Should I buy a 20D????

[PricklyPete]

I've been shooting film for a long time (well as long as a 26 year old can be shooting film), but have been tempted lately to go digital because of the ease of use with my digital P&S. My current system is Canon AF based, so the logical choice would be a new digital body (20D, 350D).

Have any of you regretted spending the money on the digital body. I'd be leaning toward the 20D, so that will set me back around $1249 in the end. The only problem is my lenses consist of:

24-70 2.8
70-200 2.8
28-135 IS (vacation lens)
50 1.8

It seems with the 1.6 crop factor I'd be loosing out on the wide end...something that I think would bother me a bit. I'd at least have to pick something up like the 17-40 to at least retain the wide end I currently have.

What do you guys think...should I take the plunge? Will I regret it? I shoot mostly slide film at the moment (and some black and white), but at an average of $16 for film and developing costs per roll and taking 50 rolls a year (at least), I'll even out the cost in less than 2 years. Is this stupid math? Am I just convincing myself of something I don't need?

Update 5-25-2005 I purchased the camera!!! I can't wait till it comes in. I held off on buying a lens with it...at least for now.

Can't wait to start shooting with it. I ordered it from B&H today...should get it in by Monday.

I have a feeling I will be buying a 10-22 very soon....

 

[toekramp]

you will never ever regret buying the 20D. a few guys have it at my office and love it, (i'm currently the owner of the DRebel, i'll upgrade during the next generation probably). and while you might lose some visibility on the shorter shots, you do gain it back on the longer shots.

I also have the 17-40L and it is an incredible lense.

17-40L - Pic 1

17-40L - Pic 2

most of my shots on that site are with the 17-40

edit: one other thing, you really want to feel the 350D if you choose that route, it's wayyyy to small for my hands

 

[Koing]

You will just have to get a lense that is wide. Everyone loses it when they get to the 20D or something with a not full size sensor.

Koing

 

[toekramp]

Originally posted by: Koing
You will just have to get a lense that is wide. Everyone loses it when they get to the 20D or something with a not full size sensor.

Koing

i guess he could just do the 1Ds Mark II route

 

[Jzero]

No way you will regret it. You can take as many pictures as you want without worrying about film costs, and you can have a digital darkroom right in your bedroom without having to worry about chems, ventilation, shelf life, etc.

I wish I had the money to replace my broken ZX-50 with a *ist-d, but ever since I got my el-cheapo P&S digital cam, aside from interchangeable lenses, I really haven't missed my film cam at all.

 

[Doggiedog]

I took the plunge in January after last having used an SLR in the early 90s.

I don't regret buying my 20D one bit. In fact, when I sometimes have to resort to using my Canon S60, I feel very limited and frustrated.

The only issue I think Canon needs to address with the 20D is the lack of a spot meter. Centered weighted really doesn't cut it. A multipoint spot meter should be a standard feature especially for such an expensive camera.

Edit: I took my camera out to my sister's baby shower and ended up taking 360 pics not including the ones I erased on the fly. I would never do that on an SLR. It would probably be 1 roll max if that.

 

[dman]

Not a repost, but, see some discussion from this thread on Digi vs Film

The gap is pretty narrow these days, but, Film still has some advantages, not enough for me.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Doggiedog
I took the plunge in January after last having used an SLR in the early 90s.

I don't regret buying my 20D one bit. In fact, when I sometimes have to resort to using my Canon S60, I feel very limited and frustrated.

The only issue I think Canon needs to address with the 20D is the lack of a spot meter. Centered weighted really doesn't cut it. A multipoint spot meter should be a standard feature especially for such an expensive camera.

Edit: I took my camera out to my sister's baby shower and ended up taking 360 pics not including the ones I erased on the fly. I would never do that on an SLR. It would probably be 1 roll max if that.

I wouldn't be unhappy if they added a spot meter but the fact is that digital makes a spot-meter not nearly as necessary. The histogram serves nearly the same purpose as a spot meter. It just takes a little getting used to. You can adjust for the highlights pretty easily by looking at the histogram.

 

[Doggiedog]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: Doggiedog
I took the plunge in January after last having used an SLR in the early 90s.

I don't regret buying my 20D one bit. In fact, when I sometimes have to resort to using my Canon S60, I feel very limited and frustrated.

