.
.

THIS THREAD IS STALE. I'M STARTING ANOTHER. PLEASE DO NOT FURTHER RESPOND TO THIS THREAD--DWDALLAM.




Recently I posted a topic about the new 5D, since I own a F828 and I am serously thinking about upgrading for several reasons:

1) Better shallow DoF
2) More zoom: 200MM IS Cannon lens (1700.00 US)<--Really want that set up
3) Better sensor and thus image quality
4) True TTL viewfinder (those LCDs are raeally annoying)
5) More F stops (F828 limited to F8)
6) Much better continuous shooting
7) Less lens lock up
8) etc

You get the picture.

So I want to start asking some question I haven't been able to answer myself.

First, does the 20D have a aspect ratio choice like the F828.<--I found this answer, and yes it does. Howeer, does it also have a "standar" aspect ratio? There are actually two settings for the F828's maximum resolution of 8MPs--one is called 8MPs and the other is 3:2. The 8MP setting produces a taller image, but resizes to 11x14 perfectly for printing--I think that is how it works. can;t remeber right now.

Second, here are some DoF pictures I took. Composition is off, but I wanted to maximize background to show DoF. Could you any of you give a rough estimate of how much better the 20D will do with Shallow DoF than the pictrures I've posted. I don't want to invest 3500 in a camera only to have the shallow DoF not be acceptable to me.

http://www.idlethoughtsandchaos.com/photo/index01.html

Third, I've narrowed down what I would want for at least one lens. I will give you my reaswons, and then you can answer and correct any preconceived errors in my thinking.

I'd like to have the Cannon 200MM IS, the one that costs 1700.00 US. I think this is a good all around lens that will give me an efffective 320MM zoom compared to the Sony F828's 200mm equivalent. Plus it has IS and F2.8.

What lens would best compliment the 200MM above? Should it also be IS?

How much trouble is keeping the sensor clean and cleaning it when necessary going to be and what is involved in doing it correctly?

Finally, is the battery grip worth having, more so for ergonomics than battery life?

Last, for wide angle shots, panaromas, I can still use my F828, since that is one area it excels in--usually good light which is very useful with the F8 max of the F828--until I can afford a WA lens for the 20D.

Last, the new Sony DSC R1 that replaces the F828 is out. It has a sensor size equal to the 20D, although it is still limited by a fixed lens, F16, and other factors. Just for comparison sake, do you think that almost the same size CMOS sensor is equal or nearly equal to the 20D's? There weren't nearly enough pictures to reallly compare them is the review at Steve's. In any event, it also has 10MPs instead of 8MP. Just wanted to get your ideas on that so as to further educate myself in the MP and Sensor wars area.

I have one other thing I wanted to add. Tonight I talked with the owner of the local photo store and was explaning my understanding of the 1.6 crop factor of the 20D. As I understand what people have said, you get LESS image than you see in the LCD and viewfinder. So if you have a person's ears and chin just in the image you see while shooting the picture, you will lose some of their ears and chin when you view it on screen. Is this correct? He said he thought I had that wrong. He said you should see whatever the viewfinder/LCD are stated as in the manual, which I think is 97% for the 20D.

That's it for now. Let me know.[B][B]

I haven't seen any aspect ratio choice in the menu for my 20D, but it does auto-detect whether you're in "portrait" or "landscape" mode. That is, it senses whether you're holding the camera vertically or horizontally.

For other aspect ratios, I find it far easier to just crop the image later on, either in Adobe Camera RAW or in Photoshop.



I can only point to the f/2.8 image taken at 24mm (38.4mm equivalent) in the previous thread on this topic, to show how shallow DoF is when doing portraiture on a wide lens.

For shallower DoF, you'd need to look at fixed focal length lenses, such as the superb EF 135mm f/2L, the (also superb) EF 85mm f/1.2L, and the very good EF 50mm f/1.4.

Given your budget hints, trying to get a used EF 200mm f/2L seems out of the question, although that one's about as good as it gets.



I assume you mean the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS? Canon doesn't have a fixed focal length lens at 200mm with IS.

There is, however, the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS, another really good (and really expensive) lens.



That depends on the kind of photography you want to do.

