I BOUGHT THE CAMERA TONIGHT. Thread is CLOSED.


Well, I've been reading nonstop on this subject.

I think I should buy the camera and the lens I want, which is the 20D and the 70~200mm f/2.8L IS.

One thing that sooths is that I can get the camera back for 1300.00, and at least I can always buy the "better" upgrade if I need, since the lens will work on all Cannons. So that is good at least.

Some things that I have some doubts about, but I know I must get over.

1) No live LCD. That's really a shame, but not really a problem since you just need to take the picture before you see the exposure result, not the other way around. It's just nice to be able to dial up what you want and see it immediately. I mean, come on, this is the digital age. Why make us wait? From what I've read, I think this must have something to do with sensor heat and keeping it to a minimum.

The other thing I think is nice about a live LCD, and one that swivels out, is that you can get higer and lower--ground level--shots, angled up or down, that are impossible with the 20D--unless you just trust the AE and shoot. But composition is still a problem. Try composing a photograph when the camera is 3 inches off of the ground and the viewfinder is in the dirt.

However, I realize that no higer end DSLRs have that option, so it must be for a reason. But then again, it's nice to allow yourself to stand up while shooting instead of always getting on your knees or lying down, etc. After a while, all that bending and contorting really messes up my already bad lower back. But there is no way around this, yet, I know. Just wanted to discuss it a little. What do you all do?  

Last, can you see exposure changes in the viewfinder of the 20D, or must you see the picture on the LCD after you shoot it? In other words, is the viewfinder "live."

2) I know this is foriegn to most of you, but I'll miss the movable focal point. I think all DSLRs should have that function. What do you think?

3) It doesn't have a .tiff option. The reason I like that option is that it is better than jpg, since there is no compression, and not as slow as RAW. It's just another option, but I'm sure you who use the 20D don't miss it, since you shoot in RAW. Thus, niether will I supposedly.

Really, that's about all. It's not a lot, which is good. Can any of you express what you think? I mean I'm moving from an F828 to a Cannon 20D with a 1700.00 lens in less than a year. I decided I wanted to do photography from a much more serious perspective in about January of this year.

Am I jumping the gun here? Should I "stay in my place" until I become a better photographer? Barring that, there are things the F828 just won't do, and many things it cannot do as well as the 20D, and I really would like to have that extra latitude, amatuer or not. (e.g., More zoom, shallower DoF, much less finiky CA, better ISO and Fstops, and of course a better sensor which translates to a better picture, and a much better burst rate, etc.)

If there is anything any of you can think of that will be hard for me to adjust to, let me know. I'll probably order in the next day or so, barring any replies that suggest differently here.

Oh one last thing. I've read many places where the reviewer says that  a great thing about the 20D is that you can crop images and still have enough PPI. I don't get that. If you take an 8MP image and resize it to 12 x 18, you get 181 PPI in Adobe PS. Given a 200PPI minimum, something seems wrong here. However, I know the 20D can produce 35mm quality pictures at 16x20, so I must be missing something. Can anyone explain this to me?

If you have stock in Cannon, please say so before you advise--lol.

I do what photographers did before swivel screens were invented :)



The viewfinder has a light meter in it, so you will know if it is metering the scene as under or over exposed, but it is not as good as a live histogram.



Tiff files are actually larger than RAWs, and personally I find a high quality jpeg will look as good as a TIFF (unless you start to really nit-pick).



You might have a hard time adjusting to the super-fast AF, big bright viewfinder and amazing picture quality :)



35mm film isn't that great past an 8x10, especially at any ISO above 200, if you're using "consumer" grade equipment.  You need good film and good lenses to make a good 16x20 with film.  The trick to big prints is to stand a few feet back, and then they look great.  The rule I go by is that 150dpi is good enough for viewing from arm's length away, 300 for close inspection.

Hope I was helpfull.
Les

You ask some interesting question.  First, I do not own any photogrpahic stocks, except perhaps some conglomerates that dabble in the business to some degree.  (If you own GE, you own a piece of almost anything and everything.)

I am old school.  Film with manual cameras.  I still believe a person can learn more faster with a manual camera.  It requires the user to learn and understand what is happening rather than deligate that to the camera.

A really creative photographer is rarely equipment limited (unless in a fairly narrow field).  A creative photographer can make his equipment work FOR him, instead of being a slave to it.

I just switched from a Sony F707 to a Canon 20D.  I did this to get RAW and interchangable lenses, nothing more.  My wife has a good collection of Canon lenses that I can use.  I also sold the F707 to my son at a good price for him (he is thrilled) and enough for me to get a large pepperoni pizza delivered to my house (good deal for me).  There was nothing that I couldn't do with the Sony that I can do with the Canon, save some techno stuff like RAW or some things I don't care about like use extra buttons.

I would much rather have someone say "Great photo.  Too bad you don't have a better camera" than "Great camera. Too bad you don't know how to use it."

