New camera: Canon 20D?

[Tannin]

OK, it's mad money time again. I am looking at buying a new camera in the fairly near future (a timescale of a few weeks).

Is there any reason NOT to buy the obvious - i.e., a Canon EOS 20D and the 100-400 IS zoom lens?

The role of this camera is to fill the gap between my digiscoping rig (~ a 2 metre lens in 35mm equivalent terms) and my belt camera (landscapes, wildflowers, macros)

• Aims: bird photography (natch).
• Extreme reach is not a priority - I have the digiscoping rig for that.
• Light weight would be nice, but given the weight of the lens (or any similar?) I guess I just have to live with it.
• Will be used hand-held, no tripod, for small, fast-moving birds at fairly close distances (2m to about 10m).

In a perfect world, I'd use the 20D for landscapes and macros as well, but I'm worried about the extra fiddle-factor involved with changing lenses in the field, and about introducing dust nto the CCD.

Comments gentlemen?

 

[Tannin]

PS: reasons to have the 20D and 100-400 (I think) - is it good for these things?

fast autofocus
reasonably fast shutter repeat rate
small shutter delay

 

[LunarMist]

The 20D and 100-400 are a favorite of nature photographers due to the low cost, relatively light weight, and sufficient image quality. AF of the 100-400 is fast on the 20D, though less sure than when used on 1 series body. And of course you will not find a more responsive body in terms of framing rate (5FPS) or shutter release delay outside of a Canon 1D MK II or Nikon D2X. Consider the 17-85 IS as a general purpose lens, including landscapes. If you can afford to wait a bit the 24-105/4 L IS should be out in late September/early October, but it is not really wide enough for some landscapes on a 1.6x sensor. I predict that a lot of 20D users will have 10-22, 24-105 IS, and 100-400 lenses as their primary setup.

It is too bad you are not here in the US or I would sell you my old 20D. It has less than 1000 frames and I have no further use for it.

 

[Tannin]

Thanks LM. Do I need to be in the USA? What's a fair price for it? (Allowing for shipping, which with appropriate insurance, would come to a reasonable amount.)

Question to self: would I have to pay GST? (Local taxes.) Probably. But that's no big deal. Over here the first two prices I saw on the web (very quick search) for the 20D were ($A):

$3400 inc 17-85 IS and 256MB flash card (as if I care about the flash card) (US $2625)

$2150 (body only) plus $900 (17-85 IS) (= $3050 total - much cheaper). (US $1660 + $695 = $2355 total.)

A 100-400 IS at that second place was $3200 (US $2470)

 

[P5-133XL]

I have to admit that my 100-400 L f4.0-5.6 IS is, by far, my favorite lens. If, I'm planning to take only one lens, that is the one I choose.

As to digital SLR's - I haven't found one that I want and can afford: That one is just plain way too expensive at $7000 US (Ds1 Mk II).

 

[Tannin]

Or should I look at the new 5D?

Whooah! I'm confusing myself already.

 

[LunarMist]

I have to admit that my 100-400 L f4.0-5.6 IS is, by far, my favorite lens. If, I'm planning to take only one lens, that is the one I choose.

Hmmm. The 100-400 is fine for what it is, but is actually the worst lens I own. However, nothing else covers that range and is as usable.

As to digital SLR's - I haven't found one that I want and can afford: That one is just plain way too expensive at $7000 US (Ds1 Mk II).

Well, I thought that one 1Ds MK II would solve all the problems, but it does not. That is why I have two of them and a 20D as well.

 

[P5-133XL]

Some of us non-professionals have budgetary constraints for our hobbies.

 

[P5-133XL]

Just think of the number of CPU's that you could be folding with for the money you spent on your camera equipment...

 

[LunarMist]

Or should I look at the new 5D?

Whooah! I'm confusing myself already.

The 12.8 megapixel (@ 8.2 µm), 35 mm sized 5D is for general use (3FPS max) and has much larger pixels than the 20D, so it is less suited to distant subjects. The 20D has 5FPS and smaller pixels (8.2 million @ 6.4 µm) which should be better for your needs. For example, in order capture the same area (8.2 megapixels) with the two bodies, the 5D would need to be at a closer distance proportional to the pixel sizes. Conversely if you shot at the same distance with the same lens, the area of the 20D's sensor would correspond to only 5.0 megapixels from the center of the 5D. The 5D's sensor is essentially a full frame version of the one in the 1D MK II (Not 1Ds MK II, which has 16.6 megapixels @ 7.2 µm). There is a 20D-5D spec comparison here.

