So Why Keep the Mark II?

[Mike H]

Ok, this is one of those "What should I do?" posts that sounds like only the person that posted should know the answer. But here goes anyway ...

I upgraded from the 10D to the Mark II because I wanted E-TTL2, lower noise at higher ISOs, and better auto focus in low light. I also wanted better focus tracking, but that wasn't critical.

No sooner has the bank account recovered from the Mark II than they come out with the 20D, with E-TTL2, possibly even lower high-ISO noise than the Mark II, and its center AF point focuses in lower light than the Mark II. And it supposedly can give the M2 a run for its money in focus tracking. (All of this info comes from the review on RobGalbraith.com) And then there are cool new lenses that will fit the 20D but not the M2.

Given this and my dislike for heavy equipment, is dumping the Mark II a no-brainer? Is there something that I'm missing here? The only thing that I can see is slightly better control of depth of field because of the larger sensor in the M2.

Keep in mind that I shoot 5,000 frames or less annually and get a new camera every year (D30/D60/10D/M2), so the 200,000 cycle shutter means nothing to me.

Thanks for reading all of that! Opinions will be greatly appreciated.

Mike H

[Cadenza]

You are so totally right! I'll buy a 20D and trade you for even.

[unners]

i reckon the 6 shot raw buffer is the biggest downside. if u can live with that then the 20d would seem better suited to u. i would wait til everyone gets some hands on experience though, before u sell the markII.
to me it seems similar to when the 1d and the 10d were the two current cameras. for action the 1 series is a no brainer, but for everything else the 10d did just as well, or better.
(crop factor not withstanding!)

[RichardtheSane]

Ok, this is one of those "What should I do?" posts that sounds like only the person that posted should know the answer. But here goes anyway ...

I upgraded from the 10D to the Mark II because I wanted E-TTL2, lower noise at higher ISOs, and better auto focus in low light. I also wanted better focus tracking, but that wasn't critical.

No sooner has the bank account recovered from the Mark II than they come out with the 20D, with E-TTL2, possibly even lower high-ISO noise than the Mark II, and its center AF point focuses in lower light than the Mark II. And it supposedly can give the M2 a run for its money in focus tracking. (All of this info comes from the review on RobGalbraith.com) And then there are cool new lenses that will fit the 20D but not the M2.

Given this and my dislike for heavy equipment, is dumping the Mark II a no-brainer? Is there something that I'm missing here? The only thing that I can see is slightly better control of depth of field because of the larger sensor in the M2.

Keep in mind that I shoot 5,000 frames or less annually and get a new camera every year (D30/D60/10D/M2), so the 200,000 cycle shutter means nothing to me.

Thanks for reading all of that! Opinions will be greatly appreciated.

Mike H

OK, you have a MkII

Do you think you can give it up now ;)

(let me know if you do :) )

[Mike H]

OK, you have a MkII

Do you think you can give it up now ;)

(let me know if you do :) )


I'm thinking that I will ... after I get a D20, of course.

The one thing I might miss is the 45 point AF system. I'm surprised at how much I like it for non-sports types of shots, such as portraits. Now I can always find an AF point right over the subject's eye. Hence, I don't have to stress over the problems that occur when using the "focus and recompose" method in taking shallow depth-of-field shots. That's nice.

Mike H

[evilenglishman]

This is a joke right? There is no way you should even consider dumping a 1Dmk2 for a D20 :shock:

[Mike H]

This is a joke right? There is no way you should even consider dumping a 1Dmk2 for a D20 :shock:

No, it's not a joke. What's your rationale for saying I shouldn't consider it? I've stated mine already. And just to add to what I've said, if I can sell the M2 and buy the 20D and net a couple of thousand dollars in the process, that's a lot that could be used to get more lenses.

Mike H

[Pekka]

When you buy a camera which is going to be your tool, you do not look for saving $3000, you look for a device which caters for all your needs. And if this is the only tool available which caters for your requirements you obviously have no other choice than to afford it.

Would a janitor wait for 6 months for a new cheaper set of keys which would let him in the building, to certain rooms only? :)
And before you ask, "features that matter" to me in Mark II are

- weather sealing (essential)
- personal functions, more custom functions
- speed and noninterrupted usage (fps, large buffer)
- responsiveness (shutter, CPU speed)
- AF (45 points, tracking, speed, 1/Dof accuracy)
- dual card slots, slot door security (reliability when you MUST deliver photos)
- better dynamic range (larger pixels in CMOS)
- 1.3X (in my opinion makes all lenses more useful)
- low noise
- etc.

