Canon Digital SLR's, EOS 350D vs 20D

You cannot go wrong with the 20D. It is a fabulous piece of kit. I love mine and some weekends take several hundred photos - the beauty of digital - no film to develop.

I bought mine here in Oz. As far as I am concerned there are no cons with this camera it is really top class. The reviews for it have been outstanding and the reality is the same.

However, a word of warning. There are rumours that the 20D will be updated soon by probably a 30D. I would expect an announcement maybe in the next two months. The update will likely include a bigger viewing screen on the back of the camera (this will be worthwhile) and more pixels.

Good luck with your chossing. I totally recommend the Canon digitals.

Adrian

Hi Just to cofirm Adrian's view on the 20D . A superb camera , both my wife and myself are keen photographers ,consequently the camera gets quite alot of use. One of our primary reasons for buying a Canon was the fact we already owned a Canon film SLR.(have done since the earliest manual models). Because of this we already have a selection of lenses that will fit (with an increase in focal length ). I also purchased mine in Australia during a holiday there in 2004 .If there are any specific questions regarding the 20D please ask.

All the best

Dave

Ali,

I am a longtime Canon user and have enjoyed both 10 and 20D having evolved from the standard EOS SLR range. However, given that you have a Nikon SLR why aren't you considering the D50 or D70? Your Nikon lenses won't work with the Canon and the standard Nikon kit lens edges the Canon. I think that Canon lenses are better as you progress into the L series but then you are talking a lot of money and will find as many who prefer Nikon or any of the other manufacturers.

If you have several Nikon lenses then I would seriously consider their digital cameras as they are very good.

The key advantage of the 20D is its performance at high ISO factors. I have enjoyed mine and have nothing but praise, even if it can be something of a dust bug - sensor attracts dust, but this is a general feature of Canon and Nikon. iirc only Olympus have an autoclean function.

Huw

The 350D is technically the best of the entry DSLR's but you need to try one as the handling is a love it or hate it thing - quite a number of people find it too small. I nearly bought one myself but I didn't like then handling and I thought the viewfinder was poor. I haven't had a play with the 20D so can't comment on that. The Canon 18-55 kit lens is very poor - the other manufacturers ones (especially Nikon) are better, although none are all that good.

I ended up sticking with Pentax and getting a *ist DS as I thought it had by far the best viewfinder of the entry level cameras and I also had lenses to fit.

If you do decide to look at Nikon then you might have trouble getting a D70 as I think they're in short supply at the moment. The D50 looks a bargain at present.

Thanks guys for your replies, here goes....

Adrian - I'd guess at the 20D being replaced to compete with Nikon's new D200 as it already has a larger lcd screen and 2 extra megapixs.....?? But this would probably push the price up a bit....matching the D200's...

Dave - just a quick question.... Did you consider the 20D against any other Canon (seeing as you already had the lenses) ie. was the 350D on the market in 2004?
What made you go for the 20D specifically...??

Huw - you got in before me regarding the lenses (it's been a busy day out here - honest!), I realised that my Pronea Nikkor lenses wouldn't be compatible with Canon, but was willing to make that sacrifice for a few reasons.....
-The Pronea was a bit of an impulse buy a good few years ago now and I wasn't sure if the lenses would be compatible with the new Nikon digital SLR's. I was planning on taking it into a shop to find out though....like I said, I'm at the early stages of research....
-I have two lenses that came with the Pronea, a wide angle and zoom, but can't remember the sizes or speeds off the top of my head I'm afraid.....I wasn't sure if these lenses would do a brand spanking new digital SLR justice in today’s world....why spend so much on a camera and limit your results with the lens....
-Also, I had thought about making the switch to what seems to be the 'better' camera manufacturer....like all things this is down to personal taste, I haven't found mine yet but am open to suggestions.... You yourself are a long term Canon user....

.....maybe I should have changed the name of this thread, as my mind is not totally made up!!
.....should have called it - Digital SLR's Canon vs Nikon!!

