EOS-1D Mark II -vs- EOS 20D

[AndrewEllinas]

I'm thinking of upgrading my 10D to a 20D or a 1D MarkII.

I shoot mostly landscapes with some portraits and architectural photos for work.

Bearing in mind the price differential, do you think the extra cost for the 1D MarkII is worthwhile?

[ssim]

I haven't had the opportunity to use the 20D but have gone shooting with somone that did have one. They were seriously in love with that camera. I moved from the 10D to the MKII and can honestly say that it is an awesome piece of machinery. Given what you are shooting you have to decide if the additional features of the MKII justify the extra price of this over the 20D. Things like weather proofing, addtional fps, personal functions and the list goes on. The MKII is pretty heavy and you know that you have carried something around all day. Both are great cameras.

I have no regrets going to the MKII and not waiting for the 20D.

[AndrewEllinas]

Have you found the 1D MarkII to be significantly better than the 10D? Enough to justify the price?

Can you say where are the differences most apparent? Focusing? Exposure? Photo quality?

[Deckyon]

I have both the 1D Mark II and the 20D. I like both cameras. They each fill a spot. Now, the matter is to justify the almost $3000 difference. While the 20D has a nice 5 fps, the 8.5 fps of the 1D Mark II is indispensible for the photos I take at soccer games and other sports. I do a lot of outdoor photos as well, and the environmental toughness of the 1D Mark II is hard to beat.

On the other hand, the 20D's weight makes it GREAT for astrophotography via T-Mount/Adapter or piggybacking. Also, I like the B&W w/ filter/color effects of the 20D.

I have noticed the focus acquisition to be very close. The shear number of focus points on the 1D Mark II does help with acquiring the right area of focus more often. I have to recompose more with the 20D than the 1D Mark II in order to get the right area of the subject in focus. That is only my experience - so far.

You have to make your mind up as to what you want to spend on the camera vs. buying more lenses.

[Andy_T]

For landscapes, the difference in the crop sensor of 1.3 vs. 1.6 might be considerable for you ... but is it worth the price difference?

... Would it be interesting for you to also consider a used 1Ds (mk1) ?

Best regards,
Andy

[AndrewEllinas]

I have been keeping an eye on ebay for a used 1Ds but so far the prices are still very high.

It's certainly a possiblilty and the almost 1:1 focal factor is very attractive.

[ssim]

Have you found the 1D MarkII to be significantly better than the 10D? Enough to justify the price?

Without a doubt a resounding yes to this one.

Can you say where are the differences most apparent? Focusing? Exposure? Photo quality?

The quality is outstanding. I have done some 16X20 prints and was blown away by the quality. I did have them done at a pro lab.

The focussing is lightning fast and a great improvement over the 10D.

Exposure is really managed by the photographer. I never shoot in P mode and shoot exclusively in RAW. I have found that in daylight situations I tend to underexpose by a third of a stop. The other thing to take into consideration is the ETTL-II but I believe that the 20D has this as well. My flash shots are so much better on the MKII than they were on the 10D.

The power up on the MKII is 0.3 seconds which is pretty much instantaneous. I can't remember what the 10D is but it is much longer and at times seemed like forever.

[Scottes]

I have a 20D and I've done quite a bit of shooting with MkII users, and of course I've followed the MkII stuff.

It seems that *most* of the MkII features are great for sports/wildlife shooters, but only the 1.3 crop is a significant improvement to landscape shooters. And for $3000 difference you could get a lot of very good wide glass that you'll have forever.

Just my opinion. MkII owners correct me where I'm wrong above. And please remember that Andrew shoots "landscapes with some portraits and architectural" photos. Does one need 8fps or 45 focus points or weatherproofing for landscape, portrait, or architectural shots? So far no MkII owner above has convinced me to use a MkII for landscapes - besides the 1.3 crop, and I think that's easily countered by having money left over for wide glass.

[Belmondo]

Listen to Scottes.
I have both, and he's really characterized both cameras pretty well.

If you don't need a Mk II, the 20D is likely all the camera you could ever use.

