Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 13, 2005, 6:55 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 213
Default

Ok, first off, don't get me wrong...i know that the 20d is a better camera. But, my concern is if it's worth the extra $600 or so.

I take mainly portraits, wedding photography, some nature shots (nothing needing huge optical zoom) and still life photos (macro, etc). from what i understand, one of the main differences between the 20d and the XT is the frame rate...5vs3...which, w/ me doing limited sports and fast motion photography, wouldn't be a problem.

below is a website to some of my work. if anyone can give me an idea if i should get the xt and possibly purchase a few lenses, rather than buying the 20d w/ limited lenses right off, i would definitely appreciate it.

i know for sure i will be purchasing the Canon 100mm for macro...any other suggestions for the types of photography i frequent?

i know this is a lot to ask, but it would be much appreciated. thank you all so much for your help on this, and on numerous questions in the past. this is truly a great source of great information.

have a great week.

link to a select few of my work...

http://www.magnolia-net.com/~jedmag/photography

-Jon Rowe

jedmag is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 13, 2005, 9:16 PM   #2
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

honestly, the image difference between the two is negligeable.. i think you would be better off with the 350d and a few nice lenses.. i know several ppl who have both and recommend the 350d because its simply a better bargain..
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2005, 3:55 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

Totally agree with what Hards has said here.

All true.

However:
Quote:
portraits, wedding photography, some nature shots
The larger burst rate of the 20Dwill be extremely beneficial to all of the aspects above you have mentioned. The bigger the burst the better when trying to capture true emotion. It can make things far easier. As well as the keepers you will get from method, there will be many you will get as a gift from instinctive shooting at the right moment.

LB

LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2005, 10:38 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

On one hand I will agree with Hards and LBoy.
But I must as one quesition, is the portraits/weddings done as a profession?
If so the 350/20d would make good backup bodies, not the main event.

Peter

Quote:
I take mainly portraits, wedding photography, some nature shots
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2005, 1:07 PM   #5
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

PeterP wrote:
Quote:
If so the 350/20d would make good backup bodies, not the main event.

i think there are a lot of pro wedding guys/gals that would defend their 20ds here peter!!!


Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2005, 1:55 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,521
Default

I would suggest you go into a store that has a Rebel XT and handle it before deciding to buy one. I own a 10D and Digital Rebel. I've been able recently to go to a couple of stores that had one on display, and I'm here to tell you the Rebel XT is just almost toosmall. If you've been shooting with a digicam it may seem just fine, but if you've been shooting a film SLR or any digital SLR up to now you need to try one out and make sure your gonna like it just from a "feel" standpoint.

And no, you don't need a $3,000+ digital SLR to shoot weddings. One of the best know wedding photogs out there. Monte Zucker, was using a 10D and now uses a 20D. Check out his monthly Shutterbug magazine articles out. You won't find any references to a 1D mark 2 or 1Ds Mark 2.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2005, 2:42 PM   #7
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

i hope canon doesn't stay on this smaller is better kick..
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2005, 2:48 PM   #8
Member
 
GHayes396's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 53
Default

I have the 20D and love it. It's more camera than I need but it feels good to me which is a big plus. It's almost like an extension of my hand and all the buttons are easy to locate without looking (even for a new guy like me) I'm far from a pro photographer but had the opportunity and went for the best I could get. At the time they didn't have the Rebel XT or it would have been a little bit harder decision but I've held it and it seems way too small for me and I'm a little guy. I don't know if that's worth $600 but it's worth something.

Grady
GHayes396 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2005, 3:04 PM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 78
Default

I have both. I use the 20D for my family portrait business but the XT is my carry camera for my art work. Although I wouldn't hesitate to use the XT for anything unless burst speed is an issue, which for me it isn't. I actually find I can shoot faster with the XT because I can leave it on continuous shot mode and work a sequence of shots without double tapping some of the shots. If I shoot the 20D on continuous mode I tend to get double shots when I don't intend to because it's so fast.

For the kind of work I do, that kind of speed isn't necessary and in fact forces me to shoot in one shot mode. I've tried several times to work with the 20D on continous mode and I jus can't seem to control it as well. If you are shooting sports or action then it has the advantage.

As far as image quality is concerned, I can't tell the differance and I've been doing this for over 30 years.

I prefer the XT as a carry camera and just plain all around camera. It's also quieter and just sounds more polished.

The size issue is not an issue if you use the vertical grip which I do. I have never been without one any of my camera's. I consider it an absolute must!! When it's attached to the XT, all concern about sizeis gone and instead you find yourself holding one of the most compact well balanced packages one could ask for. I've used it with as large a lens as the 70-200 f4 and it's great. If your interested in seeing the kind of art work I do the url is below. I have a gallery show coming up in November and some of this work will be in it.

www.EyeoftheArt.com/tonymumolo



tony m


tmumolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2005, 4:32 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

I guess I should have elaborated on my statement a bit more.
The 20D (and the 350xt) are quite capable of taking the portrait/wedding images, and producing excellent results.
No, you don't need a 8fps camera (at least at most weddings you don't :-) ), and you don't even need the 16mp.

You do need a very reliable camera that can stand up to the pounding professional use will give it. The 20D (and certainly not the 350xt) are not a hardened cameras that can stand up to the daily grind and abuse professional use will give them without failure.

Way back when I could stand weddings I used to use a Bronica MF for the images that were expected to take huge enlargements and an eos-1n/v with a eos-10s as backup for the rest. I think that should still hold up today, use a 1ds-mkII with a relatively inexpensive 20d or 350 as backup.
I'm not going to pretend to know what the current wedding market is like now-a-days, but when I shot an average wedding shoot went for 1500$-2000$ and we always tried to push a 20*30 wall portrait along with the packages. I suspect the price for a wedding shoot is much higher now.
When people are paying a large chunk of change for professional service, you need to use the best most reliable hardware you can.
Saying oups my camera quit on me is not an option. :?

Worse the modern digital bodies have a 2-3 year writeoff.
The good-old film bodies were expected to last 10 or more years.

Peter.

Hards80 wrote:
Quote:
i think there are a lot of pro wedding guys/gals that would defend their 20ds here peter!!!
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:28 PM.