canon eos 350 d or 20d?
 

im on the verge of buying my first dslr camera.ive currently got the fujifilm s7000,ive had a few problems with it and i just wondered which canon to go for? i like wildlife/scenery photos and i need it for some serious wedding photos.can anyone help ?:)

Hi Andy welcome to WPF

We regard to image quaility there is very little to chose between them. It depends on wether you feel is better to spend the extra on better features and build quality or put the money towards a good lens. To many people focus on the camera when they should also research into the lens.

If you are serious about wide angle and wedding work maybe a 5D full frame is a better choice if you can afford it. Both the 350D and 20D are good for long telephoto work because of the high resolution and crop factor. If these cameras were full frame they would be 20mp.

I suggest if you have not already done so compare the 2 cameras in the hand. the 350D is much smaller than the 20D.

I went for the 20D for the following reasons when upgrading from a 300D.

I felt the 350D was too small for my hand especially if large heavy lens are fitted. Mind you some folk have bought the 350D battery grip to get around this problem.

Better build qualitiy. I droped my 20D a few months back. The camera OK but lens in for repair.

I prefered the viewfinder on the 20D

Longer battery life. ( also used the same batteries as 300D so I had some more spares )

A link comparing the two cameras.

http://bobatkins.photo.net/photograp...xt_vs_20d.html

There are a lot of people using the 350D for wildlife so if money is a bit tight for camera and a good lens then go the 350D route. There is no point in having good camera and a cheap lens. I would also buy a body only and buy a better lens than the kit 18-55 lens ( this lens is quite poor, the only thing in its favour is that it is a very cheap wide angle lens )

Hi Andy. Welcome to WPF.

I see Rob has already given some very useful advice. I hope you will share your photos with us once you have made your decision.

I would leave the serious wedding photos to a serious wedding photographer rather than risk relying on a new, unfamiliar camera. There's an awful lot of features on these beasts and a wedding is no place to have to start looking through the instruction manual to see if it's got/how to use a particular function.

The 20D is a more substantial camera but, as Rob says don't cut down on the glass in front - that's all important in getting good photos.

thanks for the advice everyone,might go with the 350d,battery grip and decent lense,as i like wildlife photography i need a good zoom lense but i also like macro so if theres a lense out there thats good for both???:)

Personally I feel there are two big advantages to the 20D - firstly the solid build - there's no denying that it feels better in the hand than the 350D and certainlty seems more likely to cope with the odd knock. Secondly the shooting rate - the 20D shoots at 5fps where as the 350D only manages 3fps.

That said I use the 350D and am very happy with it, infact I'd happily buy another one. I use mine with a battery grip and it does make a huge difference to the handling.

Are Canon still doing their £100 cash-back on the 20D? There can't be that much difference in price between the 20D - £100 and the 350D + Battery grip and extra batteries.

Hi Andy, sorry to hear you had problems with your s7000 - I used one for over 12 months without a hiccough, (apart from those caused by user error!). Most of the pictures in my gallery were taken on the fuji camera. I believe it's also suitable for wedding work, which I'm sure most professionals would cringe at, but if this an area your considering then keep it as a back-up!
Like your about to do, I recently upgraded to a dSLR so that I could acquire lenses to suit the subject, particularly wildlife which is limited with the Fuji.
I opted for the 350d not having the pockets for the 20d. As it's pretty much the same sensor to me it made no sense financially. I don't have particularly large hands so size wasn't an issue and it's comparable to the 35mm film cameras I used in years gone by. Problem is my partner also now prefers it and I've just had to shell out for another - so time to part company with my s7000.
Initially I tried to have a one lens fits all solution and purchased the sigma 28-300 DG - but in the end I've found it better to get a specific lens for a specific job.

