Canon D20 vs Canon Digital Rebel XT

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by measekite, Apr 24, 2005.

  1. measekite

    measekite Guest

    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.
     
    measekite, Apr 24, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. measekite

    dylan Guest

    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.
     
    dylan, Apr 24, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. measekite

    Charles Guest

    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.
     
    Charles, Apr 24, 2005
    #3
  4. measekite

    JohnR66 Guest

    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
     
    JohnR66, Apr 24, 2005
    #4
  5. measekite

    measekite Guest

    That seems to make a lot of sense.
     
    measekite, Apr 24, 2005
    #5
  6. measekite

    Frank ess Guest

    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.
     
    Frank ess, Apr 24, 2005
    #6
  7. measekite

    wilt Guest

    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
     
    wilt, Apr 24, 2005
    #7
  8. The 20D doesn't spot meter either.


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

    "Man came silently into the world."

    Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
    _The Phenomenon Of Man_
     
    John A. Stovall, Apr 24, 2005
    #8
  9. measekite

    Ken Guest

    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.
     
    Ken, Apr 24, 2005
    #9
  10. measekite

    MarkH Guest

    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.
     
    MarkH, Apr 24, 2005
    #10
  11. A few 20Ds have lockup problems (mine is one). Have not heard (yet) about
    that issue with the XT.
     
    Charles Schuler, Apr 24, 2005
    #11
  12. 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.
     
    Robert R Kircher, Jr., Apr 25, 2005
    #12
  13. measekite

    Skip M Guest

    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...
     
    Skip M, Apr 25, 2005
    #13
  14. measekite

    MarkH Guest

    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.
     
    MarkH, Apr 25, 2005
    #14
  15. measekite

    Skip M Guest

    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.
     
    Skip M, Apr 25, 2005
    #15
  16. 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.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 25, 2005
    #16
  17. 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
     
    David J. Littleboy, Apr 25, 2005
    #17
  18. measekite

    measekite Guest

    Are you talking about the DRXT?
     
    measekite, Apr 25, 2005
    #18
  19. measekite

    Ken Guest

    Yes the DRXT.
     
    Ken, Apr 25, 2005
    #19
  20. measekite

    JPS Guest

    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.
    --
     
    JPS, Apr 26, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.