20D or 1D Mk2?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Onepercentf, Oct 16, 2004.

  1. Onepercentf

    Onepercentf Guest

    Does anyone know whether the 1D Mk2 is significantly better than the 20D? I am
    aware that the frames per second, burst/buffer capacity of the 1D Mk2 are
    greater than the 20D, but what about picture quality, especially noise with
    high ISO settings. Also I have read that the 20D has quite a lot of mechanical
    noise (shutter and mirror slap) - is the 1D Mk2 quieter?
     
    Onepercentf, Oct 16, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Onepercentf wrote:
    > Does anyone know whether the 1D Mk2 is significantly better than the 20D?
    > I am aware that the frames per second, burst/buffer capacity of the 1D Mk2
    > are greater than the 20D, but what about picture quality,


    I believe it is a full 35mm frame imager with about 14 meg and uses
    standard 35mm lenses, no digital lenses. As for the rest, I have no idea.

    > especially noise
    > with high ISO settings. Also I have read that the 20D has quite a lot of
    > mechanical noise (shutter and mirror slap) - is the 1D Mk2 quieter?


    --
    Joseph E. Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
     
    Joseph Meehan, Oct 16, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Onepercentf

    b4 Guest

    Try google, or similar, and enter "20d vs 1d mk2", or similar ,there seems
    to be several items.

    "Onepercentf" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Does anyone know whether the 1D Mk2 is significantly better than the 20D?

    I am
    > aware that the frames per second, burst/buffer capacity of the 1D Mk2 are
    > greater than the 20D, but what about picture quality, especially noise

    with
    > high ISO settings. Also I have read that the 20D has quite a lot of

    mechanical
    > noise (shutter and mirror slap) - is the 1D Mk2 quieter?
     
    b4, Oct 16, 2004
    #3
  4. Onepercentf

    b4 Guest

    A couple that might be useful...

    http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB8&Number=270090&Main=269975

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=10272209

    "b4" <> wrote in message
    news:ckrhtq$eg9$...
    > Try google, or similar, and enter "20d vs 1d mk2", or similar ,there seems
    > to be several items.
    >
    > "Onepercentf" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Does anyone know whether the 1D Mk2 is significantly better than the

    20D?
    > I am
    > > aware that the frames per second, burst/buffer capacity of the 1D Mk2

    are
    > > greater than the 20D, but what about picture quality, especially noise

    > with
    > > high ISO settings. Also I have read that the 20D has quite a lot of

    > mechanical
    > > noise (shutter and mirror slap) - is the 1D Mk2 quieter?

    >
    >
     
    b4, Oct 16, 2004
    #4
  5. Onepercentf

    GT40 Guest

    Its WAY better than the 20D

    On 16 Oct 2004 16:05:31 GMT, (Onepercentf) wrote:

    >Does anyone know whether the 1D Mk2 is significantly better than the 20D? I am
    >aware that the frames per second, burst/buffer capacity of the 1D Mk2 are
    >greater than the 20D, but what about picture quality, especially noise with
    >high ISO settings. Also I have read that the 20D has quite a lot of mechanical
    >noise (shutter and mirror slap) - is the 1D Mk2 quieter?
     
    GT40, Oct 16, 2004
    #5
  6. Onepercentf

    Skip M Guest

    "Joseph Meehan" <> wrote in message
    news:xTbcd.315520$...
    > Onepercentf wrote:
    >> Does anyone know whether the 1D Mk2 is significantly better than the 20D?
    >> I am aware that the frames per second, burst/buffer capacity of the 1D
    >> Mk2
    >> are greater than the 20D, but what about picture quality,

    >
    > I believe it is a full 35mm frame imager with about 14 meg and uses
    > standard 35mm lenses, no digital lenses. As for the rest, I have no idea.
    >
    >> especially noise
    >> with high ISO settings. Also I have read that the 20D has quite a lot of
    >> mechanical noise (shutter and mirror slap) - is the 1D Mk2 quieter?

    >
    > --
    > Joseph E. Meehan
    >
    > 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
    >
    >
    >

    You're confusing it with the 1Ds mkII, a natural mistake. The 1D mkII has a
    1.3x sensor, the 1Ds mkII a full frame, the 20D, a 1.6x.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Oct 16, 2004
    #6
  7. Onepercentf

    GT40 Guest

    On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:20:45 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
    <> wrote:

    >Onepercentf wrote:
    >> Does anyone know whether the 1D Mk2 is significantly better than the 20D?
    >> I am aware that the frames per second, burst/buffer capacity of the 1D Mk2
    >> are greater than the 20D, but what about picture quality,

    >
    > I believe it is a full 35mm frame imager with about 14 meg and uses
    >standard 35mm lenses, no digital lenses. As for the rest, I have no idea.


