Comments in text > -----Original Message----- > From: Ryan Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 10:46 AM > To: PDML > Subject: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison > > > So, time to make the announcement. After returning my ist D, I now find > myself with a C***n 20D, 17-85 f4-5.6IS USM, a 580EX speedlite, a BG-E2 > battery grip, an E1 hand strap, an extra battery and a B+W MRC UV > filter. I > miss my kidneys.
I also have purchased the 20D w/17-85 and the 420EX speedlite with one extra battery > > Anyway, having had a chance to play with both, here are some comparisons. Never had the *istD, but played with it in the store > > 1. The most obvious one, I miss the sleekness of the tiny ist D > (even with a > grip) holding the 20D and grip. It's chunky. A monstrous > monstrosity. And no > matter what people tell you, the 20D is ugly. The battery grip > doesn't make > an effort to be tiny either. I'm so thankful that not all manufacturers are following this "tiny" trend. The *istD felt way to light to me as well as to small to get my hands around. The 20D fit's my hands well in this regard. Haven't went with the grip yet, and may not as it is very comfortable to hold vertically as it is for me The ist D's grip takes 4 AA's sideways while > the 20D's grip takes 6 AA's side by side. And what's more, my 16 beloved > 2500mah Inca Nimh batteries which I spent a fortune on, seem fine browsing > the 20D, but don't supply enough voltage to shoot! In fact, AA's > in the 20D > hardly work at all, and Canon will tell you that (like they told > me). On the > other hand, my Inca's lasted forever in the ist D (using a 50 1.4). Felt > like I never had to recharge them. I'm probably going to end up > selling them > now :-( Good to know, as it was my only reason for considering the grip. > > 2. The ist D sounds a lot better. The 20D (because of a new > mirror design to > accomodate the short back focus EF-S lenses) sounds, literally, like the > whole camera was made of wood. Imagine the ist D's to be a 'chlick' vs the > 20D's 'chlock'. I should capitalise some of that for emphasis too.. Very > ironic considering the 17-85 is quieter than a dog's tail wagging. The 20D is still quieter then film cameras I've used, especially with no focus or drive noise. > 3. The 20D, unfortunately, does have superior image quality. I'm probably > not comparing in the same price/spec range that's why. Amazingly, > while the > ist D produces significant noise at 1600, the 20D at 1600 > produces possibly > the same noise as the ist D's 400. For non RAW shooters, the 20D also > provides more control over in camera settings e.g. more range to set > sharpness, contrast etc. One of the main reasons I went with the 20D, for higher ISO's with less noise. > 4. The 20D's TTL with the 580EX seems to provide more accurate exposures > than the ist D with the AF360fgz. In low light without AF assist, the 20D > with the 17-85 focuses much faster than the ist D with the SMC F 50 1.4. More accurate flash exposures is the number one reason I went with the 20D, the super fast noiseless focus sealed the deal. > 5. The 20D does not feel like a walkaround camera. Feels like it > should live > in a studio. This might present problems when I'm backpacking London and > Paris in a few days. For me it's no heavier then the film SLR's I've been carrying. I never wound up using the 2 ZX series bodies I own enough to say I used them because they were way too light. Hand holding a light camera doesn't work well for me at all since I find my pictures are much more blurred at lower shutter speeds. I don't notice much difference weight wise from my PZ-1p. Speaking of blur, "IS" is fantastic! > 6..Probably other stuff to talk about, but the 20D doesn't allow > me to post > to the PUG. I hope I don't end up Franken-lensing like some. > One other reason for my choice was Canon's CMOS sensor, it attracts less dus t then others. I'm not sure how this compares to the *istD, but the 20D's shutter has been cycle tested up 200,000 exposures consistently without failure, as compared to the 10D's was only 30,000 exposures. Not sure about the truth of this statement, but the lady at Hunt's in Melrose, MA seemed quite knowledgeable in this department. They claimed to have a customer that was using the 10D's for aerial photography and had already burned out 3 of them in a very short time. The 20D is still pumping along with no failures. This customer was pushing all of these cameras hard from what I'm told. Dave
