If picture quality was the only concern...

[rraman]

I want to ask 20D owners a question, especially those upgrading from 10D/300D. I am aware of benefits of 20D like higher fps, faster startup, faster CF write speed etc. But if picture quality was the only concern, is there a perceptible difference as compared to 10D? Just curious...

[Morden]

Other than the increase in resolution, there probably isn't much real increase in "picture quality".

I bought my 20D because of the speed, both booting and shooting. :D

[Persian-Rice]

I bought my 20D because of the speed, both booting and shooting. :D

Im with him, btw great little saying you got there :lol:

[JLS Photo]

Picture quality to me means the quality of AF--and the 20D is just plain faster than my 10D to grab focus.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Side by side prints for tripod mounted 10D and 20D would not look a lot different..

I agree it's the ability to "get" better pics.. which you can do more often with a faster camera that has more accurate AF...

[defordphoto]

Having ventured from the 6.x (D60/10D/300D) world into the 8.x (MKII) world I'll offer this real-life experience:

While the files might appear soft, out-of-the-box, there are 2 million more reference points available. On the 20D they are packed together more closely, and that is a weakness. However, both the 20D and MKII files can take worlds more USM, due to more file information available.

When I was shooting the 10D, exclusively, I had one USM action I'd use. Now with the MKII, and I'd expect it to be similar with the 20D, when it arrives, I use an action that is much lower and use multiple applications of the action to reach the end goal.

[Guillermo Freige]

I'm upgrading mostly because image quality improvements from my Digital Rebel. 5fps is nice, 0,2secs startup too, but my main complaint about the Rebel was its reduced dynamic range, and to some extent image noise at high ISO (at least when compared with the 20D)
The 20D seems to have more dynamic range. Or at least it´s able to better resolve shadows and highlights. Shadows are more open, and highlights seems less prone to clip. Also RAW files from 20D seem more useful than DRebel ones, mostly at high ISO settings. I've converted a ISO 1600 RAW file and shadows are much cleaner and usable than ISO 800 (and probably 400) ones from my DRebel.
As soon as my 20D arrives I'll compare them, to find if my previous rather unscientific comparisons and findings are true...

[defordphoto]

You will be happy.

[drisley]

I think people may be expecting too much from the 20D concerning the dynamic range and noise. Although both are slight improvements over the 10D/300D, if you don't shoot correctly (like getting the exposure correct on high iso shots), you will be just as disappointed with the 20D.
For example, this shot (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/iso1600crop2.jpg) was taken with the 300D at ISO800, and was exposed correctly (maybe even slightly over exposed). There is virtually no noise, even in the shadows. I dont think even the 20D would improve much on that.

The Canon DSLR's really have fantastic noise levels, even at ISO1600+.
A properly exposed ISO1600 shot will show almost no noise when printed, even a large print. Noise is MUCH less than the film equivalent.

The 20D is supposed to have about the same improved dynamic range as the MKII, yet I've still seen many shots from the MKII that had blown highlights. I believe the 10/300D have 8.5 stops of dynamic range, while the 20D and MKII are about 9.

So if you don't take care to expose for the dynamic range, and noise, NO digital camera is going to help (yet). :wink:

[Jesper]

Having ventured from the 6.x (D60/10D/300D) world into the 8.x (MKII) world I'll offer this real-life experience:

While the files might appear soft, out-of-the-box, there are 2 million more reference points available. On the 20D they are packed together more closely, and that is a weakness. However, both the 20D and MKII files can take worlds more USM, due to more file information available.

When I was shooting the 10D, exclusively, I had one USM action I'd use. Now with the MKII, and I'd expect it to be similar with the 20D, when it arrives, I use an action that is much lower and use multiple applications of the action to reach the end goal.

OK, but in the end, do you see much difference in the printed result? Probably not...

[defordphoto]

Having ventured from the 6.x (D60/10D/300D) world into the 8.x (MKII) world I'll offer this real-life experience:

While the files might appear soft, out-of-the-box, there are 2 million more reference points available. On the 20D they are packed together more closely, and that is a weakness. However, both the 20D and MKII files can take worlds more USM, due to more file information available.

When I was shooting the 10D, exclusively, I had one USM action I'd use. Now with the MKII, and I'd expect it to be similar with the 20D, when it arrives, I use an action that is much lower and use multiple applications of the action to reach the end goal.

OK, but in the end, do you see much difference in the printed result? Probably not...

On large prints oh yes, it's quite significant. On 8x10's or less, less significant.

Comparing these photos on the Web is pointless. You will not see the real difference until you go to print. An 800x600 MKII (web) shot compared to a like 20D, 10D, Drebel photo will show little difference, if any.

[Morden]

I bought my 20D because of the speed, both booting and shooting. :D

Im with him, btw great little saying you got there :lol:

:D

[Guillermo Freige]

I think people may be expecting too much from the 20D concerning the dynamic range and noise. Although both are slight improvements over the 10D/300D, if you don't shoot correctly (like getting the exposure correct on high iso shots), you will be just as disappointed with the 20D.
For example, this shot (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/iso1600crop2.jpg) was taken with the 300D at ISO800, and was exposed correctly (maybe even slightly over exposed). There is virtually no noise, even in the shadows. I dont think even the 20D would improve much on that.

The Canon DSLR's really have fantastic noise levels, even at ISO1600+.
A properly exposed ISO1600 shot will show almost no noise when printed, even a large print. Noise is MUCH less than the film equivalent.



I'm not talking about badly exposed shots.
I like the DRebel output, but there are some problems. I shoot mosly RAW and use C1 for conversion, but for anything above ISO 200 C1 has a too heavy processing for my tastes. Subtle color gradations are lost and pictures start to show too defined and unnatural borders when a major change in contrast or hue is present in the blurred areas. And when shadows are opened, they show clipping very easily, mostly in high contrasted scenes as flash ones.
I've downloaded the available 20D RAW files (2 at ISO 100 and 1 at ISO 1600), and processed them using a patched C1 (I'm using the 1DMKII profile) and even at 1600, I'm seeing none of the problems of DRebel RAW files even at ISO 400. Noise reduction seems more natural, and shadows looks cleaner than even ISO 800 shots in the DRebel. And they seem to support more processing without hitting the shadow clipping point.
But even JPEG files are much better. I've printed some ISO 1600 and 3200 shots from the 20D (the classing "M&M fotball" figure from Steve´s site) and the same at 400, 800 and 1600 from the 10D, and the differences are real. ISO 1600 shows hardly any noise, at least at 4x6, and looks similar to 10D ISO 400 in the shadows and to the ISO 800 in the highlights. The same keeps true with the ISO 3200 shot and 10D ISO 800 and 1600. So, now ISO 3200 is a very usable speed, probably even more than ISO 1600 in the DRebel/10D.

[drisley]

Hmm that's interesting, and good news for those planning on getting a 20D (I'm still waiting for my order!).
However,the ISO800 (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/iso1600crop2.jpg) image I posted above was processed with C1 Pro, which I use regularly, and I've rarely seen the problems you've mentioned.
The only times when I see the problems you've mentioned are when I use a higher ISO, and I clip a colour channel. Then C1 can show some nasty banding in the clipped colour's channel.

Anyway, thanks for sharing that news. I can't wait for the stores up here to get the 20D. Grrr, what's taking so long!
:twisted: