20d vs. 1dmkIIN

[dave carriger]

I am sure there are some people out there who own both of these bodies and i have a question about image quality between the 2.

I know that the 2n has 100% viewfinder coverage better af, pro build quality, etc. It also has a different sensor than the 20d/30d even though they all have 8.2 mp rating. For those who have used both, are there any noticeable differences in image quality of photos printed up to about 16"x20"? (color rendition, noise performance for given iso, sharpness, etc.) I recently acquired a 70-200 L is, and in the next several months will either upgrade to a 2n or if it is not worth doing, then maybe spend that cash on a 300 2.8L instead. Any input would be appreciated.

I shoot mostly nature/landscape/wildlife, and a 5d might be a better alternative. However, since I don't print very large, 8.2 mp seems enough for smaller prints. Also I like the idea of 1.3 vs. ff because of light falloff / vignette issues on ff bodies.

[SeanH]

For what you shoot I would get the 5D. As far as the 2 camera's go, Yes I have both and personally I like the images from the N better. I used a 20D for quite a while before I got my Mk2n, and have some great shots from it, but for some reason the N has a different "look" to them.......hard to explain. Also I find it hard to go back to the viewfinder on the 20D after using the Mk2. However the reason I did buy another 20D is because of the weight of the Mk2. I use the 20D for the regular shots....family, party's, Disneyland.....stuff like that. I found the mk2 was just to heavy, not to mention expensive to drag around for that stuff. Sorry that's probably not much help, but for what you said I would really look at the 5D......remember the pixels are the same on the 5D as the mk2n. So you could crop and still have the same IQ.

[MJP]

I used 20D berfore i sold it to buy the N...(kicking myself why i sold my 20d)..anyway i agree with SeanH... IMHO i think N has a better picture output...

[René Damkot]

The most important difference I noticed when going from 10D to 1DMk2 was the difference in DoF... I'ld suspect that to be the major difference between 20D and 1D2n as well

[tommykjensen]

The most important difference I noticed when going from 10D to 1DMk2 was the difference in DoF... I'ld suspect that to be the major difference between 20D and 1D2n as well

Different in which way?

[René Damkot]

Because the crop factor on a 20D is 1.6 instead of 1.3 you use a shorter focal length to take a picture, assuming all else is the same. So you get more DoF.
Here's the difference between 1.5 crop and FF (http://www.outbackphoto.com/workshop/phototechnique/essay07/essay.html)

[dave carriger]

Because the crop factor on a 20D is 1.6 instead of 1.3 you use a shorter focal length to take a picture, assuming all else is the same. So you get more DoF.
Here's the difference between 1.5 crop and FF (http://www.outbackphoto.com/workshop/phototechnique/essay07/essay.html)

That is the reason why I think I would like the MarkIIN is the 1.3x sensor.You still use more of the "sweet" spot of your lenses and are much less prone to light falloff/ vignette issues, vs. FF, but you also gain more wide angle DOF vs. the 1.6x. Add to that weather sealing, 8.5 fps,100% fov BRIGHT viewfinder, 200k shutter rating, and the best AF available, it looks like a SWEET rig! That is the GOOD. The BAD is, I may never need 8.5 fps, any 1D is very heavy, and for the price paid you can get a LOT of nice glass. These forums sure get you Lusting for better equipment!!! This will be a tough decision, IIN or new gLass for the 20d.:D

[grego]

^^But aside from 8.5 fps, it does have a sweet buffer.

[tommykjensen]

How about the dual memory card feature? Does anybody use that for backup or raw on one card and jpeg on the other?

[SeanH]

How about the dual memory card feature? Does anybody use that for backup or raw on one card and jpeg on the other?

Sure do, but have not shot anything but hobby stuff since I started using that feature. I just D/L the JPG's of the SD and then just select and save the raw from the CF for the keepers and dump the rest.

[Woolburr]

I think you will see a difference in image quality between the two cameras. Just playing around shooting large fine JPEGs with the same lens on each body...the same settings as far as ISO, Av and Tv....the very first thing you notice is a difference in image file size. The JPEG's coming from the 20D are running around 2.8mb each....the shots from the 1DmkIIn are around 6.1mb. That in itself has got to make a difference in the final image. Go to RAW and I suspect that you will see a similar difference.