Just to take the thread off course for a few seconds. I was in my local Jessops on Sunday and got chatting to a Guy who is thinking of parting with over £2000 on a Canon 1 something or other. it's the 8.2Mp one anyway. In the course of the conversation he told me he was upgrading from a 300D. He used the 300D and kit lens to take background photographs for the local TV station's weather spot. :eek:

The guy was a bit clueless with regards to hardware. I suggested the 5D maybe better suited for his use for taking sunrise and sunset shots as the 8 frames per second on the Canon 1 is more for photo journalist.

So there is hope for us all :rolleyes:

A lot of people seem to be able to talk their way into a good job nowadays, don't they!

I've been having this debate with myself (I used to be schizophrenic but now ... who said that :eek: ) I don't think I would be happy with the 18-55 kit lens so have been comparing these bodies with the 17-85 IS lens.

There is only about £100 between these two options in Jessops or most online retailers. I like the smaller size of the 350D but the 20D has as better feel/build quality about it as well as been a bit faster and instinctively I feel this is the better buy.

I'm going to In Focus at the NEC later this month and will try to make my mind up.

One lens for each job? Doesn't that get a bit pricey? I use the Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS for most things and a fairly happy with it, but I am worried about an upcoming safari I am taking. I would hate to miss the shots for having a lens that is too short. DO you have thoughts on the best lens for a safari?

I do have both the 350 and 20d and I would say the 20d is the better all round camera.I use the 350 with a 28-300 is lens just for a lightweight jobbie when I take the dog for a walk.But the shots I have taken just do not seem to quite match up with the 20d,even when using a 100-400 lens.Perhaps it is just me,but I would opt for the 20d each time.

I am really looking for the differences between the 2 lenses not the 2 cameras. My question really has to do with comparing image quality and sharpness between the 100-400IS and the 28-300IS. Both lenses will be used on the 20D

100-400 ,no comparison between the 2.But,there is a price difference,and the 28-300 is much lighter for travelling.It is a good little lens,and okay for a wide variety of shots,but for sharpness and quality ,I will have to say the 100-400.But this is just my personal choice.I do have both lenses.

I think you are talking about another lens. The EF28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS USM weighs 3.7 lbs and costs about $1600. (heavier and more expensive than the 100-400)
the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM weighs 3.1 lbs and costs about $1200.
According to the reviews I have read, they seem very comparable, but since I have only used the 28-300 I need input from a user of both lenses.

Sorry,yes I did get the lens mixed up.The one I was referring to is the 70-300 IS,I was using it today.Very light and easy to carry around.

Christine I think that maybe because your 20d is your main bird photography camera you feel more comfortable using it as there really is no real difference between the two cameras, apart from the 20d shooting more frames per second which can be useful for some action shots. In the end which camera someone chooses comes down to personal preference.

Let me say from the outset that I have used niether of these lens. The reviews and charts I have read on these two lens do rate the 100-400 higher on the optical performance. Which is understandable because it has a smaller zoom range. With the 28-300 you are paying a lot of money to overcome the increased number of design compromises of a x10 zoom.

The 28-300 was intended to be a "one lens" solution for a full frame camera. Somebody who does not want to carry around a bag full of lens and avoid the hassle of keep changing lens on the job. On full frame the lens gives a nice range from wide to telephoto. On a 20D due to the 1.6 crop factor the range is shifted to become normal to long telephoto (45 to 480). Hence, you now see a number of new lens which start from 24mm.

I have the 24-70 f2.8 which on paper performs much better than the 28-300.

The 100-400 on the 20D becomes 160 - 640 when the crop factor is taken into account. There are a large number of bird photographers who use this lens and it does give very good results. If you want even better images you should think about moving away from a zoom lens to prime.

It really depends on your subject, convenience and required image quaility on which lens you should choose. ( providing money is not an issue )

The price you pay for a lens in Dollars is what we pay in pounds sterling in the UK. A very sore point when we look at lens prices overseas.

Like Christine, I have both these bodies. Having used the 20D for several months with my 400mm f5.6 and now the 350D on this lens, I have seen no real difference in quality between the two. The 350D is so light, that hand-holding with the 400mm is great.

I find the setting controls on the 350D a little awkward (mainly menu driven similar to a digital compact) and the 20D more familiar (similar to Canon film bodies I used in the past). The 350D's LCD info display on the rear, rather than top is great for tripod work, which the 20D doesn't have. However, the 350D colour screen is not as crisp as the 20D's with a very small viewing angle (i.e. you have to be right behind to view).

I have a grip on the 20D, but not the 350D (which I want to keep small and light). I find the 20D + grip very comfortable to use, but also have found the small 350D equally comfortable - which is a real suprise.

My thoughts - both cameras are excellent, for their price, and I have a different use for each. The 20D is almost always on my 500mm and tripod, the 350D on a 400mm or wider zoom for hand holding. The biggest surprise is how comfortable I have found holding the 350D - I had thought it would be too small without a grip, even after testing in the shop when looking for the 20D.

Cheers

Mark.

Mark,I found your post very interesting.I am still biased re the 20d ,but I am undecided as to which lens to keep on which cam.I do not like changing lenses as my grip is not very good,and yesterday almost lost the 1x4 converter in the river!!!.I use the 100-400 and the 300F4 IS with the 1x4 converter .Which lens would you suggest for which camera.Sorry ,the cams are 20d and 350d.I leave the ISO at 400 for the 300+1x4.It is said that the 20d is the better cam when using at a higher ISO,but do change to 800 if using the 2x,esp if not very bright sunlight.Is there any difference,or does it not matter.I suppose I could do a test with each,but very much doubt I would be any wiser.Just curious,if there would be an advantage to matching the lens with camera.It could be something to do with the focal range .One of these cams ,has I think an extended focal range,due to the size of the sensor?.

Hi Christine, I hesitate to advise on which lens on which body - this is going to be a personal preference based on handling etc. Sounds like you shouldn't change lenses on cliff-tops, bridges or boats though ;)

In answer to the technical questions, in general use I have not found any increased noise with the 350D at higher ISO (and this is backed up by other photos I have seen e.g. Annette/psilo posted a shot of a blackbird on BF a month or so ago at very high ISO and it looked very clean, as well as being a great photo!).
As far as I know, both the 350D and 20D have a crop factor of 1.6x based on the smaller sensor, so there is no difference.

Another thing, the slower fps on the 350D can be a pain, especially with smaller faster birds (e.g. I managed a single frame of a Great Tit as it paused on a perch today, where I would have got 2 with the 20D). However, this is mainly because I am used to the 20D...if I was lucky enough to also use a 1D mkII, I would find the 20D slow!

Cheers

Mark.

Thanks,Mark,I guess the 300 needs to stop on the 20d then esp if being used with the 1x4,I haven't had a proper chance to put to the test yet,with each camera.

Finally taken the plunge
 

After months of agonising, with the advent of the 30D (which is beyond my budget) I've grabbed a 20D before they are unavailable :D . I've ordered it with the 17-85 IS lens and keep looking out of the window waiting for UPS to deliver it (realistically it will be middle of next week :( )

Everything I've read indicates that there is very little/nothing to choose between them in terms of image quality, and while the 20D has a few additional feature/operational advantages see this article, with the 18-55 lens it is difficult to justify the £300+ price difference. With the lens I've opted for the price difference is much less between the two options ~£100. What finally made the decision for me over the 350D was that, although I've got quite small hands, the 20D feels better balanced (to my mind) with this lens on.

Now wheres that delivery man?

Gidders,

As part of my look at in camera processing I have been going through loads of reviews, looking at pics etc.

If I was getting into digital without any old lens stock to worry about, then the 20D would be right at the top of the list, without moving into the realms of a pro camera. So I am sure you will be delighted.:)

Yes this is a comment from a Nikon nut.

Don