1D Mark II vs. 10D

[golfr5]

My interests are in landscape, portraiture and cars/aircraft printing up to 11x14. I like to work in RAW format and make adjustments in Photoshop. I have the opportunity to buy a 10 month old Canon 1D Mark II in good condition. Using my same lenses should I expect this camera to take photos of any better quality, especially sharpness or saturation than what I now get with my Canon 10D?

[Incomplete Pete]

Yes, there will be an improvement in image quality, however the main difference to image quality is lenses. Perhaps save the cash and buy some "L" glass if you want sharper images with better colours?

[tim]

Welcome Golfr :) The thing i'd do in this case is look at the dpi you'd get with both cameras when you're printing at 11x14, and see what the numbers come out to. The Mk II is 250dpi I think, and the 10D is 220dpi. Not much difference there IMHO, so I probably wouldn't make the call on terms of resolution, but more in terms of quality.

[Pekka]

More dynamic range and less noise (i.e. usable ISO 1600) are the biggest advantages of Mark II RAW image quality. As a camera it is in a totally different level than 10D. I have not used my 10D once since I got Mark II.

[golfr5]

Thank You to everyone that responded. The fast and thoughtful comments were very helpful.

[karusel]

Also focusses more accurately, which is pretty important to me.

[jbradc]

I have both a 10D and a 1D Mark II and while I love my 10D, in a side by side comparason the 1dmkII blows it away. Another nice plus is the ability to shoot at ISO 50 with the 1dmkII. Both are great cameras but you do get what you pay for.

[BigRed450]

I also have both and will agree with all comment above. The big differences are the physical sensor size 1.3x opposed to 1.6x the build quality, overall speed in all aspects and Dynamic range. Major resolution differences do show up when producing large prints. Very seldom use the 10D anymore other then at races where each body has a different lens.

[drisley]

I had the opportunity to compare some images that I took from a bodybuilding show recently against a "pro" photographer's. I was using the 20D and 135L, and he was using the 1D MKII and 70-200F2.8L.
This was extreme lighting (high dynamic range, high ISO) with potentially fast action. Others that have seen both have said that my images, especially the action images were actually slightly better, with slightly lower noise and equal dynamic range. In fact, most of his action shots were blurry and slightly out of focus. The 20D may be the only camera that has less noise than the 1D MKII at high ISOs. In fact, it may be the best camera in the world in this area.

So, you may want to consider a 20D as an option. It's not built like a 1D, nor does it have the specs (fps, etc), but it is a VERY capable camera. And by the sounds of things, you arent going to be using the 8 fps ability for your shooting.

THIS (http://www.pbase.com/r_p/canon_20d_notes) pro studio photographer notes that the dynamic range on the 20D is very close to the 1D MKII and a definate improvement to the 10D. He also considers the colour reproduction to be atleast as good as the 1D MKII, if not better.

But then again, if you can get a very good deal on the 1D MKII, that would be a super investment.

[digitaltourist]

THIS (http://www.pbase.com/r_p/canon_20d_notes) pro studio photographer notes that the dynamic range on the 20D is very close to the 1D MKII and a definate improvement to the 10D. He also considers the colour reproduction to be atleast as good as the 1D MKII, if not better.

But then again, if you can get a very good deal on the 1D MKII, that would be a super investment.

The increase in dynamic range is a result of the larger photo sites on the 1D sensor. If the 20D and the mk2 are very close then the the difference between the 20D and the 10D would be similar. The color difference are much harder to quantify but I do know that using the etcetera profiles with the C1 and the 10D leaves very little room for improvement.

The 20D is a very capable camera, as is the 10d and the 1D Mark II. I see a very little difference (at ISO' < 800) between photos taken with the 10D vs. 20D. I do see a difference between pictures taken with 10D-20D and the 1D, although subtle. Some of this is due to the larger sensor and some if likely due to a better metering system.

In my opinion you cannot go wrong with any of them, picture quality wise. Any differences are subtle. If one were shopping on image quality alone I would suggest finding the best deal you could on a 10D or a 20D.