 

[P5-133XL]

Aren't you just talking about the magnification factor of the CMOS sensor (In a rather complex way)?

 

[LunarMist]

No. The whloe point here was to separate the crop factor/angle of view issue from the real concern, pixel size.

 

[Tannin]

(much reading later)

.... hmmm .... but I have a long-throw lens arrangement already, so the full-size sensor would seem OK. On the other hand, the 1.6 extra zoom certainly wouldn't do any harm, and it seems reasonable to presume that using a 400mm zoom lens at (say) 280mm will still produce a better picture.

On the other hand (sorry, make that other other hand) there seems to be a lot of merit in the idea of doing my cropping in computer and burning megapixels to keep the quality up. I have any number of almost-great shots where I have framed a sitting bird well (to get a nice, big (= high quality) image, and then at the critical moment the bird takes flight and I wind up with 2/3rds of a bird in the act of taking off. Frustration!

But, all in all, seeing as I am undecided, I guess I'll let the old hip pocket make he decision. The 5D is double the price of a 20D. That seems like a good tie-breaker to me.

Before I order a 20D locally, should we talk about buying yours, LM? I have the cash. Now that the decision is made, I'm ready to buy right away.

* 20D
* 100-400 IS zoom (I thought about the 400 5.6 prime, which people seem to love, but decided that the 400-100 was probably more suitable).
* 18-85 IS 'cause I'll need a smaller lens as well, and have no idea which one to get, so I'll simply go with your recommendation.

PS: is the 18-85 any good for macro work? I'm talking about wildflowers and that sort of thing. Currently I tend to take macros of objects the size of a honeybee or a small coin and bigger. But smaller still would be nice sometimes.

PPS: My next purchase will be a caddy. You know, a hefty, well-muscled bloke to follow me around and hand me things saying something like "I think the number 5 lens for this shot, Sir".

 

[mubs]

PPS: My next purchase will be a caddy. You know, a hefty, well-muscled bloke to follow me around and hand me things saying something like "I think the number 5 lens for this shot, Sir".

I'm shocked at you, Tannin. Poor Tea must be feeling really bad about this.

 

[Buck]

I was worried about this lack of loyalty too.

 

[P5-133XL]

Tannin,

If you want to do Macro work I suggest that get yourself the Canon 100mm Macro Lens. It's designed for it and works well for that purpose.

Zoom lenses need to have some distance from their subject and because of that they tend not to have a high enough magnification factor thus preventing their use for such an application.

Keep your wide angle lens (the 18-85) for landscapes. Because of the wide angle, they add too much distortion for macro work. While they thend to allow you to get rather close, their focal length and magnification factor is still too low for Macro work



Lunar Mist,

The problem I have with the magnification factor, in digital cameras, is the amount of light that goes through the viewfinder: I find the viewfinder is signifigently darker and harder to see with. The smaller the serface area needed to be lit, the less light goes to the viewfinder. Thats one of the reasons I have wanted a full-size CMOS sensor.

I really never considered the pixel size (Graininess) as an issue. I suppose that if you are signifigently enlarging or if you are using a high ISO it could be a problem.

 

[Gilbo]

Have you taken a look at the Minolta 7D Tannin? It's an amazing camera to work with. As a tool it puts every other camera I've handled to shame (20D, 350D, S2 Pro, D70 --disclaimer I only own the S2, but have played for several hours with most of the others). I'm sure the Canon & Nikon Pro bodies are nicer, but I consciously avoid touching those.

The in-camera image stabilization is possibly the most useful advance in body design in a long time and would be quite useful for you considering your hobbies. It would allow you to consider some other lens options. The Sigma 100-300mm f/4 is pretty much universally considered significantly optically superior to the 100-400IS, not to mention its constant, faster aperture. On a Minolta 7D it's stablilized, which takes care of its only drawback, since it's nearly half the price of the 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS.