20D would make a great backup camera for Mark II (I have now 10D as backup) but in no way 20D should be considered a replacement for Mark II. If it is for some, then they may have bought Mark II for wrong reasons.

And no, 20D AF is NOT better tracker than Mark II - Canon speaks relative to 10D, please don't forget that.

Also, those new lenses were not on my list even if they were EF. Why? Speed and quality.

[evilenglishman]

When you buy a camera which is going to be your tool, you do not look for saving $3000, you look for a device which caters for all your needs. And if this is the only tool available which caters for your requirements you obviously have no other choice than to afford it.

my thoughts too.
You currently own the best, why sell that for a camera that is not better, just to get some lenses?
Keep the camera and save for lenses you want.

[evilenglishman]

sorry about the double post - connection problems

[CyberDyneSystems]

Mike,

I would let my MkII go when the pry it from my cold dead hands!


That said.. if the 20D had come out BEFORE the MkII was released.. there is a good chance I would own a 20D and would not have considered the MkII....

I wanted a "1" for the focus tracking etc...

I am not at all sure yet how the 20D will measure up to the 1 series.. but it certainly makes the decision a lot more difficult as the line between the 20D and MkII is far less significant thean the line between the 10D and the MkII is.

Anyway.. as I say,. I can't imagine trading.. but it will certianly make the 20D a much more appealing alternative to the MkII than the 10D currently is.

I suspect that this dilemna will be popping up quite a bit in the months to come.

[Mike H]

When you buy a camera which is going to be your tool, you do not look for saving $3000, you look for a device which caters for all your needs. And if this is the only tool available which caters for your requirements you obviously have no other choice than to afford it ...

- weather sealing (essential)
- personal functions, more custom functions
- speed and noninterrupted usage (fps, large buffer)
- responsiveness (shutter, CPU speed)
- AF (45 points, tracking, speed, 1/Dof accuracy)
- dual card slots, slot door security (reliability when you MUST deliver photos)
- better dynamic range (larger pixels in CMOS)
- 1.3X (in my opinion makes all lenses more useful)
- low noise
- etc.



Thanks, everyone, for the responses.

If you look at the things you've listed, Pekka, most of them don't matter to me very much. As I said in my original post, I wanted E-TTL2, less noise at high ISOs, better AF in low light, and improved AF tracking (though not necessarily to the Mark II standard). At the time, the Mark II was the only camera that could give me all of that, so I bought it. Now the D20 can give me that for less money.


And no, 20D AF is NOT better tracker than Mark II - Canon speaks relative to 10D, please don't forget that.


Regarding the AF tracking, I didn't say the 20D was better. What I said was that it supposedly (according to RobGalbraith's initial testing) can give the Mark II a run for its money. (The expression "run for its money" is an American idiom meaning "it's almost as good." I'm sorry if the vernacular caused confusion.)

Here is a clipping from Rob Galbraith's review:

the speed with which the 20D acquires focus using the centre AF sensor, even in dim light, is considerably quicker than the 10D (and gives the EOS-1D Mark II a run for its money also).

He went on to say:

The 20D looks like it will offer better overall autofocus functionality than the 10D, but maximum AF flexibility in the Canon system still means stepping up to a camera like the EOS-1D Mark II.

So for tracking, the Mark II is still king.

The full review is at ...

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6458-7153

Thanks again for the responses.

Mike H

[JX]

I read the reviews also. The 20D is nothing more than a scaled down version of the Mark II. The 20D might make a good backup camera.

So far nothing mention in the reviews would prompt me from purchasing a 20D over a Mark II.

[blinking8s]

personally, i wouldnt ever spend the money on a MkII

[Cadwell]

Opinions will be greatly appreciated.

Mike H

Mike, if the 20D does what you need from a camera and you can sell the MarkII to get it plus the odd thousand dollars or so, then that sounds like a sensible approach to me. I would advise caution though. Wait a couple of months until there are some real world examples of the 20D kicking round and get some feedback from their users before you jump.

[Alexandre Gabriel]

Mike, if the 20D does what you need from a camera and you can sell the MarkII to get it plus the odd thousand dollars or so, then that sounds like a sensible approach to me. I would advise caution though. Wait a couple of months until there are some real world examples of the 20D kicking round and get some feedback from their users before you jump.

Ditto.

I think the 20D will deliver noisier images compared to 10D's. I don't know how Canon can avoid this putting more pixels in the same area.