For most however there are other features and ergonomics to be considered as well as asthetics that make a decision more difficult. Things like focus speed and accuracy, viewfinder size and brightness, spot metering, larger sensor etc. may be important to you and would need to be factored into a decision.

Only the OP can decide which of those factors are of importance. For landscapes the spot meter and the smaller crop factor of the 1D would be beneficial. For cars and aviation the faster more accurate focus would also be an asset. Are these things worth the premium of a 1D series camera? For me they were, YMMV.

[Pekka]

In the end the choice comes to what model is better camera. This means: what kind of camera you have when you take the "film" (whether that is sensor+card+Digic or actual film) out of equation.

[drisley]

The increase in dynamic range is a result of the larger photo sites on the 1D sensor. If the 20D and the mk2 are very close then the the difference between the 20D and the 10D would be similar.
But alas, that is not the case. The 20D sensors are quite different than the ones on the 10D (or the 1D). The have light amplifiers and noise reduction circuits built right on the sensor. The fellow at the link, being a pro studio photographer who uses 1D's and 1DS' all day long would know. I've seen the difference first hand too.
The 10D colour accuracy is exceptional. But the 20D's is just slightly better.

[digitaltourist]

But alas, that is not the case. The 20D sensors are quite different than the ones on the 10D (or the 1D). The have light amplifiers and noise reduction circuits built right on the sensor. The fellow at the link, being a pro studio photographer who uses 1D's and 1DS' all day long would know. I've seen the difference first hand too.
The 10D colour accuracy is exceptional. But the 20D's is just slightly better.

The sensor on the 1D Mark II has light amplifiers as well, heck even the 10D has them. I am not sure what it is that you are trying to say. Is it your position that the 20D has more dynamic range than the 1d mk2? Who knows, it may be, but if that is your claim could you post some pics demonstrating the difference?

[BigRed450]

On comparing high ISO images of the same subject, with the same lens, using a 10D and 20D body, I found that the AA filter on the 20D sensor being stronger (this is also mentioned on many sites including Canon) then the 10D's, yeilded a less noisy 20D image. However, the stronger AA filter on the 20D also sofened the image so it was also not as sharp as the 10D image. Once the 20D image was then sharpened to match the 10D there was negligable difference in noise. DR is definitely an improvement over the 10D and of course the overall speed of the 20D is improved. IMO, for what I do, the 20D was not enough of an upgrade to justify change, but the 1DmkII was.

drisley the only fair way to compare the 20D and 1DmkII is to shoot them side by side with equivalent lenses, and the same photographer. There are just way too many variables, in camera settings, and use, to be able to compare the two as you have here. You just may be a more skillfull photographer then said Pro...

[drisley]

The sensor on the 1D Mark II has light amplifiers as well, heck even the 10D has them. I am not sure what it is that you are trying to say. Is it your position that the 20D has more dynamic range than the 1d mk2? Who knows, it may be, but if that is your claim could you post some pics demonstrating the difference?
My claim is that the 20D has better dynamic range thant the 10D, and close to the same as 1D MII. This is what I said all along. Also, if you read the link I attached above, that is the claim of the review posted by the professional studio photographer who works with all these cameras all day.
I know of atleast one person here who has posted side by side comparisons with the 20D and 300D (same dr as 10D) showing a marked improvement in dynamic range.
Ths is partially due to improvements on the sensor, and the new DigicII processor.
If you still can't understand, I can't explain it any better than that.

Big Red, I have absolutely NEVER heard the 10D as having better/similar noise compared to the 20D. Every test I've seen shows the exact opposite, as have comments from people who have owned both. Heck, I had the 300D, which had basically the same IQ as the 10D, and the 20D is better in both noise, and detail. I do 75% of my shooting at ISO 800 or higher, and I've done so with both the 300D for 6 months, and the 20D now for 8 months.
Just do a search around for 20D reviews, and you will see graphs, and real world side by side comparisons that shw not only does the 20D have a much improved high ISO profile over the 10D, it's resolving power is also improved. In fact, it matches the 1D MKII in resolving power.

