I currently own the 20d and was thinking of selling it and getting the xsi. I've heard that the new processor in the xsi would produce much better photo's. Would this be a silly move on my part? Main reason would be a smaller, lighter camera with better picture quality. Any feedback would be appreciated.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Canon EOS 20D Vs. Canon Rebel XSI
- Thread starter smackay
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It won't produce better looking images.
You'll be gaining resolution, but loosing several other features that come with a Canon "prosumer" body.
It's smaller, but at the cost of a cheaper-feeling body, a lower quality viewfinder, no LCD on the top, more menu-dependant operation, ect.
IMO keep your 20D, buy better glass if you want better looking images.
You'll be gaining resolution, but loosing several other features that come with a Canon "prosumer" body.
It's smaller, but at the cost of a cheaper-feeling body, a lower quality viewfinder, no LCD on the top, more menu-dependant operation, ect.
IMO keep your 20D, buy better glass if you want better looking images.
Here's how the sensors compare:
So you see, you wouldn't be gaining much of anything. If you want to improve IQ, I would have to agree with FX120, better glass is the way to go. That's the investment that will provide the most bang for the buck.
So you see, you wouldn't be gaining much of anything. If you want to improve IQ, I would have to agree with FX120, better glass is the way to go. That's the investment that will provide the most bang for the buck.
What lens is best depends entirely on what you most like to shoot. I didn't realize that the 20D can't use IS lenses. If that's the case, then it might be worthwhile to upgrade the body if you are doing a lot of handheld shooting.
I did some googling and found that one of the kit lenses available with the 20D was the 17-85 mm, F4-5.6 EF-S IS. So that camera can use IS lenses.
Where did you hear that? Been talking to some dodgy retailer trying to get you to "upgrade" your camera body?
Here is just one IS lens that is for the 20D:
http://www.adorama.com/CA1785AFS.html
You guessed it. Hunts photo told me that.
Have you heard anything positive or negative about the EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6? My carry lens is the kit 18-55 lens and yes, it is crap. Would this be a smart upgrade? Basically, I want a good lens that I can use for shooting baby pics and then a good outdoor / landscape lens.
Have you heard anything positive or negative about the EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6? My carry lens is the kit 18-55 lens and yes, it is crap. Would this be a smart upgrade? Basically, I want a good lens that I can use for shooting baby pics and then a good outdoor / landscape lens.
DPReview has mixed feelings on it:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_17-85_4-5p6_is_usm_c16/page4.asp
I'd give you some recommendations but I'm a Nikon guy so don't know the Canon range at all well.
I can't believe a retailer told you that though, I'd be tempted to go back and have a chat with their manager!
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_17-85_4-5p6_is_usm_c16/page4.asp
I'd give you some recommendations but I'm a Nikon guy so don't know the Canon range at all well.
I can't believe a retailer told you that though, I'd be tempted to go back and have a chat with their manager!
You might want to consider the Canon 17-40 F/4 L, you can find them used for about $500, it's a sharp lens with good contrast and colors. It's not the fastest lens in the world, but for landscapes this isn't as important, on the long end it works well for portraits on a crop body.
The other lens you might want to take a look at is the Canon 50mm f/1.4, it is a wonderful portrait lens on a crop body, very fast, and is also very sharp when stopped down. Used they go for as little as $250, new they can be hand for $325 off Amazon.
At some point a good telephoto zoom would be a nice addition, the 70-300 IS f/4-5.6 is very good for the price, but not as sharp as the 70-200 L zooms. Price used is about $450 used, $550 new. If you can live with out IS, the Canon 70-200 f/4L is about the same price, but is much sharper, has better control of CA, and also has a constant aperature so it is faster on the long end. If you want IS, you can move up to the same lens with IS, but it is about $500 more.
That's not true. EFS lenses only work on crop cameras like and XSI or a 10-50D series. Any EF lens will work on any EOS camera. Same with L lenses.
As others have said keep the 20D, its a fine camera. Invest in better glass.