Don't get me wrong, I like the 20D a lot, but my medium and large formats (no batteries required) still get a lot of exercise.

"I think I should buy the camera and the lens I want... ."  I can't argue about that.

Less, yes that was helpful. Thank you.

Howard, thanks for your reply. Little as I know, I would have to disagree with you about teh diffrence between the 707, F828, and the 20D. Each one will give you a better picture do to its trechnilcal improvements, no matter how good you are. In other words, if you take the same picture with alll three cameras, you will see a difference in quality, all things being equal.

I do agre with you that the photographer must know what he or she is doing, obviously, but you can't change the oil in your car with a hammer. For instance, I'm never going to get a shallow DoF like the 20D with my F828. The F828 will never produce a 12 x 18 print using ISO 400 like the 20D will--and there are some instances where you need ISO 400 or higher. I can only use effectively ISO 64 and 100 becasue of noise.  I will never be able to get a blurred subject in broad daylight with the F828's F8 maximum stop compared to the 20D (I can actually do pretty well with my Hoya 3 stop ND filter, but you get the point).

I wonder if you would stand by your comments about the 707 compared to the 20D or F828 if you needed to do some low light photography, such as indoors at a wedding, and you needed 12 x 18 prints of a professional quality?

However, I still own a Sony F505--the 2.6MP, and I have blown images up with it to 12 x 18 and had them look really nice, so I know what you are saying. But I doubt the 707, 717, nor the F828 can compare to the 20D. I may be wrong, but from what I have read and discussed here and in person, no way.

In regards to the viewfinder vs. live preview issue, it sounds like you haven't worked with an SLR camera before.

This is a basic camera design that goes way back into film camera days. SLR stands for single lens reflex - which tranlated into layman's terms means that when you look into the viewfinder you are looking through a prizm and mirror and directly out of the lens that will take the picture. This is much better than a LCD preview, IMHO, because you see the real image with no electronic interference. It's much more "alive" and I think it helps you to see and connect with the subject better. Imagine it as being similar to the difference in looking into a rifle scope versus using a camcorder with 20x zoom.

The reason you can't have a live preview on a SLR camera is because all the light from the lens is being projected into the viewfinder by the mirror - up until the instant you take the picture. When the camera takes the picture, it flips the mirror up, opens the shutter to expose the sensor, and then flips the mirror down again. All this happens very quickly, and the viewfinder goes black for a split second. After this is done, you can check the picture and exposure on the LCD on the back of the camera.

The 20D does have a moveable focal/focus point, there are 9 points to choose from and there's a handy joystick on the back of the camera that alllows you to flip between them, or to have them all active at once.

Don't worry about not being able to shoot in a TIFF mode. RAW is preferable to TIFF or JPG, not just because of image quality, but primarily because it gives you control over the final image after the fact.

Yes, the 20D should be able to print up to 16x20 with good results, provided you use good technique and good lenses. You can get away with the slightly lower DPI because the image file is very "clean" looking. Of course, subjective opinion is the deciding factor on whether a print is "good" enough.

Finally, my primary recommendation to you is regarding your lens choice. It's not that you haven't picked an absolutely wonderful lens by choosing the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS - it's that you aren't buying any other lenses. The 70-200 on the 20D is a telephoto lens, which means you will always be very "zoomed in", making it hard to take any wider casual shots - like a photo of a couple friends indoors. You will definetely want a lens that allows you to take in a wider angle of view. If I were you, I would spend the $1700 on a couple lenses rather than just one. Try the combination of the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L, 50mm f/1.4, and 70-200mm f/4 L. You will lose the extra aperture stop and image stabilization on your telephoto lens, but you will gain a wide angle zoom and a fast aperture prime lens - all while losing nothing in ultimate photo quality.

I hope this helps steer you in the right direction!

Sheldon

Oh it's incredibly better than an LCD viewfinder. I hate that. And yes, it does waht you say it does for sure. I've used both.

Actually, on the F828, their are three focal choices. One is like the 20D, which incorporates an oval focal point, the other is center weighted, and the third allows you to move the center weighted (a square) focal point, via the joystick, to anywhere in the viewfinder--or LCD. So it's truely moveable, not just moveable to static points. I think that is innovative. It's definitely not a gimmick.

As far as RAW goes, your and Howard's replies have put my mind at ease. Great stuff.

As far as the lens goes, I've read where the F2.8 IS 70-200 actaully takes better images than it's older non IIS sister, first because it is a IS lens and second because it is faster (more light). But your point is well taken too. I'm not giving my F828 up just yet. It can stand in for snap shots in closer situations until I can buy the smaller lens for closer shots. And I want the ability to shoot slower speeds and in lower light, which means a more versitile lens than the F4 (as I understand it). From my research I don't think I'm going wrong with that 70-200 given that I can still use my F828. Also, I can get the kit lens that comes with it, which is a cheap lens, but could stand in again for those closer, snap shot type images.

Thanks for your comments Sheldon. They make me think about my position for sure.

