PDA

View Full Version : Am I wrong?



JTL
04-21-2005, 12:41 AM
Look very very carefully at the corrected test shots that Jeff has posted in the Rebel XT review. Am I wrong or are the XT shots just ever so slightly sharper and have ever so slightly better contrast and color than the 20D shots? To be fair, they also have slightly more noise...

It's true, isn't it?

DiJ
04-21-2005, 12:57 AM
The 350d has a slightly brighter default exposure. Which may account for the difference in contrast and color. The sharpness difference maybe due to AF variation.
I also noticed little more noise at iso800 and 1600. But then its very close between the two. Very impressed with both cameras.

gary_hendricks
04-21-2005, 07:13 AM
JTL, the Rebel XT and 20D are very close in performance, although the 20D is a ton pricier.

JTL
04-21-2005, 09:37 AM
JTL, the Rebel XT and 20D are very close in performance, although the 20D is a ton pricier.My point exactly. I find it very interesting. This ties back to the other thread that I started. The 20D is currently not jepordized by the XT because of perception and perception only. Personally, as it stands today, I think any AMATEUR photographer buying a new Canon dSLR would be wacky to buy a 20D. Undoubtbly, the 20D is a great camera, a classic camera...but for the average shooter...it's not really worth the added expense. But, of course, people can rationalize anything, right?

Rex914
04-21-2005, 01:07 PM
It boils down really to three things.

1) Build quality - it's a heftier, metal bodied camera with a much better grip

2) Small things like - 9 point vs. 7 point, superior battery life

3) Faster FPS if you care about that.

For some people, that's worth the extra $400.

JTL
04-21-2005, 01:13 PM
For some people, that's worth the extra $400.From where I'm sitting, that $400.00 would be better spent toward some good glass...something that would actually make a real difference...

That's how I'm advising my friends, family and assocites...

D70FAN
04-21-2005, 02:34 PM
My point exactly. I find it very interesting. This ties back to the other thread that I started. The 20D is currently not jepordized by the XT because of perception and perception only. Personally, as it stands today, I think any AMATEUR photographer buying a new Canon dSLR would be wacky to buy a 20D. Undoubtbly, the 20D is a great camera, a classic camera...but for the average shooter...it's not really worth the added expense. But, of course, people can rationalize anything, right?

You may have a good point there. The 350D is a good camera and takes pictures rivaling the 20D.

But, as one of the "wacky" amature photographers I would prefer to shoot with the 20D, more from an ergonomics and flexibility point-of-view than a picture quality point of view. And, I would be "wacky" enough to spend the extra $400 just for that. Fortunately, I didn't have to.

As it was pointed out to me recently (on these forums) some people like small, lightweight, cameras. And some don't. But I'm not sure that puts them in the "wacky", or "rationalize anything" group (or maybe it does).

So, as a final though. While I was in the camera store last weekend talking to a guy buying a 20D as a "cheap backup", to his 1D Mk II, I had an epiphany: Maybe the 20D was not really intended for amatures.

JTL
04-21-2005, 03:02 PM
As it was pointed out to me recently (on these forums) some people like small, lightweight, cameras. And some don't. But I'm not sure that puts them in the "wacky", or "rationalize anything" group (or maybe it does).

So, as a final though. While I was in the camera store last weekend talking to a guy buying a 20D as a "cheap backup", to his 1D Mk II, I had an epiphany: Maybe the 20D was not really intended for amatures.You're right. I was being a little (o.k...very :) ) melodramatic. I totally agree that you can not downplay ergonomics. You have to be comfortable with the camera...and I agree...if a camera "felt" wrong...then no amount of money saved would make it good or right for that person...

And, I think you're right about the 20D...I don't think it was intended for plain old shutterbugs...I just think that some of them couldn't help themselves and had to have it. Fortunately, we've all been treated to many beautiful images as a result. But I also wonder how many are sitting around collecting dust...

Rex914
04-21-2005, 04:09 PM
From where I'm sitting, that $400.00 would be better spent toward some good glass...something that would actually make a real difference...

That's how I'm advising my friends, family and assocites...

True, but I don't think you could mount on something even as middle-ground as a 24-70L. It's like you loaded a backpack with 50 pounds of stuff and wore it in front of you. You'd feel like you would be following over yourself. Of course you could get the battery grip to help out there if you wanted...

Sigbhu
04-23-2005, 03:44 AM
Glass does fuuny things on the 350. The quality with a Sigma 75-300 APO is simply awesome!