Sequence shots with 10D and 20D

drifter136 · Posted: Nov 14, 2004 8:18 pm Post subject: Sequence shots with 10D and 20D

I'm trying to decide whether to get the 10D now that it has really dropped in price or suck it up and lay down the extra dough for the 20D.

Could any of you post some sequences that you have taken with the 10D and/or 20D, so I can see how 3fps compares to 5fps in wakeboarding shots?

There are a lot of features that I like about the 20D (near instant On, E-TTL II for flash, 5fps with an enormous buffer, etc.), but I'm trying to decide if all that is worth the extra expense on a limited college student budget. Crying or Very sad

Thanks!

Nephilim · Addict Joined: 09 Apr 2003 Posts: 658 City: Ephrata, WA

all pictures are shot with 10d 17-40 f4L

Elevation · Posted: Nov 14, 2004 8:48 pm Post subject:

Nephilim, really nice sequences.

drifter136, either way at least you know your getting an amazing camera.

drifter136 · Posted: Nov 14, 2004 9:02 pm Post subject:

Nephilim, Thanks for such quick response...3fps seems pretty descent for wakeboarding. Enough frames in the given time to get a nice effect without being so many that the image appears cluttered.

Elevation, Yeah, I definately think that I'll be happy with either one. I'm looking forward to the day that I make up my mind to finally buy one or the other. Film is getting expensive.

John Jared · Addict Joined: 12 Jan 2003 Posts: 726 City: Round Lake, IL

Here are a few from my 20D.

BillJ · Posted: Nov 15, 2004 12:19 pm Post subject:

3fps really isn't enough for most wake tricks, 5 is definitely better. The 20D has quite a few nice features that makes it worth the extra $ in my opinion. 8 gets a little crowded like in this example from my 1D Mark II.

Elevation · Posted: Nov 15, 2004 1:45 pm Post subject:

BillJ, is that 8? cause that sequence looks sick.

aceyx · Addict Joined: 30 Mar 2004 Posts: 770 City: dirty

i calculate his hangtime as 1.5 seconds.

BillJ, can you choose the drive speed, or is it just 1 or 8fps?

Elevation · Posted: Nov 15, 2004 4:17 pm Post subject:

aceyx, thats some good math haha, and big air!

RD · Addict Joined: 22 Apr 2003 Posts: 626 City: Discovery Bay

I think 5 fps is the minimum for good sequences. When I had the 1D I had actually reset my burst rate to 6 fps (yes it is adjustable). If there is anyway you can spring the extra $ for the 20D I would definitely go that route. It isn't just the framerate that's much better but the shutter lag, AF speed and accuracy. Little things that add up to making the camera feel much more responsive. When I sold my 10D and got the 1D it was a major transition, but even though the 1D is still faster than the 20D I didn't really notice the transition from a 1D to 20D. A testament to how good the 20D is.

oldschoolripper · Outlaw Joined: 26 Jul 2004 Posts: 143 City: Tupelo

I second Rich on that one.

I have used a 10D, a Dreb, and now own a 20D. The 20D has a quicker, more acurate auto focus, the burst rate is superior, and the low noise @ high iso of the 20D is incredible. This is a big selling point for taking those "right @ dark" photos.
Another big difference IMO is the write speed. The 20 D writes to the CF much faster than the other 2.

Of course, I'd rather have a MKII, but if you can't afford the MKII, go for the 20D.

my 2 cents.

Shelby

drifter136 · Posted: Nov 16, 2004 7:06 am Post subject:

Thanks everyone!

