Canon EOS-D Mark II vs. Canon Digital Rebel XT

[Candi lynn]

I was wondering what the big difference in the two were? The Mark II is 3 times more expensive but they both have the same number of megapixels (8mp). Is it really worth that much more money?

Thanks

[AjP]

absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Candi lynn]

but why

[Andy_T]

If you have to ask, you won't need the 1DII anyway :wink:

Go with the 350D, it's a great camera.

Best regards,
Andy

[Candi lynn]

but still why?

[ssim]

Put a 1dMKII in your hands and you'll know why it is as expensive as it is.

The build is much more solid. It's FPS is greater, you can customize it more, it has intermediate ISO capabilities, the list goes on.

The 1 series bodies are pro bodies, whereas the 300/20D type of cameras are prosumer level cameras. Yes, they all have basically the same MP but there is way more to cameras than the MP. The 1 series handle noise better for another instance.

Look it up on the Canon website, do a comparison there and you'll see the differences as to why one is more expensive than the other.

[Vegas Poboy]

The 1D mark II is built for Pros with quality and advance features that the average consumer does not know how & when to use.

Each level of Canon camera is built of course for a different level of user. The megapixals is just a small part of the camera operation and Companies has found out that the big selling feature when you go purchase is megapixals. Most consumers is convinced the more the better the camera when the average don't need more than 4-5 megapixals.

Friends ask me all the time of what they should buy & then tell me what the sales person says to them I laugh due to the limited info they receive.
So yes there is a major difference

[Candi lynn]

But lets just say you have both of the cameras and you are taking the exact same picture, would they both turn out the same? Like clarity, pixelizaton, ect? I understand you have a few more settings with the mk II and it feels more professional, but can you get the same picture from both of the cameras if used under the same circumstances.

Thanks

[Andy_T]

The picture will be different ... but not 3x as good.

Actually, with a good lens, it is nearly impossible to judge from a print with which camera it was taken.

Technically, an important difference is that the 1DII has a larger sensor.
The sensor is the most expensive part of the camera, and the production cost is exponential with size.

So in relation to a 35 mm slide, the following cameras have smaller sensors that result in a so called 'crop factor'

Canon 1Ds II.. 1x (same size as film) ... $ 8000
Canon 1D II ..1.3x ... $ 4000
Canon 20D .. 1.6x ... $ 1200
Canon 350D .. 1.6x ... $ 1000
Canon Pro1 ... 5x ... $ 600 ?

Other than that, the 1-series (1DII, 1DsII) have better and faster image processing chips, more accurate metering, ...

You can have a hamburger at McDonalds, or filet mignon at a French restaurant.
Both will fill your stomach, but the price may be different :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

[Candi lynn]

ok, there was the answer i was looking for.
thank you very much Andythaler

[Candi lynn]

I currently own the Digital Rebel 300, with the lens that came with the kit. Could you suggest a good telephoto lens to go along with it, and maybe a good macro lens.

Thank you once again

[GyRob]

a good tele lens is the 300mmF4L IS as for macro canon 100mm ,sigma 100mm sigma 150mm tamron 90mm .
Rob.

[GyRob]

just a thought you may have ment zoom telephoto, then the 70/200 f4 or 70/200 f2.8is.depends on your buget really.
Rob.

[BigRed450]

Candi as Andy has already mentioned the untrained eye is not likely to notice a difference in a staged or non moving image, but it is the "How" you get the picture that is as important. Megapixels don't mean anything if you can't get the picture. The 1DmkII is a sports camera and in its realm will produce images that few if any other camera can touch.

[shiato storm]

the 1D's are built for people whoo do lots of weight training, OR feel they need to.
the 'pro-sumer' bodes are for everyone else!

[condyk]

I currently own the Digital Rebel 300, with the lens that came with the kit. Could you suggest a good telephoto lens to go along with it, and maybe a good macro lens.

What's your budget for the longer zoom, where will you use it and for what?

Macro: Sigma 150mm, Canon 100mm, Tamron 90mm, Sigma 105mm DG EX and I'd probably select them in that order if I was more serious about Macro. The Sigma 105mm is superb optically and reasonably priced. The only minor issue I have with mine is the extending barrel as you focus ... but it really is minor to me and I'm very happy with it.

