20D and 1DMKII Sample Images

[drisley]

I just found a great page (http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/canon_20D/Canon_20D_review.html) on the 20D, with some really nice information.
One thing I like is that the reviewer took exact images with both cameras using his 70-200F2.8L lens at ISO 100 and ISO 1600. There really is no difference. Can you see a difference? The top one is 20D, the bottom is 1dMKII. There are also 2 similar images at ISO1600, and there is no significant difference either. Very impressive.

http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/canon_20D/20d_vs_1d2/crop_20d_0000_0171_ISO100.jpg

http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/canon_20D/20d_vs_1d2/crop_1d2_0000_5283_ISO100.jpg

[defordphoto]

Actually is you look at the dials and ID plate on the gas meter there is more resolution on the MKII photo. That's where the larger pixel sizes become an advantage. Color is an exact match.

[Red Squirrel]

If you look really closely, you'll see the colour squares are more saturated on the 20d, particularly the magenta and yellow ones.
Is that good or bad?

[defordphoto]

If you look really closely, you'll see the colour squares are more saturated on the 20d, particularly the magenta and yellow ones.
Is that good or bad?

Ahh yeah a little. It's neither bad nor good.

It's different.

Here's some pixel-peeping into the MKII and MKII Ds: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/151786

[drisley]

Actually is you look at the dials and ID plate on the gas meter there is more resolution on the MKII photo. That's where the larger pixel sizes become an advantage. .
:lol:
You're kidding right? These are already at 100%, and even blown up to 200% any difference is so small that it's insignificant.
You would have to produce a print the size of a building wall to notice the difference.
Also, the 1DMkii image is a slightly tighter crop, which could make that difference on a pixel vs pixel level.

[KBMphotography.com]

Mmmm

Fine for pictures of gas meters. But then the 1Dii comes into it's own when you take 9fps and have a 40 frame buffer!!!

Another thing I am hugely impressed with is the 1200 frame battery on the 1Dii

[Red Squirrel]

What I wanted to see was some proper landscape pictures - to see if there's much difference in the 1dmk2s dynamic range.
I'm forever blowing out skies with my 10d.

[defordphoto]

Actually is you look at the dials and ID plate on the gas meter there is more resolution on the MKII photo. That's where the larger pixel sizes become an advantage. .
:lol:
You're kidding right?

Absolutely not.

[IncompletePete]

I agree, the dials on the MkII shot are definitely sharper, although not much!

[chops]

How can you tell if either one is sharper or not. Both of those pictures are drastically out of focus!

[drisley]

I was going to post the pictures without saying which was which.
I knew there would be a bias for the MKII image even though there is no siginificant difference. :roll:
I mean there is more detail on the sign on the left in the 20D image so what does that say? Probably just slightly different focus.
Anyway, any differences are insignificant.
If you overlay these images in photoshop, you will notice that the 1DMKII image is a slightly closer crop, which would explain any more detail on the dials if there is any.
As far as FPS and buffer goes, that is a whole different matter.
As far as dynamic range goes, the 10D is supposed to have 8.5 stops of DR, the 1DMKII is supposed to have 9 stops, and the 20D is supposed to fall somewhere in between.

[HJMinard]

I don't think this is particularly surprising - it would probably take extreme contrast to show any difference in capability with regard to dynamic range. Both cameras produce excellent 8mp images and utilize the same processor. In extreme lighting situations, I'm sure the 1DMkII's larger pixels are an advantage.

I don't think you're buying an image quality upgrade when you purchase a 1DMkII - although it's advanced feature set and speed create an advantage that allow users to get more "keepers", especially for action photography.

Mostly you're paying for professional quality build, longevity and features.

[pcasciola]

Mmmm

Fine for pictures of gas meters. But then the 1Dii comes into it's own when you take 9fps and have a 40 frame buffer!!!

Another thing I am hugely impressed with is the 1200 frame battery on the 1Dii

40 JPegs in the buffer and 1200 pictures. Is that all? I hate to break it to you, but the 20D can also take 40 frames before the buffer is full, because the 20D is FAR faster than the 1D Mk II transferring from buffer to CF. Also, the 20D can take over 2000 pictures with the grip and dual batteries.