My point in all this is, if the original poster is asking about going to a 1D MKII based solely on image quality (which is what it sounds like), then the 20D is another option that will offer about the same improvement over the 10D as the 1D MII in this department. The image quality of the 20D is closer to the image quality 1D MKII than it is to the image quality of 10D, so to recommend the 1D MKII and not the 20D based on image quality makes no sense what-so-ever

ISO Comparison (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page20.asp)
"Despite a two megapixel increase in pixel count (and hence a reduction in photosite size) the EOS 20D manages to deliver lower noise with better sharpness at higher sensitivities than the EOS 10D"

Resolution Chart (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page27.asp)
"The EOS 20D produced as-good-as identical resolution to the EOS-1D Mark II, the only noticeable differences were the lighter EOS 20D image and more noticeable sharpening halos. We can of course see a clear resolution increase over the camera it replaces, the six megapixel EOS 10D"

Canon EOS 20D
Horiz LPH 1850 + 2000
Vert LPH 1650 + 2000

Canon EOS-1D Mark II
Horiz LPH 1850 + 2000
Vert LPH 1650 + 2000

Canon EOS 10D
Horiz LPH 1600 1900
Vert LPH 1450 1850

[BigRed450]

Big Red, I have absolutely NEVER heard the 10D as having better/similar noise compared to the 20D. Every test I've seen shows the exact opposite, as have comments from people who have owned both. Heck, I had the 300D, which had basically the same IQ as the 10D, and the 20D is better in both noise, and detail. I do 75% of my shooting at ISO 800 or higher, and I've done so with both the 300D for 6 months, and the 20D now for 8 months.
Just do a search around for 20D reviews, and you will see graphs, and real world side by side comparisons that shw not only does the 20D have a much improved high ISO profile over the 10D, it's resolving power is also improved. In fact, it matches the 1D MKII in resolving power.

Never said less noise then 20D only negligable difference. I too shoot at 1600 and 3200. By the examples shown on dpreview (ISO link you posted) do you really see a marked difference in noise between the 2, I don't. As well, it is true the 300D may have the same sensor as the 10D thats where it stops, it does not have the same processor nor the same metering system, and as we all know proper exposure is also a major factor in noise reduction.
So the graphs may prove a difference and thats fine but if you really can't see the difference, does it really matter. Again shoot these 2 cams side by side yourself and you will see what I mean. We can banter back and forth all week about this, but when it really comes down to it. If you had a 10D (not a 300D) would you take a big loss of $1000+ just to upgrade to a 20D? I wouldn't and thats why I upgraded to the 1DmkII. If I were buying in now and didn't have the 10D I would buy the 20D. However the upgrade from a 300D to a 20D is very feasible.

We are really getting off track here aren't we. Back to the original poster.

To the original poster:
My suggestion, you are better off to buy the used 1DmkII if it is in good shape. It will give you alot of advantages over the 10D or 20D.

[drisley]

Honestly, I CAN see a very nice improvement in the noise comparisons between the 10D and 20D posted above, as can the reviewer. And the image quality of the 10D and 300D is about 99.9% the same, albeit with a slightly more agressive sharpening algorithm on the 300D. When using the same settings, the 10D images are EXACTLY the same as the 300D images. And, I can tell you from experience, there is a noticable difference in ISO and Dynamic range going from the 300D to the 20D. Is there enough to upgrade solely based on IQ, probably not.
The consensus all over the internet is that there is an increased dynamic range, lower noise, and generally more resolution going from the 10D to 20D, and that the 20D image quality is VERY much the same as with the 1DMKII (although many say the 20D has better colour reproduction). I've read MANY threads, including POTN, where people have upgraded from the 10D to the 20D and they are imprssed with the improved high ISO noise.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page13.asp
"...deliver almost identical results as the EOS 10D (as we can see in the luminance noise graph below)."
"Hardly shocking results but they do go a long way to confirming that the EOS 300D's sensor, analog board and processing systems are certainly not inferior to those found in the EOS 10D"


Again, the IQ of the 20D is more like the 1DMKI than the 10D. So if someone says it's worthwhile to upgrade to a 1DMKII based on image quality, the same can be said going to a 20D.
However, I would NOT upgrade from a 10D to a 1D MKII based solely on image quality (as golfr5 asked) .
I would upgrade for other reasons. As I would upgrade from a 300D to a 20D for other reasons. In fact, I did. The slightly improved image quality is just a bonus.

