Part 2. 5d MarkII vs 20d

Hey friends.

two shots. One of them was taken with a 5d Mark II with a 16-35 2.8L and the other was taken with a canon 20d with the kit lens (got it for $350 on craigs list).

The settings and relative focal lengths are identical. $4500 vs $350

I'm not saying that the 20d is better than the 5d mark II. I'm saying that light is more important than cameras or lenses.


You tell me which is which!


(by the way there was no photoshop on these. I think its better that these are right out of the cameras)

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Not sure what the point is when you only display them at web size.

I have both of these cameras. You know which one I'll choose to use, especially if I'm being paid? Not the $350 camera that's for sure.

because for 90% of uses you don't need huge resolution.

If i was a beginner, i would want to know that you can photos that look exactly the same with a $350 camera vs a $4500 setup if you put some money towards some lighting.

yes if you have the money to spend on a 5d then do it! Most beginners have a smaller budget and should focus on lighting if they want to do portraits, band or fashion.

so which one was with a 20d which was the 5d?

first one is 20d
second one 5d II

am I right?

roger767 wrote in post #8263149
first one is 20d
second one 5d II

am I right?

nope, first is 5D Mk2, second is 20D...

I think what gives it away is the DOF... the shallower DOF in the first picture along with the slightly better image quality is a dead give away.

Roger! I love your work dude!

you switched the pictures?

The Picture with the more reddish skin tones has more DOF, that made me think it was the 20D.

HoldDaMayo wrote in post #8263166
first is 5D Mk2, second is 20D...

I think what gives it away is the DOF... the shallower DOF in the first picture along with the slightly better image quality is a dead give away.

Correct! Yeah because of the larger frame you will have a shallower dof. For the sake of the photo i wanted to have the settings be identical!

Roger, yeah i switch them because i uploaded versions with no compression. I didn't mean to make the switch. You were right as well!

[QUOTE=RianFlynn;82632​22]I'd love it if you took a look at my photography!quote]

Hi Rian

I took a look at your FLIKR photostream. They are very cool creations. I'm not sure why you are now focusing on the issue of 20D versus 5D2. The images you are showing on your photostream site seem to be built from 5D files, so you must find these files fundamentally sound. However, wouldn't it be true to say that your work depends less on the output of the camera and more on your creative darkroom techniques which I admire.
Given that the images in this post are not for large print, what is the point of the comparison, and do you not accept that photographers might be prepared to pay the extra for some of the facilities and features that are not important to you. Asserting that you can take two images that seem to be similar in IQ doesn't prove anything because in this case, your choice of subject content isn't a challenge to either body. Instead, why not make more use of this forum to share useful knowledge about the techniques you are displaying in your gallery?

[QUOTE=Luke Cern;8263661]

RianFlynn wrote in post #8263222
I'd love it if you took a look at my photography!quote]

Hi Rian

I took a look at your FLIKR photostream. They are very cool creations. I'm not sure why you are now focusing on the issue of 20D versus 5D2. The images you are showing on your photostream site seem to be built from 5D files, so you must find these files fundamentally sound. However, wouldn't it be true to say that your work depends less on the output of the camera and more on your creative darkroom techniques which I admire.
Given that the images in this post are not for large print, what is the point of the comparison, and do you not accept that photographers might be prepared to pay the extra for some of the facilities and features that are not important to you. Asserting that you can take two images that seem to be similar in IQ doesn't prove anything because in this case, your choice of subject content isn't a challenge to either body. Instead, why not make more use of this forum to share useful knowledge about the techniques you are displaying in your gallery?

Why can he not use the forum in any way he chooses? I found the comparison interesting myself.

[QUOTE=JNunn;8264103]

Luke Cern wrote in post #8263661
Why can he not use the forum in any way he chooses? I found the comparison interesting myself.

i second that!

Luke Cern wrote in post #8263661
Instead, why not make more use of this forum to share useful knowledge about the techniques you are displaying in your gallery?

I thought that is what he is doing. Showing us that technique and lighting is worth more than gear for these kind of shots.

First off the pics have the EXIF and they have been switched haven't they.

gooble wrote in post #8264526
First off the pics have the EXIF and they have been switched haven't they.

No, you can tell they have not from the DOF. Both are at f3.5 so the DOF is thinner on the FF camera. That is evident as you examine the top picture.