20D sample images on dPreview.com

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Brian C. Baird, Aug 23, 2004.

  1. Look pretty decent. ISO 1600 is no ISO 400 on a 10D, but it's damned
    near ISO 800 on the 10D. An extra stop is an extra stop. But if it was
    two stops advantage on the 20D I'd put my order in today. Now I've got
    to stop and think about it or possibly wait for a production camera to
    be reviewed - noise might be lower on the production models, but that's
    just speculation.
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
     
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 23, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Brian C. Baird

    Alan Browne Guest

    Brian C. Baird wrote:

    > Look pretty decent. ISO 1600 is no ISO 400 on a 10D, but it's damned
    > near ISO 800 on the 10D. An extra stop is an extra stop. But if it was
    > two stops advantage on the 20D I'd put my order in today. Now I've got
    > to stop and think about it or possibly wait for a production camera to
    > be reviewed - noise might be lower on the production models, but that's
    > just speculation.


    http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos20d/page14.asp RGB noise
    graph:

    Shows the 20D as being slightly (very slightly) noisier than the
    10D up to about ISO 800 ... after which the 20D is less noisy.

    The D70 does decently albeit over a narrower range of ISO.

    Cheers,
    Alan.

    --
    -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
    -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 23, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Alan Browne" <> wrote:
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos20d/page14.asp RGB noise
    > graph:
    >
    > Shows the 20D as being slightly (very slightly) noisier than the
    > 10D up to about ISO 800 ... after which the 20D is less noisy.


    No, the P2 setting is the same as the 10D default, so the 20D is lower from
    800 and up.

    <joke>
    If you look closely, you'll see that the 20D is a replacement not for the
    10D, but for the 300D. The aggressive default saturation, contrast, and
    sharpness settings, the taller buil-in flash, and the EF-S lens mount prove
    this. Three strikes and you're a 300D.
    <joke>

    > The D70 does decently albeit over a narrower range of ISO.


    The D70's lack of a low noise ISO 100 was disturbing, but the 20D reduces
    that difference somewhat. Still, the 20D (P2) is better at every ISO.

    Of course, one would like to see the noise data for RAW images, not
    processed images. Sigh. I expect that the E-1, for example, which comes out
    quite badly in these tests, simply has seriously excessive default
    saturation, contrast, and sharpness settings.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 23, 2004
    #3
  4. In article <cgdqib$d8s$>, says...
    > I expect that the E-1, for example, which comes out
    > quite badly in these tests, simply has seriously excessive default
    > saturation, contrast, and sharpness settings.


    That would make some sense from what everyone has said about the E-1
    just "looking better" straight out of the camera.
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
     
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 24, 2004
    #4
  5. Brian C. Baird

    Alan Browne Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:

    > "Alan Browne" <> wrote:
    >
    >>http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos20d/page14.asp RGB noise
    >>graph:
    >>
    >>Shows the 20D as being slightly (very slightly) noisier than the
    >>10D up to about ISO 800 ... after which the 20D is less noisy.

    >
    >
    > No, the P2 setting is the same as the 10D default, so the 20D is lower from
    > 800 and up.


    See the graph at the bottom of the cited page which compares the
    D10 'default' to D20/P2... which why I said " ... after which..."


    --
    -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
    -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 24, 2004
    #5
  6. Brian C. Baird

    Guest

    Brian C. Baird <> wrote:

    > Look pretty decent. ISO 1600 is no ISO 400 on a 10D, but it's damned
    > near ISO 800 on the 10D.


    http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/20d-part1.shtml

    Reichmann's graph and table, while offering no error bars for his SNR
    figures, make a convincing case that a 10D and a 20D are statistically
    indistinguishable from an SNR perspective (if anything, the 10D is
    still slightly better). Basically (and as I expected), Canon traded
    _all_ its lower noise analog processing for more pixels, instead of
    more dynamic range. Not a reasonable deal if you ask me -- too many
    nitwits in marketing (and, by extension, the market) who can only
    count pixels.

    Unconscionable is that the 20D's viewfinder seems to be even _worse_
    than the already pretty bad 10D. What the hell is keeping Canon from
    making a camera with a decent viewfinder? Particularly for an SLR,
    where the bulk of the time is spent not playing MineSweeper on the
    camera's LCD but actually putting the "R" part to work?

    Ah well. If I drop my 10D, I guess I'll have no choice but to buy a
    20D to replace it. But replace my 10D with a 20D? A fairly expensive
    no-op at this point in time.
     
