Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Buckaroo · Jul 21, 2005, 09:04 PM

Well, I just bought a new Canon 20D this week. It is really nice. I also bought a 6gb memory card to go with it.

Buckaroo · Jul 21, 2005, 09:04 PM

?????, that's odd. I copied the wrong image link. Oh well, I'll fix it later.

OwlBoy · Jul 21, 2005, 09:33 PM

6gb memory card? wow.

The time it must take to download a 'roll' to the computer.

-Owl

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Jul 21, 2005, 09:36 PM

6GB???? How much did that cost ya?

Im more impressed with the card rather than the camera.

jersey · Jul 21, 2005, 09:42 PM

Congrats.

Mighty impressive card son.........

But why Canon? Why not Nikon?

/bait/

FulcrumPilot · Jul 21, 2005, 09:44 PM

Nice camera!

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Jul 21, 2005, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by jersey

Congrats.

Mighty impressive card son.........

But why Canon? Why not Nikon?

When it comes down to it.... Tomatoes, Tomatoes

ManOfSteal · Jul 21, 2005, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

I also bought a 6gb memory card to go with it.

Cheapskate. You could have gone with the 8GB...

zerostar · Jul 21, 2005, 09:51 PM

I know they make 4GB CF cards for around $250, who sells 6 or 8GB ones?

Buckaroo · Jul 21, 2005, 09:59 PM

Newegg sells it for about $240

With approx. 3.6mb images, I should be able to get somewhere around 1500 images before having to download.

ManOfSteal · Jul 21, 2005, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by zerostar

I know they make 4GB CF cards for around $250, who sells 6 or 8GB ones?

BHPhoto.com

zerostar · Jul 21, 2005, 10:03 PM

Nice, nice and fast too! what lens did you get? or did you already have some?

Buckaroo · Jul 21, 2005, 10:08 PM

It came with a Canon 18-55mm.

Alezone · Jul 21, 2005, 10:09 PM

I have the 20D as well, with a 4GB Ultra II. The fastest card for this particular camera.

Buckaroo · Jul 21, 2005, 10:15 PM

http://www.hitachigst.com/portal/sit...937c27aac4f0a0

Sustained data rate up to 9.4MB/sec

Eug Wanker · Jul 21, 2005, 10:37 PM

I have the Canon 20D too, with a couple of 1 GB cards and a couple of 512 MB cards.

Lens:

Pic of pins on a CPU:

Lens:

Pic of guard at the Vatican:

Lens:

Night pic, hand held, ISO1600:

More pix.

budster101 · Jul 21, 2005, 10:38 PM

Dude, you got a 20D.... awesome!

Nice pics.

AKcrab · Jul 21, 2005, 10:51 PM

OMG I need a new camera..

ManOfSteal · Jul 21, 2005, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by budster101

Dude, you got a 20D.... awesome!

Nice pics.

Just imagine if he had a "DD"...

mitchell_pgh · Jul 21, 2005, 10:59 PM

Great photos.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Jul 21, 2005, 11:12 PM

Oh big deal, here is a pic I took today of my cat with her tongue sticking out

Eug Wanker · Jul 21, 2005, 11:42 PM

I'll call your cat with this cat:

(From my old Canon G2 digicam.)

torsoboy · Jul 22, 2005, 09:55 AM

How many megapixels is the 20D? What makes it any better than something cheaper?

wdlove · Jul 22, 2005, 09:59 AM

Very nice pictures, thank you.

Eug Wanker · Jul 22, 2005, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by torsoboy

How many megapixels is the 20D? What makes it any better than something cheaper?

8 MP. However, what makes it better is not the 8 MP, but the fact that the sensor is MUCH better quality than any point-and-shoot's sensor. There is simply no comparison. (Plus the ability to use "real" lenses can't hurt.

)

I will repost this image, because this shot would be almost impossible with a standard digicam:

Again, this is a hand held shot (albeit with image stabilization), taken at ISO 1600. Now I've tweaked it a bit in Photoshop, but didn't adjust for image noise. The image simply had almost no noise at all, even at ISO 1600.

In fact, the main reason I got the 20D was that basically all point-and-shoot digital cameras on the market at the time were far too noisy for any sort of low light shots. They are getting better though.

ghporter · Jul 22, 2005, 11:01 AM

ISO 1600?!?!? Handheld, at night, REALLY fast ISO, and it's breathtaking! It looks like a tripod shot that had been painstakingly lit by a real expert! WOW. That's all I can say!

MindFad · Jul 22, 2005, 12:07 PM

Wow, that is some incredible image quality. Good stuff! Congrats on the sweet new picture-taker, holmes!

andretan · Jul 22, 2005, 12:54 PM

Eug, nice pix!

Railroader · Jul 22, 2005, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by torsoboy

How many megapixels is the 20D? What makes it any better than something cheaper?

