Opinions in regards to purchase: 1D Mk1 vs 20D

undef · 18th May 2005, 1:36 AM

First post in the photography section, so Hi!

I've kinda fallen into photography through work, i'm a programmer turned web developer, self taught graphic artist and started out retouching digital photos for a client and then started tagging along to shoots. i am pretty much a newbie to the whole deal, i learnt my basics and how the settings affect the picture and so forth and am comfortable shooting.

It's not arty photography, well not yet. It's media work i been covering movie premiers, other events such as i spent the whole week at fashion week (got some crackers there).

I been lucky enough to get introduced to photography with good equipment a 1D Mk2 and a D60 with a variety of L series lenses, but they are not mine and i really need my own cam.

As the title says i am thinking of either a used Mk1 or a new 20D. I am looking for opinions, as like i said i am still pretty new and even though i've read reviews on both on dpreview i am still not sure.

For what i am doing (media) speed is a must, being able to focus fast and snap of a bunch of shots. Speed is what draws me to the Mk1, but i am thinking the D20 is a much newer product so there are bound to be other improvements. How important is the difference in mega pixels between the two cams, with the Mk1 wit 4.2 and the D20 with 8.2?

If this is a too broad or even stupid question sorry.

Michael H · 18th May 2005, 4:56 AM

I have a 1D Mark II. The advantages of the Mark II over the 20D are:
1. speed of focusing.
2. Burst rate is up to 8.5 per second (which is a lot faster than 4 fps).
3. Build quality.
4. More keepers for fast action work like Motorsport
5. Better resolution and better overall images.

But it costs a lot more.

undef · 18th May 2005, 7:55 AM

yeah... i know the Mk2 is very very nice.. i've used it.. but that's a bit out of my league considering that there is a whole bunch of other stuff that needs to be bought..

that's why i'm after a Mk1..

Dinuc · 18th May 2005, 7:59 AM

The MkI's only advantage is framerate speed, 8 as opposed to 5. The images from the 20D will be much higher quality.

Dna

WestCoast · 18th May 2005, 9:11 AM

I'd go for the 20D and with the money saved buy some nice lenses and a good flash. That setup should keep you happy for quite a while in terms of performance and image quality. Only move to a pro body if you absolutely must have a slightly higher fps rate, build quality/sealing or you find that the AF on the 20D can't keep up well enough with fast moving objects.

Amfibius · 18th May 2005, 9:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dinuc

The MkI's only advantage is framerate speed, 8 as opposed to 5. The images from the 20D will be much higher quality.

Also:

BURST DEPTH. The 20D can only snap 9 RAW's before the buffer fills up. I can't remember how many the Mk1 can take before you have to stop but i'm sure it's more than 9.

1.3x crop as opposed to 1.6x.

45 point AF as opposed to 9 point.

Changable viewing screens.

More CFn's.

Better build and weather sealing.

But yeh I agree, 20D will take better pictures. It has a better sensor.

undef · 18th May 2005, 3:48 PM

thanks guys... appreciate it..

funny enough you pretty much listed alot of the things i been saying to myself...

The speed of the AF is important i guess. The D60 in lower light isn't cutting it and i am missing or blurring shots. I did a shoot this morning and in low light it's just not performing.

i'll see what buying opportunities pop up.
sigh. so much stuff to get, i been thrown right in the thick of things.

anyway.. i shall resume lurking and learning..

cheers...

Zzapped · 18th May 2005, 3:54 PM

At the end of the day, the one which feels "Right" when you hold it should be your choice IMHO

Dinuc · 18th May 2005, 4:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by undef

The speed of the AF is important i guess. The D60 in lower light isn't cutting it and i am missing or blurring shots. I did a shoot this morning and in low light it's just not performing.

The D60 AF speed is terrible and it is one of the things that Canon fixed in the 10D and improved in the 20D. If you do have to use the D60 in low light put a flash on and use the autofocus light only to help focussing.
If you are using the burst speed of the camera then generally you will be shooting jpegs and the 20D can capture 23 jpegs before the buffer is full.

The 20D will most likely come with a warranty too, something to think about.

