UnderGround Forums
 

FilmmakerGround >> Getting a Canon EOS 20D for stills


4/27/05 1:52 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lynn@Renzos
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Apr-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 7986
 
Well I picked up this small editing job last week to be able to buy this new camera. I knocked the job out and made a cool $3600 on it. I will get paid on it tomorrow and put $2000 towards the new Canon EOS 20D digital SLR and a couple of lenses. Any of you guys use this camera? It's pretty sweet. When I go to the boxing matches, most of the photographers in the press room are shooting with this now. It's pretty sweet. I want a higher end digital SLR to be able to get great shots to incorporate into my documentaries.
4/29/05 10:54 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
johnnypayne
56 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Apr-05
Member Since: 05/22/2002
Posts: 4189
Right now I'm still sticking with regular film for stills, hi res scans from transparencies give better results IMO
4/29/05 2:12 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lynn@Renzos
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Apr-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 7994
johnny...you can get amazing results from a pro level camera on the digital side. If you compare transparency scans to a consumer level camera, there is none, but at the pro level digital you might be amazed. What is great about them is the amount of pics you can store on a 2 gig card. You don't have to worry about printing, film or anything. You are set to go when you get back to your editing station. Not to mention, you eliminate the scanning procedure. I have a pro level scanner that I want to sell. If you know anyone who is in need of one, let me know.
5/5/05 8:24 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lynn@Renzos
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05-May-05 08:27 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 8019
I just ordered it! Hells yeah! It arrives on Monday. I searched the web and found that BUYDIG.com had the best price. There were some that were cheaper, but they aren't Canon authorized dealers so I wouldn't get an US warranty. That's important too!
5/5/05 10:01 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
655321
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05-May-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 1439
Lynn, I need a good scanner - send me some info: shannonberry@655321productions.com
5/6/05 12:09 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lynn@Renzos
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 06-May-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 8021
What are you scanning? Negs? Positives? Photos? What are you scanning for? Print? Video?
5/23/05 6:14 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jhedges
38 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-May-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 1372
It's a good budget camera. Not the best, but certainly not the worst. It's hard to beat for the price. Just depends on what type of work you use it for.
5/23/05 10:45 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lynn@Renzos
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-May-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 8109
jhedges....are we talking about the same camera? The Canon EOS20D gets amazing ratings. At a base price of $1499 for the body nothing is comparing to it from what I have read. I picked it up and love the camera. I don't think it falls into the budget camera zone.
5/24/05 12:12 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jhedges
38 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-May-05 12:13 AM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 1373
It's budget in that it actually qualifies as a "professional" level DSLR, but it's nowhere near the price point of the 1D Mark II (~$4,000), 1Ds, or 1Ds Mark II (~$8,000). And it does not compare to Hasselblad H1 with a 22mp digital back($30,000). Like I said, it just depends what you need it for. Most pro sports shooters are using the 1D or 1D Mark II. The 20D is not a fast enough camera for most pro shooters. Although, some do use it. Most pro studio shooters use the 1Ds, 1Ds Mark II, or medium format with film or digital backs. Although, again, some do use the 20D.
5/24/05 5:10 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lynn@Renzos
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-May-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 8111
Josh...that is true that the others are more expensive, but I have read a ton of side by side comparisons and the 20D is looking pretty solid compared to the 1D Mark II. For what I do, the 20D rocks it and for 1/3 of the price basically.
5/24/05 5:27 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jhedges
38 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-May-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 1375
Again, like I said before, it depends on what you do. For what I do, the 20D is not an option.
5/24/05 6:42 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lynn@Renzos
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-May-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 8112
Josh....that's understandable. What do you shoot that you couldn't use a 20d? I have been talking to quite a few photographers at some of the major boxing events that I've been going to and they are shooting with it. 4 guys beside me were shooting with the 20D at the last Holyfield fight in the Garden. I went up to the press box just to check out those guys rigs then went back down to the floor. I've also seen some amazing shots from Nascar/Formula racing events shot with it as well. Forgive me for my persistance but I am trying to figure out where it isn't fast enough. I'm sure the higher end cameras are faster/more megapixels etc. What do you shoot with? Funny how posts online look like banter rather than a discussion. I assure you though, I don't want it to come across as that.
5/24/05 8:20 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jhedges
38 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-May-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 1376