If you have to ask then you really wouldn't need one. Kinda like SWF above. He thinks he took as good a good picture with his camera. Little does he realize that it's out of focus, has horrible depth of field, the color if atrocious, and his subject is framed horribly with that leaf in the foreground. But he thinks he took a nice picture so he is happy. Ignorance is bliss. If you don't know why a better camera will make your pictures look better than you don't need it.

However, if you value color accuracy, sharpness, good depth of field, iso ability, and versatility in a camera then it is well worth it to spend the money on a far superior camera such as the 20D.

FulcrumPilot · Jul 22, 2005, 01:52 PM

^^^^
That hand held night shot is the dog's bollox!!!

Eug Wanker · 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

ISO 1600?!?!? Handheld, at night, REALLY fast ISO, and it's breathtaking! It looks like a tripod shot that had been painstakingly lit by a real expert! WOW. That's all I can say!

Thx guys. I took about 3 shots in succession, and one of them had the woman situated in just the right place. (She was walking but fortunately the camera does 5 fps.)

All I can say is that I had been waiting for a camera like this for YEARS. The 20D and similar cameras are just awesome. With this camera I have no qualms of leaving the camera on ISO 400 for most shots if there is the least bit of need for extra speed. In fact, sometimes I will take party shots with the camera always on ISO 800. By ISO 800 I can see a mild increase in noise (and a little bit more at ISO 1600), but it's less at ISO 1600 than most digital cameras have at ISO 200.

That image-stabilized lens is very cool too. At 17-85 mm, it's equivalent to about a 27-136 mm zoom in 35 mm terms. With the high ISO settings on the camera, I can shoot just about anything at any time, except for high speed sports. Very versatile - I can get about 2 extra stops worth of stability out of it. It doesn't have pro image quality, but it's still pretty good. I love my 70-200 mm f/4L though. That thing is uber sharp, and has a very soft quality to the way it renders backgrounds out of focus. However, it's big, and to get an image-stabilized version of it would mean $$$$ and lots of weight.

BTW, Canon really came through for me when I got it. It was just dumb luck of course, but my local camera shop got my unit in 1 day before I left for my vacation in Italy.

Many other people didn't get their units until weeks later, because it was heavily backordered. (This was back in October of last year.)

Originally Posted by Railroader

If you have to ask then you really wouldn't need one. Kinda like SWF above. He thinks he took as good a good picture with his camera. Little does he realize that it's out of focus, has horrible depth of field, the color if atrocious, and his subject is framed horribly with that leaf in the foreground. But he thinks he took a nice picture so he is happy. Ignorance is bliss. If you don't know why a better camera will make your pictures look better than you don't need it.

Heh. I think he was just kidding.

Railroader · Jul 22, 2005, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Heh. I think he was just kidding.

SWF might have, I was just trying to help out torsoboy.

Nice pics on your site by the way. I am still perusing them.

torsoboy · Jul 22, 2005, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

If you have to ask then you really wouldn't need one. Kinda like SWF above. He thinks he took as good a good picture with his camera. Little does he realize that it's out of focus, has horrible depth of field, the color if atrocious, and his subject is framed horribly with that leaf in the foreground. But he thinks he took a nice picture so he is happy. Ignorance is bliss. If you don't know why a better camera will make your pictures look better than you don't need it.

However, if you value color accuracy, sharpness, good depth of field, iso ability, and versatility in a camera then it is well worth it to spend the money on a far superior camera such as the 20D.

Thanks for the info. I wasn't really asking to buy one for myself, but I was just wondering what would cause one camera to be so much more expensive than other similar (to the average joe) cameras. I have seen this camera mentioned many times in multiple forums lately and just was wondering about it. The pictures do look great though.

ThinkInsane · Jul 22, 2005, 03:50 PM

Great pics guys, seriously. Keep them coming.

Railroader · Jul 22, 2005, 03:50 PM

Here's a good review.

Simon X · Jul 22, 2005, 04:05 PM

I just splashed out on my first digital SLR kit.

EOS 350D.
17-85mm IS USM. (I even bought the £20 petal hood to go with this lens. Canon prices

)
Battery Grip.
550EX Flash. (I bought this for less than the 420EX flash)
1GB Sandisk Ultra III card.
Lowepro Mini Trekker Classic rucksack. (not the best thing to be wearing around London at the moment. I think I'll pick up a smaller shoulder bag as well)

All in all a nice bit of kit, but I've yet to use it properly.

JustAnOl'Broad · Jul 22, 2005, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by FulcrumPilot

^^^^
That hand held night shot is the dog's bollox!!!

I'll second that!

Have been drooling over the same unit at the local Sam's Club.
Thanks for the actual pics, and links to the reviews as well.
Was hoping to go 'smaller on size' of new camera; but entry level
RAW is a factor too.

ThinkInsane · Jul 22, 2005, 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by JustAnOl'Broad

I'll second that!

