Difference between 1DMKII and 20D

[pyterps]

What is the biggest difference between the two cameras and is it really worth spending 3500-4000 for the MKII.

Dave

[cecilc]

What is the biggest difference between the two cameras...

The biggest differences ....

* The ability to set ISO in 1/3 stop increments instead of full stop increments
* The 8 frames/second
* Larger buffer
* You can set your own levels of jpg compression
* More color balance options
Those are just a few - there are others that might not qualify for "biggest" differences.

...and is it really worth spending 3500-4000 for the MKII.

I don't think there's anyone on these boards that can answer that question for you. If I could tell you how to spend your money, I'd just have you send it to me ;) .....

Hope that helps ....

[GyRob]

damp profing ,weight,8fps, feels nice in the hand, heavey though. lots of custom bits but I could live without most if not all of them, will auto focus at f8 dont need that myself.
there the bits that spring to mind for me.
now is it worth it NO NO NO that is my honest view, for me the 20d did all that the 1dmk2 does for me Note i say for me a lot as that is my view on the 2 cameras working for me .
if you have deep pockets fine pop out and buy one you wont be dissapointed ,but you wont with a 20d either.
Rob.

[Pekka]

For me

Reliablilty in any situation
Dual card slots
1.3X (lenses more usable, better quality and larger viewefinder)
Accurate focus system
Shutter noise (noise reduction mode)
Weather sealing
Speed
Battery system
You can configure to suit your way of working
Image quality
And that I do not have to think if it is camera's fault or my fault. Now it is always my fault.

[roanjohn]

The only reason I would upgrade to a 1 series:

45 point AF
Viewfinder
Crop-factor

and dare I say it??

Displayed ISO setting

Why haven't I upgraded??

Cost
Weight

Ro1

[cecilc]

And that I do not have to think if it is camera's fault or my fault. Now it is always my fault.

:lol: YES ... and that just might be the biggest difference of all !!

Thanks for pointing that out .... so true !

[Todd Jacobsen]

Hmmm...

I've yet to blame the camera on a missed shot...even with an instamatic. A camera can only do what it is capable of doing. The photographer has to be intelligent enough to understand the camera - not the other way around.

But it is easier to blame the equipment than oneself...

[roanjohn]

.........But it is easier to blame the equipment than oneself...

I never make mistakes...........................

.............:D Ro1

[cecilc]

Hmmm...
I've yet to blame the camera on a missed shot...
But it is easier to blame the equipment than oneself...

Hmmmm ....

Apparently, you can joke around with some people ....

Others .... not so much ..... ;)

[Pekka]

Hmmm...

I've yet to blame the camera on a missed shot...even with an instamatic. A camera can only do what it is capable of doing. The photographer has to be intelligent enough to understand the camera - not the other way around.

But it is easier to blame the equipment than oneself...

At some point camera becomes the limiting factor, maybe you have not reached that point yet. That has nothing to do with "understanding the camera" but all to do with "forgetting the camera". For example having low noise high ISO gives opportunity to do more journalistic and active style of shooting, and fast speed frees you from thinking about the camera in fast situations.

AF is not the same in all cameras. I can't have same focusing accuracy AND focusing reliablity with e.g. 10D as with Mark II (I've had G1, D30, D60 and 10D before 1D Mark II). For example 10D focused every time slightly differently and that was a major problem with low light photography. If there is variance in AF lock point, you can not really practice AF - it becomes matter of faith instead of matter of knowledge and skill.

You can't work around things like 1.3X FoV or reliability, no matter how talented you are. Having shutter noise reduction negates the need for a blimp in short notice, having weather sealing (in lens, too) gives you freedom to shoot in any weather. I can go with 20D to shoot in rain and no matter how I try to understand and adjust to it, it will break.

[tim]

If you don't understand the difference between the cameras you probably don't need the Mk II. I've never used one, but from what i've read they're more powerful, but also more difficult to use. Get the 20D, it's a great camera, if you find it limits you then upgrade to the 1D series later.