[lomond]

Getting back to the original question....My interests are in landscape, portraiture and cars/aircraft printing up to 11x14. I like to work in RAW format and make adjustments in Photoshop. I have the opportunity to buy a 10 month old Canon 1D Mark II in good condition. Using my same lenses should I expect this camera to take photos of any better quality, especially sharpness or saturation than what I now get with my Canon 10D?

Yes, of course, the 1DMKII will give you better results than the 10D.
If the used 1D MKII is around the same price as a new 20D then go for it.
The 20D is a very capable camera, the reason I chose the 1D MKII over the 20D is.....

1. Better build Quality.
2. 8 Frames/sec as opposed to 5.
3. Larger buffer....19 RAW against 6.
4. AF at f8. Handy for the 100-400L + 1.4 TC.
4. AF point expansion.
5. Spot metering.
6. Shutter lifetime.....200,000 against 50,000
7. Better weatherproofing. Very useful in UK.
8. Less noise especilly in shadow areas.

You will have to weigh up the pros and cons and decide what you need.
I decided I needed the 1D MK II because of the above.

[drisley]

How does 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 give better image quality than the 10D, especially since almost all of his shooting is of stationary subjects?

[lomond]

How does 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 give better image quality than the 10D?

Sorry, Drisley.
I didn't say 1,2,3,4,6,7 would give better image quality.
I said these are the reasons I chose the 1D as opposed to the 20D.

[drisley]

Sorry I misread your post.
I too would jump on that deal if it were in the same $ ballpark as the 20D! :)
My initial point to golf5r was that if the money was still maybe a little more than he was willing to spend, the 20D was a viable option as it offers the same image quality as the 1DMII, as well as other improvements over the 10D that would probably suit his type of shooting very, very well.

[lomond]

Drisley, overall I tend to agree with you.
Golfr5 would probably be best served with the 20D for his needs.

I went through a period of long and careful deliberation on the 20D or 1D MKII.
For me in the end the 1D MKII better suited my needs.
When you say "I know I wouldnt get any better pictures using a 1DMKII over a 20D", that may be true depending on what you shoot. However I know I have missed many shots due to the limitation of the 10D and the similar limitations of the 20D, as explained in my reasons for buying the 1D MKII.

[drisley]

I shoot sports all the time. In fact, I shoot some of the fastest sports around, like hockey, basketball, fitness competitions (the routines are probably the hardest action I've ever had to shoot), and I've almost never wished I had a faster camera. But then again, I'm not a "spray and pray" kind of shooter.

And after being at that last fitness competition, and saw that a pro with a 1DMKII and a 70-200/2.8IS had most of his routine pictures turn out blurry while my pictuers (with the 135/2L) came out fairly sharp, I am now convinced more than ever that I don't NEED the 1D. Not to mention that the stationary shots were almost identical, and this is in extreme theatre lighting with high dynamic range, strange white balances, and high ISO's.

However, if I won the lottery, I would still go out and buy a 1DMKII without a second thought. ;)

[cdhender]

The think the life of a 20D is more than 50,000. I believe Canon's website said that it's twice the length of a 10D, which make it 100,000 or so.

[lomond]

I'm happy for you, Drisley. ;)

[lomond]

The think the life of a 20D is more than 50,000. I believe Canon's website said that it's twice the length of a 10D, which make it 100,000 or so.

Most sites I've looked at rate the 20D to about the same as the 10D, ie 50,000.
It's well known the 20D, like the 1D MKII, has a very loud shutter slap.
This will cause increased vibration at exposure and much wear on the mechanism.
Since Canon don't flaunt the 20D's shutter durability, I think it's safe to say it will be quite a bit less than the 1D MK II.

OK I'm ready for the flack.

[Pekka]

Most sites I've looked at rate the 20D to about the same as the 10D, ie 50,000.
It's well known the 20D, like the 1D MKII, has a very loud shutter slap.
This will cause increased vibration at exposure and much wear on the mechanism.
Since Canon don't flaunt the 20D's shutter durability, I think it's safe to say it will be quite a bit less than the 1D MK II.

