20D and 1DMKII Sample Images

I just found a great page on the 20D, with some really nice information.
One thing I like is that the reviewer took exact images with both cameras using his 70-200F2.8L lens at ISO 100 and ISO 1600. There really is no difference. Can you see a difference? The top one is 20D, the bottom is 1dMKII. There are also 2 similar images at ISO1600, and there is no significant difference either. Very impressive.

Actually is you look at the dials and ID plate on the gas meter there is more resolution on the MKII photo. That's where the larger pixel sizes become an advantage. Color is an exact match.

If you look really closely, you'll see the colour squares are more saturated on the 20d, particularly the magenta and yellow ones.
Is that good or bad?

Ahh yeah a little. It's neither bad nor good.

It's different.

Here's some pixel-peeping into the MKII and MKII Ds: http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/15178​6

You're kidding right? These are already at 100%, and even blown up to 200% any difference is so small that it's insignificant.
You would have to produce a print the size of a building wall to notice the difference.
Also, the 1DMkii image is a slightly tighter crop, which could make that difference on a pixel vs pixel level.

Mmmm

Fine for pictures of gas meters. But then the 1Dii comes into it's own when you take 9fps and have a 40 frame buffer!!!

Another thing I am hugely impressed with is the 1200 frame battery on the 1Dii

What I wanted to see was some proper landscape pictures - to see if there's much difference in the 1dmk2s dynamic range.
I'm forever blowing out skies with my 10d.

Absolutely not.

I agree, the dials on the MkII shot are definitely sharper, although not much!

How can you tell if either one is sharper or not. Both of those pictures are drastically out of focus!

I was going to post the pictures without saying which was which.
I knew there would be a bias for the MKII image even though there is no siginificant difference.
I mean there is more detail on the sign on the left in the 20D image so what does that say? Probably just slightly different focus.
Anyway, any differences are insignificant.
If you overlay these images in photoshop, you will notice that the 1DMKII image is a slightly closer crop, which would explain any more detail on the dials if there is any.
As far as FPS and buffer goes, that is a whole different matter.
As far as dynamic range goes, the 10D is supposed to have 8.5 stops of DR, the 1DMKII is supposed to have 9 stops, and the 20D is supposed to fall somewhere in between.

I don't think this is particularly surprising - it would probably take extreme contrast to show any difference in capability with regard to dynamic range. Both cameras produce excellent 8mp images and utilize the same processor. In extreme lighting situations, I'm sure the 1DMkII's larger pixels are an advantage.

I don't think you're buying an image quality upgrade when you purchase a 1DMkII - although it's advanced feature set and speed create an advantage that allow users to get more "keepers", especially for action photography.

Mostly you're paying for professional quality build, longevity and features.

40 JPegs in the buffer and 1200 pictures. Is that all? I hate to break it to you, but the 20D can also take 40 frames before the buffer is full, because the 20D is FAR faster than the 1D Mk II transferring from buffer to CF. Also, the 20D can take over 2000 pictures with the grip and dual batteries.

I really don't want to turn this into yet another 1D MkII vs 20D argument, and I know 1D Mk II owners hate to admit it, but let's not forget the 20D does actually have some upgrades from the 1D Mk II. The 20D transfers from the buffer to CF 50% faster than a 1D Mk II, at 5.6MBytes/sec for the 20D compared with only 3.9MBytes/sec on the 1D MkII. Also, with the grip and 2 batteries, the 20D can take over 2000 pictures without powering off, not just 1200. Not to mention less high ISO noise, along with lighter weight and smaller form factor when you need it by taking the battery grip off. The dual battery grip that is.

Is the 1D Mk II better than a 20D all around? Of course. Is it $3,000 better? That's debatable by everyone other than pro sports photographers. The point here is that the newest APS-C sensor can resolve 99% as well as the more expensive full frame sensor, that's all.

Yup sorry, I didnt want to turn this into a fight.
I think Pscasciola hit what I was trying to say on the head.

Btw, there are links to the Raw images used in this test.
Included are both ISO100 and ISO1600 images from both cameras.
http://www.jirvana.com​/raw_large/20d_1d2/

All cameras have their advantages and disadvantages. That also depends on the use of the camera. Personally I think all these X vs X threads are pointless. I own both cameras and they both have their strong points and weak points. When I use them I do so to maximize their strengths to produce the best photo possible.