Have been drooling over the same unit at the local Sam's Club.
Thanks for the actual pics, and links to the reviews as well.
Was hoping to go 'smaller on size' of new camera; but entry level
RAW is a factor too.

I don't know if you already have glass, or whether it's a factor in your decision on buying, Konica Minolta just released the Maxxum 5D the other day, which I believe lists for under $800 and has a built in image stabilizer that has gotten great reviews in the 7D. Might be something you'd want to look into if you want an entry level SLR.

http://www.letsgodigital.org/html/re...ax/5D_EN4.html

Review

Eug Wanker · Jul 22, 2005, 09:41 PM

The 7D's image stabilization is a great idea. Canon's approach has theoretical advantages since the IS can be tailored to each lens (since it's built into the lens). However, for most users (like me) it apparently isn't a big difference. ie. I wish I had that feature in my 20D. Many of Canon's IS lenses are humungous and extremely expensive.

OTOH, the 7D's sensor isn't rated as highly as the one in the Canon 20D. (Plus, the 7D wasn't out yet when I bought, and I already had some Canon stuff, so it was kind of a moot point in my case.)

It's cool to see all this cool technology coming out. Competition is good...

budster101 · Jul 22, 2005, 09:59 PM

I started out with my first SLR being a Minolta Maxxum 9000. Great Camera then, and I was waiting for the 7D to come out and be reviewed for a time before taking the plunge.

I'm torn between the Nikon D70 / Canon 10 or 20D / Minolta 7D
Doing research. Glass is very important to me, and I'd like to jump in fresh with a new system as I have nothing at the moment. My good friend has a 10D and 20D for his business and he loves them so I'm swaying towards that end, especially with the range of glass I can get.

Buckaroo · Jul 22, 2005, 11:37 PM

Anyone got a suggestion for a resonable priced flash. It dosen't have to be Canon.

JustAnOl'Broad · Jul 23, 2005, 04:03 AM

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane

I don't know if you already have glass, or whether it's a factor in your decision on buying,

Thanks ThinkInsane. Will have to check that model out too.
Haven't seen that model in person yet.

OreoCookie · Jul 23, 2005, 04:58 AM

Damn, the dynamics range is awesome. That's where my E-20 has a definite weakness.

Simon X · Jul 23, 2005, 06:43 AM

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

Anyone got a suggestion for a resonable priced flash. It dosen't have to be Canon.

As I mentioned above I picked up the Canon 550EX for less than the 420EX as it is being replaced by the 580EX. Shop around and see what deals are available.

Cubeoid · Jul 23, 2005, 07:25 AM

niiiiice.

Eug Wanker · Jul 23, 2005, 07:31 AM

Re: Flash.

I have the new Canon 580EX, but have you considered a manual flash if you need to save a few bux for now? The Vivitar 285HV works well at less than $100 used. If you do decide to get a Canon later, you could always use the Vivitar as a fill flash or something, or just resell it.

BTW, I haven't used the 580EX much, so I'm not a real judge, but my initial impressions of it are that it is awesome.

Buckaroo · Jul 23, 2005, 07:45 AM

Thank you for the suggestions. I did a little searching on the internet and I found some positive comments about the Sigma EF-500 DG SUPER Flash for Canon EOS Cameras. I found one on ebay for $179 new. I'm sure I probably could find a better deal, but not without a long search. I also bought a Tamron 28-300mm lens for $259.

Eug Wanker · Jul 23, 2005, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

Thank you for the suggestions. I did a little searching on the internet and I found some positive comments about the Sigma EF-500 DG SUPER Flash for Canon EOS Cameras. I found one on ebay for $179 new. I'm sure I probably could find a better deal, but not without a long search. I also bought a Tamron 28-300mm lens for $259.

I hope that lens suits your needs. Tell us what you think of it, and post some pix.

All I know is that the 20D made me finally get rid of my EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 for that EF 70-200 f/4L.

MacMan4000 · Jul 23, 2005, 08:17 AM

I just want to point out that Canon created optical image stabilization (the kind thats inside the lens) and everyone else that make a similar product (Nikon's Vibration Reduction lenses for example) must pay Canon royalties.

Thats why many companies (like Minolta) use the slightly lower quality in-camera stabilization, or digital image stabilization. Its cheaper to not have to pay Canon

But on that note... I still use a Nikon D70. I wish I could afford a 20D though... its simply the best thing out there right now for less than 5 grand. And the high ISO noise on a D70 sucks ass

ghporter · Jul 23, 2005, 09:22 AM

I still wish someone would make a digital back for my A1. I love that camera-it lets me take as much control as I want of the process, or it will do it all for me. A beautiful 35mm camera, but outmoded today. With a digital back, though, (at least 8MP, of course), the wonderful qualities of digital photography could be magnified by the flexibility and solid reliability of the A1...

Listening, Canon?