There are several other choices available from Minolta or 3rd party manufacturers if you want longer reach.

Recently, I've been considering, very seriously, selling my S2 and Nikon glass and switching to the Minolta mount, the 7D is that much of a pleasure to use.

 

[Tannin]

Agggargh!

Just when I'd come to my final decision. More evenings spent crawling through Steve's Digicams reading reviews and agonising over every detail.

(Actually, thanks Gilbo. I'll look into it tonight after work.)

 

[LunarMist]

Have you taken a look at the Minolta 7D Tannin? It's an amazing camera to work with. As a tool it puts every other camera I've handled to shame (20D, 350D, S2 Pro, D70 --disclaimer I only own the S2, but have played for several hours with most of the others). I'm sure the Canon & Nikon Pro bodies are nicer, but I consciously avoid touching those.

The in-camera image stabilization is possibly the most useful advance in body design in a long time and would be quite useful for you considering your hobbies. It would allow you to consider some other lens options. The Sigma 100-300mm f/4 is pretty much universally considered significantly optically superior to the 100-400IS, not to mention its constant, faster aperture. On a Minolta 7D it's stablilized, which takes care of its only drawback, since it's nearly half the price of the 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS.

There are several other choices available from Minolta or 3rd party manufacturers if you want longer reach.

Recently, I've been considering, very seriously, selling my S2 and Nikon glass and switching to the Minolta mount, the 7D is that much of a pleasure to use.

Hah, good luck with that! I tried the 100-300/4 and 120-300/2.8 Sigmas with and without TCs. The 120-300 was a terrible lens optically, and even with a "HSM" motor AF was flaky. I suppose if one buys 3-5 of each lens then one can eventually get a good one, but after I returned the 120-300 the price increased from $2000 to $2400, so I did not bother. The 100-300 was weak at 300 mm and unacceptable with a 1.4x. BTW, are the Sigmas lenses for Minolta HSM yet or ye olde shaft drive?

 

[Tannin]

Dateline: Friday last week.

I ordered a 20D, a 100-400 IS, and (on your recommendation) the 17 - 85 IS too.

I am now officially broke.

 

[Gilbo]

Hah, good luck with that! I tried the 100-300/4 and 120-300/2.8 Sigmas with and without TCs. The 120-300 was a terrible lens optically, and even with a "HSM" motor AF was flaky. I suppose if one buys 3-5 of each lens then one can eventually get a good one, but after I returned the 120-300 the price increased from $2000 to $2400, so I did not bother. The 100-300 was weak at 300 mm and unacceptable with a 1.4x.

You certainly got bad apples, and I don't think the odds of a good one are as bad as you suggest. Most people get excellent samples apparently (120-300mm f/2.8 & 100-300 f/4.0 respectively). Those are among the highest rated lenses on Fred Miranda, which has a far more educated and experienced readership than most Photography Websites. Both lenses are also presently rated in the top of all Canon zooms in photozone's user surveys, which are probably the best on the net. In fact the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 is the highest rated lense coming in above all three variations of the legendary Canon 70-200mm lenses! So, I'm not the only believer out there .

]BTW, are the Sigmas lenses for Minolta HSM yet or ye olde shaft drive?

They are indeed still ye olde shaft drive . IMO this is probably the weakest link in going with the Minolta mount. (Not that it matters for Tannin anymore.) It's not really a serious issue for me, personally, but I certainly recognize that there are people out there who swear that they can't live without their SSM/HSM/USM. I've never noticed the focusing speed to be significantly different, and the sound of a classic lense focusing has never bothered me. It is irritating that the price remains the same I suppose.

There's hope though. Apparently, in future iterations HSM will be available for the Minolta mount.

 

[Gilbo]

I forgot the link to all the Canon compatible zooms, ordered by performance at photozone. The BBCode doesn't like it (too long?), so you'll have to cut and paste it:

http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylenstxt.jsp?filter=%22brand='Canon%20EF'%20OR%20brand='Sigma%20AF'%20OR%20brand='Tamron%20AF'%20or%20brand='Tokina%20AF'%20or%20brand='Vivitar%20AF'%22

 

[Gilbo]

Ugh, sorry about what that's going to do to the page formatting. I hate when people do that...

