I know this has been discussed many times

Joined: 04 Aug 2005 Posts: 490 Location: Middle Tennessee

I'm going to be getting a camera soon and I almost have enough money for it. But, before I choose, I want to make sure that I'm getting the right one. I was set on the D70s with the kit lens but i was wondering if I should fork out the extra money to get the Canon 20D. I would like to be able to make large, clear prints that I could sell at galleries. Are the extra mega pixels worth it? Anything else about the 20D that would make it a better buy in the long run?

Thanks!!

Eric

Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 7:37 am

the 20D is almost certainly a better camera than the d70.

the d70 is usually compared against the rebel xt as it's closest competitor, and the 20D is most certainly a better camera than the XT.

Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 8:23 am

I think Chachi was actually talking about the D70s rather than the D70...

The increase is resolution is incredibly marginal, and not what should sway your decision one way or the other. A 20D shot at 300DPI will be just over 1 inch larger than the D70s shot at 300DPI (obviously without upscaling etc) - its clearly not a big difference.

The main difference that would sway my choice towards the 20D if I were in your position, is the ISO capabilities. We see it again and again, the 20D performs amazingly well at high ISO's while the Nikon falls behind and shows bad grain. The 20D also has a larger ISO range of 100-3200 while the D70s range is only 200-1600.

If you shoot sports then the 20D is also a much better choice, it has a maximum frame rate of 5fps (for 23 jpeg images) compared to the D70s 3fps (for 12 jpeg images) giving you a much greater oppurtunity to capture the perfect moment.

Besides the above, the cameras are very similar, the D70s does have a slightly larger and higher resolution screen for checking your shots, but then i've never thought to myself "I wish the screen on my 20D was bigger"

When looking at these cameras you really need to hold them both in your hands to make your decision. Go to a local camera shop and get them side by side, handle each one for 5 minutes and see if you like the shape, size and weight of one over the other, see which one you like the control layout better on, and which one you instantly fall in love with!

Also consider that, if you bought the cheaper of the cameras, would you spend the money saved on a better lens to go with it? A better camera body is nothing if you've got rubbish glass on the front of it... So think about that too!

Joined: 18 Jun 2004 Posts: 436

The 20D is certainly a better camera than the D70, as far as technology, high-ISO sensitivity and frame rate. Whether those advancements are worth the extra few hundred dollars to you is your call.
Me, I would definitely get the 20D. It will give you room to grow into it as your skills improve, instead of growing out of it.

Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 9:45 am

Another consideration is: bodies come and go, but lenses are "forever" and will be your major investment. Decide on whether you want to go with Canon or Nikon glass. That will narrow down the decision of bodies.

Joined: 18 Jun 2004 Posts: 436

goofup wrote:

Another consideration is: bodies come and go, but lenses are "forever" and will be your major investment. Decide on whether you want to go with Canon or Nikon glass. That will narrow down the decision of bodies.

I don't know how true that is anymore. I like Canon glass better, but Nikon makes some excellent glass as well and, more importantly, third party makers are producing some excellent glass nowadays. I don't know if the choice comes down to glass anymore, unless you already have an investment in one sort or another.

Premium Member Joined: 29 Oct 2004 Posts: 5758

I don't think the D70s is really comparable with the 20D. It would fall somewhere between the 300D and 350D if you compared its nearest equivalent Canon.

Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 12:54 pm

The Canon guys will always say the 20D is better and the Nikon guys will vote the D70s but in real world use there is very little difference (except at higher iso but even that can be controlled). I would buy the D70s and take the extra money you save and buy some better glass or a second lens. All in all you won’t be sorry with either option you choose.

Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:21 pm

RikWriter wrote:

goofup wrote:

Another consideration is: bodies come and go, but lenses are "forever" and will be your major investment. Decide on whether you want to go with Canon or Nikon glass. That will narrow down the decision of bodies.

