Digital SLR Recommendation

[The_Munchmaster]

I own a Canon 300D digital SLR, which I bought when it first came out, and I'm looking to upgrade. I've always been a Canon fan and I have Canon lenses so I'm not planning to switch brand.

 

I am considering the 350D or the 20D. They both have similar megapixels (8 and 8.2) and have the same size of sensor so apart from a faster shutter speed what do I get for the extra money if I buy the 20D (which is almost twice the price of the 350D) and will I notice any difference in picture quality?

 

Any advice would be much appreciated.

[BJ_Blackowitz]

I have the 20D and the 300d ,

 

it is a great cam you will love it..

 

 

quality between 300 and 20d are great, dunno with the 350 as they now have the same processor,

 

the 20d is faster, that was a pro for me. It is also a better build quality (housing) and has some more features AFIK

[Old Hippie]

Faster shutter speeds will give better versatility, which MAY yield better photos. Greater versatility is a big selling point with me.

[short-time]

I?m not in the market for a digital SLR, but if I were - one feature I would put at the top of my list would be the active image stabilization feature now available even on some point and shoot models.

 

ST

[Old Hippie]

Image stabilization is, in MY OPINION ONLY not really necessary if the camera has a fast shutter. Most SLRs are fast enough to notreally need this feature.

 

One of the things I really hate about the point and shoot cameras is they are just to damned slow, and many shots end up blurred due to shake, or change in focal length.

 

The SLR I have (Nikon D70) has a fast shutter, and generally there is no blur due to shake...I would think this is the case with most SLRs.

 

Where the image stabilization might be of value would be incidents of vibration such as trains, boats etc, where everything is in reletive motion, at least that is what it seems best suited for. But even then, an SLR using a fast shutter speed should compensate for that...

 

My recomendation is for Nikon or Canon. I would suggest getting the best one you can/can afford at the time. take into account things like extra lenses, flashes etc, any accessories you might want...expensive, but worth it in the long run!

[short-time]

Like I said, I?m not in the market for a digital SLR. But if you use telephoto lenses which increases your f-stop and lowers shutter speeds, even slight camera movements become a significant factor in sharpness. That?s why they make tripods.

 

A semipro photographer friend of mine almost always uses a tripod and claims it greatly increases the sharpness in almost any situation. Of course lugging around all this equipment is not that practical and is why I limit myself to a high quality point and shoot camera.

 

Small cameras are what they are and will never match the results you can get from high-end bulky professional gear ? especially film based. But if you miss a great shot as you left your camera at home because it?s too damn big to lug around what good is it?

 

Seems life is all about compromises.

 

Anyway, I consider optical image stabilization to be a break through for cameras and binoculars and it will only get better.

 

ST

[Encore]

>I am considering the 350D or the 20D. They both have similar megapixels (8 and 8.2) and have the same size of sensor so apart from a faster shutter speed what do I get for the extra money if I buy the 20D (which is almost twice the price of the 350D) and will I notice any difference in picture quality?<

 

plenty of websites that will tell you all the differences.

the 20 D, which I have and am happy with, has just been superseded by the 30 D, same sensor, a few minor improvements. maybe the 20D will therefore drop in price. I'm upgrading to the 5D, double the price, but if you just do personal photographs, the 20D is more then adequate.

[The_Munchmaster]

ikkrang said: plenty of websites that will tell you all the differences.

 

I've looked at them and the most significant difference between the 350D and 20D appears to be shutter speed.

 

www.dpreview.com even has a selection of the same pictures taken by both cameras lined up side by side and basically they are exactly the same!

 

I did handle both cameras recently and I did find that the 350D was too small for my hand (there was nothing for my pinky to hold onto) and the only way to get a comfortable fit would be to add a battery grip.

 

The 20D is significantly heavier but is made of magnesium alloy rather than plastic.

 

As you say the 20D has now been superceded by the 30D but because the 20D is currently available at well below list price the difference between the 30D and the 350D will be even more than between the 20D and 350D.

 

Decisions, decisions. ::

[Stickman]

I have got a 20D and it is a great camera that has served me well ? I have no real complaints about it. Do you know that the 20D has been superseded by the 30D which is largely just an update of the 20D, and should be out very soon.

 

The only thing I will say is that you may want to look at investing money in lenses. Canon L lenses and Canon primes are lenses you just cannot go wrong with.

 

Also, have you considered the 5D? It has a full frame sensor and image quality is REALLY good.

[Encore]

>The only thing I will say is that you may want to look at investing money in lenses. Canon L lenses and Canon primes are lenses you just cannot go wrong with.<

 

I second that. I originally got the 17-85 zoom for my 20D, and while it is apractical walk around lens, it doesn't really measure up to some of the better Canon lenses, especially the primes, and the L series lenses.

 

I just got a 24 mm 1.4 for my 20D, which I will soon use with a new to be bought yet 5D body. It is a superb lens, and in spite of the price, worth every baht i paid.

But that way, expect to spend a lot more on glass then on your camera body.