    No the 1DMark2 doesn't have a full frame sensor, it has a 1.3 crop and
    is 8MP. Now the 1DsMark2 does have a full frame sensor and is 16.61MP
     
    GT40, Oct 16, 2004
    #7
  8. Onepercentf

    Skip M Guest

    "Onepercentf" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Does anyone know whether the 1D Mk2 is significantly better than the 20D?
    > I am
    > aware that the frames per second, burst/buffer capacity of the 1D Mk2 are
    > greater than the 20D, but what about picture quality, especially noise
    > with
    > high ISO settings. Also I have read that the 20D has quite a lot of
    > mechanical
    > noise (shutter and mirror slap) - is the 1D Mk2 quieter?


    If I can interject a personal opinion, the issue of the mirror slap noise of
    the 20D is largely overblown. I have this camera, a D30, A2 and 1n film
    cameras, and had a 10D. The shutter/mirror slap is roughly the same as my
    A2, a camera lauded for its silence in its day, and a little quieter than my
    D30. It is a little, and I emphasize little, noisier than the 10D, but the
    only time this might be an issue is in an environment of near or complete
    silence, like a library or museum. At a wedding, for instance, it is not
    noticeable. The 1D mkII is actually louder. (I have a friend who has one,
    we've compared.)
    The one clear advantage of the 1D mkII, again, in my opinion, is its larger
    sensor. This has two benefits. First, a little less noise, esp. at the
    extremes of ISO, low and high, and use of wide angle lenses. It has a 1.3x
    crop vs. the 1.6 of the 20D. So a 20mm has an equivalency of a 26mm rather
    than a 32mm on a 20D.
    A good place to compare features is dpreview.com where they have a side by
    side feature.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Oct 16, 2004
    #8
  9. Onepercentf

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: (Onepercentf)

    >Does anyone know whether the 1D Mk2 is significantly better than the 20D? I
    >am aware that the frames per second, burst/buffer capacity of the 1D Mk2 are
    >greater than the 20D, but what about picture quality, especially noise with
    >high ISO settings.


    http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos20d/page16.asp ... side-by-side
    comparison, where he concludes the image quality is very similar.

    >Also I have read that the 20D has quite a lot of mechanical
    >noise (shutter and mirror slap) - is the 1D Mk2 quieter?


    The 1D M II seems pretty noisy to me, especially when used in the burst mode.
    I've only used a 20D for a few shots with a body George Lepp loaned around in
    Denali a couple weeks ago but it sounded quiet to me compared to the Mark II,
    but maybe if you measured the noise levels I'd be wrong. If you need a silent
    camera you should probably get a rangefinder anyway.

    We have two Mark II's, have taken over 10,000 shots with them so far, and it's
    a great camera. The advantages for me are the more rugged construction (I've
    used mine in the rain and snow several times in Alaska), faster frame rate,
    much better autofocus (the best of any camera I've used), holding AF at f/8
    while the 20D won't AF with lenses with min apertures slower than f/5.6 (a big
    deal if you use teleconverters, which I do often with 500 mm lenses ... it will
    actually hold AF with the 500 f/4 and stacked t/c's for 1,400 mm @ f/ll ...
    nice).

    The Mark II is rated at 200,000 shutter cycles, I think the 20D is rated at
    50,000 shutter cycles, so it will last up to 4x longer before shutter accuracy
    starts to fall off, if you believe these reliability numbers.

    The 1.3x is either a good thing if you shoot wide angles or not a good thing if
    you shoot telephotos, which is mainly what I use with my Mark II.

    On the other hand the Mark II is about a pound heavier and costs three times as
    much. I'd say that 99% are better off with the 20D (mainly because of the
    price), the exceptions being people who shoot a LOT of sports or wildlife where
    the speed and faster AF are most useful, or those who need the extra
    weatherproofing (wildlife photographers and photo-journalists?).

    BTW we've been printing 16x20" images made with the Mark II that look great,
    much better than what we're getting from scanned 35 mm film. 8 Mpixels is
    really nice ...

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Oct 16, 2004
    #9
  10. Onepercentf

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Interesting read here:

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=10699541

    Phil

    Onepercentf wrote:

    > Does anyone know whether the 1D Mk2 is significantly better than the 20D? I am
    > aware that the frames per second, burst/buffer capacity of the 1D Mk2 are
    > greater than the 20D, but what about picture quality, especially noise with
    > high ISO settings. Also I have read that the 20D has quite a lot of mechanical
    > noise (shutter and mirror slap) - is the 1D Mk2 quieter?
     
    Phil Wheeler, Oct 16, 2004
    #10
  11. Onepercentf

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Joseph Meehan wrote:

    > Onepercentf wrote:
    >
    >>Does anyone know whether the 1D Mk2 is significantly better than the 20D?
    >>I am aware that the frames per second, burst/buffer capacity of the 1D Mk2
    >>are greater than the 20D, but what about picture quality,

    >
    >
    > I believe it is a full 35mm frame imager with about 14 meg and uses
    > standard 35mm lenses, no digital lenses. As for the rest, I have no idea.
    >


    Nope. 8.2 megapixels, 1.3x crop factor. EF mount (not EF/EF-S as 20D).