IS is typically most useful when you do handheld shots, shots on a tripod in wind, and particularly useful in lowlight situations.

Given that you later write that you intend to do your wide angle shots with your F828, my guess is that the 50mm f/1.4 would complement the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS nicely. But you can always get that second lens later!


Search this site for "sensor cleaning", there are two good articles on it.


It's a matter of taste, I think. Battery life is pretty much a non-issue with the 20D -- for me! -- and the second battery available in the grip would only nearly double your capacity, for a rather larger increase in weight. I keep my second battery in the camera bag or in my pocket.

Also, the battery grip for the 20D has exhibited problems that Canon just recently acknowledged. I don't know whether this acknowledgment has resulted in new grips working better or not.

Ergonomics-wise, I'd probably love having a vertical grip, and since you seem to do a bit of hand-held portraiture, so would you.


We 20D owners would like to think that it isn't. ::

But seriously, I await proper test results.



He is correct.

In the 20D viewfinder, you see less than what you photograph.

This is slightly annoying, because I try to frame my photograph to avoid  cropping, if possible, and not having 100% coverage ruins this slightly.

But it's far better to have leeway than to lose parts of the image because the viewfinder coverage was, say, 105% ...

Jani, thanks for your responses.

The lens I want is 70-200L IS, the one you recommended in the old thread. It's 1700.00US

The 20D does take a 3:2 aspect ratio. I don't think is has any other aspects though.

I want two lenses to start. One will be the nice IS 7-200mm, and the other one will be something you all think would best compliment it, maybe a 28mm-50mm? Maybe a prime of some sort?

The new Sony does have a sensor about the same size as the 20D, but is does not take as nice of picture. It is also a fixed lens with only 28 - 120mm EQ, which isn't nearly enough for me. I'll keep the F828 for wider shots until I can get all of the lenses I need with the 20D is I can't afford the second lens right off the bat.

You said "In the 20D viewfinder, you see less than what you photograph.

This is slightly annoying, because I try to frame my photograph to avoid  cropping, if possible, and not having 100% coverage ruins this slightly.

But it's far better to have leeway than to lose parts of the image because the viewfinder coverage was, say, 105% ... "

OK, I reallly need to get clear on this. Do you see less because the viewfinder is 97% or because of the crop factor? Also, do you see the whole picture in the LCD, or nly 97%--I say 97% because I think I saw that in one of the reviews?

I'd really like to see some portraits of how shallow the 20D can make the DoF given any focal length or lens. I just want to see what it can do. I mean, can it do as good as a standard 35mm camera given the same size and speed lenses?

Last, if I buy the 20D am I buying an obsolete camera?  I'd hate to buy the 20D and then have it's upgrade come out 6 months later with 13MPs and other improvements, maybe like a swiveling LCD panel.

I'm pretty excited about having a camera at that level though. If everything checks out I should know whether I'm buying it or not in the next couple of weeks.

Also, I think I would probably need the IS for the smaller lenses too. At least I'd have peace of mind. So If I buy the 70~200mm f/2.8L IS, what would I NOT be able to shoot with it very effectively?

Ultrawide landscapes. Unless you stitch. But I highly recommend the 70-200 anyway, it's one of my most-used lenses. Add the EF-S 10-22 and the 24-70/2.8L and you have a 3-lens lineup that covers practically everything you'd want to shoot.

You see less in the viewfinder because of the coverage. The crop factor simply makes everything you do see smaller. This is one of the drawbacks of the 20D vs. a 5D or 1Ds.

The 20D is not obsolete. I've been shooting with a 1Ds since a few months after it was introduced, and even though the MkII modell is out, the 1Ds is NOT obsolete. It still makes excellent images that enlarge up to 24x36" with proper shooting and post-processing technique. Noise levels are a bit higher than the MkII, but not so much that it detracts from the final print in most cases. Just because there's a better mousetrap out there doesn't mean what you have is obsolete.

Jonathan,

Thanks for taking your time here with me. I'm still not clear on "why?" and "how?" this crop factor works.