OK I'm ready for the flack.

20D's mirror has to do "an extra mechanical step" to accommondate for EF-S lenses (which gets apparently very near the sensor) which is reason for louder noise and possibly makes it last shorter.

20D looks like a very good camera and I was about to get one to replace my 10D as backup for 1D Mark II, but when I tried one and heard the mirror slap I knew that that is too much for situations I shoot in - pity!

[digitaltourist]

My claim is that the 20D has better dynamic range thant the 10D, and close to the same as 1D MII. This is what I said all along. Also, if you read the link I attached above, that is the claim of the review posted by the professional studio photographer who works with all these cameras all day.
I know of atleast one person here who has posted side by side comparisons with the 20D and 300D (same dr as 10D) showing a marked improvement in dynamic range.
Ths is partially due to improvements on the sensor, and the new DigicII processor.
If you still can't understand, I can't explain it any better than that.


Decided that being snide was your best response? I just asked for some samples, and yes I did go to the site you posted. I saw no pics demonstrating your claims. All I was asking for was something more substantive than "some pro guy said so". What you have failed to realize is that I get that the 20D has more dynamic range when comapred to the 10D. I also know that the 1D has greater dynamic range than the 20D. In your post you were claiming huge differences between the 10D - 20D and at the same time stating that the difference between the 20D and the 1D was slight. All I am asking for is something that can substantiate your claims. I have no doubt that there are differences, however I do not believe that they are as you have described.


Big Red, I have absolutely NEVER heard the 10D as having better/similar noise compared to the 20D. Every test I've seen shows the exact opposite, as have comments from people who have owned both. Heck, I had the 300D, which had basically the same IQ as the 10D, and the 20D is better in both noise, and detail. I do 75% of my shooting at ISO 800 or higher, and I've done so with both the 300D for 6 months, and the 20D now for 8 months.
Just do a search around for 20D reviews, and you will see graphs, and real world side by side comparisons that shw not only does the 20D have a much improved high ISO profile over the 10D, it's resolving power is also improved. In fact, it matches the 1D MKII in resolving power.


The charts I have seen indicate that the 10D and 20D are virtually the same up to ISO 800 and the difference only becomes signifigant at ISO 3200.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/eos20d.html


My point in all this is, if the original poster is asking about going to a 1D MKII based solely on image quality (which is what it sounds like), then the 20D is another option that will offer about the same improvement over the 10D as the 1D MII in this department. The image quality of the 20D is closer to the image quality 1D MKII than it is to the image quality of 10D, so to recommend the 1D MKII and not the 20D based on image quality makes no sense what-so-ever


Maybe I missed that recomendation, I know I never not recomended the 20D. Nor did I recomend the 1D either. For the record I think either would work for the OP. For sport photography the 1D is the best camera but may cost to much. Short of that I would not hesitate to recommend the 20D.

In my initial post I asked for some pics to qualify your statements and you still haven't. I have no more desire to continue this thread so post the pics if you like otherwise please refrain from infering that I do not understand. In fact I do understand what you have said, and I also understand what I have said. The problem seems to be that we are not communicating on the same level.

[drisley]

I wasn't being "snide"!
And, unless you have vision problems, the images on the links I provided show a nice improvement in the ISO noise of the 20D vs the 10D. Each and every picture showed this. (that's snide :) )
And if you read my whole posts, I provided a LINK to the page of the pro studio photographer, not JUST "some pro guy". Go back and read again.
I NEVER claimed HUGE differences between the 10D and 20D. I said that there was a difference, and that the difference is about the same as between the 10D and the 20D since the 20D has virtually the same IQ as the 1DMKII. And I posted MANY links!
And yes, as bobatkins link points out, as with the others, the noise is virtually the same UPTO ISO800 and at 800 and above there is a difference. That is why I kept saying HIGH ISO's.
THe noise on the 10D/300D at 100-400 is already as clean as you can get.
Again, you are asking for something to substantiate my claims, well I provided the links, with side-by-side examples showing the 20D has better noise profile at high ISO's than the 10D. If you can't see it, I can't help it. I can see it, the reviewer can see it, and anybody who has used a 300D/10D and gone to a 20D can see it. I shoot almost exclusively at ISO800+, and I owned the 300D for 6 months and the 20D for 8 months. I KNOW there is a difference, no matter what you (someone who DOESN"T own a 20D) might believe or say.
Again, you want pictures to qualify my statement? Well , I posted the links already, but here they are again.