[mrk]

you can plant 40 shots in under 5 seconds on your CF card with the 1d mkII - that pretty much tells you waht's what for the sportsman in you or wildlife photographer

[SeanH]

Candi I just bought one and ended up taking it back because I (IMO) could not get as good of images for the mark 2 as I could my 20D. Now before the 1D crowd jumps all over me......like the last time I posted this. I will say the 1D is far superior than the 20D, however I will relate it to a race car........all of us could drive one, but it takes a pro to use it's full potential. I found that the images (even in raw) were very flat & soft compared to the 20D. But the 1D images held up to twice the processing than the 20D. To make a long story short, pro's don't want a camera changing their image, they know how to get the best image out in processing.......and prefer it that way. As for guys like me maybe we don't want to shot RAW and process every image we take, but still like great photo's. For us Canon makes the Rebels & 20D's. But if I made a living from photo's, and knew PS very well, I would have the 1D.....without question!

[Al Nakib]

Candi I just bought one and ended up taking it back because I (IMO) could not get as good of images for the mark 2 as I could my 20D. Now before the 1D crowd jumps all over me......like the last time I posted this. I will say the 1D is far superior than the 20D, however I will relate it to a race car........all of us could drive one, but it takes a pro to use it's full potential. I found that the images (even in raw) were very flat & soft compared to the 20D. But the 1D images held up to twice the processing than the 20D. To make a long story short, pro's don't want a camera changing their image, they know how to get the best image out in processing.......and prefer it that way. As for guys like me maybe we don't want to shot RAW and process every image we take, but still like great photo's. For us Canon makes the Rebels & 20D's. But if I made a living from photo's, and knew PS very well, I would have the 1D.....without question!

Actually, it's the other way around. The 1D is mainly made for speed and accuracy, the resulting photos come out exactly how the scene originally was.

I use my 1D for all the photojournalism work I do and I hardly post process. In fact, I only crop/sharpen my photos and rarely use levels (for when have I mistakenly over/underexposed).

The reason you're getting much better results from a 20D/300D right out of the camera is because that's what these cameras do: They always assist the photographer in producing the best photo possible (as opposed to the 1D where it is unforgiving and the photographer is left responsible for everything). When I use my D60, it takes much less work to produce excellent results without mentioning its constantly failing AF.

Here are some other differences between the 1DmkII and prosumer DSLRs:
- Professional grade weather sealed body (magnesium alloy).
- Very fast and very accurate 45 point AF (split multiprocessors that handle AF operations via two CPUs: the AF CPU and camera CPU).
- Very low noise levels.
- ISO range of 50-3200 in 1/3 stops.
- Adobe RGB color matrix.
- 8.5 FPS.
- Camera settings can be saved on to memory cards and used in other 1D cameras.
- 21 custom functions and 25 personal functions.
- 1.3x FOV crop.
- 10x LCD review zoom.
- RGB histogram.
- Can be used with the Data Verification Kit.
- 1500+ shots per battery charge (in my case at least).

[Andy_T]

I currently own the Digital Rebel 300, with the lens that came with the kit. Could you suggest a good telephoto lens to go along with it, and maybe a good macro lens.


Candi,

congratulations, you have a good camera that is well capable of taking great pictures. Unless you really feel that it is limiting you in some ways, the best way to improve it is buying additional lenses for it.

If you talk about telephoto ... what focal length do you have in mind?

There is a bit of a difference between 200 mm and 300 mm.
There are cheap and expensive lenses available in both categories, so it is important to know what you want from the lens.

Is it important for you to use the lens for sports or low light photography, or do you want to use it in normal daylight with subjects that do not move at high speeds?
Do you want to have ultimately sharp images (e.g. for enlargements) or is your intended use small prints and viewing the images on the web?

These are the most important question here that have a direct influence on the price of the possible contestants.
So your idea of the budget might be interesting too, of course.

For starters, you might read these threads:
Advice on buying telephoto lens (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=77600)
Initial results from 300 mm zoom shootout (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=78099)

Best regards,
Andy

[Mohawk]

Sean,

Aw, you should have kept that 1DMKII. I bought mine for the better AF, FPS, larger sensor, build and to get more out of those wide angle lenses I have. And, I am just like Al Nakib, sharpen and crop the 1DMKII photos. Heck, even iPhoto does a great job on my RAW shots in the post processing. And I have PSCS2 when I need to go the extra mile, but most photos are a one click job just like the ones out of my 20D. Sure you can get real involved in post processing, but you really don't need to if your images are good to start with. Oh well.

