THE TECH

iTrader: (154)

I am looking for a DSLR camera and want to know what everyone recommends. I will be new to the SLR market and don't know exactly which of these two would be better. I know the 20D is more, but is there enough justification to get it over the XT? What is the main difference between the two? What do you recommend and why?

richardho11

iTrader: (3)

In a nutshell, the main difference in which the XTi is better:

10 megapixel CMOS sensor with improved microlens array, fill factor and lower noise
EOS Integrated Cleaning System
Anti-static coatings on sensor surfaces and Software based dust mapping / removal
Single large, bright, 2.5" LCD monitor with 160° viewing angles (horizontal and vertical)
Picture Styles, larger range of image parameter adjustment
2.5" LCD

In which the 20D is better:

5fps VS. 3fps for rebel
Up to ISO 3200 vs. ISO 1600 for rebel
Larger Buffer
Magnesium Body (feels much much better) VS Plastic body
Scroll wheel VS. Buttons for rebel
100,000 shutter life VS. 50,000 for the rebel

I chose the 20D due to the fact that the anti dust mirror, picture style, 2.5" LCD nor the 10mp sensor is critical when taking photos. They are nice, but not necessary. In all honesty, 8.2mp and 10mp is not that big of difference.
I personally have the 5D, but if those were my only two choices I would go for the 20D. Considering I have owned the RebelXT, 20D and 5D. With the 20D, the speed could come in handy, especially when taking sports photos. The ISO3200 is a life saver! It can mean the difference between taking the handheld photo in dim light or not. This over the 1600 will DOUBLE your shutter speed. The body feels MUCH more sturdy and easier to use with the scroll wheel. Just my opinion.

VandyZ

iTrader: (2)

take a look at this . . .
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...xt_vs_20d.html

20D +1

THE TECH

iTrader: (154)

Well it seems that the 20D is obviously better. Just need to know what everyone with experience thinks.

THE TECH

iTrader: (154)

5 votes and only 2 replies...

Jun

iTrader: (45)

wait and get yourself the Canon 400D (XTi) which is coming out soon, and save yourself some money.

You really don't need a 20D if you are just starting to get into DSLRs.

stan

iTrader: (2)

+999 on 20D. as a photography student / newspaper intern, i can wholeheartedly say you should not buy the XT / XTi. If you really want to go all the way, i'd recommend picking up a used 1d (not the mk2). I've used all these and despite being 4.1 mp, the 1d is better than both the 20d and the rebel. otherwise, go for the 20d. its a real camera, unlike the rebel which is more on the order of a glorified point and shoot.

510dat

My ex had an XT 350, and I loved it. The interface was easy and effective to use, the picture quality was far better than I could use, and the shutter speed was amazing (I'm almost afraid to see what would happen with a 3200 shutter speed!). I don't have any experience with the 20D, so take it for what it's worth. I think that the xT350 would make you very happy.

I posted a bunch of pics in this thread
https://my350z.com/forum/showthread....canon+rebel+xt

Danimsta

iTrader: (3)

i have a XT right now and am selling it for a 30d

i like it, but its just to small for me.

i have the battery grip on it as well but i just really want a 30d

i also looked at the xti which is AWESOME!!!!

i would chose that over the 20d

Chicken

iTrader: (3)

I think you are being steered by people with more interest, greater needs and knowledge of photography than yourself. That's not meant to be an insult (in case it sounds that way), just that someone just starting out in SLR/DSLR photography generally doesn't need to shoot over 3 frames/sec (20D can do 5), more than 14 frames burst (20D can do 23), or more than 7 autofocus zones (the 20D has 9). There's just plenty to understand and learn about photography aside from all of this. Things that are more important. Things that were more important when cameras didn't have 1 autofocus zone, nor more than one button to check the battery that powered the analog light meter, and one to stop the lens down (depth of field preview).

IMHO, someone looking to get into a DSLR for the first time will be entirely satisfied with an entry level camera, such as the Rebel, XT, or XTi (but the older Rebel would do).
Have you (Stan) ever used or looked at a Rebel, or you're just talking out your donkey? As someone who has a degree in photography, ran a studio for many years, and has owned Hassy's and all the pro Nikon gear, I can assure the OP that the Rebels are quite more than "a glorified point and shoot."

