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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 7, 2005, 11:47 PM   #21
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4
Default

Ditto!

"20D is suited for Sports Action for its fast system

KM5D is suited for affordable camera with excellent performance when it comes to most of the day to day shots, nature and low light shots."

That is the conclusion for compare the two, period.

JimC already show a very nice and sharp picture produced by KM.

Myself own a KM200A prosumer, I like every ways about KM200A but the "speed to focus". So, I thought canon 20D would satisfy and completed my photographic hobby.

After obtained my 20D, what a dissappointment or puzzle I would say.

KM200A so SHARP and COLOR ACCURATE.
Canon 20D so FAST and just stop right there... everything else KM200A already had.
So, you would see the trade off by now one is for good image and other is just the speed and the rhym when taking the picture.

I have to admit that I have not master the Canon 20D but right out of the box and light adjust. KM200A beat 20D in all test in term of image quality.

I don't have a fast internet to upload the image for your view, but you would test the two product the way I did. I took pictures with both products on a tripod and compare the images:
1. Just look at the images from the two cameras, it is hard to tell they are different - that's what been read from the internet, reviewer dare to judge one better than other prematurely.
2. Then I zoomed in 50% and 100%, then KM image quality start emerge. Two type of pictures that show KM is better in quality and sharpness.
a. picture that have text, when zoomed in picture took with KM CLEARLY readable where as canon make I think if that is a word
b. another example is balcony, when zoomed in I'm able to tell it's a balcony right away with KM's picture, with canon I have no idea what it is.
3. "True" color, canon is not a match for KM in this category. I choose KM over Nikon because Nikon redness is saturated and give the picture "digital" look. Now, Canon give the same feeling I had with Nikon.

So, sum it up.

If you need speed, then Canon is the king. If you take the picture and print as is that mean no crop then Canon is your choice too.

But if you don't need speed, but crop your picture a lot then KM definitely the winner. The flexibility of 8Meg cam is allow you to crop and zoom in your picture after it was taken.

I guess I'm the only one favor KM or Canon, and I'm ready for criticsm.
youngun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2005, 12:05 AM   #22
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4
Default

P.S. after looked at JimC's picture at the bar, I think those picture would support my points.

1. if you compare the two pictures taken by KM and Canon, the picture two ladies present, I would say it would look similar in two camera.

2. but the zoomed in picture just the gentlemen, I'm able to read the text on his shirt S..NNA and able to assumed that is Savanna. I'm confident to say that with the same picture taken by Canon 20D I'm not able to read that word.
youngun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2005, 12:17 AM   #23
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

youngun wrote:
Quote:
P.S. after looked at JimC's picture at the bar, I think those picture would support my points.

1. if you compare the two pictures taken by KM and Canon, the picture two ladies present, I would say it would look similar in two camera.

2. but the zoomed in picture just the gentlemen, I'm able to read the text on his shirt S..NNA and able to assumed that is Savanna. I'm confident to say that with the same picture taken by Canon 20D I'm not able to read that word.
Sure you could (if you were using a tripod with the EOS-20D).At 1/5 second, it's hard to get a usable hand held photo without one (unless you happen to be using KM 5D or 7D). ;-)

The EOS-20D is capable of resolving more detail given a lens of comparable quality. It's a very nice camera.

It sounds like you probably have an issue with yours (or have a technique problem). There are a number of differences between a DSLR and a non-DSLR digital camera. For example, Depth of Field, and the way images are processed.

Most DSLR models are not going to have as much in camera sharpening applied. So, that can make images appear a bit soft.Ditto for things like contrast and saturation. By keeping these things set to lowervalues, it reduces unwanted artifacts and lets you do a better job later using software. A model like the EOS-20D is designed along those parameters, allowing the best results via post processing.

Entry level models tend to have more sharpening applied by the camera's processsing. Ditto for contrast and saturation. Metering is usually more conservative on higher end cameras, too.

I'd post an example or two and let EOS-20D owners see what you're talking about. Chances are, you're doing something wrong, have something set wrong, or have a defective camera or lens.

The EOS-20D is a very good camera.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2005, 2:57 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

ok...i never thought i would be lucky to get a chance to play with 20D and KM 5D together. But luckily a good person in my town mall let me play with these two, print cropped images out of these two cameras and let me really play around with these two cameras to understand how they differ.

canon KM5D

Speed is a major plus which includes Not as fast as canon but can be AF, Operations and Speed at which acceptable with operations. the camera operates are great.