[shiato storm]

thisis one of the debates I'm going through my mind at the moment. I use a 1N so I'm used to the 100% viewing, weatherproofing etc. that such a body gives. again I know how to use it. It DOES HAVE LIMITATIONS but if you know what they are you can avoid them and use it in situations where it is going to set you ahead of the rest...
I think if I were to get one I would get the mkii, there's lots of reasons why but essentially (to take the most important ones); it offers weatherproofing (in my mind if you're going to use a digital camera, essentially relies on electricity for its functioning then it makes sense to protect it from moisture and potential particles from fouling the innards!), ISO display - always handy(!), its got a 'better' crop factor meaning I can use my lenses I have more effectively and not lose much of what they offer, faster frame capture (the 1N is pretty good but you try it, after a couple of rolls you'd wish you were digital!), tougher build - it might be heavier but hey it's built to last, more accurate metering/focusing points and WB settings more customisable.
in all I just think its a heck of a lot more reliable...the ONLY drawback is its age which - given the speed of developments at present - we're expecting an update any day now...mkiii anyone?

p.s. 10D to 20D = Feb '03 to Aug '04
1D mkII to ? = Jan '04 to ?? '05? ...makes you wonder whats going on over at canon. what with more pixels crammed into smaller spaces its either going to be a 12mpix 1.3x sensor or a small (20D sized) sensor at 12mpix...i hear the dx nikon one is rather small at 12mpix...:rolleyes: come on canon!

[JSolie]

Hmmm...

I've yet to blame the camera on a missed shot...even with an instamatic. A camera can only do what it is capable of doing. The photographer has to be intelligent enough to understand the camera - not the other way around.

But it is easier to blame the equipment than oneself...

Oh, I've blamed my old Minolta many times for missed shots. :evil: I found it's autofocus speed to be a problem, and sometimes you never were quite sure of what it was focusing on. The EVF on it (while really neat that you can tip to vertical) is fairly lo-res, so even manual focus is tricky. Then there's the noise issue...

So, either I just out grew the camera, or I had finally had enough of missing shots while the autofocus hunted back and forth for four seconds only to wind up with a blurry shot that looked great in the EVF? :)

Is there a 1DMKII in my future? I hope so...and so far, I'm very happy with my 20D.

-- John

[grego]

Basically the 20D is poor mans 1DMKII. Unless you are going to professionally photograph things, the investment isn't worth it. The 20D will get the job down and then some. The 20D is one of the best cameras out there. You really can't go wrong with it. And if you add the battery pack, you have increased battery power and the extra shutter button.

[lostdoggy]

I think that the higher iso is a very important factor and 1.3 DoV is another. I'm having the same dilema. When I use to shoot film ISO is what ever was in the camera but switching to Digital it gave me the opportunity choose the ISO at any point and then go back so having the ISO in the VF makes it that much more important to me. Knowing that a different setting can be had can change the outcome of the shot.
The difference of 1.3 and 1.6 is a big difference when you're shooting Landscape or group photos. With a 20mm becoming a 26mm or 32mm the difference is a big.

IMHO if you can afford to buy a 1DMKII then that is the one for you, because you'll always regret not getting it . So buy it and enjoy it even if you have no idea how to use it. At least you will be able to show off to everyone that you have a pro body. But, to be reasonable buy a 20D and with the money saved you can get a 70-200f/2.8L IS and a 24-70f/2.8L.

[weemannie]

Having just changed from 20D to 1D Mk2, my favourite differences are:

1. 'Uzi' mode (8.5 fps)
2. Weight and feel.
3. Built in motor drive.
4. 50 iso available
5. Waterproofing
6. Spot metering
7. Bright and 100% viewfinder - an absolute boon!
8. 1.3x crop
9. I think AF is faster.

Oh and it looks great! :D

PS I ALWAYS blame the camera for lousy shots :lol: :lol: :lol:

[pierrot]

Having just changed from 20D to 1D Mk2, my favourite differences are:
3. Built in motor drive.

