Should I get the Rebel or go for the 20D

[Moody Blues]

I shoot a ton of photos. Mostly of the kids and many scenic. I currently shoot a Canon Elan IIE. I am well versed in film photography. The largest photos I usually print are 8X10's. Is it worth the money to go with the 20D now or should I just buy a Digital Rebel and shoot highest quality for a couple of years and then get the latest and greatest.

With film, it is the photographer and film selection that make a picture great. It seems with Digital, the photographer does not mean much any more.

I will look at these pictures for a lifetime. So what do I do?

Thanks for any advice.

Danny

[DReb-MO]

...

I will look at these pictures for a lifetime. So what do I do?

Thanks for any advice.

Danny

Like everything else, it depends. It sounds like your an avid photographer. My own experience is that the DREb was nice while it lasted but I wanted a 10D 6 months after I bought the DREb but waited another 6 because of the news related to a replacement. Glad I waited now. 20D on the porch Friday. Go for what you can afford + 150% and plan to grow into it. Best of luck.

[psk4363]

Danny,

If you only print to 10"x8" the extra 2 Mp in the 20D won't have an effect as the 6.3 Mp chip in the DReb will eat a 10"x8". As its' your first venture into D-SLRs I would (IMHO) start off low, see if you like it, then upgrade later.

Some people don't take to D-SLRs, particularly those well versed in wet-film photography - e.g. they don't like the magnification factor of the focal length of lenses (a 28mm on a D-SLR becomes a 43mm). Just be a little wary in due regard to your experiences thus far in photography.

Just my two cents/pence worth,
Barry

[Ogrt48]

I'd go with the Rebel. The only good reasons for the 20D is the fps for sports.. which you aren't doing. So you'll save a ton of money with the rebel and be able to get some nice glass.. Welcome to the L club soon ! :P

[Mark_Cohran]

The 20D is really not that much more than the DRebel in cost, but it is much more advanced in funtionality, but ultimately, only you know what those advanced features are worth to you.

Having said that, photography is photography whether you use a digital camera or a film camera. The inherent quality of a photograph is not dependent on the camera or the media, be it digital or film, but rather the vision and competence of the photographer. You can have the best damn camera in the world, but if you don't understand exposure, lighting, composition, color, and all the other aspects of photography and how to compensate for how the camera records the world, you'll be limited to the ocassional great snapshot while the vast majority of your pictures will be simply mundane recordings of things around you.

[HJMinard]

The 20D is really not that much more than the DRebel in cost, but it is much more advanced in funtionality, but ultimately, only you know what those advanced features are worth to you.

I understand your point, but I think that (very nearly) twice as much doesn't really apply as "not that much more". DRebel bodies can be had for around $800 versus $1500 for the 20D. That's a lot of lens money (17-40L ??) that could be purchased with a DRebel.

For kids and scenics in 8x10, I don't believe you'll see much image quality difference between the two ... certainly not enough to offset the cost difference ... and certainly not if he has some leftover money "L" glass attached to the front of his DRebel (versus a kit lens equipped 20D).

[Mark_Cohran]

Like I said, only he can decide if the added features are worth the extra expense to him.

I would never let anyone on an internet forum guide me to that kind of decision. He should do the research and decide what's important to him. Then make a decision.

To the original poster: If you're not ready to make the change to digital, then don't. Digital cameras are only going to get better and cheaper for the near future. If you already have a Canon EOS camera, you can invest in glass now and wait until you find the camera of your dreams. No rush, no worries.

[Persian-Rice]

The 20D is really not that much more than the DRebel in cost, but it is much more advanced in funtionality, but ultimately, only you know what those advanced features are worth to you.

I understand your point, but I think that (very nearly) twice as much doesn't really apply as "not that much more". DRebel bodies can be had for around $800 versus $1500 for the 20D. That's a lot of lens money (17-40L ??) that could be purchased with a DRebel.

For kids and scenics in 8x10, I don't believe you'll see much image quality difference between the two ... certainly not enough to offset the cost difference ... and certainly not if he has some leftover money "L" glass attached to the front of his DRebel (versus a kit lens equipped 20D).

There is a large price differnce. If you are willing to buy used, then there is a very large differnce as you can buy a 10D body for $800-$850.
You need to take plenty of things into consideration. Lenses, Accessories like bags, tripods, filters etc etc can run well into a several thousand dollars alone.

If you have money to throw around then why not go for the better camera? but dont make the mistake of buying the better camera and then buying $100 lenses for it, that just wont work out right.

Calculate how much you have, research then make your list.

Cheers.

[Persian-Rice]

The 20D is really not that much more than the DRebel in cost, but it is much more advanced in funtionality, but ultimately, only you know what those advanced features are worth to you.

I understand your point, but I think that (very nearly) twice as much doesn't really apply as "not that much more". DRebel bodies can be had for around $800 versus $1500 for the 20D. That's a lot of lens money (17-40L ??) that could be purchased with a DRebel.

For kids and scenics in 8x10, I don't believe you'll see much image quality difference between the two ... certainly not enough to offset the cost difference ... and certainly not if he has some leftover money "L" glass attached to the front of his DRebel (versus a kit lens equipped 20D).

There is a large price differnce. If you are willing to buy used, then there is a very large differnce as you can buy a 10D body for $800-$850.
You need to take plenty of things into consideration. Lenses, Accessories like bags, tripods, filters etc etc can run well into a several thousand dollars alone.

If you have money to throw around then why not go for the better camera? but dont make the mistake of buying the better camera and then buying $100 lenses for it, that just wont work out right.

Calculate how much you have, research then make your list.

Cheers.

[Persian-Rice]

The 20D is really not that much more than the DRebel in cost, but it is much more advanced in funtionality, but ultimately, only you know what those advanced features are worth to you.