The only issue I think Canon needs to address with the 20D is the lack of a spot meter. Centered weighted really doesn't cut it. A multipoint spot meter should be a standard feature especially for such an expensive camera.

Edit: I took my camera out to my sister's baby shower and ended up taking 360 pics not including the ones I erased on the fly. I would never do that on an SLR. It would probably be 1 roll max if that.

I wouldn't be unhappy if they added a spot meter but the fact is that digital makes a spot-meter not nearly as necessary. The histogram serves nearly the same purpose as a spot meter. It just takes a little getting used to. You can adjust for the highlights pretty easily by looking at the histogram.

Its not as intuitive and fast as a spot meter. Why go through a histogram when one or two pushes of a button will automatically set the shutter and aperature for you?

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Doggiedog
Its not as intuitive and fast as a spot meter. Why go through a histogram when one or two pushes of a button will automatically set the shutter and aperature for you?

Sure, it has it place. However, between the image review and the histogram, digital gives you so much feedback instantly, that you can really do a better job than a spot meter in many instances.

 

[PricklyPete]

Thanks for the input guys.

In terms of quality...I know I can currently get higher quality prints out of sticking to film (and then getting a drum scan/huge light Jet print). I have a film scanner that already scans at about 14.7MP...so that already will yeild larger prints than a 20D.

All that being said...there is no convenience there. I end up limiting myself at each opportunity I shoot because of the associated expense (2 rolls...~ $35). I think I would shoot a LOT more if I had digital...and then I could walk home, pull the photo up in PS, and then print it an 11" x 17" right there....very tempting.

I guess it is just hard to drop $2000 in one sitting for a hobby...but it is one that I love dearly.

 

[Doggiedog]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: Doggiedog
Its not as intuitive and fast as a spot meter. Why go through a histogram when one or two pushes of a button will automatically set the shutter and aperature for you?

Sure, it has it place. However, between the image review and the histogram, digital gives you so much feedback instantly, that you can really do a better job than a spot meter in many instances.

It might be effective when you are taking set or portrait shots but when I take pictures of my kids, who won't stay still, I don't have time to take a picture, review and take another. I'd much rather have one button that I can use to pinpoint sections I want and have the computer figure out all the settings.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: PricklyPete
Thanks for the input guys.

In terms of quality...I know I can currently get higher quality prints out of sticking to film (and then getting a drum scan/huge light Jet print). I have a film scanner that already scans at about 14.7MP...so that already will yeild larger prints than a 20D.

All that being said...there is no convenience there. I end up limiting myself at each opportunity I shoot because of the associated expense (2 rolls...~ $35). I think I would shoot a LOT more if I had digital...and then I could walk home, pull the photo up in PS, and then print it an 11" x 17" right there....very tempting.

I guess it is just hard to drop $2000 in one sitting for a hobby...but it is one that I love dearly.

Go for it. I have the 20D and it is an amazing camera. You can shoot at ISO 1600 w/o any remorse. ISO 100 will enable you to make 2'x3' prints if you want. The lack of noise makes tremendous up-sampling potential. You really won't see any less usable resolution with the 20D compared to the equivalent 35mm film. Sure, you may scan a larger file but the detail should not be much different. In fact, I'd prefer a smaller file to a grainier larger file when both files contain similar amount of detail.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: PricklyPete
I've been shooting film for a long time (well as long as a 26 year old can be shooting film), but have been tempted lately to go digital because of the ease of use with my digital P&S. My current system is Canon AF based, so the logical choice would be a new digital body (20D, 350D).

Have any of you regretted spending the money on the digital body. I'd be leaning toward the 20D, so that will set me back around $1249 in the end. The only problem is my lenses consist of:

24-70 2.8
70-200 2.8
28-135 IS (vacation lens)
50 1.8

It seems with the 1.6 crop factor I'd be loosing out on the wide end...something that I think would bother me a bit. I'd at least have to pick something up like the 17-40 to at least retain the wide end I currently have.

What do you guys think...should I take the plunge? Will I regret it? I shoot mostly slide film at the moment (and some black and white), but at an average of $16 for film and developing costs per roll and taking 50 rolls a year (at least), I'll even out the cost in less than 2 years. Is this stupid math? Am I just convincing myself of something I don't need?

Those are all fine lenses! I would not throw them away!!!

Just buy an 20D and then add a wide angle EFS lens, like the 17-85 or 10-22.

I am a proud owner of a 20D but my only lens at the moment is the 17-85.