Yes, that's a great improvement compared to the 20d (which has only paddles) ! :mrgreen:

[shiato storm]

sorry, I'm a little confused; a dSLR with a motor-drive? I thought this was film slr territory...
surely its just that the buffer can handle full res/raw images at 8.5 fps ("uzi mode" :D ) and maintain a high fps whilst wrting to the mem-card (which will max out in no time at that speed!). or do you mean the 'motordrive' as in the battery pack permanently attached at the bottom? giving verticle grip etc? if so then yes I agree - verticle grip = a GOOD thing. but I would like the option of removing it for a smaller more able body BUT with all the water proofing and extra durability the model gives. so think 1dmkii crammed into a 20D body (with water proofing etc). it might happen...

[griff2]

Pekka wrote: AF is not the same in all cameras. I can't have same focusing accuracy AND focusing reliablity with e.g. 10D as with Mark II (I've had G1, D30, D60 and 10D before 1D Mark II). For example 10D focused every time slightly differently and that was a major problem with low light photography. If there is variance in AF lock point, you can not really practice AF - it becomes matter of faith instead of matter of knowledge and skill..

Now that is interesting, I 've suspected the same of the 300D as well.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I shoot both 1D MkII and 20D

The single biggest differnce for me is AF speed and accuracy. With the right lens,.. as Pekka says.. if there is a mistake I know it's mine.. not the Camera's. The AF on the 1D is simply bullet proof.

Plus I like the motor drive :lol:

As for blaming the equipment.. there were times with the 10D and every so often still with the 20D when no matter what you do with the camera correctly.. it simply refuses to lock focus on the flying bird in front of the cluttered background,. at times like this I am not only going to blame the 10D/20D's inferior AF tracking... I will be doing audibly out loud for all the world to hear! "focus on the bird.. THE BIRD!!!! ;)

[shiato storm]

by which tme the bird has heard you and naffed off...squaking "1D, 1D!"

[cfcRebel]

As for blaming the equipment.. there were times with the 10D and every so often still with the 20D when no matter what you do with the camera correctly.. it simply refuses to lock focus on the flying bird in front of the cluttered background,. at times like this I am not only going to blame the 10D/20D's inferior AF tracking... I will be doing audibly out loud for all the world to hear! "focus on the bird.. THE BIRD!!!! ;) LOL! I do that alot when shooting bird in flight. :lol: The viewfinder will blur and clear, and blur again even when i have the bird in the center. Well, i can't complain. it's a 300D.

[malla1962]

i chose the 20d at the time as the 1d mk2 was just over £3000 here in the uk.now they are just over £2000.i wonder what they will cost when thay stop making them.£1500-£1800?thats when i will get one.

[shiato storm]

yeah but 2000-1800 isn't as big difference as 3000-2000. if you got one around now then I doubt you'd be bothered if it dropped a bit. it is likely that the next update is going to come in at a price similar to what it is now, just as the 20D did with reference to the 10D, as technology is moving rather quickly I wouldn't be surprised if we see a similar jump. although 10 > 20D was small the differences were noted. and perhaps mkii to iii will be a similar small but noted change, but its hard to know what they would improve on. its a pretty good benchmark as it is and an update would only be towards data storage technology I reckon and not so much image capture technology... digic II does rather well, 8mpix is more than enough, its a great body (tough etc) so much about it is right I can see why canon havent done much for a year and a half...but there's the thing; its been a year and a half! in a fast moving world its an age!

[malla1962]

yeah but 2000-1800 isn't as big difference as 3000-2000. if you got one around now then I doubt you'd be bothered if it dropped a bit. it is likely that the next update is going to come in at a price similar to what it is now, just as the 20D did with reference to the 10D, as technology is moving rather quickly I wouldn't be surprised if we see a similar jump. although 10 > 20D was small the differences were noted. and perhaps mkii to iii will be a similar small but noted change, but its hard to know what they would improve on. its a pretty good benchmark as it is and an update would only be towards data storage technology I reckon and not so much image capture technology... digic II does rather well, 8mpix is more than enough, its a great body (tough etc) so much about it is right I can see why canon havent done much for a year and a half...but there's the thing; its been a year and a half! in a fast moving world its an age!
good point,the thing i would like 2 see on a mk2 upgrade is a full frame sensor.to me that would be just right.