Seems like I'll be saving up the bones for the 20D. Do any of you know if they'll be lowering the price anytime soon, like maybe after Christmas? I get on the forums at photographyreview.com a lot and no one has mentioned anything over there, so I'm not sure.

drifter136 · Posted: Nov 16, 2004 12:23 pm Post subject:

Well, I went to the camera shop today and luckily they had both the 10D and 20D in stock, so I got to hold both side-by-side. The weight difference and size difference look minascule (sp?) on paper, but in hand, there is quite a difference. The feel of the 20D has now made it worth the extra cost over the 10D. Now I just need to save some more pennies.

pyrocasto · Posted: Nov 16, 2004 2:03 pm Post subject:

I cant figure out though if the difference between the 20D and mkII is great. I want to got with either one, but didnt know if the mark had the High ISO preformance like the 20D does. Thats a very nice feature.
Also, does the quality of the mkII beat the 20D by much, or is it even very noticable?

pyrocasto · Posted: Nov 16, 2004 2:03 pm Post subject:

I cant figure out though if the difference between the 20D and mkII is great. I want to got with either one, but didnt know if the mark had the High ISO preformance like the 20D does. Thats a very nice feature.
Also, does the quality of the mkII beat the 20D by much, or is it even very noticable?

BillJ · Posted: Nov 16, 2004 3:23 pm Post subject:

The sensor in the 20D and 1D Mark II is identical, so the ISO performance is almost identical. There is a good comparison on the dpreview.com website. Of course there are major differences between the two cameras, but not in basic image quality. If I didn't already own a Mark II I'd go with the 20D because for what I do the Mark II features are overkill, although I'd miss the 45 point auto-focus and weatherproofing of the Mark II.

Yeah that sequence was taken at the highest frame rate, which is actually 8.5 (some have reported 9fps+). I haven't tried dropping it down yet but it is adjustable. There is a also a high-speed and low-speed (3fps) drive selection.

Josh R · Posted: Nov 16, 2004 5:01 pm Post subject:

The sensor in the 20D and 1D Mark II is identical

I know what you mean when you say that, but I guess it should be pointed out that the MkII has a 1.3x crop and the 20D has a APS-C sized sonsor with 1.6x crop to just avoid confusion.

Personally I'm saving for a MkII. The extra features would make it worth it, as I also shoot a lot of field sports.

RD · Addict Joined: 22 Apr 2003 Posts: 626 City: Discovery Bay

They both have CMOS sensors but the 1DMKII's is much larger. Normally smaller sensors mean more high ISO noise but the 20D uses a 4X sampling rate to cut it down. The digic II processor is the same in both cameras so the image quality is similar. The 1DMKII has better sharpening algorithms so jpegs look better coming out of the camera. If you have never handled a 1 series it's hard to imagine how much better built they are than the 10D/20D. These things are designed for Pro use, are built like a tank and with an L lens on you can squirt them with a hose and not hurt them. There are tradeoffs, I just didn't enjoy carrying the 1D around on vacation and for casual shooting. And it's great to have a builtin flash that works. Sooner or later Canon will put all that performance in a 20D size body.

pyrocasto · Posted: Nov 16, 2004 8:32 pm Post subject:

I think I will end up going with a 20d for price wise for now, but will go bigger one day. Not because I need to really, but because of the "more power" craze in my head. Plus technology will get better and better.

Why havent I heard very much ranting about the 1ds compaired to the 1d. 8mp compaired to 17 and a 1.3 crop factor copaired to a 1(36mmx24mm). Is there a big difference there, like that you only get 4fps instead of 8.5? I dont understand what the crop factor does exactly. Its compaired to 35mm size film I believe, but dont know why small is bad or good.

drifter136 · Posted: Nov 16, 2004 11:25 pm Post subject:

pyrocasto, If you're talking about not hearing much about the 1Ds on here, some of it probably has to do with people on here wanting 8.5fps over 3fps since they are photographing action. Plus few people on here are willing to throw down the big bucks for the MkII, the 1Ds is several thousand dollars more than that.

I can imagine that if you got on forums comprised of mostly landscape or portrait photographers, you would probably hear more talk about the 1Ds.

Others may be able to explain it better, but the crop factor is what you have to multiply the focal length of the lens by to compansate for the sensor being smaller than that of a 35mm.