[Belmondo]

personally, i wouldnt ever spend the money on a MkII

Me neither!

Oops. Too late. :oops: :lol:

[ron chappel]

I think the 20D will deliver noisier images compared to 10D's. I don't know how Canon can avoid this putting more pixels in the same area.

Easy when you know how :D
On one hand they put some noise reduction right on the chip where it would work better and also they now use better microlenses over the sensor sites.
Each sensor sight doesn't collect light over it's whole area-just the central pixel.So what they do is put a grid of microscopic lenses over the sensor so that much more of the light hitting the sensor site is focused right into the pixel

[ron chappel]

forgot to mention-
Luminouse landscape has a signal to noise graph comparing the 10D and 20D in their test.The figues were near identical
Canon are actually claiming the noise performance of the 20D is noticably better at high ISO's.Maybe it's something that doesn't show in the figures.In any case it all looks very promising.

My worry is that the 20D may not have the georgeous natural looking images that the 10D gives-in spite of the similar figures

[Tom W]

I can only encourage you to either keep the 1D Mk II or sell it to me at a good (I'll define good) price. :)

[Mike H]

I can only encourage you to either keep the 1D Mk II or sell it to me at a good (I'll define good) price. :)

Tom, you'll be the first guy I check with for a good price. :D

Mike H

[Belmondo]

Tom, you'll be the first guy I check with for a good price. :D

Mike H

Mike:

Pay no attention to him. He's going to lowball that camera; he'll probably offer you pennies on the dollar.

I, on the other hand, am prepared to give you an even trade. We needn't upset ourselves with the distasteful businees of negotiating money. I will swap you even up for my 1D. This is a near-new copy and is not burdened by all the new features of the Mk II. It will probably be better suited for your purposes. I'll even throw in an extra battery.

[rodbunn]

I think Canon thought the MKII was going to apeal to Wedding
Photographers more than it did. I see the 20D as their answer
to a "Wedding Photographers" upgrade from the 10D.

JUST MY OPINION !

Take care all,

Rod . . . A wedding photographer, waiting for the 20D !

[Belmondo]

I think Canon thought the MKII was going to apeal to Wedding
Photographers more than it did. I see the 20D as their answer
to a "Wedding Photographers" upgrade from the 10D.

JUST MY OPINION !

Take care all,

Rod . . . A wedding photographer, waiting for the 20D !

Unless the bride gets in a fistfight with the grooms old girlfriend, there's little reason to believe a wedding photog would need 8 1/2 frames per second.

On the other hand, if that ever did happen, it would be invaluable. Maybe you're right.

[Mike H]

I think Canon thought the MKII was going to apeal to Wedding
Photographers more than it did. I see the 20D as their answer
to a "Wedding Photographers" upgrade from the 10D.

JUST MY OPINION !

Take care all,

Rod . . . A wedding photographer, waiting for the 20D !

Unless the bride gets in a fistfight with the grooms old girlfriend, there's little reason to believe a wedding photog would need 8 1/2 frames per second.

On the other hand, if that ever did happen, it would be invaluable. Maybe you're right.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

But could the flash keep up? Well, there's all the rationale I need to upgrade to the 580EX. Thanks, Tom.

Mike H

[Cordell]

Mike, if the 20D does what you need from a camera and you can sell the MarkII to get it plus the odd thousand dollars or so, then that sounds like a sensible approach to me. I would advise caution though. Wait a couple of months until there are some real world examples of the 20D kicking round and get some feedback from their users before you jump.

Ditto.

I think the 20D will deliver noisier images compared to 10D's. I don't know how Canon can avoid this putting more pixels in the same area.

Technology my friend. Technology does not stand still. Just because it was possible yesterday does not mean it isn't today. :lol:

[Persian-Rice]

If you are uncomfortable with the MKII then sell it.

There is no doubt in hell that not only can the 20D not compete with a MKII but its not even the same class of camera.....
If you have no aspirations of going pro or even care for the features of the MKII provides then I think the 1D is far beyond what you need and you probably just got something you did not need in the first place...............

At the end of the day the MKII is a professional Camera and the reality is that the 10D/20D are not even close. That being said, the MKII is not suited for everybody............

Get one thing straight here, the 1D's are the best cameras of all Canon camera's. Going to a 20D is just one huge step backward.

Cheers, good luck with whatever you decide to do.

