Canon EOS 20D - is this review fair?

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

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.

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

"Peter Guest" <plg@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news68le115edbnmdur5p9lsvl0bef79fbout@4ax.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."
>
> 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.


I have the 20D and I think the criticism of the AF system is unfair...it
isn't a worse system, just a different one and takes some getting used to.
Once you learn it, it's no problem. Haven't had any problems with
underexposure whatsoever. It's a great camera, I'd say buy it.

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

Rick wrote:
> "Peter Guest" <plg@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news68le115edbnmdur5p9lsvl0bef79fbout@4ax.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."
>>
>>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.
>
>
>
> I have the 20D and I think the criticism of the AF system is unfair...it
> isn't a worse system, just a different one and takes some getting used to.
> Once you learn it, it's no problem. Haven't had any problems with
> underexposure whatsoever. It's a great camera, I'd say buy it.


no...no...no... the article didn't complain the autofocus system if only
one single point was selected. It's the multi points focus system that
is not perfect (of course). I wonder if eye control focusing system is
accurate.

And underexposure is the norm for many cameras. It's safer to
underexpose than having to deal with ugly blown out highlights.

neverthless, it got high marks.

I would say both 20D and 350D have similar picture quality. 20D is well
built and faster and some people dislike that 350D is a bit small and
light. try them out to decide which one to get.

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

"Peter Guest" <plg@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:r78le1h2lf1s7er30togll3meal4up7mca@4ax.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."

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
> 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."

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
> 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.

I have no experience with the 350D, so I can't comment on that one...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

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

In article <p68le115edbnmdur5p9lsvl0bef79fbout@4ax.com>,
Peter Guest <plg@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>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."

One of the first things I did on my 10D was to put it into partial metering
mode. Even if evaulative metering does happen to get the exposure bang-on, I
don't like the idea of not knowing what it's exposing for. I'd probably do
the same on a 20D.

>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."

Another of the first things was telling it to use centre-point AF only.

>"...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."

IOW, the 20D (and other EOSes) are great cameras if you want to take control
of your photography, shoot RAW and use Photoshop to post-process your
images. As "auto everything" cameras, they do a reasonable job, but aren't
outstanding.

I'd say (as an EOS owner), that's pretty much entirely fair.

>FOR: very fast start up; high resolution; massive amount of control.
>
>AGAINST: mirror action noisy; B&w filters not effective; no
>spotmetering.

On the last point, it has partial metering which works as well as a spot
meter *most* of the time.