Dna

FranchiseJuan · 18th May 2005, 4:15 PM

Well if you are covering events, and the photos don't need to be printed up past A4, then I would think that the 1D MK1 would be a better choice. You did say that speed was your main concirn, and from all accounts the images from the MK1 upsizes quite well.

have you considered getting a 1D MK1 for speed and a 350D for when you need resolution?

18th May 2005, 1:36 AM	#1
undef Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Sy-de-ney Posts: 1,170	Opinions in regards to purchase: 1D Mk1 vs 20D First post in the photography section, so Hi! I've kinda fallen into photography through work, i'm a programmer turned web developer, self taught graphic artist and started out retouching digital photos for a client and then started tagging along to shoots. i am pretty much a newbie to the whole deal, i learnt my basics and how the settings affect the picture and so forth and am comfortable shooting. It's not arty photography, well not yet. It's media work i been covering movie premiers, other events such as i spent the whole week at fashion week (got some crackers there). I been lucky enough to get introduced to photography with good equipment a 1D Mk2 and a D60 with a variety of L series lenses, but they are not mine and i really need my own cam. As the title says i am thinking of either a used Mk1 or a new 20D. I am looking for opinions, as like i said i am still pretty new and even though i've read reviews on both on dpreview i am still not sure. For what i am doing (media) speed is a must, being able to focus fast and snap of a bunch of shots. Speed is what draws me to the Mk1, but i am thinking the D20 is a much newer product so there are bound to be other improvements. How important is the difference in mega pixels between the two cams, with the Mk1 wit 4.2 and the D20 with 8.2? If this is a too broad or even stupid question sorry.

18th May 2005, 7:59 AM	#4
Dinuc Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Melbourne Posts: 4,428	The MkI's only advantage is framerate speed, 8 as opposed to 5. The images from the 20D will be much higher quality. Dna __________________ www.andrewmurdoch.com.au

18th May 2005, 9:11 AM	#5
WestCoast Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Under your bed... Posts: 2,086	I'd go for the 20D and with the money saved buy some nice lenses and a good flash. That setup should keep you happy for quite a while in terms of performance and image quality. Only move to a pro body if you absolutely must have a slightly higher fps rate, build quality/sealing or you find that the AF on the 20D can't keep up well enough with fast moving objects. __________________ I reject your reality and substitute my own.

18th May 2005, 4:15 PM	#10
FranchiseJuan Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Somewhere Exotic Posts: 2,620	Well if you are covering events, and the photos don't need to be printed up past A4, then I would think that the 1D MK1 would be a better choice. You did say that speed was your main concirn, and from all accounts the images from the MK1 upsizes quite well. have you considered getting a 1D MK1 for speed and a 350D for when you need resolution? __________________ Quad Core Intel i5/20 inch LCD ----- HP 2760P i5 2.3 GHz ----- Phenom II X4/24 inch/20+tb of storage combined. My Photographic Equipment zhenphotography.co

18th May 2005, 4:56 AM	#2
Michael H Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 778	I have a 1D Mark II. The advantages of the Mark II over the 20D are: 1. speed of focusing. 2. Burst rate is up to 8.5 per second (which is a lot faster than 4 fps). 3. Build quality. 4. More keepers for fast action work like Motorsport 5. Better resolution and better overall images. But it costs a lot more.

18th May 2005, 7:55 AM	#3
undef Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Sy-de-ney Posts: 1,170	yeah... i know the Mk2 is very very nice.. i've used it.. but that's a bit out of my league considering that there is a whole bunch of other stuff that needs to be bought.. that's why i'm after a Mk1..

18th May 2005, 3:48 PM	#7
undef Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Sy-de-ney Posts: 1,170	thanks guys... appreciate it.. funny enough you pretty much listed alot of the things i been saying to myself... The speed of the AF is important i guess. The D60 in lower light isn't cutting it and i am missing or blurring shots. I did a shoot this morning and in low light it's just not performing. i'll see what buying opportunities pop up. sigh. so much stuff to get, i been thrown right in the thick of things. anyway.. i shall resume lurking and learning.. cheers...