[rodbunn]

I was waiting in the church for the bride to make her
entrance and the priest kept announcing "there will be
a 5 minute delay"... I didn't know it but the bride and
the TWO maid-of-honor's were punching it out in front
of the church. Aparently, the "first" maid of honor was
replaced with the "second" MOH and the first wasn't wanted
around by the bride.....

I WISH I had known, so I could have taken some GREAT shots.

Oh, well.

Later, Rod

[Belmondo]

I WISH I had known, so I could have taken some GREAT shots.

Oh, well.

Later, Rod

I guess my premise isn't so ridiculous after all. Wish I'd been there :lol:

(Sounds like a Jerry Springer on-air wedding.)

[Persian-Rice]

I was waiting in the church for the bride to make her
entrance and the priest kept announcing "there will be
a 5 minute delay"... I didn't know it but the bride and
the TWO maid-of-honor's were punching it out in front
of the church. Aparently, the "first" maid of honor was
replaced with the "second" MOH and the first wasn't wanted
around by the bride.....

I WISH I had known, so I could have taken some GREAT shots.

Oh, well.

Later, Rod

HAHAHAHA, that defines the "Kodak Moment" slogan.

[Tom W]

I think Canon thought the MKII was going to apeal to Wedding
Photographers more than it did. I see the 20D as their answer
to a "Wedding Photographers" upgrade from the 10D.

JUST MY OPINION !

Take care all,

Rod . . . A wedding photographer, waiting for the 20D !

Unless the bride gets in a fistfight with the grooms old girlfriend, there's little reason to believe a wedding photog would need 8 1/2 frames per second.

On the other hand, if that ever did happen, it would be invaluable. Maybe you're right.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

But could the flash keep up? Well, there's all the rationale I need to upgrade to the 580EX. Thanks, Tom.

Mike H

Flash? You need a 135mm f/2 and ISO 1600!

[Tom W]

I was waiting in the church for the bride to make her
entrance and the priest kept announcing "there will be
a 5 minute delay"... I didn't know it but the bride and
the TWO maid-of-honor's were punching it out in front
of the church. Aparently, the "first" maid of honor was
replaced with the "second" MOH and the first wasn't wanted
around by the bride.....

I WISH I had known, so I could have taken some GREAT shots.

Oh, well.

Later, Rod

You aren't in northern Ohio, are you? Because that sounds suspiciously like a girl I dated a few years back. And I have the scars to prove it! :)

[rodbunn]

I never said I hadn't dated girls like that, I just wouldn't
have complained ;-)

This was in beautiful downtown Los Angeles ( City of Angels? Ha! )

LATER!!!

[Pekka]

If you look at the things you've listed, Pekka, most of them don't matter to me very much. As I said in my original post, I wanted E-TTL2, less noise at high ISOs, better AF in low light, and improved AF tracking (though not necessarily to the Mark II standard). At the time, the Mark II was the only camera that could give me all of that, so I bought it. Now the D20 can give me that for less money.

I respect that totally and do not want to put down 20D in any way. I'm glad Canon has addressed most areas needing improvement in 10D and given a good quality product for fair price.

[Pekka]

forgot to mention-
Luminouse landscape has a signal to noise graph comparing the 10D and 20D in their test.The figues were near identical
Canon are actually claiming the noise performance of the 20D is noticably better at high ISO's.Maybe it's something that doesn't show in the figures.In any case it all looks very promising.

My worry is that the 20D may not have the georgeous natural looking images that the 10D gives-in spite of the similar figures

If Canon says something like "20D ISO 400 resembles ISO 1600 on 10D" and LL site says noise leves are equal is may weel be that their measurement system is measuring different way Canon is and also that the truth may lay in somewhere in the middle which is a good thing indeed.

[Tom W]

I never said I hadn't dated girls like that, I just wouldn't
have complained ;-)

This was in beautiful downtown Los Angeles ( City of Angels? Ha! )

LATER!!!

Who's complaining? ;)

[rodbunn]

Didn't come out right . . . .

Take care.....

[Persian-Rice]

I knew I didn't word that right, I was trying
to imply that I like to be roughed up by women ;-)

Didn't come out right (but I digress) . . . .

Take care.....

I guess you like wearing the shiny leather pants with spikes? hahaha jokes jokes.

[timmyquest]

If i were you, i'd keep the MKII, for sure...without a doubt.

But thats just me

[ssim]

I've only had my MKII for about a month. I've read the stats on the 20D and it still is not the camera that the MKII is. If is meets your minimum standards then go for it. For me, I have no plans of giving up my MKII.