    , Aug 24, 2004
    #6
  7. Brian C. Baird

    Annika1980 Guest

    >http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/20d-part1.shtml
    >
    >Reichmann's graph and table, while offering no error bars for his SNR
    >figures, make a convincing case that a 10D and a 20D are statistically
    >indistinguishable from an SNR perspective (if anything, the 10D is
    >still slightly better).


    If you check out part 2 of his review I think you'll see the superiority of the
    20D at higher ISO settings. Plus, the added pixel count helps out too, even
    with the noise levels. For example, if I took a 20D image and downsized it to
    the same size as a 10D image, what happens to the noise?
    It becomes smaller and less noticeable.

    One thing you can bet on : When my 20D arrives (hopefully within a month or
    so) you'll have plenty of 20D samples to look at. Of course, I'll be comparing
    it to the Totally Digital D60, which is even noiser than the 10D. So for me,
    the 20D is a wise upgrade. That's the one benefit I look forward to enjoying
    ..... now I'll be able to shoot more at higher ISO settings.
     
    Annika1980, Aug 24, 2004
    #7
  8. Brian C. Baird

    des Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > Brian C. Baird <> wrote:
    >
    > > Look pretty decent. ISO 1600 is no ISO 400 on a 10D, but it's damned
    > > near ISO 800 on the 10D.

    >
    > http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/20d-part1.shtml
    >
    > Reichmann's graph and table, while offering no error bars for his SNR
    > figures, make a convincing case that a 10D and a 20D are statistically
    > indistinguishable from an SNR perspective (if anything, the 10D is
    > still slightly better). Basically (and as I expected), Canon traded
    > _all_ its lower noise analog processing for more pixels, instead of
    > more dynamic range. Not a reasonable deal if you ask me -- too many
    > nitwits in marketing (and, by extension, the market) who can only
    > count pixels.
    >
    > Unconscionable is that the 20D's viewfinder seems to be even _worse_
    > than the already pretty bad 10D. What the hell is keeping Canon from
    > making a camera with a decent viewfinder? Particularly for an SLR,
    > where the bulk of the time is spent not playing MineSweeper on the
    > camera's LCD but actually putting the "R" part to work?
    >
    > Ah well. If I drop my 10D, I guess I'll have no choice but to buy a
    > 20D to replace it. But replace my 10D with a 20D? A fairly expensive
    > no-op at this point in time.
    >


    I can hardly agree that they are statistically indistinguishable from a
    SNR perspective, and no way that the 10D is "slightly better". By eye
    there is no comparison. The 20D is much cleaner especially at ISO 800
    and up.

    http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos20d/page14.asp
    http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos20d/page15.asp

    As far as the "Unconscionable" viewfinder this is a direct quote from
    the dpreview:

    "The EOS 20D's viewfinder is clear and bright with a high quality
    eyepiece lens (very little corner distortion). It has an all new
    'Precision Matte' focusing screen which is supposed to have a more
    neutral color response and provide better manual focus with faster
    lenses thanks to a steeper change in blur at the focus point (in use I
    have to agree, it's a noticeable improvement over the 10D which I never
    considered 'bad')."
     
    des, Aug 24, 2004
    #8
  9. In article <>,
    <> wrote:

    > Unconscionable is that the 20D's viewfinder seems to be even _worse_
    > than the already pretty bad 10D. What the hell is keeping Canon from
    > making a camera with a decent viewfinder? Particularly for an SLR,
    > where the bulk of the time is spent not playing MineSweeper on the
    > camera's LCD but actually putting the "R" part to work?


    What's wrong with the 10D viewfinder? It's clean without a bunch of
    flashing lights and crap.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Aug 24, 2004
    #9
  10. Brian C. Baird

    Don Guest

    It looks to me that the 20D at 1600 iso is as clean as the 10D at the 400
    iso level from these pictures.

    http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/20d_samples.html


    "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
    news:230820041903012874%...
    > In article <>,
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > Unconscionable is that the 20D's viewfinder seems to be even _worse_
    > > than the already pretty bad 10D. What the hell is keeping Canon from
    > > making a camera with a decent viewfinder? Particularly for an SLR,
    > > where the bulk of the time is spent not playing MineSweeper on the
    > > camera's LCD but actually putting the "R" part to work?

    >
    > What's wrong with the 10D viewfinder? It's clean without a bunch of
    > flashing lights and crap.
     
    Don, Aug 24, 2004
    #10
  11. Brian C. Baird

    James Fisher Guest

    Did anyone else notice the stuck pixels? 1 Under the monkey's eye, one lower
    down to the left of the monkey. At all ISO's, too..

