# Anyone use the Canon 20D?



## Lally0724 (May 30, 2005)

Hello, I have decided to jump into the digital world, and am wondering if the Canon 20D is a good camera to do it with?!?!?!?  I do mostly weddings and Family/Children portraits.  If you use the Canon 20D please tell me what you like/dislike about it for portraits.
Thanks,
Lally


----------



## MDowdey (May 30, 2005)

havent you posted this twice?


md


----------



## SonicAdvDX (May 30, 2005)

Crap, MD got here before me! >_< XP

Yeah, you've already posted something about the 20D...


----------



## Lally0724 (May 30, 2005)

Pardon me, I posted it on a different board, I came here to ask photographers who specifically do the kind of photography that I do if any of them used this type of camera and whether they could offer any insight.  I didn't know that you couldn't post something in two different places.
Lally


----------



## Christie Photo (Jun 1, 2005)

What sort of gear are you presently using?


----------



## ksmattfish (Jun 1, 2005)

I've been using a 20D for a few weeks now, after 10 years of pretty much film only.  Overall I'm impressed; I think it is a good addition to my tool box.  

One big weakness for me has been the lack of manual focus aids (micro bead and/or split ring).  Here it is 2005, and the AF on this thing sucks just like it did on my last AF camera, a Pentax ZX-5 (circa 1997?).  I'm buying an off brand focusing screen that I'll have to install myself, which doesn't thrill me, but I do a much better job with a split ring than AF, expecially in the low light situations that make up about 75% of my weddings.

They've got them for the 10D and Rebel too.
http://www.keoptics.com/


----------



## Hellashot (Jun 25, 2005)

You need to use this site instead: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum


----------



## danalec99 (Jun 25, 2005)

Hellashot said:
			
		

> You need to use this site instead: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/


Why?


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Jun 25, 2005)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> Why?


Because that site has a whole lot more 20D owners, a lot of which shoot weddings professionally. Very cool group to consult on ditial EOS stuff.



> One big weakness for me has been the lack of manual focus aids (micro bead and/or split ring). Here it is 2005, and the AF on this thing sucks just like it did on my last AF camera, a Pentax ZX-5 (circa 1997?). I'm buying an off brand focusing screen that I'll have to install myself, which doesn't thrill me, but I do a much better job with a split ring than AF, expecially in the low light situations that make up about 75% of my weddings.


I'm afraid you'd still end up dissapointed. It's still gonna be dim and hard to focus.

Canon A-1 for example, has an average viewfinder. 0.83 magnification and about 92 percent coverage.

20D has a 0.9 magnification with 95 percent coverage. Which translates into .56 magnification... making it so damn small. Also, the mirror is only semi transparent which sends 40% of the light to the AF system.

So, you start with 2.5 times less light, then counting mirror losses, you only get a quarter of the light you'd get in a manual focus camera. Manual focus is going to be as much as a challenge and autofocus.

I'd be curious to know why you think 20D is lacking in AF... What situations were you not satisfied with it?


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Jun 25, 2005)

http://www.canon.ca/english/index-p...=634&sgid=23&gid=2&ovr=1&epage=specifications
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/f_camera.html


----------



## ksmattfish (Jun 26, 2005)

DocFrankenstein said:
			
		

> I'd be curious to know why you think 20D is lacking in AF... What situations were you not satisfied with it?



I'm using the center AF sensor only, with f/2.8 and f/1.8 lenses.  The AF gets close, but at least 1 out of 3 times (even in bright daylight) it's not close enough for my expectations, particularly when shooting at f/2.8 or f/1.8 with intentions of large prints.  This is the same problem that drove me from AF (other brands besides Canon) years ago.  With manual focus I can get the eyes sharp every time.  With AF sometimes it's the eyes, sometimes it's the tip of the nose, sometimes it's just behind the eyes.  Probably very close to perfect in lab testing, but in the real world being just an inch off is too much for what I expect in my photos.

I've installed the manual focus screen, and I love it in bright light.  You are right that it is still very dim for low light work.  

Since there are many folks griping about the AF in Canon DSLRs (and recently I've seen a lot of bitching about the AF in Nikon DSLRs too) I assume that they are working on this.  Then again, maybe not.


----------



## danalec99 (Jun 26, 2005)

A thread on Kats Eye at photo.net. - thread


----------



## Sharkbait (Jun 30, 2005)

I shoot a 20d professionally (weddings, sports, portraits, etc.).  Overall, I'm pleased with it, especially for the price.  Eventually of course I'd like to move up to a MkII, but that's not going to happen for quite awhile.


----------

