20D or 5D

Rob wrote:
Given the review on
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05...canoneos5d.asp

Do you think the $3299 is worth it compared to about $ 1238 for the
20D now (buydig.com) considering its improvements over the 20D?

If you have to ask, the answer is always "no".


I wonder if the 5D will make good picture taking for the
non-professional that much easier than the 20D?

Probably not, for if no other reason, the increase in file sizes will
be YA strain on the non-pro's home PC...smaller means faster, which
means a greater likelihood of a non-pro to be willing to make the
appropriate post-processing time investment.


Can you justify it's cost for a non-professional?

Ultimately, it really depends on the non-pro and how much they're
willing to invest in their hobby, which also includes the specifics of
their specialization within the hobby.

For example, consider the trade-off between shooting a telephoto lens
with a 20D and getting the +60% increase in focal length, versus
shooting the same image with the same lens with the 5D and having to
crop in the image to get to the same net magnification. If your
definition of "success" is the pixel count, which one wins?

Similarly, but in the opposite focal length direction, there's
trade-offs for going wide angle. If you don't shoot WA, you might not
care, but for the hobbiest who lives for WA, then the 1.6x
multiplication within the 20D is a killer, so he's not really going to
be comparing the 20D to the 5D, but instead the 5D to Canon's other
Full-Frame dSLR's and regardless of the feature set comparisons, its
definitely a less expensive camera, so its probably going to compete
pretty favorably.

Of course, there's always more options...for example, you could choose
to use a 20D for telephoto and keep an EOS 3 around for WA, and with
the money saved vs a 5D, you can pick up the good 35mm film scanner
that you probably want to have anyway for digitizing some of your
legacy film archives.


-hh

"nick J" wrote in message
oups.com...
You may well be right - although I thought Er 99 was 'unspecified
error'

I do remember trying a number of different lenses at the time all with
the same result.
I thought it may have been due to moving straight from a very dry and
cold air conditioned room (not my choice) to a very hot humid
situation.

That's always a bad idea, especially in a very humid place...

On returning to my accomodation, and without removing the lens again,
the camera 'sorted' itself a short while.

Next time try removing the lens and drying/wiping the contacts on the lens
mount, and perhaps the contacts on a battery grip (if you were using one).

It only happened twice though which isn't really enough to base a solid
hypothosis on. I'm a happy user having had approx 3000 shutter clicks
before and after this 'glitch'

"Bruce" wrote in message
oups.com...
I agree with your desires for the new D200. What new camera bodies,
Nikon or Canon offer "extended dynamic range" other than the Fuji S3 ??

The 5D extends downward to ISO 50 via a custom function, and upward to 3200.
The low ISO of 50 can be very useful when you're in very strong light where
you don't want to be forced to use a super high speed shutter, and likely a
good way to have an ultimate, low-noise shot (though I can't imagine needing
much lower than the incredibly clean ISO 100 on a Canon CMOS body).

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:09:51 -0500, Rob wrote:

Given the review on
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05...canoneos5d.asp

Do you think the $3299 is worth it compared to about $ 1238 for the
20D now (buydig.com) considering its improvements over the 20D?
I wonder if the 5D will make good picture taking for the
non-professional that much easier than the 20D?

It most certainly will, to the limits of its design and construction,
*IF* you tell it to. It can't make a mediocre photo good, though.

Can you justify it's cost for a non-professional? For me, it's seems
to much difference in cost but that's me. I believe the 20D about one
year ago was around $2000 so it fell about $800 over a year.

If it seems like to much money to you, then it probably is.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com

The low ISO of 50 can be very useful when you're in very strong light where
you don't want to be forced to use a super high speed shutter,

Neutral Density filter or even a polarizing filter will address the
issue just a well or better than a 1EV difference in camera sensitivity!

"wilt" wrote in message
oups.com...
The low ISO of 50 can be very useful when you're in very strong light
where
you don't want to be forced to use a super high speed shutter,

Neutral Density filter or even a polarizing filter will address the
issue just a well or better than a 1EV difference in camera sensitivity!

Sure.
But even that isn't always enough to get you there. If you wanted to
capture a bit of motion blur to show action in very bright light, for
example, sometimes even a polarizer doesn't darken it enough to allow this
slow a shutter--especially if you don't want to stop your lens down. Unless
you can get the shutter down below 1/200th or 1/100th (or whatever is needed
for the relative motion/speed of subject), you're limited in how you can
capture it. Being able to use a large aperture...AND a slow shutter--even
in bright light...means you have options.
Options are good!

In article , says...
I've seen this same sort of thing from samples of wide canon glass used on a
1DsmkII.

Care to post samples?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

In article ilIOe.8430$Us5.4190@fed1read02, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest
even number says...
The 5D extends downward to ISO 50 via a custom function, and upward to 3200.
The low ISO of 50 can be very useful when you're in very strong light where
you don't want to be forced to use a super high speed shutter, and likely a
good way to have an ultimate, low-noise shot (though I can't imagine needing
much lower than the incredibly clean ISO 100 on a Canon CMOS body).

Actually, the ISO 50 will have about the same noise/slightly more noise
than an ISO 100 shot and the highlights will be clipped more easily.
ISO 50 isn't a real sensitivity, it's ISO 100 overexposed a stop and
then recovered.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

In message mfuOe.8248$Us5.3068@fed1read02,
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:

What you need to do is really try and define your needs, and how those needs
stack up against the abilities of the two bodies. The 5D isn't universally
ahead of the 20D. For example, the 20D can shoot 5 frames per second in
jpeg mode, while the 5D is limited to 3 frames (any mode).

The 1/200 flash sync is also a downer.

The 1/3 stop ISO settings and RGB histogram are a plus, though. Don't
know if the histogram is actually RAW in RAW mode; that would be very
useful. I can't understand how *any* camera that outputs RAW files can
fail to have a RAW RGB histogram. It is the most useful exposure tool
possible.
--


John P Sheehy

"Brian Baird" wrote in message
.. .
In article ilIOe.8430$Us5.4190@fed1read02, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest
even number says...
The 5D extends downward to ISO 50 via a custom function, and upward to
3200.
The low ISO of 50 can be very useful when you're in very strong light
where
you don't want to be forced to use a super high speed shutter, and likely
a
good way to have an ultimate, low-noise shot (though I can't imagine
needing
much lower than the incredibly clean ISO 100 on a Canon CMOS body).

Actually, the ISO 50 will have about the same noise/slightly more noise
than an ISO 100 shot and the highlights will be clipped more easily.
ISO 50 isn't a real sensitivity, it's ISO 100 overexposed a stop and
then recovered.

Hmm.
Where can this info be studied?
I'd be interested to read about that.

Still has it's use, as it allows the slow shutter/large aperture in bright
light.

I'll be interested to see some side-by-side identical frames using each of
100 and 50 ISO images.