 

[Gilbo]

And it doesn't even work! If anyone cares anymore, just go to photozone, click on Canon EOS Lenses under User Performance Surveys. Then select all zooms from the pull down menu, and toggle Order by: Performance

Sorry for the kajillion posts . I'm a moron...

 

[LunarMist]

You certainly got bad apples, and I don't think the odds of a good one are as bad as you suggest. Those are among the highest rated lenses on Fred Miranda, which has a far more educated and experienced readership than most Photography Websites. Both lenses are also presently rated in the top of all Canon zooms in photozone's user surveys, which are probably the best on the net. In fact the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 is the highest rated lense coming in above all three variations of the legendary Canon 70-200mm lenses! So, I'm not the only believer out there .

I am long-time member of FM forums with thousands of posts to my name and hardly the only one that received a bad copy of the Sigma 120-300/2.8. In any case the 120-300 has some significant shortcomings (especially for nature photography) that would be present even in a good copy. Your needs may vary. The Sigma 100-300/4 is a good lens, but 300mm is too short for my tastes and it does not handle a 1.4x well enough. The Canon 100-400 is a good (though not exceptional) lens optically, but it offers an unmatched balance of optics, focal length range, AF performance, and image stabilization. Of course I would like to replace it with something better; that is why I tried the Signmas. In the 300 mm range alone I own the Canon 300/4 non-IS, 300/4 IS, and the 300/2.8 IS lenses as well. Each lens has its place in my arsenal, but the versatility of the "lowly" 100-400 gets the job done when close/mid-distance animals are all over the place. I also have two of the three Canon 70-200 lenses, but that is a different story...

They are indeed still ye olde shaft drive . IMO this is probably the weakest link in going with the Minolta mount. (Not that it matters for Tannin anymore.) It's not really a serious issue for me, personally, but I certainly recognize that there are people out there who swear that they can't live without their SSM/HSM/USM. I've never noticed the focusing speed to be significantly different, and the sound of a classic lense focusing has never bothered me. It is irritating that the price remains the same I suppose.

There's hope though. Apparently, in future iterations HSM will be available for the Minolta mount.

I suffered with Nikon shaft-drive AF for many years, starting with an early F4s. Five years ago I discovered that the Canon 300/2.8 IS on the 1vHS was such a miraculous lens, with superb image quality, AF, and IS that I switched to Nikon. After over 20 years of using Nikon gear it was not an easy decision to sell 6 Nikon bodies and a dozen or so lenses. Of course Nikon now has more S lenses, but they were too little and too late for my needs.

 

[LunarMist]

Dateline: Friday last week.

I ordered a 20D, a 100-400 IS, and (on your recommendation) the 17 - 85 IS too.

I am now officially broke.

Not yet. If you are satisfied with the results then you will be OK. If you are not, then an endless money pit may open before you. Seriously though, there may be acceptable optically better solutions that are less versatile, especially at the wide end. Let us know how it goes.

 

[Tannin]

I'm sure that the optics will be plenty good enough for me, LM. I only publish on-screen (very rarely print, and never large format print), and in any case I'm coming from good quality consumer-grade digicams - Nikon Coolpix 4500s and a Canon Powershot A95, both of which seem fine to me.

I'll get upset about Canon's zoom lenses after I have improved my own performance another 800%.

Though I may spring for a macro lens before too long. I'll see how I go.

 

[e_dawg]

Agggargh!

Just when I'd come to my final decision. More evenings spent crawling through Steve's Digicams reading reviews and agonising over every detail.

(Actually, thanks Gilbo. I'll look into it tonight after work.)

Hmm.... I find Steve's Digicams to be the least useful of the major digicam review sites. I like:

1. http://www.imaging-resource.com
2. http://www.dpreview.com
3. http://www.dcresource.com

Any other good review sites that I missed?

 

[LunarMist]

I don't know about the digicams, but Imaging-Resource.com reviews of DSLRs are rather weak (and sometimes nearly silly) compared to DPR for example. DCresource.com seems to review only digicams or the cheaper DSLRs, but no pro models. I think it is probably best to read as many reviews as possible about a particular camera.

 

[e_dawg]

What are the advantages of the 20D over the 350D (Rebel XT in N. America)? At two-thirds the price and with most of the capability of the 20D, the 350D seems like a better value.