Steve - you're right, I do need to do a bit of handling, and I fully intend to before parting with the cash, which may be a while away - I just like to do my research early!! Still haven't bought any Naim yet remember - but that's to come this year, hopefully!! which might actually push the camera into next year.....hmmmm, but I know which one I'd rather have!!! Anyhoo, I digress, sorry.....

Sticking with Canon, the 350D offers more camera and lenses for your cash.....
£778 = EOS-350D, EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6, plus EF 55-200 f/4-5.6 IS USM lenses.
£839 = EOS-20D, body only......
Never mind extra batteries or memory!
But the performance difference, from what I've read, is obvious.....

You're right about the Nikon D70, they're discontinued, according to the web, it's been replaced by the D70s. Looking at Nikon I'd consider the following......
£560 = D50, AF-S DX 18-55 f/3.5-5.6G IF ED, plus AF-S DX 55-200 f/4-5.6G ED lenses.
£730 = D70, AF-S 24-85 f/3.5-4.5G the lens being less than half price (£399 down to £150).

There's also the Nikon D100 at £700 for the body, my own Nikkor lenses could then be used, I think.....meaning I could use it straight out the box (with some memory) and then save for a decent lens....

The Nikon D200 would be stretching things a bit too far at £1200 just for the body, but, for performance over cost I could be interested in the EOS-20D instead of the 350D.....hence the name of this thread......

Oh, for your info, prices/packages taken from www.warehouseexpress.com

Sorry if I've rambled on a bit here, but hopefully you understand my dilemma a bit more......

Cheers,
Ali

Just noticed the RRP of the Nikon D100 is £1099....no wonder they were sold out on the website!!!

OLYMPUS...

If you are not sitting on a case load of Nikon lenses, you could certainly do worse than consider an Olympus DSLR; all of which have a sensor cleaning function which (more or less) eliminates the need to clean the sensor and/or remove black dust spots from final images.

FWIW, the E-1, which offers weather-proofing, fantastic ergonomics (so users say) is expected to be superceded during 2006 and can be had at knock down prices with a 28-108 mm equivalent lens of excellent quality. The E-300 (Which I own and am more than happy with) is slightly down market, but has excellent build quality and again, can be had at bargain prices (With either 28-90 equivalent which is OK or the 28-90 and 90-300mm which is very good).

Check out the oly website or dpreview and their olympus dslr forum

/david

Ali,

it would help to know what you expect from a d-SLR and your level of comfort with manual rather than automatic functions. Also, what do you like to shoot - portraits, landscapes, wildlife, system ?

IMHO none of the recommendations are bad, it comes down to ergonomics often before really noticing a significant difference in picture quality between entry level SLRs. I find Digital Camera Magazine a useful guide and there are a multitude of websites, e.g. Fred Miranda.

Do not buy blind, the heft of the camera is very important. If you prefer to shoot long, some of the smaller bodied cameras can sometimes feel odd if you don't use a battery pack. I find this with 20D and 24-70 or 70-200 lenses, w/o battery pack is very unbalanced in my shovel paws.

Huw

quote:

You're right about the Nikon D70, they're discontinued, according to the web, it's been replaced by the D70s.

yep, and as such there's plenty of good deals at the moment on ex-dem stock. In fact we just purchased an ex-dem d70 kit (ie with 18-70mm) for £495.
It hasn't had a good workout yet but initial impressions are very good. In fact, reading between the lines on all the reviews (most of which seem to be Nikon's great, Canon's crap or Canon's great, Nikon's crap) you come to the conclusion that there's bugger all difference between any of the top cameras and you're just paying the extra for 'nice to have' features rather than image quality.

The d50 is an excellent purchase in my opinion.

I got it with lens for £450 a steal frankly, although the lens is not fantastic.

quote:

Originally posted by arf005:
The two models I'm interested in were selected mainly due to cost and reviews in magazines and websites, I've yet to handle them in the shops and seek further advice (from hopefully friendly staff), like I said, I'm at the early stages of research.......

Your thoughts would be much appreciated.

Cheers,
Ali

It would help to know what you are primarily interested in taking pictures of.