Build quality is good. Build quality is cheap

Most impressive is the focussing speedSometime the camera searches for even from tele to wide angle end focus and had to force it to focus and accuracy is great. (atleast the one i used)

These were some of the initial impressions.

Now i wanted to test where the AS takes advantage over the Canon 20D. We decided to shoot a small shop with number plates and other stuffs of different colours, and also in a really unpleasent light. Too many differetn color lights.

Set Up. IS0-400, f4.5, 1\5 shutter speed focal length both 50mm. Canon was shot with kit lens 18-55 while kM was shot with its own kit lens. I guess its 28-70.

We took three shots(tho we took a lot of shots and picked the best three). One in Canon 20D and two in KM 5D with and without the AS. Results were so so so darn close. The guy just said i had a little steady hand for a 1\5th of a second shutter speed. The crop was so similar in most of the places. There was a bit of noice noticable in the KM5D crop only in one are. There was a kind of a pillar joint behind the shop and that showed some noice in KM5D while it was clean in 20D.

Things we noticed were, 20D had a sharp image(the sharpness level was tweaked from natural setting) and KM5D had an equally sharp image. things we noticed were the color rendering between the two system. the color rendered by these two systems were different. There was one small board bright orange in color and letters CLAIRE written in black. 20D rendered this has a light orange and RED(Letter in black showed up RED) and KM5D rendered a smeared kind of image. The plate was a mixture a light and dark orange and the letters were kinda smeared between red and black. The Colors in KM5D appeared close to the real colors, where as the picture from 20D had kind of toned down saturation. 20D didnt reflect the colors(Bear with me, these are just taken with no real understanding of the different camera settings and please 20D owners dont kill me for making this post., Just in the interest of others i am trying to share my experience). all this we analysed cropping a part of the foto and taking prints.

One more point to add for antishake. The anti shake works fine for the fine shakes. and may be u will be required to take a couple of shots to get a good one. Its not 100% hit...

The exposure was almost identical. May be even the same. The details were very good and very clear. COudnt understand why would the color be rendered in totally two different ways. Will try to get a shot from Nikon(as i have seen nikon doing better with respect to colors)

Test 2.

same settings except f9 and 1 second. Now again three images were shot. Canon 20D simply coudnt get a blurfree image.. no ways my hands are stable for one second. Tho after a long struggle was able to get one decent picture with little shake. The KM5D without the AS produced the same image. But with AS switched on, the images were clear and without blur. The AS now starting to show its effect. THe same shot could be taken only with f4.5 or f6 and 1\30 or 1\60 ofsecond shutter speed. That was clearly visible after testing for almist an HR.



Test 3

Fitted 70-300 and 70-310(i guess) to 20D and KM. The 70-300 is just a USM lens and no IS. Fully focal length and did a similar test. 20D had exceptional focussing speed and accuracy. The minolta lens was darn slow and sometime was searching to focus in the mall restaurent settings. Focussed a distant pillar with a glass decoration of black and white pattern. f4.5 and 1/5 of a second. Without AS the KM 5d produced a bit inferiour tho almost similar iamge with respect to 20D(tho 20 D was set to 1\15 and f7 or f9). With AS the image was a bit more clear and mostly blurr free. Tried different objects and different timings. All cases KM5D was able to produce a usable image at a better fstop. THe Fstop is what we gain in low light.

Interesting observation.

we decided to test the camera in AV mode. Both were set to AV mode and f was set to f4. Both cameras produced similar results. But as usual canon images were more crisp and excellent(personal opinion) At f32 canon 20 D metered a 1 sec shutter speed. KM5d metered a 5 second shutter speed. The images were underexposed(may be 2 second metereing would be perfect)in canon 20D while KM 5D it was darn over exposed.

Dont exactly know why this happened. SOme one can throw some light here. But upto 1 sec KM5d AS can be enjoyed to an extent. But after 1 second it doens matter u just need a tripod.

If i were to choose between 20D and 5D, i would choose D70S coz i coudnt choose any one these. 20D is faster, faster and faster. KM5D AS is extremely useful. Now

if ur shooting more low light, blindly go for km5D. if u think a tripod can be carrie dand can be set in all places where ur shooting in low lighjt 20D is the best all round camera.



Image quality wise, 20D is superior as far as i see. No matter how good the KM5D is the image quality in 20D is great and i like it personally. The AS would do wonders if used properly in low lights. Even the casual evening shot of the park, the mountains where you may need a tripod in case of 20D. But with KM 5D just use the right shutter speed and two stop slower than any other camera and u got a wonderful shot.