[shiato storm]

but then the buffer would be slowed down wouldn't it?...actually maybe by the time an update comes along the technical wizards would have squeezed a bit more speed out of the buffer so going ff sensor would keep it at processable 8-ish fps and ff... thats better than the 1ds btw :)

[emurph2]

All the upgraded features were already mentioned so I won't list those again. I was perfectly happy with my 10D. I used a 1D for one hockey game and it was all over for me, I had to have one. I can't tell you how much I love the 1D m2. The speed is what sold me on it, but I've cut my editing time down by much more than half and my time is worth it to me. I'm loving the different color settings, the portrait color is awesome and I always use high sat. for sports. I love the extra memory card slot. I love all the ISO settings and use them all the time. I was shooting a baseball game at sunset and I had to keep changing it, and it was so nice that I could. I do a lot of high ISO photos, mostly hockey. I use to use a noise filter on all images over ISO 800, now I can go up to ISO 1250 without a filter and some of my ISO 1600 photos do not have enough visible noise to filter. The one thing that I miss, and you might think this is so silly, is the in-camera flash. I have a 580 EX, but it's big and bulky and in some circumstances it's nice to have some fill flash or not carry a big flash to an event where you're just taking some fun snapshots for yourself. I can't say I regreat this purchase at all.

[shiato storm]

perhaps they need to make a mini-flash unit that is only meant to give a fill-effect, asves having to lug around a big thing on top of an already chunky body...especially at events where you're moving around a fair bit.

[griff2]

I've decided to get one. As much as I like my current 300D, there are just too many issues with AF, which seem to have been carried on to the XT and 20D. I think ~£2k isn't bad, considering it is a pro body.

[MDJAK]

On a serious note for a moment, one reason, among many, that I upgraded from the 20D was its lack of consistent lock on focusing during indoor sports action, where, with my 70-200 f/2.8 IS, it would hunt and lose focus constantly.


On a less serious note, but nevertheless true, I wanted the MKII.

Let me say I FULLY ADMIT MANY PEOPLE CAN TAKE BETTER PICTURES WITH THEIR 10D OR 20D THAN CAN I WITH THE 1D.

Now, I'll stop yelling. But, to me, after owning both, the 20D feels more toy-like in my hands. I was going to keep it as a backup, but I knew I would never use it.

Let's see, on the one hand I can take my 20D.

On the other hand, I can take my 1DsMKII.

Which would you bring? I don't care if my camera bag weighs 20 pounds.

I always laugh when people spend large sums of money on the lightest bicycle and they are 50 pounds overweight themselves.

EDIT: Please, no one take offense at my referring to the 20D as a toy. When I upgraded from the 10D to the 20D, I loved it. My real point, I guess, is there really is no comparison. One is a professional tool and handles and feels that way. The other is simply not.

[pyterps]

I have know idea why but I just remembered starting this post and man am I thrilled with all the replies. Besides my digital I also shoot with a 1N RS and love the speed when I need it, the AF is far better and faster than the Rebel and you just can't beat the feeling of it in your hands. I'm starting to shoot a few weddings and think the MKII with the AF and everything else mentioned in the post would be something I could use and will last me for years to come. Everything I make I put back into equipment so I do a few weddings and I'm a new camera owner and why not through in a few L lenses.

Again, thanks for all the replys and sorry it has taken me so long to post a reply.

Dave

[ScottE]

For some purposes the 20D is better than a 1DMkII.

