20D and 1DMKII Sample Images

I just noticed from the raw images that the MKII image is shot much closer than the 20D image, which is probably the main reason for it showing more detail.
I own a 20D and think it's awesome! But if I had a choice and money was no option, I would definately get the 1DMKII.

I'm not sure why all comparisons turn into arguments, but they do.

Like RFMSports says, all these cameras serve different purposes, and value is measured in different ways. Pro sports photographers love their Mk II's and righfully so, but to some the speed is not important, and the 16MP resolution of the 1Ds Mk II will be more important than the 8fps.

I agree with drisley, too, if money was no object, I'd have a 1D Mk II as well because I like shooting sports. But this is just a hobby for me, and even with all the equipment listed below in my sig (ok, it's not much but it's a start), I still haven't spent enough to get a Mk II body alone. One thing is for sure, if I had a Mk II body right now, all I would have is a thrifty fifty to put on it. How funny would that be?

It's funny when someone posts comparison images so small that you cannot tell a difference. The only way you are going to see differences is if you have large images!

A few posts up.

drisley wrote:
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/

Jeeeeeez!!!!! It's not a small image. It's a 100% crop from a very large image, which means every pixel you see is a full pixel and is not scaled up or down. The gas meter is less than 1/500th of the entire frame.

Check Drisley's post, he just posted links to the full images. The gas meter is so small it's hard to see. That's the point. You have to zoom in to this level to even see the most minute difference.

I agree with RFM.

My opinion is that its the 20D owners trying to prove something to the 1D MKII ers. The point is, if you need to use a magnifying glass to tell the difference, there isn't one. However, go try to shoot 200 shots with each camera and then come back and you won't be able to bring yourself to say the 20D is even close. They might even look similar on paper, but they aren't.

I have not had the pleasure of having unrestricted access to both like RFM does, but I have shoot several hundred shots with both thanks to my fellow classmates, I have come to the realization that there is a reason there is a big price gap and that it is worth it. An MK II is not a sports shooter, it's an all around shooter that is good at sports and everything else in between. If it was not for the full frame sensor & pixel count of the 1Ds, the 1D would better then every Canon DSLR in every aspect.

There is no point for 10D owners to compare to a 20D. The gap between a 1D and a 20D is far bigger then it is between a 10D and a 20D. I know a bunch of kids in their slammed Honda's at school saying they can smoke a Ferrari, and I know they can. Well good for them, I own a Honda, and have driven countless Ferrari's. You can dream about in your sleep, you can talk about it to your friends and you can even make a website about it, but you know what? Its still not a Ferrari.

Cheers, not really directed at anyone, just a rant.

I don't think 20D owners are tyring to prove anything, and most of us are even saying we'd rather have a Mk II. It's just always the Mk II owners getting defensive about their $5,000 purchase.

And, I also think the difference between a 10D and a 20D is far greater than the difference between a 20D and 1D Mk II, and there is only a $300 price difference there, not $3,000.

10D to 20D you get:
8MP vs. 6MP, 5fps vs 3fps, 40 shot buffer compared to 9, over 5MBytes/sec CF speed compared to 1.3MBytes/sec. Better high ISO performance. Need I go on. The 10D takes about 30 seconds to empty that 9 shot buffer, while the 20D can empty a buffer in about 9 seconds.

Those performance differences are far less than the 20D to the Mk II as I laid out in my previous post, and in some cases even better on the 20D.

Ok, to be fair, I'm leaving out the things that make the 1D series better in general, better AI Servo, more focus points and metering options to name a few, but again, no one is saying the 20D is as good as a Mk II overall. We are just comparing our cameras to the "king of the hill" and saying it's pretty close. A lot closer than Mk II owners would have us believe.

Let's stop bickering and go take some pictures. That's what it's all about anyway isn't it?

Let's attack Drisley, he started it.

pcasciola: Have you shot an MKII?

Yes, I have shot with a 1D Mk II, but only for a short while unfortunately. I noticed the AI Servo difference immediately, and the focus seemed much better in general. It felt better in my hands, but I didn't like the hair trigger.

That day, I shot the same football game with my 20D + 300 f/4L that the other photographer did with his 1D Mk II + 300mm f/2.8L, and I gotta tell you, a lot of people picked my gallery over his. The pictures were very close in quality, and I had a FAR inferior lens.

Would I rather have a 1D Mk II, of course I would, I don't think anybody is debating that. But I've seen a lot more people shooting with a 1D Mk II and 20D say they are close than I have seen 20D and 10D owners say they are close. There was a post about 5-6 weeks ago on FM by a pro sports photographer who used a 1D Mk II alongside his 20D, and he was blown away by how close they were. I've seen many reviews like that by pros, and they mostly end the same way. The 20D is very close, but are they giving up their Mk II's, no way.

20D=good
1dMII=good

*kicks Dris in the nuts* how do you like that for a 20D?, lol

Photo quality is more photographer than camera, IMHO. Yes, resolution wise they're pretty close, but until you've used a 1-series camera (more than a short time) you cannot appreciate the true differences. It took me about 2-3 weeks to really get into the MKII and it seems I learns something new everytime I shoot it.

Before getting my MKII (and shooting the 10D) I thought they (1D vs 10D in those days) can be that far off. But they are. Even the 20D and MKII are worlds apart. As we enter this next phase of digital photography many people are realizing that it's reached a point where megapixels doesn't mean as much as before. Heck, I've seen MKII and 1Ds comparisons where the MKII blew off the 1Ds. Over at FM forum they have 1dsMKII-1Ds-1DMKII comparisions and they are all pretty darn close.

So anyway, like I said before, these comparisons are pretty pointless to me and I usually avoid them like the plague. I have both cameras and know the differences first hand and will say the 20D is not close to being in the 1-series class.

But, with that being said, it's a fantastic camera and I am so looking forward to my wife shooting motorsports side-by-side next season with it and then I will be able to see the real differences. It'll be sweet to apply almost the same workflow to both cameras. However, you cannot use the same workflow however because there are subtle differences due to the 20D's higher color saturation and the MKII's larger photosites among others.

There are some cool stuff with the 20D that'd be nice on the MKIII, but that goes with every new generation. All hell will break loose when the new 8.2mp Drebel is released and goes head-to-head with the 20D. Those will be some fun, moderating days I am sure!

I agree. If you gave me a 1DSMkII for a weekend, and gave a 20D to, say, Olegis, or Don Ellis for a weekend, I can assure you I would come back with the crappiest pictures. (Heck that would be the case even if you gave them a kodak digicam)

So, so true. So far, my biggest money-making shots are from the 10D! On my first outing with the MKII, I felt like a total photog-newbie. That thing has more features than pebbles of sand on the beach. It was quite overwhelming and my photos were boring because I was not in command of my camera, it was in command of me.

I think RFMSports is right. Really the only people who can make an accurate comparison are photographers who own both cameras.