ISO Comparison (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page20.asp)

Resolution Chart (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page27.asp) w Images

More Noise Comparison 10D vs 20D (http://www.astrosurf.org/buil/20d/20dvs10d.htm)

100% Crop Image Comparison of 20D and 1DMKII at ISO100 and ISO1600 (http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/canon_20D/Canon_20D_review.html) (about half way down, images are almost identical).

Canon 20D deliver first rate image quality. Clearly superior to those from the 10D in several aspects (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/20d-part2.shtml)

If you can't see the obvious differences I can't help you. If you can't read the charts, I can't help you there either.
If you would prefer to read the opinion of a studio photographer who shoots with the 1D, 1Ds, MKII's, 10D and 20D all day long, here (http://www.pbase.com/r_p/canon_20d_notes) again is the link I provided above.
I've also got hundreds of photos taken with the 300D and 20D that are further proof. If you dont think the IQ of the 300D and 10D are the same, then you are one of the very few.

Again, I dont think that the 20D blows away the 10D in image quality. They are very close. But, my initial point was that the improvement in image quality going from the 10D to 20D is about the same as going from the 10D to the 1DMKII, so the 20D is another option for golf5r to consider.

[drisley]

20D's mirror has to do "an extra mechanical step" to accommondate for EF-S lenses (which gets apparently very near the sensor) which is reason for louder noise and possibly makes it last shorter.

20D looks like a very good camera and I was about to get one to replace my 10D as backup for 1D Mark II, but when I tried one and heard the mirror slap I knew that that is too much for situations I shoot in - pity!
Pekka, the 1D MKII actually has a louder mirror slap than the 20D. Do you use it in different situations than you planned with the 20D?

[drisley]

Most sites I've looked at rate the 20D to about the same as the 10D, ie 50,000.
It's well known the 20D, like the 1D MKII, has a very loud shutter slap.
This will cause increased vibration at exposure and much wear on the mechanism.
Since Canon don't flaunt the 20D's shutter durability, I think it's safe to say it will be quite a bit less than the 1D MK II.

OK I'm ready for the flack.
Canon has stated the actual shutter life of the 20D is about twice that of the 10D.
I believe that over what the other sites "surmise".
Also, the mirror slap of the 20D is about as loud as the 1DMKII, but is somehow less jarring (http://www.pbase.com/r_p/canon_20d_notes).
So, if they can make the shutter on the 1D last so long, there is no reason to think they can't make the shutter on the 20D last twice as long as the 10D.

Also, from Bob Atkins (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/eos_digital_rebel_xt_vs_20d.html)site:
"The EOS 20D has a high performance shutter designed for increased reliability (100,000 cycles), the Digital Rebel XT has the normal Canon shutter (about 50,000 cycles). "

But, all these numbers are just potential averages. You may get 150,000 cycles with a 20D, or maybe only 20,000. Nothing is guaranteed.

[digitaltourist]

If you can't see the obvious differences I can't help you. If you can't read the charts, I can't help you there either.


And I can't help you carry on a conversation like an adult. I can see that you are a zealot that feels the need to always be right and to have the last word, no matter how much you have to twist your words and your facts. You add statements and claims to which you have absolutley no knowledge. How do you know what my experience may be? What cameras I have, or have had, or used and at what level? How can you even begin to quantify how our definitions of the quality differ? What does noticable difference mean to you? To me? I asked to see some pictures that demonstrated this "noticeable difference" so I could understand what that meant to you. Where did I say anything about the image quality between a 10D and a 300D? It just more of the same with you

Again, I would really like to know who you are arguing with. Your post is riddled statements that you attempt to attribute to me, and then you go on to refute said statements!! Briilliant! Do you like to argue for just arguments sake? Clearly you do so I certainly no longer need to participate. LOL

Have at it, the last word is yours.