KM5D would suit those who would need to take those casual shots, the moments in low light that would ahve required either a rock steady hand or a tripod and time.

IMO KM5D would suit one set of people, while 20D would suite another set. If to choose between these two, i would pick anyone for both are great cameras. If u think u wil shoot more low light go for a KM5D.



One small concern is that Konica Minolta doenst have alll possible lens's of DSLR quality compared(please note the point compared) to nikon or Canon. If u have good collection of Konica Minolta lenses, it would be great. THat too with PMA round the corner, one can get a 5D , collect lens and just upgrade later to the 9D or whatever. But 5D is a stayer. It will be the middle level super DSLR. Its better than the Low end ones and can get more options to be in the higher end.

SVB

p.S.sorry if my knowledge of cameras are bad. I have just stated an opinion. Please forgive me if it s my ability to have not used different settings or different parameters to get the best out of the camera. I trust my eyes more than just the gadget and i believe that anyone else could have compared the two cameras better than i did. So please donot take any offense.

thanks

svb
nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2005, 2:59 AM   #25
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Yes, let's not get too carried away with the benefits of the KM. Excluding IS for a moment (and one can if all your lenses are IS) I would still say the 20D has the edge in most departments.

The main advantage of putting the IS in the camera is that you don't have to keep on paying for every lens. But I don't see any reason why the IS on the KM should be superior to that in the Canon lenses.

I have plenty of photos in low light either using an f1.8 prime or using the 17-85 IS and they are just fine. Low light photography with the 20D on ISO3200 is pretty darned good.

I have no idea whether the IS in lens has any technical advantages to IS in camera. Does anyone have any technical info on this? Canon and KM both claim 2-3 stops so as far as the marketing blurb is concerned. I hope that Canon do build an IS system into the body which can stack with the IS in the lenses at least to some degree.

As for lens range - it's certainly true that KM have all the focal lengths covered, but that's not necessarily the same as saying that Canon have a large selection of redundant lenses. I don't think it's unreasonable to maintain that in fact Canon have an advantage over all the other manufacturers with respect to their lens system.

This should not be THE deciding factor however, it's one of many to consider.

youngun,

I agree with JimC here, I'm afraid that if you haven't been able to get better (or at least equally good) pictures from your 20D compared to the tiny sensor 200A then you simply haven't learned to use the camera properly yet.

peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2005, 7:37 AM   #26
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

nymphetamine:

I was amused reading through your comparison.

The way you were trying to test the cameras was not the way someone would try to use them in real world conditions (or at least I sure wouldn't).

Nobody would stop down aperture the way you were doing and try to get usable photos indoors without a tripod, and AS is not designed to work at 1 second shutter speeds, especially at longer focal lengths.

Yea, you may be be to pull it off with steady hands and a steady trigger finger and get a few keepers from time to time. But, I certainly wouldn't try to judge the beneifts of a camera that way.

That's well outside the design specs of Antishake. The "rule of thumb" for preventing blur from camera shake is to use shutter speeds 1/focal length or faster. So, if you're at a 50mm (equivalent), you'll want shutter speeds of 1/50 second. Shooting at 100mm, you'll want shutter speeds of 1/100 second or faster, etc.

I say equivalent, since you have to take the 1.53x and 1.6x multipliers into consideration to get the same angle of view with these DSLR models as you'd have with a lens on a 35mm model, because the sensors are smaller than 35mm film.

Now, that's only a "rule of thumb" as some people can hold a camera steadier than others, and some may require even faster shutter speeds.

Even my 1/4 and 1/5 second examples using a 28mm lens (42mm equivalent)are well outside the design specs of Antishake. The 1/focal length shutter speed rule of thumb for getting those types of photos using a hand held camera (without anti-shake) would mean shutter speeds roughly 10 times as fast.

I just happen to have pretty steady hands and a well practiced "trigger finger" for smoothly depressing the shuter button, since I like taking photos in low light. I'm practiced at it, and make sure to hold a camera steady, even after the shutterbutton is depressed, listeningto the camera so I'll know when to release it.

Many other camera users are well practiced as these techniques, too. So, consistently usable photos at 1/4 and 1/5 second shutter speeds with a short prime is no big deal with anti-shake on (at least to me).

1 second at longer focal lengths?Nah. Sure AS may be providing some benefit there, but it's more luck than anything else. Camera shake is magnified as you use longer focal lengths.