Most shooters at sports events I've been to use the 1D or 1D Mark II because of the higher frame rate and buffer. They can do like 8 frames per second and buffer about 20 images in RAW mode. The 20D, on the other hand, is only about 4 frames per second and a buffer of about 8 images in RAW mode. Aside from that, the pro lines are much better constructed. The 10D and 20D have plastic bodies. Over the years, a pro shooters camera will take a beating. I'd much rather have a solid body. I have a 1D and a 1Ds. I use the 1D for all sports related stuff and the 1Ds for all my studio work, as well as any product or scenic stuff I do. I also used the 1Ds as a backup in sports shooting, but it's really slow, so I don't use it much. One of my assistants has the 20D and I've used it a couple times. I don't prefer it for a number of reasons. For one, it only goes down to ISO 100, whereas the 1Ds will go down to ISO 50. The image quality of the 1Ds is superior at all ISOs, especially the higher ISOs like 1600. With the same white balance setup, the 1Ds is much more accurate. The 20D images required a lot more editing to get the skin tones where I wanted them. And of course, the main reason for the 1Ds is that it's 11.4 mp versus the 20D's 8.2 mp. A lot of my photos are blown up posters, billboards, and various types of signs for casinos and such. I find the RAW files out of the 1Ds can easily be blown up to 500% (about 45" x 65") with no noticeable imperfections.
5/24/05 8:39 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jhedges
38 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-May-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 1378
Again, I'm not disagreeing that the 20D is a good camera, especially for the money.
5/24/05 10:07 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lynn@Renzos
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-May-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 8113
Josh... I really think you might be talking about the Rebel XT when you are talking about the bodies. The 10D was polycarbonate and the 20D is Magnesium Alloy. It isn't plastic at all. I believe that is the same alloy that the 1Ds is constructed from. It is highly durable with a totally redesigned body. I agree the 1Ds does have many advantages over the 20D but for my purpose the 5 frames per second is more than adequate. With the 1Ds you get more megapixels but the 1D is running the same as the 20D (8.25 megapixels). It is funny how many arguements are going on the various digital photography websites regarding these 2 cameras with many side by side comparisons of images. I've seen a ton of arguements over the Canon XL2 versus the Panasonic DVX100a but none rival the intensity of the photography forums and articles being written. For me, the smart choice was the 20D. For my purposes and needs, it fit like a glove. I will never blow anything up to that degree, most of my images will be used as B-Roll in my documentaries, so the quality that I get with this baby is more than perfect. I was in Mexico this past weekend at a wedding and shot a little over 500 photos and I was loving the results. Your rigs are sweet though, no doubt.
5/24/05 10:34 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jhedges
38 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-May-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 1379
I was pretty sure they were plastic body, although I may be wrong. It sure felt "wimpy" (for lack of a better word) in my hand, even with the battery pack add-on. Actually, a lot of wedding photographers shoot the 10D or 20D. They have to do whatever they can to keep the costs down because it's such a competitive field. Of course, the lens is very important too. Unfortunately, most of the Canon L-series lenses are just as much as the 20D body.
5/24/05 10:43 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lynn@Renzos
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-May-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 8114
Wimpy?....lol. First time I heard that. Your killing me over here. First it's wimpy and now I'm reduced down to a damn wedding photographer?...lol! Come on Josh, why don't you just shoot me bro? I know that the 1dsMkII is a heavier rig but the 20D is far from wimpy. Wimpy might be the Rebel XT or something. I actually like that the 20D is lighter than the 1Ds. At the end of the day, I'm thrilled with my new rig but I do agree that the 1DsMKII has a solid footing at the next level. Lenses are the killer.
5/25/05 12:40 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jhedges
38 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 25-May-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 1380
LOL... I couldn't think of a better word. I'm just used to the anvil-like feel of the 1Ds. Shoot all day with that and a 70-200 lens and you can't lift your arms for two days. And I wasn't trying to insult you with the wedding photographer comment. Those guys make good money. I would do it if I had the time. I've been offered good money several times to shoot weddings, but was not able to fit them into my schedule.
5/25/05 1:55 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lynn@Renzos
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 25-May-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 8115
Josh...I didn't take it as an insult...I was just kidding around. Funny enough, I was in Mexico this weekend and shot the wedding for fun to try out the new camera. I guess this weekend I was a "wedding photographer", only one that didn't get paid to do it...lol. I probably would do it if I could fit one into my schedule. I know a few filmmakers who do it to supplement their income and they make some serious money for it. That rig of yours is a heavy one. A friend of mine has that and it is a beast! It definitely has a solid feel to it.
5/31/05 7:24 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
johnnypayne
56 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 31-May-05
Member Since: 05/22/2002
Posts: 4266
"johnny...you can get amazing results from a pro level camera on the digital side. If you compare transparency scans to a consumer level camera, there is none, but at the pro level digital you might be amazed" Actually even at pro level transparencies are warmer and have a more natural feel, And I've used most of the digital SLRs available today (though not the new 17mp 1Ds II) and still prefere good old 35mm. Oh, and I'd love to try out the digital attachment for the hasselblad, it would save a fortune on polaroids when setting up.
6/3/05 9:17 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lynn@Renzos
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03-Jun-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 8131
I'm not saying that digital is at the point of totally replacing film. Film is beautiful and has a warmth that is hard to beat, but the newer cameras on the DSLR are pretty amazing. I don't really like 35mm. I used to shoot medium format film and loved it. I actually like shooting with older TLR cameras.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.