PDA

View Full Version : 20D or 350D (Rebel XT)???



mikos
03-23-2005, 05:41 PM
Hi!

I'm familliar with both cameras, though not used any (yet), but I'm having problem with finding a major difference (meanig usage) between them...

My question is:
what do I loose choosing (cheaper :) ) 350D over 20D and what is worth paying more (I'm not denying 20D is a great cam!)???

I know that 20D is "just" better than 350D, but I wonder if it's better to me ;)

THX,
miko

TheObiJuan
03-23-2005, 05:47 PM
if money, size, and weight are of no concern, get the 20D.
it is a better camera, but the 350D is about 90% of the 20D for about 60% percent of the price.

any reason why you are going canon? the nikon d70 is a great camera and cheaper now that the 350D came out. the ISO performance on the canons is better though. ;)
The build quality seems sturdier on the D70.

I have the 350D and to date I do not regret not having any of the extra features. 3fps is fast enough!

what do you want out of the camera? what type of photography do you do or want to do?

timmciglobal
03-23-2005, 06:58 PM
Shutter life on 20D is twice as long as XT. 20D has easier to use controls, 20D battery lasts longer.

Tim

Mr. Peabody
03-23-2005, 07:29 PM
For what it's worth, I like the look and feel of the magnesium alloy body of the 20D too. It's a much more rugged build than the XT.

ktixx
03-23-2005, 11:01 PM
If price isn't a concern of yours I would go with the 20D. A lot of people say they don't like the size of the 350D (hard to hold for a long time due to the small size). The 20D has a better shutter (double the life), faster ISO (With better performance) and a better build quality. I also think the 20D is easier to use than the 300D or 350D because of the back wheel. I would go to a local best buy or camera shop and actually play with each of the models (including the D70) That is the only way to make an accurate decision.
Ken

mikos
03-24-2005, 04:11 AM
I already have a Canon SLR (50E) and two lenses (Canon 28-105 F3.5-4.5 USM and Tamron 70-300 F4-5.6 macro), so Nikon is not a choise.
Beside, I do like Canon :cool:

THX for all the coments!

I do like the look and feel of 20D more then 350D, but I'm wondering if I really need that ;)

I'm a profesional artist and designer and in terms of photography I find myself like "semi-pro" ;)
I do use my own photos in my work, though not shoot them as often as a photographer. It is more like passion to me.
So difference in shutter life time is of no importance (not that much).
Size doesn't realy matter.
I don't seem to need PC sync (I gess?), couse I don't have a real studio.

What I do care about is image quality and creativity and that's comparable.
It seems I would miss some frame rating.
Is it something else, some options needing to reconsider the choise?

BtW difference in price is worth more than a good lens ;)
350D + Sigma 18-50 F2.8 is still less money than just the body of 20D
I think I'd rather have more lenses than better built SLR.

jamison55
03-24-2005, 05:02 AM
What I do care about is image quality and creativity and that's comparable.
It seems I would miss some frame rating.
Is it something else, some options needing to reconsider the choise?

BtW difference in price is worth more than a good lens ;)
350D + Sigma 18-50 F2.8 is still less money than just the body of 20D
I think I'd rather have more lenses than better built SLR.

Sounds like you've convinced yourself! With your needs, you might want to look into the original DReb. It still holds its own against its big brothers where image quality is concerned, but you'd lose the instant startup, and some of the high ISO performance (though it's no slouch in that department). At current prices, you could pick up a DReb body and a Canon 17-40 f4L for the price of an XT kit... I think we can all agree that it's the glass that really matters!

mikos
03-24-2005, 06:44 AM
At current prices, you could pick up a DReb body and a Canon 17-40 f4L for the price of an XT kit... I think we can all agree that it's the glass that really matters!

"DReb body" - meaning Canon 300D ?!?

Canon 17-40 f4L is a great lens, though I'd miss some extra stop (compare to Sigma's 2.8 F-stop) :(
I'd like to shoot at wide-open, sometimes even at a price of little falloff in corners and overall image quality.
I know I can get close to that by doing closeup with tele, but it's not the same to me.
I've always wanted to switch from my Canon EF 28-150 F3.5-4.5 USM to Tamron 28-105 F2.8 or at least Tamron 28-75 F2.8 Di... That never had hapened, so I'd like to catch up on switching to digital :o


This would be my "dream team":

- 20D (or 350D)
- Canon 10-22 F3.5-4.5 USM EF-S (little expensive)
- Sigma 18-50 F2.8 EX DC
- Sigma 70-200 F2.8 APO EX HSM

I wish to add:
- Canon 50 F1.4 USM
- a macro prime lens 90 or 105 (Tamron or Sigma)
...but it's getting crowded and expensive

I'd glady wellcome some new lenses like: 50-200 F2.8 (EF-S) or 50-125 F2.8 (EF-S) ;) Maybe Sigma will add something like that to it's collection (would'nt mind to have HSM too)... but that's just a wishfull thinking

timmciglobal
03-24-2005, 12:14 PM
Why do you need 2.8?

Honestly, unless your shooting indoors low light (in which case the high ISO 20D performance is godly) why 2.8?

