Am I being stupid? Lens greed I think.

cjm wrote in post #3408523
Hahahahaha no a real upgrade. The 30D is just a 20D MKII with a bigger screen and newer software.

Actually, the 30D as a true spot meter (3.5%) which is a significant improvement for some users.

20D_Newbie wrote in post #3411252
Actually, the 30D as a true spot meter (3.5%) which is a significant improvement for some users.

The meaining of 'significant' needs to be spelled out. The difference between Partial and Spot in the 30D is negligible in many circumstances! In the case of 20D vs. 30D, the difference is 9% vs. 3%. What that translates to, in terms of a circle diameter for the spot area within the frame, is 6.2mm vs 3.6mm, or 42% smaller area. But stated in terms of angular measurement, with a 50mm lens it would be seeing 7.1 vs. 4.1 degrees (Keep in mind that spotmeter attachments for handheld meters are 10 degree and 5 degree 'spot', so both cameras technically have what would be termed 'spot' by that definition!) Translated to actual physical distances, at 20' shooting distance with 50mm lens, the 20D would measure 29 inches vs. the 30D measuring 17 inches.

Wilt wrote in post #3411348
The meaining of 'significant' needs to be spelled out. The difference between Partial and Spot in the 30D is negligible in many circumstances! In the case of 20D vs. 30D, the difference is 9% vs. 3%. What that translates to, in terms of a circle diameter for the spot area within the frame, is 6.2mm vs 3.6mm, or 42% smaller area. But stated in terms of angular measurement, with a 50mm lens it would be seeing 7.1 vs. 4.1 degrees (Keep in mind that spotmeter attachments for handheld meters are 10 degree and 5 degree 'spot', so both cameras technically have what would be termed 'spot' by that definition!) Translated to actual physical distances, at 20' shooting distance with 50mm lens, the 20D would measure 29 inches vs. the 30D measuring 17 inches.

I guess I should have said tt would be significant to me. A 42% smaller area (or 29 inch diamter versus 17 inch diameter in your example) seems pretty significant to me but your mileage may vary.

I'll probably buy a 16-35 eventually. Guess I will stick to my 10-22 EFs for awhile still. I might even just buy a MKII (maybe although it is a lot of money).

20D_Newbie wrote in post #3413066
I guess I should have said tt would be significant to me. A 42% smaller area (or 29 inch diamter versus 17 inch diameter in your example) seems pretty significant to me but your mileage may vary.

Well, most 20D owners thought the mileage increase was so small with the 30D, that it was not worth trading in their old 20D for the new 30D!

Strange? I shot with 16-35L @16m on my 1Ds MKII and 30D, both EXIF show 16mm

cdifoto wrote in post #3411228
Let's not go there. You all know my point.

Agreed.

Tareq wrote in post #3413643
Strange? I shot with 16-35L @16m on my 1Ds MKII and 30D, both EXIF show 16mm

Not strange at all, that's the way it works.

cwphoto wrote in post #3413854
Not strange at all, that's the way it works.

I know, just posted for those newbie who don't know about crop factors and magnificant, hehe sorry for that.

cjm wrote in post #3413159
I'll probably buy a 16-35 eventually. Guess I will stick to my 10-22 EFs for awhile still. I might even just buy a MKII (maybe although it is a lot of money).

How wide do you want on the 1D? Is your 24 wide enough for that camera? You seem to like the 10-22 a lot, I say keep it and use that and the 20D for the wide stuff. Don't worry about buying new lenses unless you stop using crop cameras.

The 12-24 is a fantastic lens but it's soft as butter! Look into the Sigma 10-20. It's sharp and light. Sure, it wont cover the whole 1.3x field of view, but it'll be wide and you can mount it. It'll just vignette severely =)

Tareq wrote in post #3413991
I know, just posted for those newbie who don't know about crop factors and magnificant, hehe sorry for that.

it's funny that you have to compensate with a higher shutter speed with the croppers to avoid camera shake.

in fact the rule of thumb is increased by 1.6x for a 1.6 crop camera.

probably just a coincidence because we all know a 200mm lens is 200mm no matter what camera you use it with !

ed rader

Wilt wrote in post #3413528
Well, most 20D owners thought the mileage increase was so small with the 30D, that it was not worth trading in their old 20D for the new 30D!

Some truth to that. Personally, I would trade my 20D for a 30D but I am a casual photographer and it just doesn't make sense when the 20D works fine and there are lenses that I would rather have. Spot meter lost out to the 70-200mm F4L IS.

The OP stated the 30D was not really an upgrade because it was just a larger LCD and new software. I was just pointing out that there were other features added. If I did not have a DSLR and was looking at a used 20D versus a 30D, I would probably opt for the 30D with the spot meter.

20D_Newbie wrote in post #3415826
If I did not have a DSLR and was looking at a used 20D versus a 30D, I would probably opt for the 30D with the spot meter.

Well, duh!!! So would I! Every camera I own that has a meter, including point and shoots, has a spot meter, and I even own 1 degree handheld spot meter! (but the 30D otherwise did not convince me to trade up from my 20D)

cjm wrote in post #3407075
Now am I being stupid?

That depends. If you really like wide shots, there's nothing as wide as the Sigma 12-24 for 1.3x and FF cameras. Besides, it's not a bad lens, but probably a step below the 10-22 on your 1.6x.

But hey, you can't have everything, can you?