    Don wrote:
    > It looks to me that the 20D at 1600 iso is as clean as the 10D at the 400
    > iso level from these pictures.
    >
    > http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/20d_samples.html
    >
    >
    > "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
    > news:230820041903012874%...
    >
    >>In article <>,
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Unconscionable is that the 20D's viewfinder seems to be even _worse_
    >>>than the already pretty bad 10D. What the hell is keeping Canon from
    >>>making a camera with a decent viewfinder? Particularly for an SLR,
    >>>where the bulk of the time is spent not playing MineSweeper on the
    >>>camera's LCD but actually putting the "R" part to work?

    >>
    >>What's wrong with the 10D viewfinder? It's clean without a bunch of
    >>flashing lights and crap.

    >
    >
    >
     
    James Fisher, Aug 24, 2004
    #11
  12. Brian C. Baird

    Guest

    (Annika1980) wrote:

    > If you check out part 2 of his review I think you'll see the superiority of
    > the 20D at higher ISO settings.


    Reichmann provides no comparison images with a 10D. If I find the
    time, I'll go to his "tripod holes" overlooking the Gardiner
    Expressway and try and take a few. I expect there to be basically no
    difference (in accordance with my 10D experience and Reichmann's 20D
    images and data).

    > Plus, the added pixel count helps out too, even
    > with the noise levels. For example, if I took a 20D image and downsized
    > it to the same size as a 10D image, what happens to the noise?
    > It becomes smaller and less noticeable.


    Yes, as I noted, Canon traded all of its noise improvements for
    bandwidth instead of dynamic range.

    > [D60 -> 20D]


    Well, you have no choice I guess ;-) since you won't be able to find a
    new 10D post-September. If I had a D60, I too would be getting a 20D.
    But moving from a 10D to a 20D just doesn't seem to make much sense
    at this point.
     
    , Aug 24, 2004
    #12
  13. In article <>,
    says...
    > Reichmann's graph and table, while offering no error bars for his SNR
    > figures, make a convincing case that a 10D and a 20D are statistically
    > indistinguishable from an SNR perspective (if anything, the 10D is
    > still slightly better). Basically (and as I expected), Canon traded
    > _all_ its lower noise analog processing for more pixels, instead of
    > more dynamic range. Not a reasonable deal if you ask me -- too many
    > nitwits in marketing (and, by extension, the market) who can only
    > count pixels.


    Well, that is using his method of testing at the standard settings
    (higher contrast and sharpening than the 10D default = more noticeable
    noise). And in that test, his conclusions are correct.

    HOWEVER, if setting the 20D to P2 (10D default levels) the noise becomes
    much less noticeable at higher ISOs.

    > Unconscionable is that the 20D's viewfinder seems to be even _worse_
    > than the already pretty bad 10D. What the hell is keeping Canon from
    > making a camera with a decent viewfinder? Particularly for an SLR,
    > where the bulk of the time is spent not playing MineSweeper on the
    > camera's LCD but actually putting the "R" part to work?


    Again, that's one opinion among many that say the viewfinder is fine.
    Is the viewfinder going to be good or bad for you? Well, you'll have to
    try and clear your mind of any bias and see for yourself.

    > Ah well. If I drop my 10D, I guess I'll have no choice but to buy a
    > 20D to replace it. But replace my 10D with a 20D? A fairly expensive
    > no-op at this point in time.


    Well again, the 20D doesn't COST any more than the 10D did at inception.
    For many users, upgrading this round won't be advantageous to them. For
    those of us who could use less noise at ISO 1600, better AF speed and
    the added resolution it seems to fit the bill just fine.
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
     
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 24, 2004
    #13
  14. In article <>, says...
    > Did anyone else notice the stuck pixels? 1 Under the monkey's eye, one lower
    > down to the left of the monkey. At all ISO's, too..


    #1: Orangutans are not monkeys.

    #2: It's a pre-production camera.
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
     
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 24, 2004
    #14
  15. Brian C. Baird

    Guest

    des <> wrote:

    > I can hardly agree that they are statistically indistinguishable from a
    > SNR perspective, and no way that the 10D is "slightly better".


    Go to Reichmann's review and look at his table. His figures show a
    consistent bias towards the 10D. But the _magnitude_ of the
    difference is so small as to being basically meaningless. QED: the
    cameras are "statistically indistinguishable from an SNR perspective".

    With this in hand, we can read:

    >http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos20d/page14.asp
    >http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos20d/page15.asp


    Oh no, the 20D is given a consistent bias here!

    Now when two presumably independent tests reach contradictory
    conclusions, and given equal priors to the tests, one can (in the
    absence of any further evidence) also conclude there is no way to tell
    one way or the other. That is to say, either the tests produced
    faulty data, the tests are blind to the quantity being measured, or
    some other externality, or the objects under test are equivalent.