I understand your point, but I think that (very nearly) twice as much doesn't really apply as "not that much more". DRebel bodies can be had for around $800 versus $1500 for the 20D. That's a lot of lens money (17-40L ??) that could be purchased with a DRebel.

For kids and scenics in 8x10, I don't believe you'll see much image quality difference between the two ... certainly not enough to offset the cost difference ... and certainly not if he has some leftover money "L" glass attached to the front of his DRebel (versus a kit lens equipped 20D).

There is a large price differnce. If you are willing to buy used, then there is a very large differnce as you can buy a 10D body for $800-$850.
You need to take plenty of things into consideration. Lenses, Accessories like bags, tripods, filters etc etc can run well into a several thousand dollars alone.

If you have money to throw around then why not go for the better camera? but dont make the mistake of buying the better camera and then buying $100 lenses for it, that just wont work out right.

Calculate how much you have, research then make your list.

Cheers.

[johneo]

With film, it is the photographer and film selection that make a picture great. It seems with Digital, the photographer does not mean much any more.

Boy, do I disagree with that statement. The eye behind the camera, be it film or digital is the one that makes or breaks a good shot.

As with a film camera the better quality digital will give you much more latitude to capture a photo as far as a variety of settings are comcerned. Get a point and shoot digital (or film) and that comment can be more accurate but it isn't so only with digital.

As for which camera ... 20D or 300D ... why not a 10D? If the price hasn't started to drop I'm sure it will and you'll get a camera that has more than the 300D for about the same price (maybe slightly higher)

I've got a 10D and I don't see enough of a difference between the 10D and a 20D to chuck it and spend another $1500 and it takes great photos "if" I set the camera settings right ... :)

[Ogrt48]

It seems with Digital, the photographer does not mean much any more.


Danny
Wow, you really don't know what you're talking about there.

[DReb-MO]

The 20D is really not that much more than the DRebel in cost, but it is much more advanced in funtionality, but ultimately, only you know what those advanced features are worth to you.

I understand your point, but I think that (very nearly) twice as much doesn't really apply as "not that much more". DRebel bodies can be had for around $800 versus $1500 for the 20D. That's a lot of lens money (17-40L ??) that could be purchased with a DRebel.

For kids and scenics in 8x10, I don't believe you'll see much image quality difference between the two ... certainly not enough to offset the cost difference ... and certainly not if he has some leftover money "L" glass attached to the front of his DRebel (versus a kit lens equipped 20D).

There is a large price differnce. If you are willing to buy used, then there is a very large differnce as you can buy a 10D body for $800-$850.
You need to take plenty of things into consideration. Lenses, Accessories like bags, tripods, filters etc etc can run well into a several thousand dollars alone.

If you have money to throw around then why not go for the better camera? but dont make the mistake of buying the better camera and then buying $100 lenses for it, that just wont work out right.

Calculate how much you have, research then make your list.

Cheers.

I get it!
I get it!
I get it! :wink:

[DocFrankenstein]

I shoot a ton of photos. Mostly of the kids and many scenic. I currently shoot a Canon Elan IIE. I am well versed in film photography. The largest photos I usually print are 8X10's. Is it worth the money to go with the 20D now or should I just buy a Digital Rebel and shoot highest quality for a couple of years and then get the latest and greatest.

With film, it is the photographer and film selection that make a picture great. It seems with Digital, the photographer does not mean much any more.

I will look at these pictures for a lifetime. So what do I do?

Thanks for any advice.

Danny
I am more than satisfied with my Rebel. It does everything that I want it to. I have a few 13*19 prints which are extremely nice. 8*10 will be very sharp even if you crop it heavily.

[EXA1a]

I'd go with the Rebel. The only good reasons for the 20D is the fps for sports.. which you aren't doing.
Ogrt48, You missed one important part of the original post "Mostly of the kids and ...".
I have done a lot of baby pics with my D30 and, since 10 months, now with my 300D (employing Wasia's modified firmware). As long as my little son wasn't moving a lot, it worked out fine. Now he is getting more and more active and I have a hard time to get/keep him in focus. That's the main reason why I am planning for an upgrade to the 20D until x-mas.
Do doubt, with digital photography you won't use the same camera in ten years from now, most likely not even in five years from now. However, you will want to upgrade the 300D at least a year earlier than the 20D.
Therefore I'd go for the 20D in the first place.
BTW: 8MP vs 6 MP doesn't matter for most of us.

--Jens--

[blinking8s]

if you get the 20d, you wont ever question if you should have bought the 20d

[nosquare2003]

EXA1a, under what circumstances that a 300D is not sufficient fast for your kids (baby+10 months) shots? What lens did you use? About what distance did you shoot?

I'm a bit surprised.

[EXA1a]

EXA1a, under what circumstances that a 300D is not sufficient fast for your kids (baby+10 months) shots? What lens did you use? About what distance did you shoot?
I shoot in the living room or in the garden, at distances between 0,5 and 5 meters, the lenses I use mostly are 50/1.4 or 100/f2, but also 17-40/4 or 200/f2.8.
The 300D's servo focus doesn't kick in fast enough and of it does, the guy crawls faster at me than the camera can focus.

--Jens--

[nosquare2003]

The 300D's servo focus doesn't kick in fast enough and of it does, the guy crawls faster at me than the camera can focus.

--Jens--

Well, I don't like the AI focus in the 300D... In fact, I will use the one shot (hacked) instead...

[EXA1a]

Well, I don't like the AI focus in the 300D... In fact, I will use the one shot (hacked) instead...
Sure, I have the hack installed, but using one shot AF for a kid crawling at me I get the ears in focus but not the eyes...