Example: The 20D has a 1.6x crop factor, so my 75-300mm lens would actually be equal to a 120-480mm (75x1.6=120, 300x1.6=480) lens on a 35mm camera.

I actually like the crop factor, because aside from wakeboarding, I also like wildlife photography...I like being able to have a 480mm equiv. in the small package of a 300mm lens.

Lanscape, architecture, and portrait photographers would more than likely rather have the 35mm sized sensor of the 1Ds, because they need for their wide angle lenses to remain wide angle and not become a standard lens due to the crop factor.

Hope that helps a little

RD · Addict Joined: 22 Apr 2003 Posts: 626 City: Discovery Bay

drifter, I think that was a good explanantion, here's a good tutorial on it for those who want to know the technical aspects:

http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml

Suffice it to say that's why they get such high magnification out of those tiny lenses on P&S cameras, the crop factor is even greater. Two other things that suffer a little with 1.6X size sensors is more DOF (depth of field: it's harder to get very shallow DOF for good background blur) and Viewfinder coverage.

pyrocasto · Posted: Nov 17, 2004 5:02 pm Post subject:

Ok I knew it was what you magnify the lense by but I didnt know why everyone didnt like the 1.6. I too like the fact that you can get away with a smaller lens for zoom shots. I guess it would be problematic in the wide angle area.

BillJ · Posted: Nov 17, 2004 8:46 pm Post subject:

The crop factor also impacts depth of field. Since you are using a shorter focal length you get more depth of field. For example you might shoot wakeboarding at 135mm with a 1.6x but 200mm with a 35mm or full frame digital. At 200mm you'll have a lot less depth of field at the same aperature, which is better for wakeboarding since the rider pops out of the background more.

The 1.3x crop factor on the 1D is a nice comprise between the two. The reason you don't hear more about the 1Ds on here is cost and lack of need for that resolution. I've printed up to 20x30" from a Digital Rebel image and it looks great so 16+mp is definitely overkill for what I do.

Josh, thanks for the correction about the 1D Mark II and 20D sensor.

WakeboardNebraska · Posted: Nov 17, 2004 8:52 pm Post subject:

I am having FPS envy!!! I was perfectly content with my 5 fps 20D until I saw BillJ's sequence at 8! That's sick!

Josh R · Posted: Nov 17, 2004 10:22 pm Post subject:

Ha! How do you think I feel with my crappy 3.3fps... Only good for sliders.

Anyway, sequences are cool for certain things, but I'm not a huge fan of the push and hold way of shooting, especially for wakeboarding. Much better to push once at the very defining moment. Thats why I'll be hanging on to my 10D for a while.

pyrocasto · Posted: Nov 17, 2004 11:11 pm Post subject:

Josh R, Ha. Try 2.7 fps on my A2. I can though switch to low quality and shoot 7fps.

MattyBoyR6 · Outlaw Joined: 09 May 2003 Posts: 239 City: Mesa

A lot has already been said for the 20D and I really like mine. I just wanted to say that they are at least somewhat weather resistant. I had mine out hunting and it got snowed on several times, moved in and out of hot/cold situations and with all the condensation the sensor, and inner lenses held up very well.

I have no plans in shooting in a down pour without a cover but it should hold up fine to boat vibrations and spray.

5 fps also works good for motorcycles.

Oh yeah and for cost it should be coming down in price a little. Look at the Nikon D70's price. It is several hundred bucks cheaper then when it first came out, and it's not even a yr old.

justsomeguy · Guest

RD · Addict Joined: 22 Apr 2003 Posts: 626 City: Discovery Bay

pyrocasto · Posted: Nov 30, 2004 1:12 pm Post subject:

Just curious, if you cant take halfway quick picutures, how do you get a sequence?
There is no "golden" shot in a sequence, considering a 6-8 shot sequence of a wakeboard jump looks great.