I prefer shooting with manual cameras (give me a Pentax K1000 over something with more buttons than my VCR), but I do have the older Rebel and it's fine for anyone looking to get their feet wet without spending thousands of dollars. For under $600 you can get a body and a decent lens. Is it the best? No. In fact, it's probably the worst you can get but luckily the worst and least expensive is actually very good. The $100 kit lens is actually pretty good too, considering the price. You have to be careful when you ask people because they will often tell you that the expensive gear is what you should buy, and to dismiss the less expensive stuff. You don't need $600-$1,500 lenses, etc.)

Now if you're going to be doing more than just getting your feet wet (read: photography student / newspaper intern) then yes, you might want to step up to something a bit more durable and capable. Otherwise, my suggestion is to go find yourself a used Rebel (doesn't have to be the XT), or other Canon (Bubble was selling one not too long ago for a reasonable price) and enjoy.

When I was shooting, there were plenty of photographers with more expensive equipment but I could take a better picture with a manual K1000 than some people can take with a $3,500 DSLR. That's what it's all about. the reason you'd spend $500 more is that the more expensive camera will enable you to take pictures that you couldn't possibly take with the lesser expensive one. If that's not the case, there's your answer.

dmoffitt

iTrader: (4)

20D is a far better piece of hardware. Not sure you NEED one but if anything your resale chances are higher.

I'd just buy a used D200

NismoKid

I have a Rebel XT (350D). My first DSLR and I like it. It should be enough for starters.

efx

iTrader: (4)

DSC-R1 anyone??

THE TECH

iTrader: (154)

Thanks everyone for the input so far. Unfortunately it is a very hard choice. The poll so far is split down the middle, so this is making it very difficult.

efx

iTrader: (4)

DSC-R1!

THE TECH

iTrader: (154)

Sorry, only in the market for the XTi or the 20D.

NismoKid

Do you want me to post pics I've taken with my 350D?

THE TECH

iTrader: (154)

I'm sure the pics are great with both cameras, but I'm trying to figure out which way to go cause I only wanna do this once.

g35or350z

http://www.bestpricecameras.com/prod...193211&start=1

is this a good price for the 20D?

gr?

Here's a cut/paste of a post I made on the S2000 forum:

I've owned an assortment of Canon bodies so here's my take on them:

10D -
* pros: great ergonomics, good image quality from an older camera, big view finder, nice feel in hand, nice shutter sound

* cons: slow start up times (2 seconds), slow image review times (2 seconds), no ISO in viewfinder, image quality 1600 or 3200 doesn't compare to the newer cameras, only a 1.8" LCD

20D -
* pros: basically the same as the 10D but in addition, better autofocus system, excellent high ISO image quality, instant start up and image review times, 5 FPS (3 on the 10D), minimal shutter lag (65 ms)

* cons - loud shutter noise, viewfinder not as large as the 10D, battery grip not as flush as the 10D, only a 1.8" LCD, file count doesn't go above 9999, resets to 0

350D -
* pros: excellent image quality for an entry level camera, small, light, inexpensive, decent autofocus, instant start up and image review

* cons: small viewfinder, lacks girth on right side, ergonomics & user interface could be improved, cheap sounding shutter

I didn't bother buying the 30D but it's basically a 20D with a few improvements, mainly being spot metering, iso adjustments available in 1/3rd stops, 2.5" LCD (and a few other minor things).

It's up to you if it's worth spending the extra money on the 30D. IMO, I wouldn't bother with the 350D if you can afford the 30D. I've seen the 30D selling used for ~ $1050 USD. 20Ds go for $750-800 now. 350D go for $530-600. If you're on a budget, get the 20D and put the money saved towards glass. If you're not, get the 30D. If you're really tight, go with the 350D though you'll eventually upgrade. (I have a barely used 350D for sale, if interested).

I just sold my 10D, I'm trying to sell the 350D. I'm keeping the 20D to use with the 16-35 f/2.8L wide angle lens. I picked up a 1D MKII to use with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS

====
If you plan on getting serious with photography, spend the extra few bucks now on the 20D. You'll be happier with its superior autofocus, larger viewfinder, better ergonomics, and better higher iso image quality. If I had to do it all again, I would've started with the 20D instead of going with the 350D and the 10D.