|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Buying a digital SLR - differences between the XT
edit: sorry about the topic, I copied and pasted it from another forum and it was too long, it should be difference between the rebel xt and 20d. ... Well after much debate I've decided to buy a digtal SLR within the next two months for my commercial photography since the turn around time and overall price point will be lower. After looking at the specs I've decided on picking up a Rebel 350 XT and a wein safe sync hotshoe adapter so I can use pc sync systems without, for the most part, compatibility and safety problems. I figure I don't need the increased shooting speed or any of the other slightly advantagous specs of the 20D. I also feel budget plays a role in this decision because if I continue to grow and prosper in the professional field I'll probably be upgrading cameras in a few years anways. Can anyone objectively list the difference in image quality between the 20d and 350 XT? Please avoid preaching with "I have an XT and love it." I don't care. In my own personal comparisons between some shots I have with a friends 20d and some shots I found with the XT online, they seem to be fairly equal in that regard as far as noise handling at low iso's, etc. Thanks for your input. Feb 09 06 10:29 pm Link The XT and 20D have different sensors. But the image quality is very similar. Go to dpreview.com for very through reviews of both cameras. At low ISO 100-400, images are great out of the box. At 800 and 1600, you should use noise reduction software. Keep in mind the 20D is a pro body and is designed for such use. The XT is a prosumer body and may not stand up to heavy use. If you need a mission critical body, get the 20D AND another body for backup. Hope this helps. Feb 09 06 10:41 pm Link The difference in image quality between the 20D and Digital Rebel XT is minimal if you are using the same lens in studio and controlled situations. The faster autofocus and additional controls on the 20D (there are separate dials for aperture and shutter speed, and fewer settings hidden behind menus) are beneficial when the conditions are less than ideal. Feb 09 06 10:54 pm Link kT Imaging wrote: Actually, both cameras are prosumer cameras. There are some pros who use the 20d, but there is a far cry from the body of a 20d and a 1DS MKII or a Nikon D2X (or a D200 for that matter). Feb 09 06 10:59 pm Link kT Imaging wrote: your right, i have them both. can't tell the pictures apart but the focal point layout in the viewfinders are not the same. Feb 10 06 12:24 am Link The practical reality is that there is no visible difference in image quality between the Rebel XT and the 20D. They are not the exact same sensor, but they are very close. The real differences are in the features and construction, not image. The 20D: has better autofucus in dim light (great if you're doing rock band photos on a dark stage, irrelevant if you are shooting outdoors in broad daylight), can be pushed to 3200 ISO vs XTs 1600 ISO (although at 3200 ISO it is so grainy there is little point), can shoot 5 frames per second vs. XTs 2.8 (great for sports photography, but irrelevant in most other situations). The controls are similar, but not exactly the same. As you might expect, the XT leans more toward the dummy modes, and the 20D concentrates more on modes that more advanced photographers are likely to use. The XT does not have a jack for a synch cord for studio lighting. While the XT is no toy, the general construction of the 20D is more rugged, and it will take more abuse. The shutter on the 20D is rated for heavier use than the XT. Ergonomically, the 20D is slightly larger (great if you have huge hands like me; I find the Rebel awkward to hold). So, do any of the differences above make any difference to you and your intended use of a camera? Are any of those uses worth the price difference to you? If yes, then buy the 20D. If no, then the XT is probably fine. Two other considerations: the 18-55mm kit lens that can be purchased with the XT is a piece of crap, in my opinion. If you decide on the XT, just get the body, and buy a better lens separately. Also, there is a major photo convention coming up later this month. Canon often introduces new cameras at this show every year. It is entirely likely that either or both of these cameras could be replaced at the show (rumors of a 20D replacement are rampant). So if you aren't in a particular hurry, I'd wait a few weeks to see what Canon introduces later in the month. Feb 10 06 12:26 am Link Would love to get my paws on a MkII! Alan from Aavian Prod wrote: Feb 10 06 12:53 am Link i have a 350 and i love it. i had a friend who was convinced the 20d was better, but for all the research i did before buying, i found three differences: 20d is slightly larger 20d is metal, not plastic 20d shutter is louder 20d shoot 5fps, instead of 3 20d goes to 3200iso, not just 1600 that's about it. so i got the lighter, smaller, quieter camera that produces a comparable image. i'd love to hear thoughts about the advantages of the 20d over the 350. Feb 10 06 12:58 am Link The biggest difference is really in the performance. The 20D will fire off a lot more shots for you. This would be important for PJ's, sports, weddings, shows, etc. The XT would bog down with lower frame rates and burst capacity. Other subtle differences are maximum shutter speed, sync speed, focus zones, etc. The XT is fine for studio work or stuff that doesn't require high frame rate. I have the XT myself, but only because I'm tired of throwing my hard earned $$$ in equipment. The ROI these days just isn't there. I've got thousands invested in stuff sitting in the bottom of my closet (645AF, A2E, 620, etc), now worth next to nothing. I've come to the conclusion, the rare times that I need a MkII, I'll just rent the thing! Opps, got me running on a tangent... Dave Wright Photo wrote: Feb 10 06 01:16 am Link I shoot with an XT. I've already rolled the odometer on it, I think I'm up to around 12,000 shots right now, and it has performed admirably. Unless you NEED the extra 20D features (which seem more geared overall for sports or photojournalism), I recommend getting the XT and sinking the extra money into some good glass, a decent light meter, etc. Lens quality is MUCH more important than minimal design changes in the sensor and firmware, and if you are asking which one to get and not considering the 5D, obviously you are working within some sort of budget. The response time, autofocus, battery life, picture quality, etc. have all been excellent, much better than my old 300D, which itself was a joy to use when I first bought it. Though the XT does not have separate controls for shutter and aperture, I have no problem adjusting either on the fly--no menus required. I was a little disappointed in the way they moved the ISO to the LCD menu, but it's not a big deal. I shoot RAW, so I have no interest in setting WB, etc. on the camera. One slight *advantage* of an XT is that, while there's no PC jack, you *can* get an inexpensive hot-shoe adapter that includes some basic protection against the lighting equipment frying the camera. Another advantage is that I can usually bring my XT almost *anywhere* where "professional cameras" are now allowed. With the 50mm f/1.8 on the front, it's not nearly as intimidating as a 20D. One disadvantage: they jacked up the price of the battery grip, I have one for my 300D and love it (paid $110 or so at B&H while in NYC), but don't want to drop more than $200 for the equivalent grip for the 350D. My next step: the 5D. My neighbor is a full-time photographer and loves his pair of 20D's, but I'm skipping it entirely. If I'm going to drop some cash on another camera rather than getting lenses or lighting, it's going to have a full-frame sensor and more pixels to play with. Feb 10 06 01:25 am Link If you can afford the extra bucks look at the 5d Canon. I have tested and owned many and that is the best bang for the buck. Feb 10 06 05:53 am Link the xt has pretty much the same image quality between iso 100 and 400. xt is lighter. xt is cheaper. if you can live with the build quality and the small grip, i say get it and save the money for a good lens. i've used both the 20d and xt. and i own the xt Feb 10 06 06:35 pm Link |