Do you see less than the actual image in the viewfinder, but see the entire image you will shoot in the LCD? Is seeing less in the viewfinder a factor of the viewfinder being a 97% viewfinder or the crop factor of 1.6 or a combination of the two? How much less do you actually see in the view finder compared to onscreen? I mean, let's say you resize to 12x18. How much "more" image data will be there all around--an inch, 1/2 an inch, an 1/8"?

The viewfinder simply doesn't allow you to see the wee edges of the image. This actually thought by many to be a "safety margin" to make sure you didn't cut anything off when snapping away in the heat of battle.

You seem to be very hung up on the LCD. On a DSLR, the LCD is not intended as a compositional aid, it is used to basically check exposure. This is the big advantage of a DSLR -  a far superior image in the viewfinder. Are you aware of the fact that the LCD does not show the image until the picture is taken? Some of your references the the LCD make me wonder.

You say you don't want to crop in post processing but talk about upsizing to 12x18. What's the big deal about cropping? Everyone bent on improving their pictures considers cropping an important workflow task. It is so easy and only takes a few seconds. As long as you are taking the time to produce 12x18 prints by upressing, why not take advantage of croppping for improved visual impact?

IMHO - the only excuse for limiting oneself to in-camera cropping is shooting slides or high volume events (weddings, ect.).

So the cause of getting more than you see in the viewfinder is the viewfinder itself, and nothing more?



Why could it not be used as a compositional aid? It's easy to find and then see and divide the LCD into Thirds, for instance, and then you can go to the viewfinder for the final. I find it much easier to get set up using the LCD, and then move to the viewfinder--except the stupid viewfinder in the F828 is just another small LCD, which I HATE. But yeah, I mainly use it for exposure, but I also use it to get the comp about where I want it too. But maybe the problem is contianed below:

When you say that the image does not show until you take the picture, what do you mean? On the Sony you can see the picture in the LCD before you take it and adjust exposure before you take it. It's a live process. Do you mean the 20D does not have that capability, and you need to actually shoot the image first, then see it in the LCD after you shoot it? I know I must be missing something here Bob.

Also, I don't mind cropping. I just want to get the image as close as I can before, and I was afraid to lose pixels with the F828. But yeah I do want to be able to crop. Heck yeah. Again, I'm limiting myself to my camera, and I'm tired of that. I am going to buy the 20D and the lens for it I mention above. I could have it in less than a couple weeks. So yes I agree heartily about cropping, but was afraid to lose much more PPI from the F828. For instance, if I use resample image in Adobe photoshop, and I turn the 8MP image into a 12 x 18, I get 181 PPI. That seems low. I don't do it that way, though. I set the box to No Resample, and then I set the resolution to 310, which is what the Noritsu printer prints at in Costco. Then I set the image to 12 x 18 with no resampling. That leaves the pixel dimension at the same as it was shot, but the print size changes and the resolution is 310PPI. So I may not be doing this the right way. So what is the true PPI at 12 x 18 with an 8MP camera?

As far as the croping factor, I'll know exactly what all of you are talking about with the 20D after I get it. I just want to make sure that from a technical standpoint, I won't be disappointed, and that cropping thing is not going to be too big of a deal. Most of you don't think it is that big a deal. One upshot of the 20D is that it gives you more zoom--as I understand it. So I'll be getting 320mm zoom with that 200mm lens, which is excellent.

I noticed that tongiht many of my night shots are ruined by the F828's bad -- at times -- purple fringing. I've read where it doesn't show up when printed, but that's bull. Some of the lights were full of purple on the edges and clearly visible in the 12 x 18.

Will I have this problem with the 20D?

Here is a link to illustrate what I mean:
http://www.idlethoughtsandchaos.com/photo/index03.html

Really pisses me off top spend the time to get a good picture, or even try to get a good picture, and all the time the fringe monster is ruining it anyway.

dwdallum,
This cropping situation can be made to appear far more complicated than it really is. All that's required to understand it, is an appreciation of the fact that there are different format cameras, such as 35mm, medium format, large format etc.

If you understand the concept that different types of cameras take different sizes of film, then you're 90% of the way there.