[drisley]

Most previews currently show that the 20D has lower noise, and a much tighter noise pattern, than the 10D.
One very thorough test I saw shows noise at ISO1600 on the 20D to be about the same as ISO800 on the 10D.
However, noise on Canon's DSLR's is alreadySO low, that shouldn't be a biggie. We are already spoiled by such low noise compared to film cameras. The difference is that we get to see the full size image before print with digital. At normal, even large prints, the noise even at ISO1600 isn't visible.
As far as dynamic range is concerned, the 20D's dynamic range is probably VERY close to the MKii.
The 20D is said to have an improved dynamic range over the 10D, and the Mkii only had a slight improvement of dynamic range over the 10D (9 stops vs 8.5).

If I could afford the Mkii, I would definately buy it, but the 20D is VERY nice for my price range.

[T a z]

Mike:

If it’s any consolation, I’m pretty much in your shoes. Your list of reasons of why you bought the MkII mirrors mine almost exactly. The only difference is, I haven’t as yet even opened my MkII. The place I purchased it from will give me a full refund if I return it unopened, and I’m having a devil of a time trying to decide which would be the best way to go. And to show you just what a sick puppy I am, I’ve already pre-ordered a 20D!

While a $3,000 difference is an awfully strong call toward the 20D for someone who doesn’t make a living with it, there are some other intangibles to consider before we answer that call. You and I made a decision to purchase the MkII for all the reasons you listed, but we also decided to buy it because we obviously felt our level of photographic skills and artistic vision had reached a point where such a tool was worth the price.

While the 20D may indeed allow us to get to the same end place, image wise, getting there may be just a bit more difficult. The difference between the viewfinders is, for me, one of the biggest obstacles to overcome. Granted, we could probably get the shot with either camera, but when this particular feature is better, that is just one less thing for us to deal with as we compose our shot. Getting our photographic vision out is difficult enough, but if we can remove as many obstacles in our way as possible, the process goes much smoother. The 1.3 vs. the 1.6 crop allows us a wider space over which to stretch that vision also.

Then too, there is that solid feel to the MkII that wouldn’t be there with the 20D. Granted, this may be merely a psychological difference, but such differences that play on the mind also play on the art that we’re trying to create. There would always be the feeling of using a journeyman’s tool vs. one that belongs to a master. Even if we are light-years away from achieving master status, the better tool allows us to more easily expand on our skills and perhaps better helps us to one day get there.

I realize all the considerations I’ve listed aren’t based in practicality. That is, I’ve not tried to do a spec by spec comparison in order to justify the difference in cost. I suppose you could say I’ve offered more of an artistic comparison rather than a pragmatic one.

Bottom line as to what we should do? I think you said it best in your opening remarks about how no one else can make that decision for us. It’s something we have to struggle with on our own. The only thing I’m trying to pass along is that after all the angles I’ve looked at it from…with the dollar perspective being chief among them…the approach I’ve layed out above seems to be the one that’s helping me most at the moment.

Best of luck to you,

-Taz

[Mike H]

Taz,

Thanks for the thought-filled response. I agree that in many ways the decision comes down to intangible things like the confidence you get from knowing that you have the "best" camera.

The funny thing for me is that I make a living doing benefit-cost analysis, something that is supposed to be unemotional and practical. And yet, I know that when it comes to consumer purchases we tend to do feature-by-feature comparisons, calculate cost differences with precision, poll experts for advice, and then do what our hearts wanted in the first place. The rationale for our decision is often conjured up after we've decided.

To some degree that might be how we should decide; it's the psychic benefit that is often the most important to us.

Post a message to let us all know what you decide to do. I'll post my decision, too, since it seems to have generated so much interest. Thanks again.

Mike H

[tommykjensen]

If I could afford the Mkii, I would definately buy it, but the 20D is VERY nice for my price range.

Same for me.

With the price I have seen so far in one of the more expensive shops in Denmark it will only be marginal more exepensive than what I paid for the 300D. I paid approx $1650 for 300D and the price for 20D seems to be around $2000 but since that is in one of the expensive shops I think I might be able to get the price down to $1850 - $1900 in my preferred shop.


ps. Camera gear is really expensive in Denmark!

[JABACo]

You are so totally right! I'll buy a 20D and trade you for even.

Mike,

I one up Cadenza with the same offer but you have to take my 16 year old son.

BA

[Mike H]

Since the original post generated so much interest I thought it might be good to let you all know what I finally decided.