[rrpruett]

I shoot both for sports and find that the 20d sometimes has a better output then the MkIIn. In some cases the 20D puts out a better picture. My son and I just shot a baseball tournament with both cameras and the 20D did a great job. On some pictures where the subject was backlit, the 20D did a better job. Both cameras were set up for AV. I do not want to get into all the details of each lens, set up etc just suffice to say that the 20D is a great camera for many things. That being said I would not trade my MKIIn for anything. I also notice that the MKIIn needs about +1/3 to +1/2 on the exposure setting. I have talked to may MKII owners and they do the same.

[Transonic]

I really wish I could give a answer but I barely got my 1dm2n about a week ago. I've only took 300-400 pics, mostly test shots. I'm still getting the feel of it but I do notice that I get more keepers. It's just a dream of a camera. Not to knock the 20D because I still love it to death but the n's just that much better. The AF, the spot metering, the speed... I have no idea as far as large prints go, I never plan on going bigger than 8x10. I'd probably look into the 5D though, save some cash.How about the dual memory card feature? Does anybody use that for backup or raw on one card and jpeg on the other?According to fedex I'm getting my 2Gb SD card on Tuesday. Can't wait. :D

[René Damkot]

The JPEG's coming from the 20D are running around 2.8mb each....the shots from the 1DmkIIn are around 6.1mb.

Well, the jpgs from my 1D2 are around 2 to 7 Mb, depending on ISO and image and parameters among others...
A comparison like that is only reasonable if all settings (including parameters and jpg quality settings) are the same (ie. resulting in the same image, which may not neccesarily correspond with the same 'value' for, say, saturation or sharpness)

[Woolburr]

Well, the jpgs from my 1D2 are around 2 to 7 Mb, depending on ISO and image and parameters among others...
A comparison like that is only reasonable if all settings (including parameters and jpg quality settings) are the same (ie. resulting in the same image, which may not neccesarily correspond with the same 'value' for, say, saturation or sharpness)

All values were exactly the same with the exception of the bodies.

[René Damkot]

Well, my guess would be that you have the jpg quality on the 1D2 at maximum. No way a jpg would be around 6Mb otherwise. At 'medium' ISO they tend to be around 2,8Mb according to the manual. I am mostly at ISO 1600, but even then, a Large, Fine, Quaity 8 jpg is only around 3,5Mb...
I can't imagine the 1DMk2 and the 1DMk2n to be thàt different....

[Mark_Cohran]

I've been using both the 1DIIN and the 20D for about 7 months now (got my 1DIIN in November). I do think the output of the 1D is better, but for printing up to 8x12, I doubt you'll see much difference in the final output. I haven't printed any 16x20 prints, but it's possible you might be able to see a difference there, but I'm just speculating.

Mark

[CyberDyneSystems]

I don't find the differnece stagering.. but I defnitely prefer the 1D images to those I get from the 20D. Hard to quantify what it is exactly though.

[dave carriger]

Thanks for all the reply's. I will be making a decision on glass or 1DmarkIIn in the following month. That nice pro body sure is tempting!

[doughboy]

I have both camera bodies. Picture quality coming out of both are very similar when the 20D is able to lock on target. If you shoot in RAW and are expecting a (huge) difference in picture quality b/t the two, you will be disappointed to find that the ~$4k 1D2N performs similar to the sub-$1000 20D.

Focusing, however, is a whole new ball game. My keeper ratio is higher on the 1D2N just because the AF system is head and shoulder above the 20D's.

For nature photography, it's a toss up. The 1.6x crop factor on the 20D is nice on the 70-200L IS. On the 1D2N, it seems a lot shorter. If you can swing it, keep both. I was intent on selling my 20D after teh acquisition of the 1D2N, but after having both and comparing the two, I've come to realize the gem that the 20D is...cheap, light, and effective. :)

[meeksdigital]

I got my MkIIN in february, sold my 20Dot buy it. Best decision I ever made, except for not having a second body... I think I will either get another IIN or a 1DsMkII/III (when released)

There are definite differences between the IIN and the 20D. As doughboy mentioned, the AF system on the 1D IIN is leaps and bounds above the 20D's, and the larger sensor and sensor "pixels" definitely provides a higher quality image.

The speed of the IIN is incredible, 8.5fps... I hardly ever use it. I keep my camera on Low burst mode, 3fps, and its really a nice speed when I need it.

The durability, for me at least, is definitely worth the extra $$$ alone. All of the Eos 1D series cameras are VERY robust, and the weather sealing is an added plus. I have shot in pouring rain (L lens required, of course!) and I have 100% faith that my equipment is well protected from the elements. And besides, how awesome is it to see your camera just DRENCHED in water and not have to worry about it?

All that aside, the 1D IIN is just a completely different animal. Making the move from a prosumer to pro body will definitely not disappoint you.