    You may be thinking of the newly announced 1DsMkII which is full frame
    and 16 mp or so -- and $8000.

    Phil
     
    Phil Wheeler, Oct 16, 2004
    #11
  12. Onepercentf

    Guest

    In message <>,
    GT40 <> wrote:

    >Its WAY better than the 20D


    Not if you're trying to resolve small, distant subjects (e.g., bird
    photography) with a sharp telephoto lens. The 20D has a virtual 1.23x
    teleconverter that robs no light, and has no abberations.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Oct 17, 2004
    #12
  13. Onepercentf

    GT40 Guest

    On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:34:35 GMT, wrote:

    >In message <>,
    >GT40 <> wrote:
    >
    >>Its WAY better than the 20D

    >
    >Not if you're trying to resolve small, distant subjects (e.g., bird
    >photography) with a sharp telephoto lens. The 20D has a virtual 1.23x
    >teleconverter that robs no light, and has no abberations.


    The 1D Mark 2 has a 1.3x crop factor, and its got a faster AF tracking
    system then the 20D
     
    GT40, Oct 17, 2004
    #13
  14. Onepercentf

    Guest

    In message <>,
    GT40 <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:34:35 GMT, wrote:
    >
    >>In message <>,
    >>GT40 <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Its WAY better than the 20D

    >>
    >>Not if you're trying to resolve small, distant subjects (e.g., bird
    >>photography) with a sharp telephoto lens. The 20D has a virtual 1.23x
    >>teleconverter that robs no light, and has no abberations.

    >
    >The 1D Mark 2 has a 1.3x crop factor, and its got a faster AF tracking
    >system then the 20D


    Yes, but the maximum potential resolution of a subject with the same
    lens is lower.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Oct 17, 2004
    #14
  15. Onepercentf

    Mark M Guest

    "GT40" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:34:35 GMT, wrote:
    >
    > >In message <>,
    > >GT40 <> wrote:
    > >
    > >>Its WAY better than the 20D

    > >
    > >Not if you're trying to resolve small, distant subjects (e.g., bird
    > >photography) with a sharp telephoto lens. The 20D has a virtual 1.23x
    > >teleconverter that robs no light, and has no abberations.

    >
    > The 1D Mark 2 has a 1.3x crop factor, and its got a faster AF tracking
    > system then the 20D


    Yes, but the 20D has a 1.6x factor.
    The 1.23 he mentions above is in comparison to the 1D Mark II.
    As he says...for telephoto applications...this means you get to spend all of
    your megapixels on a smaller (and therefore more detailed) portion of the
    scene.
     
    Mark M, Oct 17, 2004
    #15
  16. Onepercentf

    GT40 Guest

    On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 18:51:52 -0700, "Mark M"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"GT40" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:34:35 GMT, wrote:
    >>
    >> >In message <>,
    >> >GT40 <> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >>Its WAY better than the 20D
    >> >
    >> >Not if you're trying to resolve small, distant subjects (e.g., bird
    >> >photography) with a sharp telephoto lens. The 20D has a virtual 1.23x
    >> >teleconverter that robs no light, and has no abberations.

    >>
    >> The 1D Mark 2 has a 1.3x crop factor, and its got a faster AF tracking
    >> system then the 20D

    >
    >Yes, but the 20D has a 1.6x factor.
    >The 1.23 he mentions above is in comparison to the 1D Mark II.
    >As he says...for telephoto applications...this means you get to spend all of
    >your megapixels on a smaller (and therefore more detailed) portion of the
    >scene.



    You should be filling the image with what you want, not shooting it
    wide and croping in post
     
    GT40, Oct 17, 2004
    #16
  17. Onepercentf

    Guest

    In message <>,
    GT40 <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 18:51:52 -0700, "Mark M"
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"GT40" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:34:35 GMT, wrote:
    >>>
    >>> >In message <>,
    >>> >GT40 <> wrote:
    >>> >
    >>> >>Its WAY better than the 20D
    >>> >
    >>> >Not if you're trying to resolve small, distant subjects (e.g., bird
    >>> >photography) with a sharp telephoto lens. The 20D has a virtual 1.23x
    >>> >teleconverter that robs no light, and has no abberations.
    >>>
    >>> The 1D Mark 2 has a 1.3x crop factor, and its got a faster AF tracking
    >>> system then the 20D

    >>
    >>Yes, but the 20D has a 1.6x factor.
    >>The 1.23 he mentions above is in comparison to the 1D Mark II.
    >>As he says...for telephoto applications...this means you get to spend all of
    >>your megapixels on a smaller (and therefore more detailed) portion of the
    >>scene.