After using the Mark II more I've become more comfortable with the weight and control layout, and have begun to really appreciate its focusing capability. Although you notice differences (compared to the 10D) the moment you pick up the camera, it takes even more time to appreciate what you can do with it.

Hence, I've decided to keep the Mark II. I may go ahead and get a 20D as a backup, though the Mark II is so tough that it might not be necessary. I'm an amateur, so I have no client responsibilities to compel me to have backups for everything. Thanks again to everyone for the thought filled responses.

Mike H

[jgbeam]

Although you notice differences (compared to the 10D) the moment you pick up the camera, it takes even more time to appreciate what you can do with it.

Mike H

Based on your one camera per year habit you won't know half of what it can do before its time for the new one. :lol: :lol:

I have barely scratched the surface of its capabilities - constantly wowed by each new feature I try.

We all knew you'd end up keping it. :wink:

Jim

[CyberDyneSystems]

I posted too early in this thread.. the full reality fo the 20D specs had not been digested.

No I would not have gone for the 20D as the burst limitations would have held me back... I wanted a 1D loong beofre the MkII was announced.

I love my MkII.

[cmM]

Unless the bride gets in a fistfight with the grooms old girlfriend, there's little reason to believe a wedding photog would need 8 1/2 frames per second.

On the other hand, if that ever did happen, it would be invaluable. Maybe you're right.

Tom, not any more. Lately, the wedding photographers approach weddings in a photojournalistsic/cadid fashion. They take about 10GB of photos in one wedding. I was told (by a wedding photographer) that whenever there's a chance a memorable moment might occur, a few seconds of continuous shooting is in order. They don't wanna miss the moment.
They like fast continuous shooting. But most of them are poor, so they can't afford it :P

[perfectpixel]

This is a joke right? There is no way you should even consider dumping a 1Dmk2 for a D20 :shock:

pleeeease don't talk anyone out of "dumping" their MkII. How else am I going to be able to afford one any time soon? :)

[Longwatcher]

Ignoring for the moment that I think the 1DmkII does not meet my needs, while the 20D w/10-22mm gets a lot closer....

There is only one camera I would trade one for one with and that is the 1Ds.
If I had a 1DmkII in my hands you would have a heck of time prying out of them after about 3 minutes (which is why I handed back to Belmondo so fast - there were witnessess 8) any longer and it would have been permantly attached.

seriously though, unless you desperately need the money, keep the 1DmkII and just be patient on the new lenses.

Just my opinion,

BTW I am willing to trade a 20D (if I got one) and my precious 100-400L IS lens for your 1DmkII. But forget even asking for my 70-200/2.8 IS. not happening.

[JABACo]

.
If I had a 1DmkII in my hands you would have a heck of time prying out of them after about 3 minutes (which is why I handed back to Belmondo so fast - there were witnessess 8) any longer and it would have been permantly attached.

Sort of like what John "The Duke" Wayne once said. "You can have my gun when you pry my cold dead fingers from it". May he rest in peace.

BA

[danphoto1]

i have to agree with Pekka and sya that I would trade even a 1D for a 20D.. there is no substitute fro a high perxision tool once you shoot with a 1 series nothing eles is as good. I can't imagine you biengsatisfied with a 20D over a MKII If you want the 20D that bad I give you a 10D and buy you a 20D as an even trade and throw in a battery grip grip for the 10 and a second battery. I can't see how you can be serious 8) 8) 8)

[danphoto1]

i have to agree with Pekka and sya that I would trade even a 1D for a 20D.. there is no substitute fro a high perxision tool once you shoot with a 1 series nothing eles is as good. I can't imagine you biengsatisfied with a 20D over a MKII If you want the 20D that bad I give you a 10D and buy you a 20D as an even trade and throw in a battery grip grip for the 10 and a second battery. I can't see how you can be serious 8) 8) 8)

[defordphoto]

If I get a 20D, adn I'd like to pick one up eventually, it's be to replace the 10D my wife uses. I would not use it (20D) and the 10D would then become our backup, catastrophic-failure camera.

I tried shooting the 10D the other day. First time since having the MKII. Wow...I was shocked. I can't go back. I'm hooked on 1-Series now.

However, the 20D will be much more robust than the 10D and probably not as much a culture shock as the 10D. We'll get one after the initial hoopla is over with. Probably next summer.

And this comes from someone who was in love with their 10D. It's still an awesome camera and we'll keep ours for many years to come. We have over 23K actuations on it now with more to come!