Cameras such as the 20D are simply a new format, a sub-35mm format if you like. But such cameras are unique in the sense that they rely upon the lenses of a larger format, hence the concept of cropping. If the 20D had its own lenses designed for the camera format, the cropping issue would cease to exist and cease to cause the confusion which must have generated a trillion words on the net.

The 20D is an APS-C format approx. 22.5x15mm. 35mm is a larger format, 24x36mm. Medium format comes in various sizes ranging from 45x60mm to 4"x5", etc.

Place a 22.5x15mm rectangle on top of a 24x36mm rectangle and that represents the cropping that takes place when you use a 20D with the lens of a larger (35mm) format.

Yes. Or, to be precise, a combination of the mirror and the viewfinder.


Because it can only be used to display pictures you've already taken.


What he means is that DSLRs like the EOS 20D (including any other current Canon or Nikon DSLR) do not have a live preview in the LCD screen.

It could be done, technically, but Canon and Nikon have chosen not to.

[quote=dwdallam,Sep. 18 2005,03:57]I noticed that tongiht many of my night shots are ruined by the F828's bad -- at times -- purple fringing. I've read where it doesn't show up when printed, but that's bull. Some of the lights were full of purple on the edges and clearly visible in the 12 x 18.

Will I have this problem with the 20D?

Here is a link to illustrate what I mean:
http://www.idlethoughtsandchaos.com/photo/index03.html

Really pisses me off top spend the time to get a good picture, or even try to get a good picture, and all the time the fringe monster is ruining it anyway.[/quote]
To the extent that such chromatic aberrations occurs because of the camera and not the lenses, no, the 20D isn't bad in this respect.

However, certain lenses can give you other chromatic aberrations, sometimes really bothersome, other times not.

An example is the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. This lens [URL=http://folk.uio.no/jani/hobbies/photo/test/crops/ca-example-crop1.jpg]shows noticeable CA at 28mm[/quote], though that is fairly easy to correct with e.g. Photoshop.

[quote=jani,Sep. 18 2005,07:08][quote=dwdallam,Sep. 18 2005,03:57]I noticed that tonight many of my night shots are ruined by the F828's bad -- at times -- purple fringing. I've read where it doesn't show up when printed, but that's bull. Some of the lights were full of purple on the edges and clearly visible in the 12 x 18.

Will I have this problem with the 20D?

Here is a link to illustrate what I mean:
http://www.idlethoughtsandchaos.com/photo/index03.html

Really pisses me off top spend the time to get a good picture, or even try to get a good picture, and all the time the fringe monster is ruining it anyway.[/quote]
To the extent that such chromatic aberrations occurs because of the camera and not the lenses, no, the 20D isn't bad in this respect.

However, certain lenses can give you other chromatic aberrations, sometimes really bothersome, other times not.

An example is the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. This lens [URL=http://folk.uio.no/jani/hobbies/photo/test/crops/ca-example-crop1.jpg]shows noticeable CA at 28mm[/quote], though that is fairly easy to correct with e.g. Photoshop.[/quote]
Yeah that is not bad and would correct easily. In the lighted night boardwalk picture I have for example, the method I used there took some of the inkie, dark color out of the sky, probably because it had magenta in it. However, If I wanted to take the time and mask each invididual light, I could solve that problem.

Also, I printed the boardwalk example and left the purple fringing on it. Of the several people I showed it to, they said they liked the color better than the white light without the purple.

Now no matter what people think, however, is that just a no no to leave in given the theme and context of the picture. I mean if the color looks nice and it goes with the overall theme, is it ok to leave it, or it that simply unacceptable from a professional standpoint?

Now the second picture, that is a no go non starter as it definitely does not go with the theme.

Jani, I have your request. You wanted to see the Jenna Lee nightshot with all of her masts in the picture. Would you like to see it?

Yes, that would probably make it more appealing.


I think I see where they come from; the variation in the color of the lights adds something to the picture, and as you mentioned yourself, removing some of the magenta in the sky detracts from it.


I'm not a professional, but I'm of the opinion that if you like it, leave it, even if it isn't a "natural" or "accurate" representation of what you saw that night.

It also depends a bit on where you draw the line between photography as art or photography as documentary. To me, it can be both, depending on the situation. I like that colors are natural-looking, but sometimes, I really want an alien "feel" to my photographs. Sometimes, I get that from the natural light, other times not.