My planned lens collection is the following:

EFS 17-85 IS USM (walkaround)
EFS 10-22 (super wide angle)
Sigma 30mm F1.4 (prime)
EF 24-70 L
EF 70-200 L IS.

I have the 17-85 and my next two will be the 10-22 and Sigma 30mm. Those two L lenses cost about $3K, so I'll have to save my pennies for those.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Doggiedog
It might be effective when you are taking set or portrait shots but when I take pictures of my kids, who won't stay still, I don't have time to take a picture, review and take another. I'd much rather have one button that I can use to pinpoint sections I want and have the computer figure out all the settings.

How would a spot meter be correct in this situation? IMO, moving subjects are not ideal for a spot meter. It still takes time to set the spot meter causing you to miss the shot. The subject can move in and out of highlights causing your spot meter reading to be off. Center weighted average seems more appropriate in this situation. Also, always exposing for the highlights often results in a severely under-exposed picture. Blown highlights (specular) are not necessarily bad.

 

[m2kewl]

pete, you got some great lenses there! be sure to try out the rebel xt first, then the 20D and you will not reget putting down for the 20D.

Wanna go all out? 1dmk2 w/$500 rebate now

looking at your lenses - then get the 16-35 2.8 for the wide. :thumbsup:

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: m2kewl
pete, you got some great lenses there! be sure to try out the rebel xt first, then the 20D and you will not reget putting down for the 20D.

Wanna go all out? 1dmk2 w/$500 rebate now

looking at your lenses - then get the 16-35 2.8 for the wide. :thumbsup:

I've already held the xt...and it is too small for my hands. I'm 6'5" and that is just too small a camera. I'm used to an EOS3 and EOS5, so going to somthing like a XT just doesn't feel right. I'd also be bying the battery grip for the 20D immediately as I've been spoiled by that on my other cameras as well.

The 1dmk2 and 16-35 would be great...but I can't drop that kind of cash right now and not go into depression over it...LOL>

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Those are all fine lenses! I would not throw them away!!!

Just buy an 20D and then add a wide angle EFS lens, like the 17-85 or 10-22.

I am a proud owner of a 20D but my only lens at the moment is the 17-85.

My planned lens collection is the following:

EFS 17-85 IS USM (walkaround)
EFS 10-22 (super wide angle)
Sigma 30mm F1.4 (prime)
EF 24-70 L
EF 70-200 L IS.


I have the 17-85 and my next two will be the 10-22 and Sigma 30mm. Those two L lenses cost about $3K, so I'll have to save my pennies for those.

don't worry...I won't be throwing out those lenses...it will just that I will have to buy at least one to add to get the wide end back.

Where can you find the 10-22 EFS? I've looked and couldn't find it at B&H...is it not out yet?

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: PricklyPete
Thanks for the input guys.

In terms of quality...I know I can currently get higher quality prints out of sticking to film (and then getting a drum scan/huge light Jet print). I have a film scanner that already scans at about 14.7MP...so that already will yeild larger prints than a 20D.

All that being said...there is no convenience there. I end up limiting myself at each opportunity I shoot because of the associated expense (2 rolls...~ $35). I think I would shoot a LOT more if I had digital...and then I could walk home, pull the photo up in PS, and then print it an 11" x 17" right there....very tempting.

I guess it is just hard to drop $2000 in one sitting for a hobby...but it is one that I love dearly.

Go for it. I have the 20D and it is an amazing camera. You can shoot at ISO 1600 w/o any remorse. ISO 100 will enable you to make 2'x3' prints if you want. The lack of noise makes tremendous up-sampling potential. You really won't see any less usable resolution with the 20D compared to the equivalent 35mm film. Sure, you may scan a larger file but the detail should not be much different. In fact, I'd prefer a smaller file to a grainier larger file when both files contain similar amount of detail.

Interesting...I didn't think about that with regard to low noise giving you better opporunities to upsample.

 

[PricklyPete]

Man...after pricing out everything I'd want...ended up at about $2597 ... 20D, BG, 2GB Compact Flash, 17-40L, and a couple filters (less than $200).

Still tempting... but man...why can't my hobbies be cheaper.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: PricklyPete

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Those are all fine lenses! I would not throw them away!!!

Just buy an 20D and then add a wide angle EFS lens, like the 17-85 or 10-22.