Ditto for your meteirng complaints. Cameras are not designed to meter properly with 1 second exposures. You mentioned seeing underexposed 1 second exposures with the Canon in one test, and overexposed5 second exposures with the KM in the same conditions. I wouldn't doubt that for one second (no pun intended). :-)

If you need shutter speeds *that* slow, use a tripod (either camera), and experiment with manual exposure until you get it right. Heck, I'd need to look at the specs, but the Canon may even have a limit of 1 second exposures in Auto modes (many cameras do). Go manual if you're shooting in conditions needing exposures that long.

Ditto for AF working indoors using long zooms like you were discussing. It's a darn wonder you got any focus lock at all.

Even outdoors, using a cheap lens (and most 70-300mm lenses are VERY poor quality, especially at either extreme of their focal range), you can have a lot of hunting trying to lock focus with most cameras. In addition to being slow (not very bright), these types of lenses are usually not very sharp atwide open apertures (and a camera is always going to focus with the lens wide open, which also impacts AF speed/accuracy.

Indoors, forget it. Use that little switch on the front of the camera (move it to the MF position and focus manually), if you *really* need to focus in low light with a cheap lens.

A camera needs to be able to "see" well enough to focus. Even the KM "kit" lens you were using (which is 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6) stops down to f/5.6 by the time you get to 35mm with it. It's a slow (as in not very bright) lens. That's one of the design compromisesbuildinga small,light (and inexpensive) lens with a focal range of 18-70mm. This impacts your AF performance.

For low light use (and what the human eye thinksis awell lit interior islow light to a camera), it's a good idea to have a lens that's brighter than that unless you stay at shorter focal lengths.

To put this in perspective, the aperture range (in one stop increments) goes f/1.0 (with theortically larger apertures since it's only a ratio between the focal length and the aperture iris diameter), f/1.4,f/2.0, f/2.8, f/4.0, f/5.6, f/8.0, f/11, f/16, f/22, etc.

With each one stop move to a smaller aperture (represented by larger f/stop numbers), only half as much light reaches the sensor (and that also includes your viewfinder and the Autofocus Sensors), requiring shuttter speeds twice as long for proper exposure.

So, a camera doesn't see as well to focus with a lens that has smaller apertures (larger f/stop numbers). Again, the KM "kit" lens is down to f/5.6 by the time you get to 35mm with it. It's a SLOW (not very bright) lens. It's designed to be small, light, and cheap with good focal range (suitable for typical consumers in many conditions). It's actually not a bad lens stopped down a bit. Color and Contrast are quite good with it. But, it would *not* be my lens of choice for indoor use.

Try something like the KM (or equivalent Tamron) 28-75mm f/2.8 on it. It's a much brighter lens. Or, buy a cheap 50mm for it if shooting indoors (under $100). Or,stay near the wide endif indoors usiing the "kit lens". ;-)

Also, at longer focal lengths, blur from camera shake can impact AF performance (and anti-shake won't help in this area with a KM DSLR)

Another comment...when comparing images, keep in mind that the sensor in the KM DSLR is slightly larger than the one in the EOS-20D. That's why the crop factor (as many like to refer to it) is 1.6x on the Canon, and 1.53x on the KM model. So, you'll have slightlymore apparent magnification on the EOS-20D using lenses of the same actual focal length compared to a KM 5D.

As a result, even if there were no differences in resolution (and the 20D has a 2 Megapixel advantage), you'd get slightly more detail with the same lens on the 20D, if everything else was the same (image processing algorithms, etc.), at any given actual focal length. But, they are not the same (the Canon hasadvantages in some areas).

As for the EOS-20D AF performance, I won't dispute that it's better.

But, to get a better feel for the real differences, you need to compare them with the same lenses (and you can probably find a shop that has the same lenses from a 3rd party manufacturer to do that with). The Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di is one example of a lens availablefor both models.

One more comment: Noise.

Noise is actually a slightlylowerwith a KM DSLR versus most other models, according to tests using tools like Imatest to do scientific measurements. Real World versus measured results? I doubt there is much difference in them, based on images I've looked at, if the images are both exposed the same. That's the key, exposure.

Also, JPEG processing can add to the appearance of noise, as can things like in camera sharpening, saturation, etc. (and an entry level model usually has these settings higher than you'll see in a more advanced model like the EOS-20D). That's one reason I shoot almost exlusively in raw (or raw + jpeg) with my KM 5D.