The picture quality on 17>40L is going to trump the 18>50 lets by miles, and does far better wide open the the 28>75 XR DI.

Tim

jamison55
03-24-2005, 03:21 PM
Why do you need 2.8?

Honestly, unless your shooting indoors low light (in which case the high ISO 20D performance is godly) why 2.8?

The picture quality on 17>40L is going to trump the 18>50 lets by miles, and does far better wide open the the 28>75 XR DI.

Tim

Though I suggested the L in the first place, I own the Sigma 18-50 and the Tamron 28-75 (I shoot weddings, so I have to squeeze every stop of light I can from my glass). At f4 both of the "non-L's" are very sharp and contrasty - I'd put them up against the 17-40L without hesitation (esp the Tamron, which beat out my Canon 50 1.8 in a recent test I performed). There's only one place to get the eye-popping "L" colors, though...

D70FAN
03-24-2005, 04:05 PM
Why do you need 2.8?

Honestly, unless your shooting indoors low light (in which case the high ISO 20D performance is godly) why 2.8?

The picture quality on 17>40L is going to trump the 18>50 lets by miles, and does far better wide open the the 28>75 XR DI.

Tim

There is more to the average f2.8 lens than just a bigger hole to shoot through. In order to utilize that bigger hole, the glass has to be bigger diameter to avoid vignetting, and perfectly ground and precisely set, consistantly, to avoid the myriad of nasties that plague fast zoom lenses. Which has the additional benefit of raising the quality of images when operating at smaller hole sizes like f4. ;)

On the "my lens is better than your lens" front. I hope you are talking from personal experience on these lenses, because just about every review and commentary I've read or heard on the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 places it as an equal to every equivalent range lens on the market. Including the vaunted Canon EF 24-70 USM L.

Addmittedly I have never used the 17-40L and only flirted with the Tamron a few times but not yet committed. :rolleyes: And since I own a Nikon the chances of using the L lenses is slim and none. But I can consol myself in knowing that I can do ok in the sub $400 lens market and still get quality lenses. At $369 the Tamron seems to be the winner.

mikos
03-24-2005, 04:35 PM
Why do you need 2.8?
Tim

The answer is silmple - shallow deph of field, nice and smooth second plane which makes main object pop :o
I do like nicely blurred background, subjects hiding in the blurriness (like in macro photography). I know I could do close ups with tele, but I like to use different phocal lenghts (not much like the perspective of tele).
Well, I can always shoot 2-3 stops more to get sharper image, though.

As far as I know Sigma uses EF-S type of the lens so it can be (it is) smaller.
I've read the test and comparison of Canon and Sigma lens and beside litle more punch to the color (Canon) there were not much difference.
Sigma performed quite well and had better (lower) price.

If I didn't need F2.8 than I'd probably go Canon, but 17-85 F4.5-5.6 IS :cool:

timmciglobal
03-24-2005, 05:47 PM
I've personally owned the 17>85 IS, the 17>40L the 70>200 L the 28>135 IS, the 18>55 kit all "canon" and the 28>75 XR DI I've seen many shots from a friend who owns. IMHO the 28>75 is more on par with the 17>85 which was inferior to everything save the 18>55 kit lens I owned.

The edge sharpness and image quality was slightly superior on the 28>135, and significantly so on all the L glass. The 28>75 was imho soft wide open and if it's soft wide open and your going to be shooting at F 3.5 or 4.0 anyway then why bother buying it just to get poorer edge sharpness at any apature.

The 17>85 suffers from signifcant CA and soft edges, it's the single most overpriced canon lens in existence and sells consistantly because its "17>85" not because it's worth the price.

Now just so no ones confused on my opinions on all this, 4x6, 5X7 and 8X10 all lenses including the kit lens can produce great results. You have to view 1X1 or be looking at specific issues LIKE CA or edge sharpness to have problems with an image.

Oh and 2.8 is NOT that fast imho. It's 1 stop, had you been contemplating a 50 1.4 vs a 17>40L I'd say "Well no kidding" but your talking 2.8 vs 4. ISO 400 vs ISO 800.

Tim

mikos
03-25-2005, 01:46 PM
Something that maybe interesting ;)

http://www.jasonlivingston.com/sigma-review/

TheObiJuan
03-25-2005, 01:58 PM
doh! I put the ISO comparison thread on in the general DSLR forum, rather than this one...

Payne
03-26-2005, 08:13 AM
I've personally owned the 17>85 IS, the 17>40L the 70>200 L the 28>135 IS, the 18>55 kit all "canon" and the 28>75 XR DI I've seen many shots from a friend who owns. IMHO the 28>75 is more on par with the 17>85 which was inferior to everything save the 18>55 kit lens I owned.

Tim

Hi Tim,
What do you think is the "sweet point" on the 28-135 IS and also on the 17-85 IS....I've heard bad things about the latter...so Im planning to get the 28-135IS as my walkaround....do you think is a wise decision or Should I go for the 17-85IS???

Thanks in advance.

P.D. It'd be also nice if you'll test both lenses side by side at different apertures..... ;)...in case you have the time and the will.

Regards,