Other than higher frame rate and better memory buffer of the 20D which allows greater latitude for capturing moving subjects, there is little difference in picture quality between the two cameras which couldn't be addressed by modifying the default settings of the 350D or post-processing in photoshop.

Unless you had a specific need for capturing fast moving subjects, or simply prefer the handling and build of the 20D, you would get better VFM from a 350D with a selection of decent glass to go with it, ie not the kit lenses.

Also (from experience) note that the 20D has a comparatively loud mirror, is considerably better built and much heavier, and both cameras have issues with colour fringing with ultra wide angle lenses (as do other DSLRs) such as the EF10-22mm - the reason I do not use mine that much.

I can get over 500 shots off one charge, but if you shoot more than that you will need to lug a spare battery or charger with you in addition to a storage device or plentiful supply of memory cards, all of which adds up...

Folks,
http://forums.naim-audio.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/58019385/m/6842935207 will give you a rough idea of what shots I like to take, landscapes, but also wildlife, system's in there too - clothed and naked....

What I'm really looking for from a DSLR is more versatility and the ability to control how I shoot compared to my compact Sony, with the obvious advantages compared to my film SLR.
I'd like to do more night, sunset/rise, and nature/moving images that the Sony wasn't really up to!
As for my level of comfort with manual settings, I'd have to describe myself as amateur, but I've got a hunger to learn more....

I bought my first issue of Digital Camera Magazine last time home and found it very good indeed, my research on the web has just started too and there are some good sites, there's 20 links on my favourites already!

I slept on it last night, and am now thinking Nikon D50 vs D70s...??
The physical size, shutter speed, and sensor pixels seem to be the biggest difference between these two....

I would never buy anything blind though and will be doing all the touchy feely stuff before I buy!!

Cheers,
Ali

quote:

Originally posted by garyi:
The d50 is an excellent purchase in my opinion.

I got it with lens for £450 a steal frankly, although the lens is not fantastic.

All the kit 18-55mm lenses are pretty poor, although the Canon one is supposed to be the worst and the Nikon the best. The 18-70 Nikon is supposed to be a bit better than the 18-55 but so far all of these type of lenses designed for smaller CCD DSLR's that I've seen haven't been up to much.

As a starter setup, or for someone who won't buy anything other than the kit lens, then the D50 does look a very good buy.

quote:

Originally posted by arf005:
I slept on it last night, and am now thinking Nikon D50 vs D70s...??

If you're talking about D50 and lenses v D70 and the kit lense - then for me it's the former every time.

The stock lens is capable for sure, I like the range it comes quite wide angle at its shortest which is good for in room shots etc, something my E10 suffered at.

I cannoit for the life of me get a decent macro shot off it though. I have been having excellent fun on ebay though purcasing old nikon mount lenses, for 20 quid here and there having to do ones own metering is actually quite good fun and the D50 does a preview within a second so you can see if you screwed up.

All in all I am very happy, not by anymeans as solidly built as the E10, but better in every other area, including the excellent nikon capture which allows time lapse photos when connected to the mac for taking pitcures of wildlife etc.

quote:

Originally posted by arf005:
I slept on it last night, and am now thinking Nikon D50 vs D70s...??
The physical size, shutter speed, and sensor pixels seem to be the biggest difference between these two....

Ali

Further to your last post, methinks you will find that just about any DSLR has a better interface and degree of control than your average digicam. In that respect you can't really go wrong. Between the Canon's and Nikon's though, you will generally find that Nikon gets more favourable comments re: ergonomics.

Re: D50 vs D70. Given the ridiculous price the D50 is going for at Warehouseexpress I'd say it's worth a punt if you feel you want to stick with Nikon. It may help that you already have a couple of Nikon lenses though you would need to check compatibility.

For your budget of around 1k, if wide(!) landscapes are your thing, £350 on the D50 would leave you with plenty to spend on a few other bits...