Sheldon, that's not entirely precise.

E.g. the Olympus E-10 and E-20 are, technically, DSLRs without interchangeable lenses. They use a solution that allows for both live preview and optical viewfinder, as well as eliminating the need for a flipping mirror.

...

I have a 20D and am thinking of upgrading, if your interested in buying my camera let me know. I have the battery grip with extra batter and the 18-55 lens.

It does sound like you are pretty comfortable with digicams vs. SLRs, and the Sony system in particular.  Had you considered Sony's "just announced" model coming this october (the R-1)?  It's got an APS size chip like the 20D, but retains and vastly improves all those things you seem worried about losing in the transition to DSLR (the live screen, the swivel, etc).  

There are websites that already have test shots and previews of this camera.  One can be found at
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/cameraDetail.php?cam=787

I have a film SLR, and have wanted a digicam for some years, but couldn't bear buying one because most I've seen don't allow me the photographic leeway of my slr.   As Howard stated elsewhere on the site, most digicams don't allow users to become better photographers.  (Unless you can afford a very high-end digicam, like the 828, FZ20, or now the DSC-R1).

So because I grew up on my ME Super, Nikon and Canon SLRs, I'm waiting until I can afford the DSLR I want.  But I don't have your kinds of questions, and when I do, it's because I'm seriously undecided about something.  Have you gone to a good camera store, handled the 20D?

good luck,
Cate

Thanks for your reply. The New Sony only has a 28-120mm lens, which would be completely inadequate. I'm already pushing the F828's 200MM equivalent zoom. I've seen the reviews, and although the new Sony is a really nice cam, it still can't compete with the image quality of the D20, and it is now even has fewer pictures in burst mode. I like that it now has a true CMOS sensor, and sony, they have this really good idea about ergonomics. Both the R1 and F828 you can carry all day long, like I do, with a wrist strap and never get tired of carrying it. Plus, when shooting, it feels really nice to hold.

That being the case, Sony has not yet tried to produce a D20 or higer level camera, so I must leave them.

I bought the 20D along with the new Cannon 70-200mm L F2.8 IS lens. So that will give me 300MM zoom equivalent, a 100mm increase over my 828. PLus I can use an extender for most any other zoom needs I will have--I'm not photographing wildlife at 400 meters.

Some things I still like about the Sony, like the IR possibilities, but I'll probably sell it and buy the Cannon lenses that I need sometime in the future.

Sorry, dwdallam, I did read that the purchase was a done deal, but got sucked into the continued posts.

I've seen and handled the 20D, but didn't quite manage your follow-through!  The main thing holding me back was the small review screen and the darker viewfinder -- maybe I'd been conditioned by reviews, but I could sense the dimness, and found it frustrating, so much so that I wrote to Canon, just to add to their pile of ignored mail.

Would you mind posting after you've taken some shots to let us (okay, me) know what your "20dereality" is like?


::

Yeah I will. That will be an interesting test, since I am new to the camera. I also read about the dim viewfinder, but I have also read where others think it is bright. The LCD is teh same size as my F828, so I probably won't hate that. The other thing I noticed taht I will not apprecaite is that teh LCD is bare. The F828 has a non glare galss lens over the LCD, and you can just wipe it off with your T shirt, and it is completely protected from your fingers, etc.

Like I said, you can't beat Sony ergonomics and design--e.g., the joystick is heads and tails above the Cannon Joysticks, and from waht I can tell, so too for the menu system in the Sony. Also, the Sony has a live histogram and the ISO setting is on teh LCD all of the time, if you wish it. You ahve to push the Cannon's INFORMATION button to see what ISO you are using.

So I newver held a 20D. I just read a lot and saw how many professionals actually use it and love it, and I talked with the local photshop owner here in town. He saiod his friend has one, and if he was still doing photography, he would have a hard time not switching to digital after he saw the 16 x 20s the 20D made on his in shop printer.

Given all of that, and the fact that i need more zoom, better F stops, and so on, I decided that I could either lose interest in photography, or buy the 20D and continue with my needs. The F828 is bad with CA and it's F only goes to 8.0. Also, as you know, it has a fixed lens, so if you need more than 200MM, you can't frame up the picture. For those reasons, and others, I needed a DSLR or I was conforming myself to a limited camera. The F828 does have many uses. It takes phenominal images in daylight situations without glare, such as portraits, with almost no noise using ISO 64 and 100. It also excells indoors with proper lighting.

After I get the smaller lens for the 20D, I'll probably never pick up the F828 again tho, and will most likely sell it. It is a great camera tho.

Here are some quick snapshots and one nightshot:
http://www.idlethoughtsandchaos.com/photo/index01.html
http://www.idlethoughtsandchaos.com/photo/index03.html

Here you will see the F828's DoF and CA, plus it's ability to take a night shot at ISO 64. The night shots print at 12 x 18 nicely, with no visible noise at about 2 feet from the picture.