I really don't want to turn this into yet another 1D MkII vs 20D argument, and I know 1D Mk II owners hate to admit it, but let's not forget the 20D does actually have some upgrades from the 1D Mk II. The 20D transfers from the buffer to CF 50% faster than a 1D Mk II, at 5.6MBytes/sec for the 20D compared with only 3.9MBytes/sec on the 1D MkII. Also, with the grip and 2 batteries, the 20D can take over 2000 pictures without powering off, not just 1200. Not to mention less high ISO noise, along with lighter weight and smaller form factor when you need it by taking the battery grip off. The dual battery grip that is. :wink:

Is the 1D Mk II better than a 20D all around? Of course. Is it $3,000 better? That's debatable by everyone other than pro sports photographers. The point here is that the newest APS-C sensor can resolve 99% as well as the more expensive full frame sensor, that's all.

[drisley]

Yup sorry, I didnt want to turn this into a fight.
I think Pscasciola hit what I was trying to say on the head.

Btw, there are links to the Raw images used in this test.
Included are both ISO100 and ISO1600 images from both cameras.
http://www.jirvana.com/raw_large/20d_1d2/

[defordphoto]

All cameras have their advantages and disadvantages. That also depends on the use of the camera. Personally I think all these X vs X threads are pointless. I own both cameras and they both have their strong points and weak points. When I use them I do so to maximize their strengths to produce the best photo possible.

[drisley]

I just noticed from the raw images that the MKII image is shot much closer than the 20D image, which is probably the main reason for it showing more detail.
I own a 20D and think it's awesome! But if I had a choice and money was no option, I would definately get the 1DMKII.

[pcasciola]

I'm not sure why all comparisons turn into arguments, but they do.

Like RFMSports says, all these cameras serve different purposes, and value is measured in different ways. Pro sports photographers love their Mk II's and righfully so, but to some the speed is not important, and the 16MP resolution of the 1Ds Mk II will be more important than the 8fps.

I agree with drisley, too, if money was no object, I'd have a 1D Mk II as well because I like shooting sports. But this is just a hobby for me, and even with all the equipment listed below in my sig (ok, it's not much but it's a start), I still haven't spent enough to get a Mk II body alone. One thing is for sure, if I had a Mk II body right now, all I would have is a thrifty fifty to put on it. How funny would that be?

[Hellashot]

It's funny when someone posts comparison images so small that you cannot tell a difference. The only way you are going to see differences is if you have large images!

[defordphoto]

It's funny when someone posts comparison images so small that you cannot tell a difference. The only way you are going to see differences is if you have large images!

A few posts up.

Yup sorry, I didnt want to turn this into a fight.
I think Pscasciola hit what I was trying to say on the head.

Btw, there are links to the Raw images used in this test.
Included are both ISO100 and ISO1600 images from both cameras.
http://www.jirvana.com/raw_large/20d_1d2/

[pcasciola]

It's funny when someone posts comparison images so small that you cannot tell a difference. The only way you are going to see differences is if you have large images!

Jeeeeeez!!!!! It's not a small image. It's a 100% crop from a very large image, which means every pixel you see is a full pixel and is not scaled up or down. The gas meter is less than 1/500th of the entire frame.

Check Drisley's post, he just posted links to the full images. The gas meter is so small it's hard to see. That's the point. You have to zoom in to this level to even see the most minute difference.

[Persian-Rice]

I agree with RFM.

My opinion is that its the 20D owners trying to prove something to the 1D MKII ers. The point is, if you need to use a magnifying glass to tell the difference, there isn't one. However, go try to shoot 200 shots with each camera and then come back and you won't be able to bring yourself to say the 20D is even close. They might even look similar on paper, but they aren't.

I have not had the pleasure of having unrestricted access to both like RFM does, but I have shoot several hundred shots with both thanks to my fellow classmates, I have come to the realization that there is a reason there is a big price gap and that it is worth it. An MK II is not a sports shooter, it's an all around shooter that is good at sports and everything else in between. If it was not for the full frame sensor & pixel count of the 1Ds, the 1D would better then every Canon DSLR in every aspect.

There is no point for 10D owners to compare to a 20D. The gap between a 1D and a 20D is far bigger then it is between a 10D and a 20D. I know a bunch of kids in their slammed Honda's at school saying they can smoke a Ferrari, and I know they can. Well good for them, I own a Honda, and have driven countless Ferrari's. You can dream about in your sleep, you can talk about it to your friends and you can even make a website about it, but you know what? Its still not a Ferrari.

Cheers, not really directed at anyone, just a rant.

[pcasciola]

I don't think 20D owners are tyring to prove anything, and most of us are even saying we'd rather have a Mk II. It's just always the Mk II owners getting defensive about their $5,000 purchase.

And, I also think the difference between a 10D and a 20D is far greater than the difference between a 20D and 1D Mk II, and there is only a $300 price difference there, not $3,000.