[digitaltourist]

I provided a LINK to the page of the pro studio photographer, not JUST "some pro guy".


BTW, I did look at the entire site. Did you? Despite your claims I did not see any side y side comparisons of the 20D and the 1D MarkII. Most of what was there was comparisons between the 10D and 1D Mark II to which the "pro photographer" states :

"The 10D file was shot with the 28-28 L lens at f11, 100 ISO.
The Mark II file was shot weeks later with a 50 1.8 at 5.6, 400 ISO.

As you can see, there is not so much practical difference in rez. and “prettiness” of the files, PARTICULARLY when they are printed."

So unless your claim is that the 20D is noticeably better than the 1D Mark II I cannot see how you can claim this link supports your assertion. The only thing you have offered in this thread is links to resolution charts on dpreview and I for one really cannot tell how that will make a difference in the real world.

As I have said before I know there are difference in the IQ but I suspect a large part of that is due to the superior metering and AWB systems in the 1D series and the 20D. I just wanted to see some side by side pics taken at the same time with the same exposure and WB. You simply want to argue with yourself so again, have at it. LOL.

[Pekka]

Pekka, the 1D MKII actually has a louder mirror slap than the 20D. Do you use it in different situations than you planned with the 20D?

20D does not have mirror noise reduction (which is always on in my Mark II). If 20D had it then it would be easy backup solution.

And when comparing 1D Mark II and 20D sound, 20D sound is harsher (perhaps bacause body does not have sealings).

[digitaltourist]

20D does not have mirror noise reduction (which is always on in my Mark II). If 20D had it then it would be easy backup solution.

And when comparing 1D Mark II and 20D sound, 20D sound is harsher (perhaps bacause body does not have sealings).

I agree, the 20D seems a lot harsher and louder. The 1D Mark II seems less jarring and when needed the mirror noise reduction makes a big difference.

[drisley]

20D does not have mirror noise reduction (which is always on in my Mark II). If 20D had it then it would be easy backup solution.

And when comparing 1D Mark II and 20D sound, 20D sound is harsher (perhaps bacause body does not have sealings).
That's odd. I've always heard the exact opposite. The mirror slap is the same, but the 1DMKII is MORE jarring.
- "the mirror slap of the 20D is about as loud as the 1DMKII, but is somehow less jarring (http://www.pbase.com/r_p/canon_20d_notes)"
- "the mirror slap noise is now a bit noisier and sounds "sharper" than the 10D. The 20D is about as loud as the 1D Mk2 now, actually (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/131641)"


20D (http://www.risc.org/Images/LJ/canon20d_5fps.wav) @ 5 FPS
1DMKII (http://www.risc.org/Images/LJ/canon1dmk2_5fps.wav) @ 5 FPS

The again I guess it's a personal preference.

There is a DIRECT comparison of images of the 20D and 1DMKII taken at the same place, same time, same settings, in a link posted above. Plus there is the same side by side comparisons taken with the 10D and 20D at all ISO's that I posted from the beginning.
**edited**

Golfr5, sorry this turned this into a pissing match and sidetracked this thread.
As I stated initially, if you get a good deal on the 1DMKII, go for it.
However, an alternative is the 20D which offers the same image quality as the 1DMKII, and some new features over the 10D. Going this route might save you some money that you can used on your next lens purchase :)
Here is a review of the20D (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/131641) from a photojournalist who uses it as a backup to his 1DMKII. In his opinion, "on raw files produced by both cameras, my eyes cannot detect any difference in noise levels, nor colour balance, nor dynamic range. "

[redbutt]

And after being at that last fitness competition, and saw that a pro with a 1DMKII and a 70-200/2.8IS had most of his routine pictures turn out blurry while my pictuers (with the 135/2L) came out fairly sharp, I am now convinced more than ever that I don't NEED the 1D.

It's entirely possible that you are a better photographer than that "pro". Remember, the best camera in the world is going to take crap pictures in the hands of someone that doesn't know what they are doing.