    > [viewfinder]


    The 10D's finder exhibits some geometric distortion, and is fuzzy in
    the corners. Eye relief is typical for Canon: hardly enough. It is
    not easy to evaluate focus through a Canon finder, especially with
    wide-angle lenses. This is standard fare for Canon, and is the one
    place where they could do for some major improvement (note: I haven't
    looked through any of Canon's high-end cameras -- maybe the 1D-scale
    cameras sport better VF's). Anyone who has used non-Canon equipment
    knows this, but usually opts for Canon for other reasons (Canon tech
    is by far the most advanced, easy to use, etc).

    Go ahead and compare any Canon offering to almost any Nikon
    equivalent. I still fondly remember my Nikon F3HP. Now _that_ was a
    viewfinder!
     
    , Aug 24, 2004
    #15
  16. In article <>,
    says...
    > With this in hand, we can read:
    >
    > >http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos20d/page14.asp
    > >http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos20d/page15.asp

    >
    > Oh no, the 20D is given a consistent bias here!
    >
    > Now when two presumably independent tests reach contradictory
    > conclusions, and given equal priors to the tests, one can (in the
    > absence of any further evidence) also conclude there is no way to tell
    > one way or the other. That is to say, either the tests produced
    > faulty data, the tests are blind to the quantity being measured, or
    > some other externality, or the objects under test are equivalent.


    If you can't read the details within each review, you're worthless.
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
     
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 24, 2004
    #16
  17. Brian C. Baird

    Guest

    Brian C. Baird <> wrote:

    > If you can't read the details within each review, you're worthless.


    Ok, then, you are worthless.

    http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/20d-part1.shtml

    " ISO 10D 20D
    100 40.9 41
    200 40.2 40
    400 39.2 38.4
    800 37.7 37.5
    1600 37.4 36.8
    3200 NA 34.6

    Interpretation: the signal to noise ratio of the 20D compared to the
    10D is essentially identical."

    Do note the (utterly trivial) bias to the 10D at ISO >= 400, where
    data is available.

    http://www.dpreview.com/articles/CanonEOS20D/Samples/ISO/lumi_graph.gif
    http://www.dpreview.com/articles/CanonEOS20D/Samples/ISO/rgb_graph.gif

    Well, unfortunately I can't quote an image. However, it shows the 10D
    either at or below the 20D in terms of "noise". Any differences
    looking like noise itself, and where their might be a difference, it
    is biased to the 20D.

    If you are willing to believe differences observed in these data are
    real, however, do note how this flatly contradicts Luminous
    Landscape's data: where the 10D is good at LL, it is bad at DP and
    vice versa.

    Now if either Reichmann or dpreview puts error bars on their graphs
    (which they should), or presents new evidence, I will certainly be
    willing to entertain a different conclusion. Until then, Reichmann's
    is the correct one: either these numbers are meaningless (for
    whatever reason) or they show the cameras are essentially the same
    w.r.t. noise.
     
    , Aug 24, 2004
    #17
  18. In article <>,
    says...
    > Brian C. Baird <> wrote:
    >
    > > If you can't read the details within each review, you're worthless.

    >
    > Ok, then, you are worthless.
    >
    > http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/20d-part1.shtml
    >
    > " ISO 10D 20D
    > 100 40.9 41
    > 200 40.2 40
    > 400 39.2 38.4
    > 800 37.7 37.5
    > 1600 37.4 36.8
    > 3200 NA 34.6
    >
    > Interpretation: the signal to noise ratio of the 20D compared to the
    > 10D is essentially identical."
    >
    > Do note the (utterly trivial) bias to the 10D at ISO >= 400, where
    > data is available.
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/articles/CanonEOS20D/Samples/ISO/lumi_graph.gif
    > http://www.dpreview.com/articles/CanonEOS20D/Samples/ISO/rgb_graph.gif
    >
    > Well, unfortunately I can't quote an image. However, it shows the 10D
    > either at or below the 20D in terms of "noise". Any differences
    > looking like noise itself, and where their might be a difference, it
    > is biased to the 20D.
    >
    > If you are willing to believe differences observed in these data are
    > real, however, do note how this flatly contradicts Luminous
    > Landscape's data: where the 10D is good at LL, it is bad at DP and
    > vice versa.
    >
    > Now if either Reichmann or dpreview puts error bars on their graphs
    > (which they should), or presents new evidence, I will certainly be
    > willing to entertain a different conclusion. Until then, Reichmann's
    > is the correct one: either these numbers are meaningless (for
    > whatever reason) or they show the cameras are essentially the same
    > w.r.t. noise.