    >
    >
    >You should be filling the image with what you want, not shooting it
    >wide and croping in post


    To a person shooting elusive, distant wildlife with a sharp telephoto,
    smaller pixel pitch is the only thing that takes them closer to their
    goal. You can use a teleconverter, but it reduces contrast, and eats up
    light by spreading it wider.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Oct 17, 2004
    #17
  18. Onepercentf

    Mark M Guest

    "GT40" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 18:51:52 -0700, "Mark M"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"GT40" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:34:35 GMT, wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >In message <>,
    > >> >GT40 <> wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >>Its WAY better than the 20D
    > >> >
    > >> >Not if you're trying to resolve small, distant subjects (e.g., bird
    > >> >photography) with a sharp telephoto lens. The 20D has a virtual 1.23x
    > >> >teleconverter that robs no light, and has no abberations.
    > >>
    > >> The 1D Mark 2 has a 1.3x crop factor, and its got a faster AF tracking
    > >> system then the 20D

    > >
    > >Yes, but the 20D has a 1.6x factor.
    > >The 1.23 he mentions above is in comparison to the 1D Mark II.
    > >As he says...for telephoto applications...this means you get to spend all

    of
    > >your megapixels on a smaller (and therefore more detailed) portion of the
    > >scene.

    >
    >
    > You should be filling the image with what you want, not shooting it
    > wide and croping in post


    We're talking about telephoto here.
    When shooting distant critters, the limitation is certainly not because one
    is shooting wide and cropping...rather it is because the subject is at such
    a distance that you can use all the extra enlargement and resolution you can
    muster.
    The higher cropping factor of 1.6 can be helpful in this case--especially
    considering that we're talking about the same number of pixels between the
    two cameras, and where those pixels get used.
     
    Mark M, Oct 17, 2004
    #18
  19. Onepercentf

    GT40 Guest

    On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:25:49 GMT, wrote:

    >In message <>,
    >GT40 <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 18:51:52 -0700, "Mark M"
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"GT40" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:34:35 GMT, wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> >In message <>,
    >>>> >GT40 <> wrote:
    >>>> >
    >>>> >>Its WAY better than the 20D
    >>>> >
    >>>> >Not if you're trying to resolve small, distant subjects (e.g., bird
    >>>> >photography) with a sharp telephoto lens. The 20D has a virtual 1.23x
    >>>> >teleconverter that robs no light, and has no abberations.
    >>>>
    >>>> The 1D Mark 2 has a 1.3x crop factor, and its got a faster AF tracking
    >>>> system then the 20D
    >>>
    >>>Yes, but the 20D has a 1.6x factor.
    >>>The 1.23 he mentions above is in comparison to the 1D Mark II.
    >>>As he says...for telephoto applications...this means you get to spend all of
    >>>your megapixels on a smaller (and therefore more detailed) portion of the
    >>>scene.

    >>
    >>
    >>You should be filling the image with what you want, not shooting it
    >>wide and croping in post

    >
    >To a person shooting elusive, distant wildlife with a sharp telephoto,
    >smaller pixel pitch is the only thing that takes them closer to their
    >goal. You can use a teleconverter, but it reduces contrast, and eats up
    >light by spreading it wider.


    One photographer I know uses a 600mm f4 lens for birds and wildlife.
    Another uses a 24mm lens on a remote trigger.
     
    GT40, Oct 17, 2004
    #19
  20. Onepercentf

    Mark M Guest

    "GT40" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:25:49 GMT, wrote:


    > >>You should be filling the image with what you want, not shooting it
    > >>wide and croping in post

    > >
    > >To a person shooting elusive, distant wildlife with a sharp telephoto,
    > >smaller pixel pitch is the only thing that takes them closer to their
    > >goal. You can use a teleconverter, but it reduces contrast, and eats up
    > >light by spreading it wider.

    >
    > One photographer I know uses a 600mm f4 lens for birds and wildlife.
    > Another uses a 24mm lens on a remote trigger.


    I believe the discussion involved telephoto???
    Pay attention.
     
    Mark M, Oct 17, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Graham Russell

    1D Mk2 sharpness settings

    Graham Russell, Jul 15, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    516
    Bill Hilton
    Jul 15, 2004
  2. nighttrain

    Does the new 1ds Mk2 have built in flash?

    nighttrain, Sep 21, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    58
    Views:
    929
  3. Onepercentf

    Canon 1D mk2

    Onepercentf, Dec 30, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    878
  4. Graham Russell

    EOS 1D Mk2 custom white balance problem

    Graham Russell, Mar 26, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    353
    Graham Russell
    Mar 26, 2005
  5. traction

    20D Mk2

    traction, Jul 6, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    47
    Views:
    1,397
    MarkĀ²
    Jul 11, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page