I am a proud owner of a 20D but my only lens at the moment is the 17-85.

My planned lens collection is the following:

EFS 17-85 IS USM (walkaround)
EFS 10-22 (super wide angle)
Sigma 30mm F1.4 (prime)
EF 24-70 L
EF 70-200 L IS.


I have the 17-85 and my next two will be the 10-22 and Sigma 30mm. Those two L lenses cost about $3K, so I'll have to save my pennies for those.

don't worry...I won't be throwing out those lenses...it will just that I will have to buy at least one to add to get the wide end back.

Where can you find the 10-22 EFS? I've looked and couldn't find it at B&H...is it not out yet?

Here you go.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: PricklyPete
Man...after pricing out everything I'd want...ended up at about $2597 ... 20D, BG, 2GB Compact Flash, 17-40L, and a couple filters (less than $200).

Still tempting... but man...why can't my hobbies be cheaper.

I don't think you need the 17-40. I would get the 10-22 and combine that with your 24-70L and you're set. The 17-40 isn't quite long enough to use as a walkaround IMO.

I would also consider getting two 1GB CF cards instead of one 2GB card. May be cheaper and you shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket.

 

[Doggiedog]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: Doggiedog
It might be effective when you are taking set or portrait shots but when I take pictures of my kids, who won't stay still, I don't have time to take a picture, review and take another. I'd much rather have one button that I can use to pinpoint sections I want and have the computer figure out all the settings.

How would a spot meter be correct in this situation? IMO, moving subjects are not ideal for a spot meter. It still takes time to set the spot meter causing you to miss the shot. The subject can move in and out of highlights causing your spot meter reading to be off. Center weighted average seems more appropriate in this situation. Also, always exposing for the highlights often results in a severely under-exposed picture. Blown highlights (specular) are not necessarily bad.

I don't mean subjects running around. I'm talking about set pictures where my kids get impatient if they are standing there too long and don't want to be bothered with me adjusting. A lot of times I'll be in a bad position to take a picture (ie with the sun behind my kids, kids playing outside in the shade) where using exposure compensation may require taking a picture and adjusting and a center weighted shot may not give the right exposure. If I had a spot meter I could take pictures much faster and get exactly the type of exposure I need without having to take trial pictures and adjusting.

My Canon T-90 had this in a camera that is almost 20 years old. I don't understand why Canon can't put it in the 20D. The Nikon D70 has spot metering too doesn't it?

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: PricklyPete

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Those are all fine lenses! I would not throw them away!!!

Just buy an 20D and then add a wide angle EFS lens, like the 17-85 or 10-22.

I am a proud owner of a 20D but my only lens at the moment is the 17-85.

My planned lens collection is the following:

EFS 17-85 IS USM (walkaround)
EFS 10-22 (super wide angle)
Sigma 30mm F1.4 (prime)
EF 24-70 L
EF 70-200 L IS.


I have the 17-85 and my next two will be the 10-22 and Sigma 30mm. Those two L lenses cost about $3K, so I'll have to save my pennies for those.

don't worry...I won't be throwing out those lenses...it will just that I will have to buy at least one to add to get the wide end back.

Where can you find the 10-22 EFS? I've looked and couldn't find it at B&H...is it not out yet?

Here you go.

Thanks...don't know how I missed that. Pricey...would have thought it would be a little cheaper since it is not L glass...oh well. It really would be more appropriate for me than teh 17-40 though. Any reviews you know out for this lens?

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: PricklyPete
Man...after pricing out everything I'd want...ended up at about $2597 ... 20D, BG, 2GB Compact Flash, 17-40L, and a couple filters (less than $200).

Still tempting... but man...why can't my hobbies be cheaper.

I don't think you need the 17-40. I would get the 10-22 and combine that with your 24-70L and you're set. The 17-40 isn't quite long enough to use as a walkaround IMO.

I would also consider getting two 1GB CF cards instead of one 2GB card. May be cheaper and you shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket.

Good point on the CF card...1 GB is probably enough...and it is definitely better not to put all eggs in one basket. Should I get the ones with the fastest write speed...or am I limited by the 20D in some way.

I am thinking about the 10-22 instead of the 17-40...but I want to read some reviews about the optical/build quality before buying. It just seems really pricey for a consumer grade lens...plus I won't be able to use it on my old cameras as well...although I imagine they will be gathering dust if I pick up a 20D.