If you put the 16-35 lens on a 1D the widest focal length available is the equivalent of about 21 mm on a full frame camera. If you put an EF-S 10-22 lens on a D20, it gives the equivalent of a 16-35 on a full frame camera. The abilitity to use EF-S lenses can be and advantage and that may become more of a factor as more and better EF-S lenses are introduced.

For wildlife photography the length of your telephoto lens is often a limiting factor. A 500 mm lens on a 1D is the equivalent of a 650 mm lens on full frame. On a 20D it is ht equivalent of an 800 mm lens. The 1.6x factor can be an advantage over 1.3x.

If you travel, backpack or have to carry your camera long distances, the 20D is much lighter and more compact that a 1D.

If you are on a budget the 20D fits in a lot better, especially if technology keeps improving and you will want to upgrade to a newer model on two or three years.

For most other purposes, the 1DMkII is a better camera.

Scott

[Pekka]

If you are on a budget the 20D fits in a lot better, especially if technology keeps improving and you will want to upgrade to a newer model on two or three years.


As I see it is that most people upgrade every year. With 1D Mark II real upgrade urge might come in 3-6 years. So which one is actually cheaper?

[shiato storm]

I'm hoping the next incarnation of digital cameras will have a sturdy body the size of the 20D, much like the 1V/1N/1/3 series film bodies which have weather proofing and a rugged design...for those of us that like to go to the wilder places on the planet e.g. mountain climbing - I did this with an OM1 but would have prefered autofocus! its also not weatherproof either. I also have a 1N but still would like to have something digital that doesn't have the vunerability the 20/350d in adverse conditions or the size but does have the ruggedness of the 1 series

[pcasciola]

As I see it is that most people upgrade every year. With 1D Mark II real upgrade urge might come in 3-6 years. So which one is actually cheaper?Uh oh, and here I was thinking I can't afford a 1D Mk II. You've now convinced me that I can't afford NOT to upgrade to a 1D Mk II, because I know I will be probably buy every version of the 20D as they are released just like you said.

For me, I want the ISO in the viewfinder, 8fps, dual cards, 45 point AF, better AI Servo tracking and brighter viewfinder.

[SeanH]

Call me crazy but I just returned the 1DMk2 and went back to my 20D. The bottom line is the 1D is a insane camera, but IMO I wasn't producing the images I was able to with my 20D. If your good with photoshop and are willing to have to sharpen the living !*#@! out of EVERY SHOT, and if you don't mind flat, soft images.....and need every custom fuction known to man, then it's for you.......LOL.........J/k, But honestly I just don't want to sit down and have to produce a great image in Photoshop, I'd like them pretty close right out of the camera...........at least until I increase my PS skills 10 fold. Then I will probably get the current 1D version again. I also will say, when you have this camera (1D) in your hands it's put you in a total different mindset about your photography........and a 300 2.8 on it and you feel like a god......LOL. Only problem with that is when you get back and download images that are soft from that combo.........not to mention your checkook is missing $4100.

At least that's my 2 cents

[lomond]

It must take me ...ooooh, what 3 seconds to sharpen in PS. :)

[SeanH]

It must take me ...ooooh, what 3 seconds to sharpen in PS. :)

Yea I'm slow.......it took me a whole day to figure out I could produce as good photo's with a $1400 camera as I could a $4000 camera. Oh and BTW with all the money I saved I picked up a 300 F4.....figured I would put the money where it counts.....in the glass.

.......and I forgot to mention from a VERY good source.........BIG stuff happening in the second half with Canon.....and I quote.

[ScottE]

As I see it is that most people upgrade every year. With 1D Mark II real upgrade urge might come in 3-6 years. So which one is actually cheaper?
If you'll be content with the technology of the 1DMkII for 3-6 years there is no reason you wouldn't be content with the 20D for the same period. It's not like the 20D is suddenly going to get worse after one year while the 1D improve.

[Pekka]

If you'll be content with the technology of the 1DMkII for 3-6 years there is no reason you wouldn't be content with the 20D for the same period. It's not like the 20D is suddenly going to get worse after one year while the 1D improve.