May I suggest (for serious panoramas):

BH40
http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/ballheads/index.html

PCL-1
http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/pano/index.html

MPR CLII Nodal Slide
http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/pano/index.html

With what's left, get a tripod and matching camera plate for the quick release. This will get you a stable platform and ability to pan around the nodal point of your selected lens which will enable you to get panoramics (up to 360) with virtually no parallax distortion.

All you need then is a cheap, well corrected lens that has minimal distortion such as a 50mm f1.8

quote:

Originally posted by garyi:
The stock lens is capable for sure, I like the range it comes quite wide angle at its shortest which is good for in room shots etc, something my E10 suffered at.[QUOTE]

Depends what you're used to I suppose. Before I went digital I was using a 19-35mm zoom for wide angle stuff and I find the wide end of the kit lenses far from wide enough. That's not itself a critiscm of the kit lenses though as they cover about 28-80 which is similar to a kit lens in a 35mm system. What I do dislike abou the kit lenses is their lack of corner sharpness. I like to shoot wide angles with some foreground interest and the lack of sharpness of the kit lenses is noticeable there.

[QUOTE]I cannoit for the life of me get a decent macro shot off it though. I have been having excellent fun on ebay though purcasing old nikon mount lenses, for 20 quid here and there having to do ones own metering is actually quite good fun and the D50 does a preview within a second so you can see if you screwed up.

The Pentax system has the advantage of still metering with the old lenses, in fact they'll even meter with old M42 screw mount ones. I'd been playing around with extension tubes and an old manual focus 50mm F1.7 and was getting some good results using TTL flash off-camera:



Recently though I picked up an old Vivitar 55mm F2.8 macro lens in Pentax-K fitting (from back in the days when Vivitar still made good kit) which does 1:1 macro. This is an example using that, also using TTL flash:



The kit lenses aren't great for macro stuff as they seem to perform worst at short focus distances, plus they don't focus all that close anyway. With extension tubes they're so dark due to the small apertures that focusing is more gueswork than anything else.

quote:

Originally posted by David Legge:
OLYMPUS...

If you are not sitting on a case load of Nikon lenses, you could certainly do worse than consider an Olympus DSLR..................
/david

David, didn't mean to ignore you in my last reply, sorry. I am aware of Olympus and their self cleaning sensor, but with the Nikkor lenses I already have it looks as though I'm leaning that way, even over the Canon's.....


Thanks again guys for your comments, it's interesting to get your views!

When the time comes to actually purchase, whenever that will be, I'd planned on buying the body only and (depending on the cost of the model I go for) one or two lenses, thus hopefully leaving some cash for an extra battery and some decent memory. And, if I do go for Nikon then I'd hopefully have the use of my existing lenses as a bonus.

From what I've found so far, here are my pros/cons regarding the Nikon D50 vs D70s....
-They're both ISO 200-1600 but the sensitivity of the D70s is in 1/3EV steps, as opposed to the D50's 1EV steps. But, would this make a noticeable difference...?
-The exposure metering system on the D70s has a 1,005 pixel sensor, as opposed to the D50's 420 pixels. So quite an improvement there I'd guess....
-The shutter speed of the D70 is faster at 30-1/1800 sec compared to the D50's 30-1/4000. Really only necessary for shooting fast moving objects I know but this is something I would like to try my hand at with a greater resolve...
Apart from that, and the slight physical size difference between the two, specs are almost matched.........

Steve, lovely pictures!!

Cheers,
Ali

quote:

Originally posted by arf005:
-They're both ISO 200-1600 but the sensitivity of the D70s is in 1/3EV steps, as opposed to the D50's 1EV steps. But, would this make a noticeable difference...?

Generally no IMHO. I find I do 99% of my stuff using the lowest available ISO. If you're using slow lenses then boosting the ISO is useful but being able to do it 1/3EV steps isn't all that relevant for most people.

quote:

-The exposure metering system on the D70s has a 1,005 pixel sensor, as opposed to the D50's 420 pixels. So quite an improvement there I'd guess....

quote:

In practice I'd be surprised if it makes all that much difference.

[QUOTE]
-The shutter speed of the D70 is faster at 30-1/1800 sec compared to the D50's 30-1/4000.

