::Uprade ALL your lenses for $1,500.00::

[Sketcher]

Sorry for the YA20D post (Yet Another 20D).

Well, that's the price of a 20D. ISO 1600 and 3200 sample images are incredible. Suddenly the f/4.0L's become an even better buy because you really can bump up the ISO with great results. Of course, the great ISO performance helps with any lens; but it's really all about the "L"'s now isn't it?

By itself, the $1,500.00 price tag of the 20D is an isolated purchase decision. But considering the expanded shooting ability it does make ALL of your current lenses a little more useful now doesn't it? $1,500.00 to upgrade ALL my lenses doesn't seem quite so bad... ;)

(I'm clicking the "Submit" button on this post before I think about it further and realize the error of my ways).

[DocFrankenstein]

The excuses never stop to amaze me :? :shock:

[Belmondo]

It's a little late, but I really with I'd used your rationalization when I bought the Mk II.


Do you work in marketing?

[Cadenza]

I'd point out that pixel by pixel, 10D is a better
buy than 20D. At $1500, 20D's 8.2 megapixels
cost $1.83 for every 10000 pixels (an image crop
100x100); while at +/- $1000, the 10D's 6.2 million
pixels cost $1.62 per 10000 pixel lot.


Compare that to the 1DMkII's nearly $5.50 for
the same number of pixels, or the even the
D70, when you're considering the most pixels
for your money. :-)

[Sketcher]

It's a little late, but I really with I'd used your rationalization when I bought the Mk II.

Do you work in marketing?
If you consider convincing the wife being "marketing", then yes :). Otherwise, no Sir... but I did stay in a Holiday... n/m.
I'm a techie by trade, Systems Administrator by title.

The excuses never stop to amaze me :? :shock:
Come on now, it's early yet and I've just gotten started! Actually, I saved my pennies and the wife wanted her own DSLR. No real need for covert excuse opps on this particular mission. Planned on buying the 10D replacement. Just happened to be thinking about the benefits of good images at high ISO's thought that the 20D would allow me to get a little more versatility out of my lenses; saving me from buying some more f/2.8 zooms for a while.

I'd point out that pixel by pixel, 10D is a better buy than 20D. At $1500, 20D's 8.2 megapixels cost $1.83 for every 10000 pixels (an image crop 100x100); while at +/- $1000, the 10D's 6.2 million
pixels cost $1.62 per 10000 pixel lot.

Compare that to the 1DMkII's nearly $5.50 for the same number of pixels, or the even the D70, when you're considering the most pixels
for your money. :-)
Hmm, by that methodology I should get a Drebel and call it a day! It's the Hard Drive cost per MB ratio all over again. It's all relative until you add in USB Drives, CF cards and Microdrives :)

[CyberDyneSystems]

I'd point out that pixel by pixel, 10D is a better
buy than 20D. At $1500, 20D's 8.2 megapixels
cost $1.83 for every 10000 pixels (an image crop
100x100); while at +/- $1000, the 10D's 6.2 million
pixels cost $1.62 per 10000 pixel lot.


Compare that to the 1DMkII's nearly $5.50 for
the same number of pixels, or the even the
D70, when you're considering the most pixels
for your money. :-)

I think you need to check your math RE: 10D Vs. 20D cost per pixel :) :roll:

But it is another way to look at it :wink:

[CyberDyneSystems]

Sorry for the YA20D post (Yet Another 20D).

Well, that's the price of a 20D. ISO 1600 and 3200 sample images are incredible. Suddenly the f/4.0L's become an even better buy because you really can bump up the ISO with great results. Of course, the great ISO performance helps with any lens; but it's really all about the "L"'s now isn't it?

By itself, the $1,500.00 price tag of the 20D is an isolated purchase decision. But considering the expanded shooting ability it does make ALL of your current lenses a little more useful now doesn't it? $1,500.00 to upgrade ALL my lenses doesn't seem quite so bad... ;)

(I'm clicking the "Submit" button on this post before I think about it further and realize the error of my ways).

I have to say.. this is in fact rather close to one of the thoughts that went through my head when considering the MkII

Having made the investment 1st into a 10D (or any body) then growing that investment (considerably) into a lens collection... every body we purchase is about maximizing the investment into the lenses! No?

Whith the MkII it was better image from the same lenses.. better AF,.. more T-cons.. etc...

Whtih 35mm different bodies offered ONLY different levels of features.. but Image quality was 100% lens and film (barring something worng with your body)

With Digital this is not the case.. each new body offers not only the opportunity to improve the feature list and thus use. But also .. to some extent SHOULD be about improving the image quality possible with your lenses. (depsite what M.R. may have to say on that point :roll: )

Anyway.. this was VERY much a consideration when looking at the MkII

Yes.. all the added features payed a large role.. perhaps a larger role than Image quality improvement.. but if the MkII were EXACTLY the same BUT only offered the 10D's CMOS and thus image quality was identical?? Would I have upgraded? Just for the features alone? No hope of imroved image quality?

I don't know. :?

Anyway.. my lenses and I are happier :) :wink: