BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Questions

Photography Question 
Rom A.G.
 

Canon 20D vs. 350D


I checked out the Canon 20D on the beach today.

It had the kit lens(Super Wide Angle EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6,
the focal length is equivalent to approx. 28-90mm in 35mm format.)
The zoom is less than on most P&S.
The AF worked well, the LCD was too small, too many buttons and other bells and whistles which casual users/non-pros wont use.

It wasnt too heavy or too bulky for an SLR;However, if I were to carry 3+ suitcases on a trip, I would take a P&S instead.

I used a 350D before, and could not tell the difference between it and the 20D. I sure hope the $450 price difference is justified. If I were a beginner, I'd get the 350D.

Conclusion: Would I want to walk around a city with an SLR around my neck... NO!
IMHO, get an SLR if you are a pro who is planning to get several lenses.
DO NOT get an SLR if you are going to drive on auto all the time.

PS: Besides the 2mp difference, is there anything that the Canon 350D has that the Nikon D50 doesnt (which is $50 less w/kit lens)?


To love this question, log in above
8/18/2006 7:03:40 PM

 
John P. Sandstedt
BetterPhoto Member Since: 8/8/2001
Contact John
John's Gallery
  "The zoom is less than on most P&S."

So what. You took the lens for your trial. It isn't supposed to be the same as that on a point and shoot; it can accept filters, for example. It's also faster - most P&S's have a lens about f/8.

As for the focal length, it's all in what you need. At 90mm you get the best focal length for portraits.

"the LCD was too small"

The LCD can't be used as a viewfinder in most SLRs, so it really serves only to check on whether you might have gotten the shot you tried for. Even with the larger LCD on my Canon 30D one can't really know how "selective" the attempt at selective focus was.

"It wasn't too heavy or too bulky for an SLR;However, if I were to carry 3+ suitcases on a trip, I would take a P&S instead."

You, obviously, aren't interested in capturing an image that you can blow up to 13X19, somethat might not be possible with a P&S.. Your statement suggests you really want to take snapshots and small keepsakes, maybe send some to friends and relatives via e-mail.

If I were you I would bother with any SLR.

"I used a 350D before, and could not tell the difference between it and the 20D. I sure hope the $450 price difference is justified. If I were a beginner, I'd get the 350D."

There's gotta be a reason that the Canon 20D becaime so popular and that its replacement, the Canon 30Dgot such great reviews.

If I were a beginner I wouldn't be thinking a digital SLR at all. Rather, I'd search out a Pentax K1000.

"PS: Besides the 2mp difference, is there anything that the Canon 350D has that the Nikon D50 doesnt (which is $50 less w/kit lens)?"

Yes - a better overall rating by the reviewers at Pop Photo, who gave the D50 a third place out of the five cameras under $900 they reviewed.



To love this comment, log in above
8/19/2006 9:16:00 AM

 
John P. Sandstedt
BetterPhoto Member Since: 8/8/2001
Contact John
John's Gallery
  Sent again to correct a few typos.

"The zoom is less than on most P&S."

So what. You took the lens for your trial. It isn't supposed to be the same as that on a point and shoot; it can accept filters, for example. It's also faster - most P&S's have a lens about f/8.

As for the focal length, it's all in what you need. At 90mm you get the best focal length for portraits.

"the LCD was too small"

The LCD can't be used as a viewfinder in most SLRs, so it really serves only to check on whether you might have gotten the shot you tried for. Even with the larger LCD on my Canon 30D one can't really know how "selective" the attempt at selective focus was.

"It wasn't too heavy or too bulky for an SLR;However, if I were to carry 3+ suitcases on a trip, I would take a P&S instead."

You, obviously, aren't interested in capturing an image that you can blow up to 13X19, something that might not be possible with a P&S. Your statement suggests you really want to take snapshots and small keepsakes, maybe send some to friends and relatives via e-mail.

If I were you I wouldn't bother with any SLR.

"I used a 350D before, and could not tell the difference between it and the 20D. I sure hope the $450 price difference is justified. If I were a beginner, I'd get the 350D."

There's gotta be a reason that the Canon 20D became so popular and that its replacement, the Canon 30D got such great reviews.

If I were a beginner I wouldn't be thinking a digital SLR at all. Rather, I'd search out a Pentax K1000.

"PS: Besides the 2mp difference, is there anything that the Canon 350D has that the Nikon D50 doesn't (which is $50 less w/kit lens)?"

Yes - a better overall rating by the reviewers at Pop Photo, who gave the D50 a third place out of the five cameras under $900 they reviewed.



To love this comment, log in above
8/19/2006 9:23:47 AM

 
Bob Chance
BetterPhoto Member Since: 2/19/2006
  Easy John. Easy!

It's okay that Rom voices, or rather writes his opinions.

It does seem to me that he doesn't know enough about photography to consider buying an SLR anyway and should stick to a P&S for the 'snapshots' he plans to take. Afterall, one of the biggest advantages to an SLR is that you aren't limited to one lens and a certain focal length range. Guess he should have known that if he was interested in an SLR. That was my first and foremost reason for going SLR.
And if you go to any major sporting event and scope out the press section, you will see more red striped white lenses (Canon) then you will gold striped black lenses (Nikon)
The feud between Nikon and Canon users has been going on for over three decades now. But if Nikon really is the better camera/lens combo, then why are so many people shooting with Canon?
Many will say it's the price! Maybe, rightly so. But Rom just stated he can buy a comparable Nikon for $50 less than the Canon.
Not only does Pop Photo give Canon better reviews, but so does BP.
That is why they ask each of us what make/model camera was used for the pictures we submit.
As of today, 13% of the pictures submitted to this site were taken with the 20D. That doesn't sound like a lot, but the second place spot goes to the Nikon D70 with only 8%. Almost tied for that spot is the Canon 300D at 8%. Less than 1,000 pictures behind Nikon. And of the top five popularity spots, Canon holds four of them.
And the arguement of film vs. digital is, in a sense, an undebatabile arguement. Yes, I'll agree film has it all over digital as far as latitude and print quality. However, manufacturers are going to go where the money is.
Nikon announced they will no longer be making film cameras, period. Canon will continue manufacturing thier current line of film cameras, but have no plans to introduce any new models, other than digital. I suspect by years end, or soon afterwards, Canon will drop their film cameras also and go 100% digital.
It would be interesting to know how many more digital SLR's are being sold vs. film SLR's. 3 to 1? 5 to 1? 10 to 1?
If digital is where the market trends are going and it's what the general populace is buying, then that's where the manufacturers are going to go. It's not a question of which one is better to them. It's which one is making the money? And that will determine the direction of the film and printing industries. Kodak has been gearing down it's film and conventional paper manufacturing and has announced plans to build a new facility whose sole purpose is to produce photo printing papers for computer printers.
Does all this mean that digital is better than film? No! Just more profitable for the companies in the manufacturing process.


To love this comment, log in above
8/19/2006 10:00:42 AM

 
Log in to respond or ask your own question.