I use a Canon EOS Digital Rebel XSi and it has been serving me very well. The picture quality is outstanding and when you attach another Canon lens (Macro, Telephoto, Zoom) etc it maintains that amazing picture quality even if the Canon Lens' are from an older model.
You will not be disappointed if you choose the XSi.
You will not be disappointed if you choose the XSi.
Here is a great site for lens reviews.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos
The 17-85 is OK lens. Its range is great but its weakness is the barrel distortion you get at the wide (not good for architecture) end and its slow, 5.6. If you can afford it, buy a 17-55.
I agree that you wouldn't gain much - the screen being the main thing - but I don't think that the DXO thing takes into account resolution when they come up with those numbers. So they are on a per-pixel basis.
The resolution difference between 8MP and 12MP is negligable, and either way will have very little impact in the overall quality, in fact it can actually make it worse. Most lenses have a hard time resolving 12MP on a crop body anyway.
And DxO isn't rating per pixel, because you're not viewing per-pixel. If you take a picture of a flower with the 20D and with the XSi from the same position with the same optics and the same settings, they'll look nearly identical regardless of the additional resolution.
The first bit I understand, but clearly 4mp have some value at some print sizes. Of course you will need to use good glass.
Your second paragraph doesn't seem to make an intelligible point. Feel free to bash me for my stupidity with further explanation.
I think he is saying that at smaller print sizes like maybe 8x10 or smaller you wont see much difference between 8 or 12 MP. At larger sizes I'm sure you will see a huge difference.
The difference between 8MP and 12MP is 700 lines. If you're printing at 300DPI this works out to be a difference of about 2 inches. If you're like most people, you resample your images to get larger prints, and while those extra 700 lines might make a very marginial difference once you get up to very large prints (20x30), for your average 8x10 I would be willing to bet that you couldn't tell the difference.
Megapixles aren't nearly as important as everyone likes to believe.
I've blown up prints from a 10MP 40D to 20x30" and had them look great.
What is a much bigger factor is finding glass that can accuratley resolve the full resolution of the sensor. You will always get a better print out of a 8MP 20D with say a 300 f/2.8L IS than you will out of a 21MP 1Ds Mk III with a 75-300 f/4-5.6.
Have to agree with most on here. Keep you 20D and buy some nice glass. maybe look at the 17-40 f/4 L and/or 70-200 f/4 L (IS or non IS doesn't really matter with it)
EF-S lenses do not work (or even fit) on the EOS 10D, despite its being a crop-sensor body. They do, indeed, work on all XXD bodies from the 20D onwards. Not hard to see why there is confusion about this...
Where were you able to do this comparison?
Here's how the sensors compare:
So you see, you wouldn't be gaining much of anything. If you want to improve IQ, I would have to agree with FX120, better glass is the way to go. That's the investment that will provide the most bang for the buck.
Unless you already own a 10d (and should already know the situation) I can't see it ever really being recommended - it is an older outdated camera, and nowadays you should easily be able to get a newer generation for little extra - something like the 30d which is still discontinued, but two generations newer...
So while I wouldn't recommend you go out and buy one, if you already own an older generation camera like the 20d or 30d, you still have a great camera, which will take great pictures, so upgrading is not a necessity, unless there are specific features you are missing compared to a new model.
as for 20d versus 450d, you both gain and lose features swapping to the 450d, higher resolution and live view being the two obvious upgrades, but at the same time losing the better build quality, rear dial, top screen and some of the fancier options of the 20d.
Personally I would be tempted to stick with the 20d for now and put the money in some new glass, what is useful to you depends completely on what you shoot, but you could look into lenses like the 17-40mm, 70-200mm series and some of the higher end primes as great upgrades over a more 'kit' setup.
I have the 17-85, it's fine, but I have always regretted buying it. I should have saved up for a while longer and picked up the 17-40 or 24-70. In most of the places I am taking pictures, I am battling low light and the 17-85 gets up to 5.6 before it gets to 50mm. Even in good light, the pictures taken with the 17-85 are incredibly different than those taken with my 70-200. You can even tell from thumbnails which lens took the pic, the 70-200 is just that much better. Save up, buy good glass, you will never regret it.