300D upgrading to 20D?

[Alpieagle]

Hello,

I use a 300d for almost 1,5 years now, and especially in low light situations I am not happy with the quality performance of the camera anymore. Also for sports action photos the fps are too few.

I certainly would go for a 1d II, but it's by far out of my budget range, so would you recommend upgrading to a 20D, just for the additional features the 300D doesn't have, the better ISO performance and more fps?

Also, I'm thinking about selling my 100-400L IS 4.5-5.6 and replacing it with a 70-200L 2.8 + a 2x converter.
Again, I am happy with the 100-400 as long as light is good and the results are decent, too ( see link below! )
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/852151/L/
.. but when it comes to bad weather / low light photography the lens hits its limit quite fast... Only solution would be going up with ISO, what takes us back to 300D vs 20D.

What would you recommend, any help would be appreciated!

Thank you!

[Bob_A]

Fantastic picture Alpieagle!

I have a 20D and have been very satisfied with it. I'm also extremely happy that it came out before the XT, because if it didn't I would have purchased the XT instead and would have been really disappointed after the first time I held a 20D. The startup and shutter response is quick enough to make it feel as if you are using a film camera. It also feels solid, the controls are nicely layed out, and it is the perfect size for me. The larger buffer/higher fps is a plus as is the ability to get useable photos at ISO 3200.

About using the 70-200 with a 2x Extender ...

The March 2005 issue of EOS Magazine has a pretty good article about different approaches to getting to 400mm, which included the:

1. 200mm f2.8L USM with EF 2X II Extender
2. 400mm f5.6L USM
3. 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM with EF 2X II Extender
4. 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM

According to the article the 70-200 is the best choice if you mainly need a zoom for below 200mm, but optically with the exender it is not as good as the 100-400 ... although it is still very good (this shouldn't be a surprise, since the 100-400 is a very nice lens).

Quoting from the article "The most versatile option is the EF 70-200mm f2.8L lens with a 2X Extender, giving you a very good fast lens in the 70-200mm range and yet still good image quality at 400mm."

The article would have been a bit more complete if it provided some resolution test data, but they did provide some small sample shots at 400mm for each choice and they all looked pretty impressive.


Bob

[mdm]

Have you tried a hack on your drebel? I know iso goes up to 3200. fps would be same. If it works, you could go all out on your lens.

[dennykyser]

I love my 20D, I also have a 10D and although no real complaints the 20D has proven to be better suited for me. I also have the 70-200 2.8, and upgraded from the f/4 version for the faster lens. I ran out of light too many times with the f/4 and found it had lots of limits for me. I shoot a lot in the evenings and also in the woods so light is always a factor.

[ScottE]

I have a 70-200/2.8 and have used it with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. With a 1.4x teleconverter it is quite sharp. With a 2x teleconverter it is not quite as sharp as my Sigma 50-500. (I have compared the Sigma 50-500 to a Canon 100-400 and they are very close, so the comparison of a 70-200/2.8 + 2x teleconverter to a 100-400 should favor the 100=400 for sharpness.)

I use the Canon 70-200/2.8 and Sigma 50-500 for two different purposes. The Canon is used for low light situations where I don't need a long telephoto, such weddings or sports at night or on a dull day. The Sigma is used when th light is better, especially if I might need a long telephoto, such as wildlife or some sports.

Your choice should depend on what you need for your style of shooting.

As for camera bodies, I upgraded from a D60 to the 20D. I consider that a worthwhile change for the improved camera features. I have not used a 300D, but I believe it is missing some key features so I would consider an upgrade.

I would not really consider the 1D Mk II because it is much bulkier and heavier and has a larger sensor so that your telephoto lens will seem to be shorter. Also, it cannot use EF-S lenses so some good new lenses such as the 10-22, 17-85 IS and 60 macro lenses cannot be used on it.

Scott

[tim]

The upgrade from the 300D to the 20D was one of the best moves I made with my photography, i'm very happy with the move :) Now I want a 1D though... ;)

[Laffctx]

I had a 300D and had problems right out of the box.......i took it back and exchanged it for the XT 350D and it is really sweet.........i heard the 300D is being discontinued real soon too.

Good luck,

Laffctx

[GyRob]

The 20d is a really nice camera once you have the parameters set right for jpegs, personal choice of cause. you wont be dissapointed with a 20d and 5fps is really nice for action shots.
Rob

[zacker]

hey, if you can afford the 20D... why not? if money is a factor, go for the 350D. i did and i love it! its not as fast and it dont have all the bells and whistles the 20 d has but you know what? it takes pictures that look every bit as good as the 20D and it looks like the 20D and its like $ 600.00 less so you can actually get another sweet lens for it!
Just my 2 cents though.
-zacker-

[DocFrankenstein]

Or you could get a 70-200 L for approximately the same price and will love you long time.

Choices choices...

[markubig]

Have you tried a hack on your drebel? I know iso goes up to 3200. fps would be same. If it works, you could go all out on your lens.IMO, hacking the drebel doesn't really help for low-light photography, as it is already noisy at 1600. When I had my hacked Drebel, iso3200 shots were terrible and required lots of NR. Now with my 20D, iso1600 shots are very usable and require very little (if any) NR. If you can afford it, make the jump to the 20D . . . you will be very happy.

[jporter12]

If I had been on this forum, I would have bought the 20D. At the time, I didn't even know of the 20D, so the Drebel was all I had in mind. If I had it to do over, I would've researched more and gone with a 20D.

I am NOT disappointed with my DRebel at all though! It does very well, price range considered.

[Jetmech1]

I'd rather have some nice glass. The 20D seems to be a nice camera and some day I may uprgrade to it or it's replacement. For now my 300D does the job. I'm just wanting some nice L glass. But if you have the cash the 20D would be a nice upgrade. All that have upgraded seem to enjoy the 20D.