    Earth to your brain:
    There are different settings on the 20D than the 10D. I.e. the
    sharpness and contrast are increased, making the noise more visible.
    When the 20D settings are set to the 10D default, the 20D gives the
    noise graph shown on dpreview.com. Did you miss that? Did you even
    bother to note the two lines on the graph for the 20D, one marked P1 and
    the other P2?

    Doofus.
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
     
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 25, 2004
    #18
  19. Brian C. Baird

    des Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > Brian C. Baird <> wrote:
    >
    > > If you can't read the details within each review, you're worthless.

    >
    > Ok, then, you are worthless.
    >
    > http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/20d-part1.shtml
    >
    > " ISO 10D 20D
    > 100 40.9 41
    > 200 40.2 40
    > 400 39.2 38.4
    > 800 37.7 37.5
    > 1600 37.4 36.8
    > 3200 NA 34.6
    >
    > Interpretation: the signal to noise ratio of the 20D compared to the
    > 10D is essentially identical."
    >
    > Do note the (utterly trivial) bias to the 10D at ISO >= 400, where
    > data is available.
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/articles/CanonEOS20D/Samples/ISO/lumi_graph.gif
    > http://www.dpreview.com/articles/CanonEOS20D/Samples/ISO/rgb_graph.gif
    >
    > Well, unfortunately I can't quote an image. However, it shows the 10D
    > either at or below the 20D in terms of "noise". Any differences
    > looking like noise itself, and where their might be a difference, it
    > is biased to the 20D.
    >
    > If you are willing to believe differences observed in these data are
    > real, however, do note how this flatly contradicts Luminous
    > Landscape's data: where the 10D is good at LL, it is bad at DP and
    > vice versa.
    >
    > Now if either Reichmann or dpreview puts error bars on their graphs
    > (which they should), or presents new evidence, I will certainly be
    > willing to entertain a different conclusion. Until then, Reichmann's
    > is the correct one: either these numbers are meaningless (for
    > whatever reason) or they show the cameras are essentially the same
    > w.r.t. noise.
    >


    Well, I couldn't find any actual photo comparisons on the luminous-
    landscape review, just a couple of graphs with no explanation of what
    the cameras were set to as far as default in-camera sharpening (the 20D
    default uses extra in-camera sharpening and the 10D default does not for
    instance).

    On the "dpreview" review all of the test parameters were listed (for
    each camera), AND crops of actual photos were compared. Based on those
    actual visual test results (and the lack thereof at luminous-landscape)
    I must say that the 20D beats the pants off of the 10D when it comes to
    noise above iso 400, and dpreview beats the pants off of luminous-
    landscape when it comes to performing and publishing test results...
     
    des, Aug 25, 2004
    #19
  20. Brian C. Baird

    Guest

    des <> wrote:

    > Well, I couldn't find any actual photo comparisons on the luminous-
    > landscape review, just a couple of graphs with no explanation of what
    > the cameras were set to as far as default in-camera sharpening (the 20D
    > default uses extra in-camera sharpening and the 10D default does not for
    > instance).


    Why not compare the default? Otherwise, one can pick and choose
    whatever settings one wants to achieve a predetermined conclusion. If
    you must change settings, honesty compels you to change them all -- to
    explore the entire space.

    > On the "dpreview" review all of the test parameters were listed (for
    > each camera), AND crops of actual photos were compared. Based on those
    > actual visual test results (and the lack thereof at luminous-landscape)
    > I must say that the 20D beats the pants off of the 10D when it comes to
    > noise above iso 400, and dpreview beats the pants off of luminous-
    > landscape when it comes to performing and publishing test results...


    You just noticed that there are settings that benefit the 10D and
    settings that benefit the 20D. Could it be that dpreview picked
    (deliberately, randomly, whatever) the ones that make the 20D look
    nice, or the 10D look bad?
     
    , Aug 25, 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. Brian C. Baird

    1Ds Mk II sample images on dpreview.com

    Brian C. Baird, Sep 27, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    529
    RSD99
    Oct 6, 2004
  2. S.

    dpreview Forum Poll 20D Firmware Update

    S., Oct 6, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    334
    Chuck
    Oct 6, 2004
  3. deryck  lant

    Canon 20D: Full dpreview

    deryck lant, Nov 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    465
    John Doe
    Nov 6, 2004
  4. ob1cnob
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    374
    ob1cnob
    Mar 30, 2006
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    337
    Bruce
    Sep 6, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page