10D to 20D you get:
8MP vs. 6MP, 5fps vs 3fps, 40 shot buffer compared to 9, over 5MBytes/sec CF speed compared to 1.3MBytes/sec. Better high ISO performance. Need I go on. The 10D takes about 30 seconds to empty that 9 shot buffer, while the 20D can empty a buffer in about 9 seconds.

Those performance differences are far less than the 20D to the Mk II as I laid out in my previous post, and in some cases even better on the 20D.

Ok, to be fair, I'm leaving out the things that make the 1D series better in general, better AI Servo, more focus points and metering options to name a few, but again, no one is saying the 20D is as good as a Mk II overall. We are just comparing our cameras to the "king of the hill" and saying it's pretty close. A lot closer than Mk II owners would have us believe.

Let's stop bickering and go take some pictures. That's what it's all about anyway isn't it?

Let's attack Drisley, he started it. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[defordphoto]

pcasciola: Have you shot an MKII?

[pcasciola]

pcasciola: Have you shot an MKII?

Yes, I have shot with a 1D Mk II, but only for a short while unfortunately. I noticed the AI Servo difference immediately, and the focus seemed much better in general. It felt better in my hands, but I didn't like the hair trigger.

That day, I shot the same football game with my 20D + 300 f/4L that the other photographer did with his 1D Mk II + 300mm f/2.8L, and I gotta tell you, a lot of people picked my gallery over his. The pictures were very close in quality, and I had a FAR inferior lens.

Would I rather have a 1D Mk II, of course I would, I don't think anybody is debating that. But I've seen a lot more people shooting with a 1D Mk II and 20D say they are close than I have seen 20D and 10D owners say they are close. There was a post about 5-6 weeks ago on FM by a pro sports photographer who used a 1D Mk II alongside his 20D, and he was blown away by how close they were. I've seen many reviews like that by pros, and they mostly end the same way. The 20D is very close, but are they giving up their Mk II's, no way.

[drisley]

20D=good
1dMII=good

[Persian-Rice]

20D=good
1dMII=good

*kicks Dris in the nuts* how do you like that for a 20D?, lol

[defordphoto]

Photo quality is more photographer than camera, IMHO. Yes, resolution wise they're pretty close, but until you've used a 1-series camera (more than a short time) you cannot appreciate the true differences. It took me about 2-3 weeks to really get into the MKII and it seems I learns something new everytime I shoot it.

Before getting my MKII (and shooting the 10D) I thought they (1D vs 10D in those days) can be that far off. But they are. Even the 20D and MKII are worlds apart. As we enter this next phase of digital photography many people are realizing that it's reached a point where megapixels doesn't mean as much as before. Heck, I've seen MKII and 1Ds comparisons where the MKII blew off the 1Ds. Over at FM forum they have 1dsMKII-1Ds-1DMKII comparisions and they are all pretty darn close.

So anyway, like I said before, these comparisons are pretty pointless to me and I usually avoid them like the plague. I have both cameras and know the differences first hand and will say the 20D is not close to being in the 1-series class.

But, with that being said, it's a fantastic camera and I am so looking forward to my wife shooting motorsports side-by-side next season with it and then I will be able to see the real differences. It'll be sweet to apply almost the same workflow to both cameras. However, you cannot use the same workflow however because there are subtle differences due to the 20D's higher color saturation and the MKII's larger photosites among others.

There are some cool stuff with the 20D that'd be nice on the MKIII, but that goes with every new generation. All hell will break loose when the new 8.2mp Drebel is released and goes head-to-head with the 20D. Those will be some fun, moderating days I am sure! :wink:

[drisley]

Photo quality is more photographer than camera, IMHO.
I agree. If you gave me a 1DSMkII for a weekend, and gave a 20D to, say, Olegis, or Don Ellis for a weekend, I can assure you I would come back with the crappiest pictures. (Heck that would be the case even if you gave them a kodak digicam) :lol:

[defordphoto]

Photo quality is more photographer than camera, IMHO.
I agree. If you gave me a 1DSMkII for a weekend, and gave a 20D to, say, Olegis, or Don Ellis for a weekend, I can assure you I would come back with the crappiest pictures. (Heck that would be the case even if you gave them a kodak digicam) :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

So, so true. So far, my biggest money-making shots are from the 10D! On my first outing with the MKII, I felt like a total photog-newbie. That thing has more features than pebbles of sand on the beach. It was quite overwhelming and my photos were boring because I was not in command of my camera, it was in command of me.

[JX]

I think RFMSports is right. Really the only people who can make an accurate comparison are photographers who own both cameras.

[drisley]

Yup, like this guy (http://www.pbase.com/r_p/canon_20d_notes).