Golfr...many good photo stores will rent you equipment. Go rent a couple of cameras and take them for a spin. I personally have a 1D MkII and would never give it up for anything. My 10D is my backup...it's still a creat camera. Hell, I even still have my D30...which my wife uses on occasion.

[CyberDyneSystems]

RE Mirror slap/shutter noise.

Oddly It varies significantly from unit to unit. Both on the MkII and the 20D

My own 20D is SIGNIFICANTLY louder than my MkII. (I do not use the sound reduction on the MkII either)

However,. I have had my 20D side by side next to other units that are quieter,. and I have heard MkII's that are louder. This seems to be the source of the debate and why no consensus can be achieved.

On avereadge though (based on Polls I have seen) is that the 20D tends to be a little louder than the MkII.

The Original 4.5MP 1D however,. at least the one I had,. was BY FAR the loudest!

[redbutt]

"the mirror slap noise is now a bit noisier and sounds "sharper" than the 10D. The 20D is about as loud as the 1D Mk2 now, actually"

There's a custom function in the 1D MkII that allows you to quiet this down....if it's an issue.

[drisley]

RE Mirror slap/shutter noise.

Oddly It varies significantly from unit to unit. Both on the MkII and the 20D

My own 20D is SIGNIFICANTLY louder than my MkII. (I do not use the sound reduction on the MkII either)

However,. I have had my 20D side by side next to other units that are quieter,. and I have heard MkII's that are louder. This seems to be the source of the debate and why no consensus can be achieved.

On avereadge though (based on Polls I have seen) is that the 20D tends to be a little louder than the MkII.

The Original 4.5MP 1D however,. at least the one I had,. was BY FAR the loudest!
CDS, thanks for the input. That makes the most sense so far :)
DigitalProphet, sorry for turning this into a 20D vs MKII debate. However, I'm just going by my own experience, and by those of other top notch photographers.
My intent was/is to help Golfr5 get the best bang for his buck. In my opinion the 20D can be one option.
No hard feelings I hope. :cool:
Redbutt, that is an intersting feature to quiet down the slap. Does that affect the potential FPS?

[CyberDyneSystems]

I have another theory regarding the difference in noise from these two cameras that no one else seems to comment on.

The two cameras make there mirror/shutter noise at distinctly differing frequencies/pitch.

As Human hearing varies from one individual to another regarding accuity at specific frequencies, especially as we grow older,. it is also entirely possible that this subjective difference makes up for some percentage of the variation in observations regarding which is louder.

ie: if the 20D's slap is at a higher frequency,. and the listener is older and has reduced hearing at the higher frequncies (a common thing as we age) then the 20D will sound quieter.

[drisley]

You know what's funny.
Men generally lose the ability to hear higher frequencies as we age.
Women generally lose the ability to hear lower frequencies as they age.
You think it's all part of Nature's divine plan to keep old married couples from killing each other? :)

[Pekka]

I have another theory regarding the difference in noise from these two cameras that no one else seems to comment on.

The two cameras make there mirror/shutter noise at distinctly differing frequencies/pitch.

As Human hearing varies from one individual to another regarding accuity at specific frequencies, especially as we grow older,. it is also entirely possible that this subjective difference makes up for some percentage of the variation in observations regarding which is louder.

ie: if the 20D's slap is at a higher frequency,. and the listener is older and has reduced hearing at the higher frequncies (a common thing as we age) then the 20D will sound quieter.

I was just about to write about that. I listen and produce sounds professionally so when I say 20D sounds louder I mean: Decibels are only part of "disturbance factor" of a sound. If there is mirror slap noise, raise speed of the attack and on what frequencies the attack happens makes the overall effect. You can hear clearly in sound clips Drisley posted that 20D has more high content, and here you can also see it.

Upper window is 20D, lower 1D Mark II. Yellow color means higher frequencies, both files are normalized and phase corrected, sound file was saved with 22KHz, so highest possible frequency in recorded files was 11KHz. You can also see the mechanical movement of the mirror in the amplitide graph. I do not know what shutter speed was used, but to me it looks like 20D has something moving there _while_ the exposure was taken!

http://photography-on-the.net/stuff/sounds.jpg

[drisley]

That spectrogram is so cool!