Mike

[Andy_T]

Mohawk,

I guess Sean didn't just swap his 1DII for a 20D.

But what if you swap
- a 1DII for
- a 20D + 24-70/2.8 + 70-200/2.8 IS or so?

I guess it makes a lot of sense then ... if you feel that the 20D works just as well for you personally.

Best regards,
Andy

[Candi lynn]

Thanks everyone for their help. Al Nakib said that the 20D/300D assist you more, how so? And another dumb question, what makes the L on the lenses so important, what is it anyway?

[condyk]

Wow ... some really excellent dumb questions. Keep it up :D

I would ignore the L designation. It's not important. The top brands all have their own high quality ranges: Sigma EX, Tamron SP, Canon L, and Tokina Pro. Canon L lenses are more expensive normally than the competitors. They are consistently good lenses, but other brands have equivelent lenses that can be as good, some even better, for less money. Be clear what you want a lens for and what conditions it will be used in, check the various reviews, shortlist, look at prices, then buy. Be open minded. Ideally, buy as fast a lens as you can, so long as it's decent: f1.4, f1.8, f2.8, f4, whatever

Recommended review sites:

www.fredmiranda.com
www.photozone.de
www.photographyreview.com

These each feature real user experience and it's clear which lenses are worth a look and which you can probably pass up. I tend to take the opinions of people who have not owned, or at least tested, a lens with a good pinch of salt.

BTW, the 300D is a great camera. The body is usually much less important than the shooter and the lenses they use. I'm very happy with mine and doubt I'll change for quite a while. I've seen rubbish shots from all bodies and lenses :lol: You're the key to quality output.

[Candi lynn]

CondyK- I currently photograph weddings, i know that doesn't sound real fast paced and sportsy but it seems like my telephoto lens is just not sharp/fast enough. When the bride/groom are up at the altar, I try to not intrude and stay behind the people so i need a fast telephoto zoom lens. I see that you have a Sigma 100-300mm, would you suggest that one?

[condyk]

I'd suggest the 70-200mm EX DG f2.8 Sigma or one of the Canon f2.8 L equivelents. Depends on budget. The Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L with image stabilisation would be great, but it costs a lot more!

The 100-300mm f4 is one of the very best in terms of image quality, very sharp, bright and dynamic, and it has possibly one of the most consistently high review ratings around, but its f4 will struggle indoors unless there is some decent light. It does do better in this regard than the 70-200mm f4 L Canon, which I used to have, but I don't think it's quite enough. You would need to tripod mount ideally too. Alternatively, I can handhold at 1/800 with a fair degree of success. Never tried this indoors tho'.

[Andy_T]

Candi,

now before you get burned on the stake by the angry POTN mob for committing the audacity of shooting weddings with a 300D and kit lens only :wink:

... this is one of the occasions when a fast and sharp lens makes a lot of sense. I would advise you to take a look at the Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX that is cheaper than the Canon 70-200/2.8 L

Best regards,
Andy

[Candi lynn]

i do have another lens that did not come with the kit. i have a 70-200mm lens too.

[Andy_T]

Candi,

is your 200 lens still too short?
How fast is the lens?

Another option to get usable low light pictures, of course, would be using a tripod or high ISO settings.

Best regards,
Andy

[Candi lynn]

yeah, i do us a tripod and somewhat high ISO settings, but i enlarge the pics so i usually don't go past 400 ISO

[Al Nakib]

Thanks everyone for their help. Al Nakib said that the 20D/300D assist you more, how so? And another dumb question, what makes the L on the lenses so important, what is it anyway?

I'll give you two quick examples to show you some of the differences in the ease of use dept:

20D/10D/D60/D30/350D/300D all have two shooting modes: Basic Zone and Creative Zone modes. 1D/1Ds don't have Basic Zone Modes.

When compared to the 1D/1Ds, photos from 20D/10D/D60/D30/350D/300D usually have higher sharpness and color saturation right out of the camera. This means that sometimes, you'll get photos with more "punch" right out of the camera. You will not likely see this same effect with the 1D/1Ds unless you figure out exactly how to operate the camera.