Yes, please, I'd like to see how that turned out.

Ray thanks. That was concise. So the extra you don't see in the viewfinder will represented by the  22.5x15mm rectangle on top of a 24x36mm rectangle, and that's that?

I'm curious, however, in real world usage. Let's say you take a picture and print it at 12 x 18. How much more image will you have that you did not see in the viewfinder in inches? (e.g., 1", 1/2", 1/8". . .?).

BOB,

OK I see why you say that now. The 20D is not a live LCD, unlike the F828 which is a live view of what you see. Wow, I would think that Cannon would have gone live view, but I know that has a tendancy to heat up the sensor and casue problems. That will take some getting use to for sure.

One way to get rid of annoying fringes is to convert to LAB mode, then run the Dust & Scratches filter on the A & B channels. Then go back one history state and use the history brush to paint away the fringes.

The small sensor in the F828 is known for purple fringing and high noise level at ASA600 and above, like most all small sensors.  I bought a 20D body, 18-55 EF-S and 75-300IS lenses about a year ago.  I'm still in love with the 20D.  They won't upgrade it to a much higher meg since they've just come out with the 5D at $3300.  They would be sabotaging the 5D sales.  Everyone thinks the 35mm size sensor is the best but I happen to think the APS-C size, taking into account everything, is better.  It's big enough to get rid of the F828 problems and the 1.6 multiplier turns my 75-300 into 120-480mm with 5 ft close focus.  The ASA3200 feature is tremendous, especially when used with the IS two F-stop advantage.  The noise level at ASA3200 is easily eliminated with noise reduction tools in PS, ACR or Noise Ninja.
Also the inexpensive kit lens 18-55mm(28-90mm) is a good lens.  Some put it down because of cost but look at the MTF curves on the Canon site.  The EF-S lens won't work on a 5D.  This sensor leaves off the poorer optical characteristics at the edges, another advantage.
What you see in the view finder is 97% of the actual image captured( let your subject touch the edge you'll see how little space is left) and is more live( since you are seeing the actual light from the subject without electronic intervention) except for a fraction of second for the mirror flop.  I can't imagine what could be done in that short time.
The nine point focusing and ASA3200 plus other custom features make it better than a Rebel XT for the money.  I shot with the tiny, light XT this weekend and was glad to get back to my 20D.
Don

The small sensor in the F828 is known for purple fringing and high noise level at ASA400 and above, like most all small sensors.  I bought a 20D body, 18-55 EF-S and 75-300IS lenses about a year ago.  I'm still in love with the 20D.  They won't upgrade it to a much higher meg since they've just come out with the 5D at $3300.  They would be sabotaging the 5D sales.  Everyone thinks the 35mm size sensor is the best but I happen to think the APS-C size, taking into account everything, is better.  It's big enough to get rid of the F828 problems and the 1.6 multiplier turns my 75-300 into 120-480mm with 5 ft close focus.  The ASA3200 feature is tremendous, especially when used with the IS two F-stop advantage.  The noise level at ASA3200 is easily eliminated with noise reduction tools in PS, ACR or Noise Ninja.
Also the inexpensive kit lens 18-55mm(28-90mm) is a good lens.  Some put it down because of cost but look at the MTF curves on the Canon site.  The EF-S lens won't work on a 5D.  This sensor leaves off the poorer optical characteristics at the edges, another advantage.
What you see in the view finder is 97% of the actual image captured( let your subject touch the edge you'll see how little space is left) and is more live( since you are seeing the actual light from the subject without electronic intervention) except for a fraction of second for the mirror flop.  I can't imagine what could be done in that short time.
The nine point focusing and ASA3200 plus other custom features make it better than a Rebel XT for the money.  I shot with the tiny, light XT this weekend and was glad to get back to my 20D.
Don

Disregard this post.  Internet problem.
Don

"Really pisses me off top spend the time to get a good picture, or even try to get a good picture, and all the time the fringe monster is ruining it anyway."

Just call it another learning experience and go on.  Most of the really good stuff I learned was from screw ups, and not from the first time successes.