[scottbergerphoto]

I don't have a 20D to compare to but I can tell you that the color on the 1D Mark II is "like butta", smooth and delicious, and the detail you get is amazing. Not very scientific, but I am a fuss ass.
Scott

[Scottes]

That's a good point Scott.

Because I can say the exact same thing about the 20D. Yet another point to skip the MkII.

(Though I have to admit that a more scientific test might show some differences, I doubt that they would be significant.)

[Deckyon]

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I give examples of what I use each camera for and hope people can make up their own minds.

I do not tend to think there is much merit to "Tell me what to buy" threads. Basically, Person A is asking strangers with no idea of what Person A's requirements in shooting are even when given ideas. Person A needs to sit down, write their requirements, with 5 marked as "Must Have" and then do some actual research on their own to determine what will meet their needs within their budget. Think about it, do you buy a car without test driving it? Do you ask someone else which car to buy? I sure do not want someone I do not even know to make a decision for me on spending $1500 or $4500 for a camera. Other than my car and house, my camera outfit was the most expensive purchase I made.

I bought the 1D Mark II and 20D for specific reasons that only I could know, there were not really the words to put to paper without writing a book on what I was going to shoot and what I needed each camera for. The short of it, I wanted to take sports, outdoors and astrophotos. I needed 2 cameras to do this to the degree I required. The 1D Mark II was too heavy to use on the telescope without a lot of time balancing the scope - takes hours, sometimes. The 20D works with the counterweight already in place.

You are going to have to make up your own mind on this purchase. But at least to yourself the favor of finding a camera store that has them both and get your hands around them.

[jgbeam]

I don't have a 20D but I've seen some jawdropping 17x22 prints from the 20D made on an Epson 4000 printer. I don't think my 1D MkII could do much better. I need the Mk II's speed and buffer for my dance and musical theatre photography, but if you don't need these features I'd recommend the 20D and a nice $3000 vacation. I have found the Mk II's 1.3 crop factor vital on a couple of occasions. Even with the Sigma 12-24, I couldn't have fit the building into the frame without the 1.3, but this feature is not a deciding factor IMO.

Jim

[Scottes]

I do not tend to think there is much merit to "Tell me what to buy" threads.

It's a form of research. If it doesn't work for you then don't do it. There's no call to slam someone's methods because they don't match your own.

And Andrew's hardly asking anyone to tell him what to buy.

[Deckyon]

I was speaking of the rampant "tell me what to get" posts over the last few weeks here. It seems people want to be given their decision by strangers. I never once mentioned Andrew's name at all in that. Reread it, and you will notice... BTW, does the truth hurt?

Maybe a better title for these people who DO use the "tell me what to get" context would be "Why did you buy that?"

It just seems there are a lot of people lately that have turned a formerly informative forum into a "tell me what to get" forum.

It's funny, I never called any one out, but you did - Nice!

[Belmondo]

There are a lot of people like me who have made a lot of bad decisions because we didn't adequately research a large purchase before making it. When we post a question like 'which is better?' or 'which one should I buy?', we're doing nothing more than collecting data. Once compiled, it's up to each of us to break it down and determine whether it's suitable or not.

There are people in this forum whose opinions carry enormous weight with me. There are others who are quick with opinions, but don't have the well established credibility that would inspire me to act purely on their say so.

So whether these kinds of questions are useful or not depends largely on who's answering them. FWIW, these questions have been asked almost since day one; this is not a recent phenomenon.

[daveh]

It's a form of research.

Given that respondents generally have little clue as to the poster's real needs, desires, interest level, experience and financial situation, I usually think of these threads as high-tech coin flips. ;)

[Scottes]

Given that respondents generally have little clue as to the poster's real needs, desires, interest level, experience and financial situation, I usually think of these threads as high-tech coin flips. ;)

Did the author of a book know your research intentions when he wrote it? Of course not, yet it's still research. One must parse out the less useful info and weigh the important info.

But I agree that it certainly helps when someone gives more info than we usually see with these questions.

[daveh]

Did the author of a book know your research intentions when he wrote it? Of course not, yet it's still research.

I don't understand how "it" is not a book.