Even with processing differences (with the 5D geared towards punchier images since it's an entry level model), most of what you were seeing likely boiled down to exposure differences. If you underexpose an image (something the KM models tend to do if thereis a lot of difference between light and dark, in order to protect the highlights), you'll get more noise, just as if you used higher ISO speeds.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2005, 7:50 AM   #27
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
I have no idea whether the IS in lens has any technical advantages to IS in camera. Does anyone have any technical info on this? Canon and KM both claim 2-3 stops so as far as the marketing blurb is concerned. I hope that Canon do build an IS system into the body which can stack with the IS in the lenses at least to some degree.
Yes. IS in the lens will stabilize the image before it hitsthe AF sensors (and before it hits your viewfinder). So, this can help your AF to "see" better (and it stabilizes what you see in your viewfinder).

With a KM model, the stabilization isn't happening until the image hits the CCD, so the AF gets no benefit from it

I don't consider the viewfinder piece to be better or worse in one system versus the other, since KM provides a real time view of how hard the Anti-shake is working in the viewfinder (via a bar graph).

I personally like this system, and if I were Canon owner, I would appreciate a similar system to let me know how hard the lens based IS was working, instead of trying to judge it based only on the stability of the image in the viewfinder.

If you hold a camera steadier, you see one bar, with increasing bars as the anti-shake works harderif you're not holding it steady enough for the conditions (and it takes focal length into consideration with this system) It works nicely.


Quote:
youngun,

I agree with JimC here, I'm afraid that if you haven't been able to get better (or at least equally good) pictures from your 20D compared to the tiny sensor 200A then you simply haven't learned to use the camera properly yet.
youngun:

It's possible that you've got a defective camera or lens. But, it's far more likely that you haven't learned how to use it.

There is a learning curve associated with going from a model like your A200 to a DSLR. For starters,read an article titledDon't Be ABozoby Peterri Sulonen:

Our forums software does not like the direct URL to it. You'll see it under the Essays menu choice if you go to the main site at http://www.prime-junta.net

Again, post some examples of problem images, and I'm sure the forum members would be glad to give you some tips on what could be going wrong. Many users go through the same thing with a new DSLR.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2005, 1:51 PM   #28
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

One More snapshot of my niece.

Shot in raw and converted to .ppm format using dcraw.c

The resulting .ppm file was then downsized to a 640 pixel width for viewing in this forum using Irfanview's Lanczos algorithm option and saved to .jpeg format.

I didn't tweak the color, sharpness, saturation, contrast, etc. from the converter, so you'd see how the converters differ with raw files from the 5D using their defaults.



You can also control some variables from command line with dcraw.c (so I could have tweaked it a bit during the conversion to .ppm).

Each converter tends to have slightly different characteristics using their defaults.

I don't know about you guys, but it seems to me the camera takes pretty good pics, especially shooting in raw with a sharp lens like the Minolta 100mm f/2 on it (sharp enough so you don't need to sharpen them, IMO).

My niece is probably going to wish she had been wearing some makeup when took these snapshots of her. LOL

KM Maxxum 5D, Minolta 100mm f/2 at f/3.5, 1/125 second, ISO 400, with the built in flash used for fill (a tad harsh, remind me to adjust it via FEC, or find/make a diffuser when using it for fill). ;-)

P.S. - I decided to tone down the flash reflections in the eyes using Irfanview's built in redeye reduction feature with this one, but no other changes were made from the dcraw.c output before resizing with Irfanview and saving to jpeg for viewing here.
Attached Images
 
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2005, 6:15 PM   #29
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4
Default

No. I've not master all the features of the 20D yet. But the problem is that so many website "dare" to put Canon behind other brand. Before you go out and get a camera that going to last 2-3 years and around $1k you need help, but all the reviews don't give you any clue "a verdict who is better" but just give you the pictures and judge by your own eyes.

The contradict is that reviewer don't take side but give readers overall review of the product. But the buyers don't want to go out buy two products go home tested and decide which one to keep.

So, back to the title KM5D vs Canon 20D - the verdict is:

Moneywise and color accurate --> the winner is KM5D, Antishake work very Well
Speedy and performance --> the winner is Canon 20D

youngun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2005, 10:55 PM   #30
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4
Default

All the images that I'm able to get sharper image when zoom in, is due to KM200A has smaller aperture. On the manual page 78 of Canon 20D it show exactly my problem that I've stated before. You can obtain a copy of the manual from Canon's webpage under product/software manual.

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...;modelid=10464
youngun 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 4:06 PM.