Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon EOS 20D - is this review fair?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 1:35:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (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.
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 1:35:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (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
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 1:35:34 AM

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

----- 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
> 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."

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
> 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.
Related resources
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 1:35:34 AM

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

Peter Guest 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."

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
> 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."

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
> 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 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. :) 
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 2:00:31 AM

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

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:MK2dnZzKUIKLnnbfRVn-sQ@giganews.com...

>
> Some thingsnever change. Dooglas still betrays his location at the center
> of the Universe: any subject eventually becomes all about him ...
>
> --
> Frank ess
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.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 3:14:04 AM

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

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:45:53 -0400, "Charles Schuler"
<charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>----- 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
>> 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."
>
>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.

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
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 4:17:05 AM

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

Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>
> "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.

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
>> 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.

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.

--
Zed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org>
PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 4:17:06 AM

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

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Zed Pobre" <zed@resonant.org> wrote in message
news:slrndelge1.2pm.zed@resonant.org...
> Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> "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.
>
> 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.

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
>>> 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.
>
> 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.

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.
>
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 4:46:49 AM

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

"Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>----- 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.


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.
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 5:09:20 AM

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

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."
>
>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.


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.
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 9:05:42 AM

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

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 12:16:46 +1000, "pixby"
<pixby_douglas@hotmail.com> wrote:

>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
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 10:20:21 AM

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

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:j9gme1l8hsukv9n17gpblje394em62aod0@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 12:16:46 +1000, "pixby"
> <pixby_douglas@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>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
>
>
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?
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 3:04:18 PM

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

Peter Guest wrote:

> 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.

--
-- 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.
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 4:28:34 PM

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

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 00:46:49 +0100, Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:

>"Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>----- 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.
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 4:48:13 PM

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

In message <osfle11odhm7hu6b3n606e6cu319s1pf03@4ax.com>,
Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:

>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.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 5:18:36 PM

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

In message <4ilme15hv61jhctcfo3am32jnfg1n5i27d@4ax.com>,
Jan Böhme <jan.bohme@sh.se> wrote:

>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.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
July 30, 2005 6:34:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (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."
>
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
> 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."
>
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
> 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.
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 6:56:10 PM

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

In message <svrle1lgqfi9rbvto7o3cbsc510psi17tq@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>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.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 9:29:00 PM

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

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!


"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:MK2dnZzKUIKLnnbfRVn-sQ@giganews.com...
> Some thingsnever change. Dooglas still betrays his location at the
> center of the Universe: any subject eventually becomes all about him
> ...
>
> --
> Frank ess
>
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 5:17:15 AM

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

Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
> "Zed Pobre" <zed@resonant.org> wrote in message
>> 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.
>
> 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.

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.

--
Zed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org>
PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 5:56:38 AM

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

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 13:18:36 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:

>In message <4ilme15hv61jhctcfo3am32jnfg1n5i27d@4ax.com>,
>Jan Böhme <jan.bohme@sh.se> wrote:
>
>>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.
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 5:12:52 PM

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

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:js4ne15uvmj7a148ssaad40qp6vld4qemn@4ax.com...
> In message <svrle1lgqfi9rbvto7o3cbsc510psi17tq@4ax.com>,
> RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
> >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.
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> 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!
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 5:12:53 PM

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

In article <42ec41cd$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, pixby_douglas@hotmail.com
says...
> 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.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 5:57:11 PM

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

In message <42ec41cd$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
"pixby" <pixby_douglas@hotmail.com> wrote:

>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.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 6:40:17 PM

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

In message <3sjpe1l0gp6qhqvv3n8479seab7cpor7o3@4ax.com>, I,
JPS@no.komm hastily wrote:

>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.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 11:40:15 PM

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

Skip M wrote:
> "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:j9gme1l8hsukv9n17gpblje394em62aod0@4ax.com...
>
>>On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 12:16:46 +1000, "pixby"
>><pixby_douglas@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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
>>
>>
>
> 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?

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?

--
Douglas,
Zero care factor for negative responses
from anonymous posters.
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 11:40:16 PM

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

"Pixby" <pixby_douglas@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42ec9c98$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

>>>
>>>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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 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?
>
> 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?

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
> 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?

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?
>
> --
> Douglas,
> Zero care factor for negative responses
> from anonymous posters.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 11:48:59 PM

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

Alan Browne wrote:
> Peter Guest wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
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.

--
Douglas,
Zero care factor for negative responses
from anonymous posters.
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 11:49:00 PM

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

Pixby wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Peter Guest wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> 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.

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.

--
-- 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.
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 11:49:00 PM

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

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:48:59 +1000, Pixby <pixby_douglas@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Alan Browne wrote:
>> Peter Guest wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>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.

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
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 11:49:01 PM

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

In message <8dmpe1ldun9j3udv9olg0cn8pkj654u8ch@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>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.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 11:49:01 PM

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

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:8dmpe1ldun9j3udv9olg0cn8pkj654u8ch@4ax.com...
>
> 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...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
August 1, 2005 11:47:37 AM

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

Skip M wrote:

>
>
> 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?

--
Douglas,
Zero care factor for negative responses
from anonymous posters.
Anonymous
August 1, 2005 11:47:38 AM

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

"Pixby" <pixby_douglas@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42ed470f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Skip M wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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?
>
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.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 5:45:26 PM

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

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.


"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:8dmpe1ldun9j3udv9olg0cn8pkj654u8ch@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:48:59 +1000, Pixby <pixby_douglas@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Alan Browne wrote:
> >> Peter Guest wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >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.
>
> 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
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 5:45:27 PM

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

"Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:IdAHe.5142$PL5.466776@news.xtra.co.nz...
> 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...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 5:45:27 PM

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

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

On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 13:45:26 +1200, "Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com>
wrote:

>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.
>
>
>"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:8dmpe1ldun9j3udv9olg0cn8pkj654u8ch@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:48:59 +1000, Pixby <pixby_douglas@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Alan Browne wrote:
>> >> Peter Guest wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> 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.
>> >>
>> >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.
>>
>> 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
>
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 1:38:09 PM

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

"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 :( 
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 1:38:10 PM

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

"Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:QHRHe.5307$PL5.481766@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
> "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 :( 
>
>
>
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... ;-)

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 2:25:49 AM

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

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:GFTHe.27134$HV1.3490@fed1read07...
> "Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:QHRHe.5307$PL5.481766@news.xtra.co.nz...
>>
>> "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 :( 
>>
>>
>>
> 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... ;-)
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 2:25:50 AM

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

Usually, it's the brides father, and the trick is to get him to stand still
for it! <G>

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:LY0Ie.5491$PL5.491491@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Just wait until the groom gets the bill - there should be a moment of
> stunned silence shortly afterwards!
>
>
>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:GFTHe.27134$HV1.3490@fed1read07...
>> "Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:QHRHe.5307$PL5.481766@news.xtra.co.nz...
>>>
>>> "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 :( 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> 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...
>> ;-)
>>
>> --
>> Skip Middleton
>> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>>
>
>
!