Even with very fast lenses I doubt I've used 1/8000 more than a handful of times over the years I've owned SLR cameras.

quote:

Apart from that, and the slight physical size difference between the two, specs are almost matched.........

If you're fine with the handling of both then for me the cheaper body and better lenses would be the best choice. In a few years time you'll be replacing the body anyway but the lenses you might have for decades.

Thanks for that Steve, nice to get your feedback!

Although, I'm not too sure my gorgeous other half would be too keen on you suggesting I'd be replacing the body in a few years time......after all, when I happened to mention I was thinking about taking my photography a bit more seriously, and was considering spending about a grand on a DSLR, her reply was........thought you were wanting to spend about * grand on a stereo first....??

But you are quite right about the lenses......

* = a figure I dare not repeat too often, but CDX2/202/200/B&W805S's/Q4 rack and power supplies about covers it

Ali,
Not a problem, and obviously, if you have legacy lenses then sticking with that make should make sense financially. What I was only trying to do was to widen the field from just Nikon and Canon.

Given the rate of turnover of new models, there are bargins to be had, but the state of the art moves forward. However, at the end of the day it is the photographer that must compose and take the shot. The camera is simply a tool.

The advantages of a DSLR over a point and shoot in my experience include:
- Ability to change lenses (ie access to more exotic wide and telephoto lenses)
- Potentially better lenses (at a cost, many - P&S cameras have quite good lenses)
- WYSIWYG viewfinder
- Generally faster response (AF, write times etc.)

For me, it was the first two that made me move from a P&S to a DSLR. Although I still use my P&S a lot for candids and when I don't want the hassle of lugging a big camera around.

Consider what photographs you like taking, what lenses are best for this (Not only focal length but also aperture and closest focus if you are into portrait or macro photography), and what 'features' you would apprectiate that would make life easier (Fast AF, focus tracking, large image buffer, etc.)

There is no subsitute for hands-on experience of a particular body, if possible ouside the confines of a photo-shoppe.

Good luck.

/dl

I got a stock battery on ebay for the D50 for a tenner, same for the remote control.

Thought I'd resurrect this thread seeing as we're now closer to making a decision!

Nikon D50 it is, but there's still plenty of options to choose from before we part with our cash....

I'm sorted for (in no particular order) rucksack, tripod, filter, lenses (from my old Pronea S), a good dod of will and patience.....
What I'll need for sure is - memory card/s, and the camera body itself....
I'd like to buy a new lens to go with the new camera though, and that's the main reason for bringing this thread back to life.....

Kit lens or other...???

Most on this thread so far have suggested staying away from the kit lenses, but are they not so for a reason ie. they're a heck of a lot cheaper when bought with the camera, or is it a case of these ARE the cheap lenses that's why we sell them with the camera (just to get rid of them)....???
I think I'll be buying on the high street, possibly Black & Lizars in Aberdeen, am I likely to get a good deal or would you recommend the likes of Jessops....??

Pretty dumb questions.....but your opinions would be appreciated.....

Cheers,
Ali

Ps. Garyi - what remote are you using for your D50, if you don't mind me asking..??
I'm not sure if it takes a cable, or only a remote one - which would be on the shopping list too!

Cheers,
Ali

Steve,

quote:

The 18-70 Nikon is supposed to be a bit better than the 18-55 but so far all of these type of lenses designed for smaller CCD DSLR's that I've seen haven't been up to much.

The 18-70mm Nikkor is a very good zoom and exceptional value. It's much better than what you'd expect for the money. The 18-55mm Nikkor, on the other hand, is exactly what you'd expect for the money -- its build quality and optics are OK, but nothing more.

If someone wants a Nikon D-SLR and can stretch the budget a bit, I'd recommend the D50 with a 18-70. If you're more keen, then there are lots of fancier and more expensive glass (and cameras) to consider.

Joe

P.S. It's bad enough that new Nikkors don't have aperture rings, but the 18-55 takes shite ergonomics one step further -- no distance markings.