I'm sure they both will remain same but 1D has reduced my need to seek for new models (other than for fun, interest and as second cam). Start a "next 20D wishlist" and "next 1D Mark II wishlist" and compare which features are asked for. I bet all 20D users say "brighter viewfinder", "focusing screens", "faster fps", "45 point AF", "sealing", "SD card".... that is something that I do not need to go through with 1D already in my hand. 1D users would most likely ask mainly for improved versions of existing features.

I do not want to put down 20D in any way, I would like to have one if I had extra cash - I have tried it and only negative side as my backup camera would be shutter noise. And perhaps odd controls (it's hard to change reflexes on action).

[phili1]

I own and love my 20D but if I could afford it there is no doubt I would buy the MKII. One prime reason othere then weather proof is the ability to use and auto focus a lens at F8.

There are slight differences between them but enough that the additional money is worht it.

With that said if you have $6500 to spend then I thinmk I would but the 20D and the 500F4 lens combo. If I had $10,000 the the MKII woul.d be the combo.

If you have the MKII and a 50mm lens and that is it for quite a while then I think you have to re-think.

It all boils down to can you affored to go the bnig gun route.

[Mohawk]

I have both, the 20D and 1DMKII. If you have the money, and are used to a full frame body, the 1DMKII is the way to go. As far as image quality, I am hard pressed to tell the difference. But, the incredibly accurate AF and that "motor drive", make the 1DMKII my camera of choice. And it is $4000+ cheaper then the 1DsMKII. I keep the 20D around for the long glass, everyday usage goes to the 1DMKII. If you shoot allot of indoor or landscapes, the 1.3x crop of the 1DMKII is the best way to go in my book. But, if you are looking at something for wildlife, the 20D is hard to beat.

Then there is the glass, get the best that you can afford. Trust me on that.

Mike

[CyberDyneSystems]

For some purposes the 20D is better than a 1DMkII.

.... on a 1D the widest focal length available is the equivalent of about 21 mm on a full frame camera. If you put an EF-S 10-22 lens on a D20, it gives the equivalent of a 16-35 on a full frame camera.

But you used a 16mm on a 1.3X as the wide lens in your example.. there are 14mm and 12mm lenses available.. the 14mm on a 1.3X will be almost as wide as the 10mm on a 1.6X.. and the 12mm on a 1.3X will be wider than anything available on a 1.6x.

So despite lack of EFS compatibility.. the 1.3X camera can still go wider.

[kenyc]

And here I thought price was the only difference. :)

KAC

[ScottE]

But you used a 16mm on a 1.3X as the wide lens in your example.. there are 14mm and 12mm lenses available.. the 14mm on a 1.3X will be almost as wide as the 10mm on a 1.6X.. and the 12mm on a 1.3X will be wider than anything available on a 1.6x.

So despite lack of EFS compatibility.. the 1.3X camera can still go wider.
The 14 mm lens is a very specialized lens that no one I know owns. The 16-35 is the widest lens most people carry. As far as I know, most 12 mm lenses are fish eye lens that don't have rectilinear correction. Who wants to spend the time correcting a fisheye in Photoshop when you can just get the same thing direct from the camera?

As for being wider, is the equivalent of 15.6 mm that much better than 16 mm?

Scott

[CyberDyneSystems]

Is 16 that much wider than 15.6?
The Sigma 12-24mm is rectilinear.
I'm not all sure how your own familiarity with the readily available 14mm lenses would have any bearing on it's viability for this discussion?

The point is simply; your assesment that the 10-22mm EF-S available for the 1.6x crop 20D equates to a wider feild of view possible on the 20D than on the 1D was inaccurate.

I wanted to clear up this mistake.
The 1D's 1.3x crop makes the 1D capable of offering a wider feild of view with the available lenses than the 20D is capable of offering. Even the addition of the EF-S lenses does not change this.

You can continue to argue the point if you feel compelled.. it will still be an inaccurate statement.