As for lenses, Most out there from Canon/Tokina/Sigma/Tamron are pretty good. Some are better than others. And a small minority of these lenses are considered the best: The Canon L lens. Even the highest grade lenses from the above third party producers cannot compete with most of Canon's L line in terms of build quality, sharpness, detail and clarity. The 24-70 from Sigma is supposed to be one of the best. However, I really fail to see (on many occasions now) how it can compare with my Canon 24-70L. There are no alternatives to many of Canon's L line. Here are some of them:

EF 35mm 1.4L
EF 85mm 1.2L
EF 135mm 2L
EF 200mm 1.8L (discontinued)
EF 300mm 2.8 L IS
EF 400mm 2.8L IS

[Andy_T]

yeah, i do us a tripod and somewhat high ISO settings, but i enlarge the pics so i usually don't go past 400 ISO

Candi,

have you tried noise reduction software?
That is really helpful. I don't make large enlargements so far, but I find that ISO 1600 images are very usable on my 20D after noise reduction with the free Noiseware Community edition (http://www.imagenomic.com/download.asp). Hell, I even had decent ISO 3200 images with f/2.0 taken with my cheap 50/1.8 printed with very good results.

The more advanced sensor of the 20D/350D also can be credited with about an extra stop vs. the 300D at the same noise level ... maybe an upgrade that might make sense for you.

Best regards,
Andy

[Candi lynn]

Thanks for the great info on the lenses Al Nakib. As for the cameras, I do use the creative zones all the time, usually manual. So, if i know how to work the f-stop, speed, ISO and all that, then the camera doesn't matter right?

[Andy_T]

Candi,

you're right. The lens is a lot more important than the camera in the final picture. Actually the sensor does make some difference, but all of Canon's more recent DSLR's are capable of giving great images.

I have added an example of a 100% crop of a low light image.

Canon 20D
Canon EF 50/1.8 MKI,
ISO 3200
AV, f2.0
handheld at 1/40 s

Right half is with noise reduction, left is without.

Note ... this was only a quick job I did in the office.
If I have more time, I think it can be further optimized.
But I think it's not bad for a 100% crop from a 100$ lens.

[Al Nakib]

Thanks for the great info on the lenses Al Nakib. As for the cameras, I do use the creative zones all the time, usually manual. So, if i know how to work the f-stop, speed, ISO and all that, then the camera doesn't matter right?

Right!

I've seen some absolutely INCREDIBLE photos from P&S cameras. Naturally, some post-processing work was involved, but that's not what made the photo so great ;)

You might find the following aticle interesting (regarding photojournalism with a P&S), I certainly did!:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844

[Candi lynn]

Andy- so this noise reduction u are talking about has to do with the lens or a program u used? I know dumb question.

[Andy_T]

Candi,

not a dumb question at all :D

The left half of the image was treated with the free software 'noiseware community edition' you can download at this link: http://www.imagenomic.com/download.asp

There is also a more powerful version that you have to pay something like 50$ for, but it is a good thing to try out.

Takes about 12 seconds to remove the noise from an 8 MP image on my 1.6 ghz laptop computer.

The lens used was the very affordable Canon EF 50/1.8 prime
(~100$ for the used older version with metal lensmount, 75$ for the new one with plastic lensmount).
While its bokeh is certainly nowhere as good for portraits as that of the 350$ 50/1.4, it is a very usable lens for a great price.

Of course, the shallow DOF has its limitations, but I assume you know how to handle those.

Best regards,
Andy

[Candi lynn]

Andy- thanks for the info and demo. it helps a lot.

[SeanH]

Mohawk,

I guess Sean didn't just swap his 1DII for a 20D.

But what if you swap
- a 1DII for
- a 20D + 24-70/2.8 + 70-200/2.8 IS or so?

I guess it makes a lot of sense then ... if you feel that the 20D works just as well for you personally.

Best regards,
Andy

Actually I got a NEW 20D (traded old one...it was worn) my 10-22 back ( I can't live without that lens) a 300 f4......and still have $1100 dollars credit for either my studio set up, or a 35 1.4...........OR maybe just see what comes out in the fall from canon. Maybe a camera that's a 1D with 12 mp's, with a Pro-sumer setting (sharp, sat) like the 20D.....also with B&W, and that takes the EFS lenses...........I'd write the check in 2 seconds flat!!

[Andy_T]

.... and that takes the EFS lenses...........

I'd rather have the larger sensor (1.3x or 1.0x) of the current 1D and 1Ds ... no real need for EF-S lenses then :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

[SeanH]

I'd rather have the larger sensor (1.3x or 1.0x) of the current 1D and 1Ds ... no real need for EF-S lenses then :wink:

Best regards,
Andy
LOL.......you got a point.....except then we are buying longer telephoto's :wink: