Canon D20 vs Canon Digital Rebel XT

Eventually I am going to purchase a DSLR. I read some comparative
reviews of the D20 and the DRXT and found very little difference.

The D20 is a little larger having a somewhat larger grip.
The D20 is constructed better.
The D20 has a faster rapid fire mode and can take more frames.

Basically the article said that this is all you get for an additional
$550 street price. The quality of the results using the same lens is
basically the same and most people will not be able to tell the
difference. The extra .2MP does not translate into anything.

So, if you are not a pro and do indeed take care of your equipment are
you better off buying a DRXT and a couple of additional lenses or find
some justification (need some help in finding one) to get a D20. If
money was really not object I would get the D20 just because of prestige.

Besides, with the DRXT I could accumulate an entire system of Canon
lenses and then a few years down the road buy the Great Grand Successor
to the D20 and be really ahead of the game. And that camera may be much
more camera for a great deal less.

Any comments.

 

The only negative comment I've seen about the XT (350D) is the small size of
the body, to some this could be an advantage to others a disadvantage.
Otherwise I generally agree with your comments, for the money the 350D looks
a good bet.

 

That is why I have an XT on the way. I have a 10D which was quickly
supplanted. I think there will be a few more camera generations before
a DSLR plateau is reached. I think both the XT and 20D are still
transitional cameras on the way to a state of the art DSLR. Better to
get the XT than spend more on a 20D.

 

In my case, an advantage. I'm not a pro and I don't like lugging equipment
around. I treat my equipment well, so the extra durability is not a
necessity for me. I don't take a lot of continuous photos so the framing
rate and buffer are not a concern,although the XT is no slouch here (much
improved over the original dRebel).

If the XT fills the need well enough, I'd apply the extra cash towards
lenses. Very important - don't blow your budget on a expensive camera if
your going to handicap your photography by not having the lenses you need.
John

 

That seems to make a lot of sense.

 

I think John's advice is good.

It seems to me that for most folks, bulk and ruggedness aside, the
single salient sacrifice in selecting the RebXT over the 20D is ease
of control. It may be a lack of acclimatiztion, but the 20D gets out
of the way a little better. Maybe the compact form of the RebXT
required a more crowded control "panel".

Otherwise, to the best of my current ability to discriminate, the
output is very similar with the same lenses and subjects.

 

One important difference that matters to some users (like me) is that
the Rebel lacks a spot metering capability. Canon uses that feature to
prevent pros from using the Rebel as a 'cheaper alternative'.

--Wilt

 

The 20D doesn't spot meter either.


*******************************************************

"Man came silently into the world."

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
_The Phenomenon Of Man_

 

Does the XT have limitations (such as EV for flash) that the Rebel has?

I have Rebel and recently attended my cousin's wedding. I didn't use
flash so I wouldn't disturb the paid photographer. It was rather dark in
the main area, event though there were bright stage lights shinging down
from the ceiling. I used 400 ISO. Grainy, and I got snapshots instead of
pictures. However, the Rebel had a lot of trouble focusing in the low
light. I got a lot of out of focus pictures even though the camera
thought it was focused.

 

The larger size of the 20D can be an advantage or disadvantage, go to a
store and handle both to decide for yourself. Personally I would pay a
couple of hundred more for a more comfortable camera.

The 20D is constructed better, but the 350D is unlikely to fall apart in
your hands. I don't think I would pay more than $100 at the most for this
difference.

The 5 shots per second is noticeably faster than 3 shots per second. This
could be worthwhile if you shoot sports or any other fast action (birds in
flight, kids at play, etc). I would value this feature highly and it is
probably be worth paying a few hundred more for it. The question is
whether or not you are willing to pay more for this feature.

The result of these differences is that if my 10D was destroyed and I had
some insurance money to spend, I would buy the 20D. When you purchase a D-
SLR, you need to decide if you are willing to pay the extra for the better
camera, if you don't see the features as important to you then you can save
some money.

 

A few 20Ds have lockup problems (mine is one). Have not heard (yet) about
that issue with the XT.

 

IMHO Size does matter!! I went to the local camera shop just after the XT
was released to look it over and buy one. Coming from the DRebel I was very
excited about the enhancements. When the clerk handed me the camera I was
quite surprised and very disappointed at the size. It's way too small if
you ask me. The one I held had the kit lens and I found my hands cramped
and actually hitting each other while zooming. I laso found the small size
and weight more difficult to steady in my hand. I like the weight of the
300D. It's feels more balanced in my hand.

Other items I didn't like were the battery change, I'm not thrilled with
having to carry around two sets of batteries and chargers and some items
that used to be easily set by buttons are now many items such as ISO and FEC
(as compared to hacked 300D firmware).


In the end I decided to save my pennies and go with the 20D. I hope to pick
one up with in the next few weeks.

 

The 20D lacks a spot meter, too. It has a "partial spot," or an area
equivalent to 9% of the viewfinder.
I will agree, that is one thing that Canon uses to differentiate between pro
and non-pro cameras...

 

This is the same as on my 10D, for me it is no big deal. I can always use
manual settings, snap a shot and then check the histogram.

Obviously for some people this is a big deal and they feel that they need
the spot meter. Different people have different needs.

 

I got used to using a spot meter with an old 1% Sekonic, then the TTL ones
on my 1n and A2. I found it useful for portraits/headshots/figure studies,
and really do miss it on my 20D.

 

I can certainly understand the argument that you want to minimize
change to your working procedures. But I have some trouble believing
in situations where there's time to use a spot meter, but not time to
use the histogram.

 

If the light is changing and you want to take a lot of shots of the same
subject (e.g. a stage show with a hyperactive twit running the lights), then
an in-camera spot meter is incredibly powerful: set the exposure
compensation to place the subject where you want it and shoot away. (You may
need to do lock exposure and AF and recompose.)

Spot meters are not just for zone system landscapes.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

Are you talking about the DRXT?

 

Yes the DRXT.

 

In message <>,

Your mistake was in shooting at ISO 400. If ISO 400 was noisy, then the
images were under-exposed and should have been shot at a higher ISO.

An ISO 400 shot two stops under-exposed is much noiser than an ISO 800
shot one stop under-exposed; both have the exact same exposure on the
sensor and and aperture/shutter parameters.
--