DSLRUsers.com

The full review is up and overall it seems like a very good camera. Of much interest to many who are pixel counters is the following info from Phil Askey.....

The real question is how many current digital SLR owners will see real value upgrading to the EOS 20D. It's certainly a better camera than the 10D (faster, better AF, more features) however when you see side-by-side image comparisons it becomes clear that the increase from six to eight megapixels doesn't make a very large difference to resolution and for the majority wouldn't add any more value to their photographs.

This technology is becoming very interesting.

All canon users need to have their head checked if they choose a 20d over a D70!

Just kidding.

I compared some images at the local store, 10d and D70 and found the differences interesting, especially the colors. It seemed that the 10d had lighter blues, and the Nikon's blues looked more saturated. The other major difference between the two was some Moire patterns in the deep background. They were evident in the D70 and the 10d somehow avoided them. I wonder why the D70 sensor caught the moire and the 10d avoided it? Aren't the sensors ultimately the same?

Though the differences were pretty major, I had a hard time quantifying them as worse or better than the other--just different. From what I can see, the 20d seems to take some pretty great photos, but most of what it offers is so far beyond my needs. This is why I was so tickled about my D70; it addresses my abillities and needs perfectly to a T; and leaves me plenty of room to grow. I say this because I hear people say, "why buy a D70 for $1200.00 when I can get a 20D for $1600.00 and it does all of this extra stuff" and I really wonder if they would ever use or need the extra features that they're after (not to say that some wouldn't). That said, it looks like a damn fine camera.

I'm sure that you can get great pics from the 20D but I thought that the following paragraph was interesting

The D70's color response is certainly stronger than the EOS 20D and reminds me of the output of a 20D RAW image run through DPP in 'Faithful Color' mode. Resolution wise the 20D takes the advantage (although as mentioned previously not by any significant margin) it's also noticeably sharper than the D70.


I used Canon for a long time (EOS 10) before it and the lenses I had were stolen. I was very happy to find the D70 as I always (rightly or wrongly) had the perception that Nikon was a more 'quality' brand that more professionals use. Today I think that statement is probably not entirely true as Canon does seem to get more sports professionals. Nikon still seems to have the edge (in my mind at least) in terms of quality but I don't think you could go wrong with either.

The 20D looks like a fantastic camera. If they were both the same price it would be a really hard call. Probably the 20D would win by a whisker but I suspect (now that I own the D70) that I would always regret not going with Nikon. Given how much cheaper the D70 is I think it is a no brainer but I do like the auto focus system in the 20D. In contrast the D70 build quality and power up time is second to none.

dooda wrote: I wonder why the D70 sensor caught the moire and the 10d avoided it? Aren't the sensors ultimately the same?

One is CMOS and one is CCD, definately not the same thing.

The last reason I'd buy the 20D as a replacement to the 10D is because it is 8MP. 6MP is enough for me at the moment, all I'd have to do is deal with bigger files. There are far better reasons for getting the 20D (startup time, 5fps, high ISO noise) but I'm sticking with the 10D as I've only had it for 14 months.