[mttmrphy]

what about the noise comparisons between the 20D and 1DmkII

(I did a search and saw some examples but I wanted to hear what others say...)

[Persian-Rice]

The mark II is slightly or much better in almost every aspect compared to the 20D. But what really matters is if you need all the bonus' the MK II offers. If you do landscape stuff, the superior speed will not have any effect. The MK II provides better dynamic range, spot metering (important for landscape) & better metering in general, sensor size, it has a substantially longer life among others.

I personally never understood why someone would spend $4000 on a MKII unless they are a pro, have excess money, love sports/journalism or are simply gadget nut.

Is the price for a MKII worth it? yes, every penny
Is it worth it if you don't need it? no

By the sounds of things, I don't know if you really need one. BTW, in reality, comparing a 20D to a MKII is like comparing some cheap Canon zoom to L glass. Don't let people who say the 20D is better then the MKII persuade you, those are the people who have never used a pro camera, ask anyone who has both and they will tell you the 1D is far better. They are not even in the same class, but both serve their own purposes.

[Pekka]

I'll say couple of words about this 20D vs. 1D Mark II issue, even though I have not used 20D yet.

I have used and owned G1, D30 and D60 and still own 10D and 1D Mark II. And that is exactly what most people go through - get a new camera every year or so. Every year something slightly better and every year some features missing. 3 AF points, then 7, then 9. What, 12 next year? No spot metering this year, no SD card, not sealing, no focusing screens, no shutter noise reduction. Next year maybe spot metering, but no multispot metering. I got bored of if all.

Besides a complete feature set, what Mark II gets you is a tool which is better than you in every situation. If you see a blurry shot you KNOW the reason is in your technique. If you did not get metering right then you KNOW you should have used mode X or Y or metering. If focus is off you KNOW when it was not the camera and if it was the camera you know WHY because AF logic is consistent. If you missed a shot it is NOT because the camera is slow. It also rewards with great quality images when you sometimes do it right :)

Most important technical feature in Mark II vs. 20D that really makes a difference is 1.3 crop. It makes all lenses more usable (and lets you get better quality wide shots). Viewfinder is bigger and brighter (and interchangeable).

Other important feature is of course 45-point AF. Not only for tracking accuracy, but in e.g. plain portrait work you do not need to focus center + recompose all the time and wonder how that affected focus.

Mark II is full of features which are there to make the tool suit your ways and needs, and needs of unknown situations and unknown future of your photographic developement. That is what you pay for.

[Pekka]

what about the noise comparisons between the 20D and 1DmkII

Both are "good enough" in terms of noise, color, dynamic range and resolution. When choosing concentrate more on what kind of cameras they are.

[drisley]

Don't let people who say the 20D is better then the MKII persuade you, those are the people who have never used a pro camera, ask anyone who has both and they will tell you the 1D is far better. They are not even in the same class, but both serve their own purposes.

Actually, this guy (http://www.pbase.com/r_p/canon_20d_notes) is a professional studio photographer who shoots all day with the 1Ds, 1D, 1DMKII, and now the 20D. He would disagree with you.
He doesn't say the 20D is better, but he says for studio photography they are very close in things like dynamic range and colour (actually, he prefers the colour rendition of the 20D).

In addition, one of the best 20D and 1DMKII comparison/reviews I've seen was posted by this professional photographer at fm (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/131641).

I think Pekka's comment above sums things up nicely.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I own both (20D and MkII)

And I also had the 10D for over a year..

If all I was shooting was Landscapes and interiors.. then I would be PERFECTLY satisfied with a 10D or 20D....

The Biggest advantage the MkII would have over the 20D IMHO is better use of your wide angle lenses.

That said.. I have a 17-40mm and feel that lens is PLENTY wide for almost any application on a 1.6X sensor like the 10D/20D have.

If for some odd reason 17mm isnot wide enough.. the 20D allows the use of the new 11mm EFS zoom. 11mm on a 1.6X sensor is equivelent to a 17mm lens on a full frame sensor.

ISO noise is good on all three cameras.. but should not be a huge concern for a tripod mounted landscape shot. (or interior)