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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 6, 2005, 4:29 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

Hi All,

Is there a thread that already discusses the pros and cons of these two models, or a comparitive study on the same.

If not why not we discuss about how these two cameras differ and where exactly one camera gains over the other for people who are struggling to find the right camera for their purpose.

It would be great if we already have this discussion archived, and would be great(^2) if we can come out with a frruitful discussion.

Please do not reject the topic right away and do contribute so that we can get a good idea about these two cameras.



To start with

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.

please do add

SVB
nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 6, 2005, 8:47 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

Hmm,

Maybe go out to PBASE and look up the CAMERA database section, and check out photos taken by each, and see which you like better.

I always thought the Nikons were the better sports cams (1/500th flash synchro) although my 20D is holding up well in that regard.

I think the 20D is a great general purpose cam with excellent build quality, nice smooth images and delivers at high ISO's.

Can't say too much about the KM5D as I haven't used one, but I never really thought the 5D was in the same snack bracket as the 20D. Probably better to compare the 5D to the Nikon D50 or the Rebel XT.

I think the 5D is considered an entry level DSLR, whereas the 20D is really a step up.

I hear people like the KM's because of the antishake built into the body, or they already have KM lenses, or they like the ergonomics or they just like the images from the 5D.

Obviously if you could borrow the KM and a 20D for a while a shoot with them both you'd have a better idea, but few have that luxury of trying out two cams.

-- Terry

terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2005, 12:33 AM   #3
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

The KM7D is normally regarded as KMs competitor for the 20D.

I have only used the 20D, but I have briefly handled most of the DSLRs around and the 20D has a very solid feel - better than all the entry level stuff, and quite similar to the KM7D. And certainly better than the Nikon D50 & D70.

When comparing cameras I would suggest you consider the list of features that are important to you from:
1. Handling.
2. Build quality.
3. Image quality - low ISO.
4. Image quality - high ISO.
5. Lens system.
6. Flash system.
7. Image Stabilisation.
8. Sundry features - in camera jpg options, fps, etc.
9. "Cool" factor - brand, look, etc.
10. Price.

Many of these are quite subjective and all are important. In most ways the 20D is somewhat better than the KM5D, in no respect is it that much better that you might not let a single subjective issue swing your preference however. Pretty much the same thing could be said of any of the entry level or semi-pro DSLR models out there. They are all good cameras, capable of taking excellent photos in the right hands.

Find out if there is any killer feature you simply must have that disqualifies the other camera (5fps for example), think carefully about the lens system and see if that gives a substantial advantage to one brand (Canon has the biggest range and good prices - but all are adequate), otherwise just get the one you like.


peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2005, 8:30 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

I'd like to add a couple of items to PP's list, maybe based on my sports photog experience and other expericen:



11. Responsiveness: shutter lag, shot to shot time.

12.Power: Lithium if possible, # of shots per charge.

13. Upgrade path: Will this manufacturer likely offer you cams that you could upgrade to in the future, while taking your lenses with you?

14. Max ISO. Look for 1600 or 3200.

15. Flash synchro. Minimum 1/250th, better 1/500th.

16. Availability/price of lenses you'd like to use: Focal length, quality,max aperture, autofocus speed.

17. Image size/comression. Offers RAW, size of RAW file, jpeg size and compression (too much compressoin is bad), overall MP's of the camera (cropping)

18. Type of sensor: Some of these DSLR's are powered with prosumer sensors, forget those.

-- Terry




terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2005, 8:56 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 131
Default

Can you give some examples of "prosumer" sensors to avoid vs. those you recommend?
BillP2R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2005, 10:44 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

Obviously we're buying a camera with good ergos, features, and you name it, but the heart of a digicam is still the sensor, and not all sensors are created equal.

For instance, the EVOLT E-300 has a CCD sensor with asize of 18x13.5mm with a max ISO of 400 (800 and 1600 are "boost") to acheive an 8mp image.

The Canon Digital Rebel XT has a 22.2x14.2mm CMOS sensor with a maximum ISO of 1600 to acheive an 8mp image.

One of the criticisms of the E-300 is not really usable high ISO images and some criticism of noise and artifacts (although the artifacts could be processing?).

It could be the difference in sensor size or the difference between CCD and CMOS, I don't know?

But by my own subjective definition, a sensor that can't deliver relatively clean images above ISO 400 would not be considered a "pro" sensor befitting a pro DSLR.

I can find a number of prosumer cams that can't deliverat high ISO's and that's okay.

Then we could get into whether one sensor delivers sharper images than another, but I wouldn't know enough about all the technical differences between them, how to measure, and what are the contributing factors.

It wouldbe nice to see a technical shootout comarison between the various sensors available on the market, so people could evaluate what their getting (excluding the effect of the lens).

Terry


terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2005, 12:03 PM   #7
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

nymphetamine

IMO the future will be for dSLR with 'IS' built in:
What lens can you find with Canon or Nikon that you can't find in KM mount (even in white)?
In fact I can only find 1 compact 500mm AF mirror lens in KM mount, and a 1 compact 3x AF macro zoom in KM... Other manufacturers may just have more 'redundant' lenses that's all


Can anyone find a 50/85mm f/1.4 (or super wide) prime with IS ???
-> In one swoop KM has more 'IS' lenses than anyone and it's free... :-)


Just watch KM with the next Sony sensor (a' la Nikon D200) :idea:

NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2005, 1:01 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

NHL,

Your assuming that everyone would want to pay the extra $'s to get the IS built into the body of their cam.

Any idea of the added cost?

I know it works out cheaper to have IS in the body rather than on every lens.

But on the other hand why would people pay for it if they didn't feel they needed it?

Let's hope Sony and Canon duel it out so we get even better sensors in the future at a reasonable cost.

Yah, that D200 was good news for the industry, I think!

-- Terry


terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2005, 1:56 PM   #9
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
Your assuming that everyone would want to pay the extra $'s to get the IS built into the body of their cam.

Any idea of the added cost?
My two cents worth. You can buy the KM Maxxum 5D for something in the neighborhood of $600 right now (and someone just posted a deal they found in another forum, where they're getting one for something like $487 after rebates thanks to some kind of Amazon Promotional Couponthey found).

So, how much can anti-shake possibly be adding? ;-)

This is recent snapshot I took while back in a local restaurant. Light is MUCH lower than it appears in the photo (basically, a few candles around the bar).

Hand Held, 1/5 second, ISO 3200 at f/2.5 with a Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D using a Minolta 28mm f/2 lens.

No post processing, shot in JPEG Fine (not Extra Fine), since I was shooting JPEG + RAW. It was rotated and downsized for web viewing with Irfanview. Yea, the photo itself stinks (nothing special about it, and it's a pretty bad photo for content/composition.

But,I don't think I could have taken this photowith any other digital camera with an exposure this bright,noise levels this low, and sharp enough for most uses (even though the photo itself stinks).

I also didn't use custom white balance (just set it on incandescent). So, it could have been much better. BTW, I've got a raw image I can convert if anyone wants to see it. I just haven't got around to processing it (I was shooting JPEG+RAW). Again, straight from the camera JPEG except for downsizing:

Attached Images
 
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2005, 1:58 PM   #10
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

100% Crop from the camera produced JPEG (no post processing of any kind)
Attached Images
 
JimC 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 1:47 AM.