In other words, why did you say "it's gotta be the 20D"?

 

[LunarMist]

Well, the 350D is very plasticky, has a 12F compared to 20F buffer for jpegs (the RAW buffer is the same so there is no impact for serious users), has only 3FPS compared to 5FPS, has fewer AF zones, has less pixels/smaller sensor, has no rear control dial to change the aperture or exposure compensation (imagine a bunch of horrid buttons and menus), and has a tiny little battery instead of the standard BP-511 series used on the 20D and many other low end Canon bodes. The XT probably has plenty more deficiencies of which I am not aware; I not having used the Rebel beasties other than in passing. At least the 20D uses some metal in the construction (not built a 1D-series though) and has reasonably functional controls and enough features for serious use if one can accept only 8.2 megapixels.

 

[Handruin]

I shouldn't be asking this, but is this a good deal?

Canon EOS 20D (body only) for $1101?

 

[Handruin]

I don't know what I'm doing, but I just bought it. Now I need a lens.

 

[P5-133XL]

Lens(es) - What you are going to take pictures of determines what lenses you need. Macro, Wide-angel, landscapes, ... and then there is the quality levels - i.e. non-Canon, standard Canon or L-Series. It can start costing a few $$$

 

[Tannin]

Good for you, Doug! An excellent choice. Awesome lump of technology.

Lens? Hmmm .... Well all the L lens snobs say it's a toy, but the 18-55 is reasonably versatile, and they practically give it away. Or the 50mm 1.8 Canon prime, which doesn't zoom but is so fast and sharp (they say) that even the lens snobs respect it. Very, very cheap too.

After that, well, it depends on what you want to take your shots of. I advise just getting something fairly cheap to start with, so that you can get a really good feel for thigs before you start throwing money around. My 100-400 aside, that's what I've done (largely by accident) and I'm glad I've done it that way. I'll be able to make a much beter informed chice when the time comes along to get a longer-term walk-around lens.

But at present, I'm already pondering the Canon 500mm F/4 .....

sob

 

[Handruin]

I knew very well going into this that lenses will cost some serious money. My plan is to own three lenses over the course of my learning. I'm willing to pay for good lens, I just need to figure out what lens that is. I want a lens for macro shots, a lens for distant objects (be it animals, the moon, etc) and one for general purpose. The general purpose will be for people shots, and interesting objects. Even nice fall foliage or whatever I find interesting. That's the lens I want first.

The Canon 17-85mm is up on my list of options. I don't know how that ranks in quality, but it sure isn't the cheapest lens I've seen. Maybe I should start with the 18-55 that you recommend. But I'm big on buying quality the first time around than to buy twice. I definitely need to learn a lot, so I have to keep that in mind.

I also need to figure out which CF card to buy, and how much is a reasonable price. Dpreview did some basic performance testing and concluded there wasn't any significant differences between the brands.

 

[LunarMist]

I also need to figure out which CF card to buy, and how much is a reasonable price. Dpreview did some basic performance testing and concluded there wasn't any significant differences between the brands.

Many of the the people at DPReview are trolls and/or fools. Cards can make a huge difference in write times, which are often barely related to specified speeds.

The Extreme 3 is the best, but Ultra II is fine as well. Lexar cards are notorious for incompatibililty issues with Canon (they are in bed with Nikon) and have had recalls. 20D write speeds are shown here. Keep in mind that the 20D is an older body, due to be replaced in about 6 months. Faster cards will be of more use in future bodies.

 

[Handruin]

I've never bought from eBay, but does this canon 17-85 EF-S listing look legit? That's a good price from anywhere else I've seen and the user has a decent amount of positive feedback.

 

[timwhit]

It looks legit to me. Did you notice that shipping is $25?

I have bought from eBay many times without much of a problem. I have sold a few hundred items as well. It is not as unsafe as many people would lead you to believe.

 

[Handruin]

I did notice the rather high shipping cost, but thanks for pointing it out. The lense on eBay is still cheaper with that shipping than anywhere else reputable I've looked. They also ship FedEx which I prefer, so to me it's worth it. It's already bad enough I have to deal with Dell and their DHL-must-sign-in-person-wont-leave-packages-BS.