).
>
> Are you sure? The impression I got from the samples was that the 350D
> had a little more noise, but less patterned.
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 6:47:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 19:44:22 -0700, paul <paul@not.net> wrote:

>Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>>
>> I've encountered people on national parks who were
>> desperate for additional memory cards, or wanted to
>> know if I had a laptop and could offload images onto
>> a CD.
>
>
>I can fill up 2GB in a few hours with raw plus jpeg. It's a bummmer to
>run out.

Why do you bother with the jpeg?


*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 12:13:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John A. Stovall wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 19:44:22 -0700, paul <paul@not.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>>
>>>I've encountered people on national parks who were
>>>desperate for additional memory cards, or wanted to
>>>know if I had a laptop and could offload images onto
>>>a CD.
>>
>>
>>I can fill up 2GB in a few hours with raw plus jpeg. It's a bummmer to
>>run out.

With wildlife, in a hot area, I've done more
than 2,000 images / day (mix of raw+jpeg and jpeg) (if
all raw+ jpeg, that would be 15 to 20 GBytes). On my
recent trip to Australia and New Zealand, I took about
5,200 images, mostly raw+jpeg, totaling about 35
gigabytes. I had 38 GBytes of CF cards, and backed them
up to two 40-GB storage devices. So when I returned home,
I had 3 copies. If I took more images, I would start
deleting images on the CF cards and still have 2 backups
on hard drives. That would allow me a total of more than
10,000 images on a trip (>5000 on 2 hard drives, and
>5000 on CF cards not backed up).

If I did landscape only, the numbers would be hundreds, not
thousands. Wildlife action is where the frame count goes
up for me.

I do raw + jpeg because I can preview the jpegs much faster.
Also, on storage devices like the epson P-2000, one
can view raw, but not zoom in. The jpegs allow me to
zoom in. Raw+(best)jpeg takes up only 25% more than raw alone.

But note that raw is not always necessary, especially as
ISO speed increases. See:
Digital Camera Raw versus Jpeg Conversion Losses:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/raw.versus.jpeg1

Roger Clark
Photos, digital photo info at: http://www.clarkvision.com
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 4:13:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 20:06:55 -0700, "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com>
wrote:

>FRG wrote:
>> Two questions come to mind...
>>
>> I was considering the XT but for about $300 to $400 more I can get the
>> D20 ? Tho both will be okay for my modest needs, I read that the D20
>> is good in low light and I like that. Also I thought I could grow
>> into the D20 in years to come. With this in mind, do you think the
>> cost differnce is worth it?
>>
>> Second, for the D20, what is the minimum suggested size CF card to
>> get? I'm thinking 512 megs tho I'm more likely to go for the 1gb CF
>> card. I know more is better but any practical advice here? Does
>> brand or speed of the card really matter and if so, please suggest it.
>>
>> thanks.
>
>Today I carried one of each for a four-hour episode, each with
>moderately heavy glass. I'm almost ready to choose the 350/XT if limited
>to one.
>
>No image inspection yet, but the 20D with grip and 24-70 2.8L is a
>delight to use, easily controllable both physically and
>photographically, and it gave me quite a workout. I need to do that kind
>of work every other day for a month to get in shape.

Would be interested in the image quality since there seems to be (at a
lot of talk about) many bad copies of the 24-70L floating around.


**********************************************************

"A combat photographer should be able to make you see the
color of blood in black and white"


David Douglas Duncan
Speaking on why in Vietnam
he worked only in black and white
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 6:02:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John A. Stovall wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 20:06:55 -0700, "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com>
> wrote:
>
>> FRG wrote:
>>> Two questions come to mind...
>>>
>>> I was considering the XT but for about $300 to $400 more I can get
>>> the D20 ? Tho both will be okay for my modest needs, I read that
>>> the D20 is good in low light and I like that. Also I thought I
>>> could grow into the D20 in years to come. With this in mind, do
>>> you think the cost differnce is worth it?
>>>
>>> Second, for the D20, what is the minimum suggested size CF card to
>>> get? I'm thinking 512 megs tho I'm more likely to go for the 1gb CF
>>> card. I know more is better but any practical advice here? Does
>>> brand or speed of the card really matter and if so, please suggest
>>> it.
>>>
>>> thanks.
>>
>> Today I carried one of each for a four-hour episode, each with
>> moderately heavy glass. I'm almost ready to choose the 350/XT if
>> limited to one.
>>
>> No image inspection yet, but the 20D with grip and 24-70 2.8L is a
>> delight to use, easily controllable both physically and
>> photographically, and it gave me quite a workout. I need to do that
>> kind of work every other day for a month to get in shape.
>
> Would be interested in the image quality since there seems to be (at a
> lot of talk about) many bad copies of the 24-70L floating around.
>

What kind of defects are the "lot of talk"s concerned about?

Here's a random choice from the couple hundred I cranked through the
24-70 yesterday:
(I don't know who these guys are, but when they put their great faces in
front of me, I couldn't resist)

http://www.fototime.com/F4344BB78F6831B/orig.jpg
140K crop
A little shadows reduction in PSRaw

http://www.fototime.com/7122241FFC96B05/orig.jpg
1020K original
Camera Default in PSraw
Both saved for Windows at PS 60 jpeg value

EOS 20D 24-70mm 2.8L
55/88 mm
1/160 f/8.0
ISO 400


I got my lens second-hand; it had been in use for a couple of years,
according to the warranty and sales documents supplied by the previous
owner. I'd suppose he'd have dumped it sooner if the defects were
significant.


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 1:12:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:02:08 -0700, "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com>
wrote:

>John A. Stovall wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 20:06:55 -0700, "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> FRG wrote:
>>>> Two questions come to mind...
>>>>
>>>> I was considering the XT but for about $300 to $400 more I can get
>>>> the D20 ? Tho both will be okay for my modest needs, I read that
>>>> the D20 is good in low light and I like that. Also I thought I
>>>> could grow into the D20 in years to come. With this in mind, do
>>>> you think the cost differnce is worth it?
>>>>
>>>> Second, for the D20, what is the minimum suggested size CF card to
>>>> get? I'm thinking 512 megs tho I'm more likely to go for the 1gb CF
>>>> card. I know more is better but any practical advice here? Does
>>>> brand or speed of the card really matter and if so, please suggest
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> thanks.
>>>
>>> Today I carried one of each for a four-hour episode, each with
>>> moderately heavy glass. I'm almost ready to choose the 350/XT if
>>> limited to one.
>>>
>>> No image inspection yet, but the 20D with grip and 24-70 2.8L is a
>>> delight to use, easily controllable both physically and
>>> photographically, and it gave me quite a workout. I need to do that
>>> kind of work every other day for a month to get in shape.
>>
>> Would be interested in the image quality since there seems to be (at a
>> lot of talk about) many bad copies of the 24-70L floating around.
>>
>
>What kind of defects are the "lot of talk"s concerned about?

Lack for resolution.

Take a look at these forums.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?prod...

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00...

and do a search on 24-70 at these:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/2

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1029


******************************************************

International War Veterans' Poetry Archives

http://iwvpa.net/stovalja/nelson__.htm
!