I don't know how true that is anymore. I like Canon glass better, but Nikon makes some excellent glass as well and, more importantly, third party makers are producing some excellent glass nowadays. I don't know if the choice comes down to glass anymore, unless you already have an investment in one sort or another.

One of the reason i choose D70 cause the body will last you probably only few years and it will come a new technology while the glass will remain the same. and one thing I like about nikon lenses is the F mount, they haven't change it for more than 50 years and it works in all Nikon body with exception of course, that the old lenses to work with the new one you need to do F stop manually but still one F mount fit in any Nikon Body...

Just my opinion here final decision are still yours

Joined: 04 Aug 2005 Posts: 490 Location: Middle Tennessee

Ok, how about if I want to put these pictures in stock photography websites, magazines, books and so on? Would one be better over the other? I plan on going to school to study photography and I have the upperhand now with not having to pay bills and all of that fun stuff (I'm 17). So, I'd like to get one that will suit my needs for a pretty long time. I'm definitely going to wait until I can handle both cameras. Thank you all for the information.

Eric

Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 4:31 pm

The ISO performance of the 20D will suit printing better, but other than that there is a not a lot between them.

I don't know of any popular magazine that would print a full page shot from either of these cameras though.

Stock photography, websites etc, makes no difference, but again less grain/better ISO performance will sell the shot over any other variable when the resolution is so similar.

What level are you planning on studying photography to? Where? Im currently in my first year of my BA(Hons) Photography degree in the UK!

Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 4:50 pm

Chachi wrote:

Ok, how about if I want to put these pictures in stock photography websites, magazines, books and so on? Would one be better over the other? I plan on going to school to study photography and I have the upperhand now with not having to pay bills and all of that fun stuff (I'm 17). So, I'd like to get one that will suit my needs for a pretty long time. I'm definitely going to wait until I can handle both cameras. Thank you all for the information.

Eric

As for suiting your needs for very long time, let me just predict that when you start studying photography, you will probably swap cameras very frequently and learn the advantages of each. Who knows you may quickly fall in love with rangefinders!!!

It is useful to think of your investment in terms of lenses at this point. Almost every digital that I can think of depreciates horribly within a year or two, so it's probably best to get something that will get you shooting and experimenting.

So if I may offer one totally contrarian view, I would say that film is the best investment for you at this stage. You can get a good med. format kit for about the same cost as a digital, and have much, much more image quality than any digital under $5k (or even $10k) can provide. The other advantage of film cameras is that the good ones hold their worth... for one year, for 5 years, for 50 years. Digitals are nice and convenient but they are *not* a long-term investment and they do limit you in certain ways, particularly if you want to really learn the art of photography and all its aspects, form capture to gallery wall or magazine. If you do settle on a digital, then please do think of the lenses, they will hold their value far better than the digital bodies.

Here's a thought, why don't you go talk to one of your future professors and get their suggestiond. My word isn't worth anything, they can say something more relevant to your particular situation.

About stock photography, just ask an agency what they want. I kinda doubt they'll be terribly interested in digital images below 12 mp. Personally I wouldn't get either a D70 or a 20D if I were thinking of stock photography. Again, ask the pros.

Just trying to provide a little different point of view....

:) keithwms

Joined: 04 Aug 2005 Posts: 490 Location: Middle Tennessee

Sparky, I'm in Nashville, TN and I plan on going to Watkins College of Art and Design.

Keith, I have a Nikon F2 and I've played with it a bit, but probably not enough. I never thought about talking to one of my future professors. Not a bad idea at all. Duh!

Thanks guys and girls.

Eric

Joined: 04 Aug 2005 Posts: 490 Location: Middle Tennessee

I have decided to go for the D70s. This website helped a lot.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/20dd70.htm

Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 1:40 pm

I fully believe that Mr. Ken Rockwell is slightly biased as he does not pay for any Nikon Gear and most likely receives a stipend from them. I have never shot with the canon 20D, however if my choice were between it and the D70s I would choose the 20D simply due to the huge difference in noise at high ISO. This is of course believing the shots seen were as taken, as stated I have never used one.