Is the 20D going to hold me back?

Joshwain

Joshwain

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,379
Edit My Images
Yes
There's been a rather popular thread recently with a lot of comments saying the photographer is more important than the equipment. In general, I do agree but with an urge to get more involved with landscape photography and some rather old kit in the 20D, I'm rather stumped on what to do.

With landscapes, I'm obviously going to be limited with my current gear. By "gear", I don't only mean my 20D, but also my 18-55mm kit lens (seeing as the 55-250mm isn't really up for landscapes).

So, as a student with a rather slowly growing budget and my 'little kid Christmas list' filled with a tripod, remote shutter release and rucksack - I don't know what I should set my eyes on in regard to saving. I can either save for a decent bit of glass or a new body.

At the moment, my budget stands at £120 and should grow by about £100 from some stuff I plan to throw on eBay just before Christmas. That will take my budget to around £220 and then hopefully between £250 and £300 after a few "buy what you want" Christmas gifts. I could also boost that by selling my 55-250mm or even my 20D if I plan on getting a new body.

Anyway, presuming my budget will be around the one mentioned before the "boosts", I can either spend £250-£300 on a new body, such as the 40D (or even the 50D at a push) or on a decent lens such as the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4. So really, it depends what is going to let me down the most.

Gosh, this has become a rather lengthy post! :lol:

But yeah, what do you think?
Will the 20D be limiting me too much?
Would it be best to go for a new body or a new lens?

I think I've covered everything ;) :lol:
 
What do you shoot most?

The lenses you have don't really help. prehaps you may consider getting the 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 if you shooting portaits.

If you want to move to landscape then a ultrawide.

Buying a lens especially primes in your budget will give you greatest difference.
 
Some of my best landscape shots were taken with my 20D so honestly I don't see it holding you back. It is a very capable camera with superb image quality.

Lens wise, well you have the 18-55mm and for landscape work you will generally stop down to F8-11 - the the lens is more than adequately sharp at those apertures. Also, don't rule out the 55-250mm for landscape work, you have to be more creative but a telephoto lens gives excellent results.

My advice, get out there and shoot. Get the tripod, remote, a set of ND filters. Only when you know that the camera is holding you back, should you change. When you do, start with the lens then look at the body.

Couple of my 20D landscapes



 
RichardtheSane said:
Some of my best landscape shots were taken with my 20D so honestly I don't see it holding you back. It is a very capable camera with superb image quality.

Lens wise, well you have the 18-55mm and for landscape work you will generally stop down to F8-11 - the the lens is more than adequately sharp at those apertures. Also, don't rule out the 55-250mm for landscape work, you have to be more creative but a telephoto lens gives excellent results.

My advice, get out there and shoot. Get the tripod, remote, a set of ND filters. Only when you know that the camera is holding you back, should you change. When you do, start with the lens then look at the body.
Click to expand...

Those shots are stunning, Richard! :thumbs:
So maybe it's not a new body or even a lens that I need and a set of decent filters instead? :eek:

I actually got an alright shot with the 55-250mm yesterday when I was out. I didn't intentionally use it but it was a decent result imo. Handheld too!


Lone Tree by Joshwain, on Flickr
 
Just watched a video that has kind of given me the answer...

[YOUTUBE]wX76k-chflo[/YOUTUBE]

Actually quite inspiring to be honest, I think I need to be more confident with my camera too!
 
I had a 20D from just after they came out until last year. When I bought a 5D I expected a massive jump in quality and I was disappointed when I didn't see it. To me that's a credit to the 20D and the results you can get from it and I think that newer cameras really only improve on it at the very highest ISO's, having said that IMVHO the 20D can produce perfectly usable whole images at ISO 3200.

IMVHO... if you put a decent lens on a 20D and have good technique you'll only find it limiting at the highest ISO's, other than that I don't think you'll have anything to complain about. Sink your money into lenses :D
 
Last edited:
Nothing wrong with the 20D,was i first DSLR i brought,the only problem i found was that the sensor did seem to adtract dust :)
 
For landscape where high ISO doesn't really matter 20D is more than capable. I took some great photos with the 30D 18-55 IS combo recently. Where I didn't have wide enough view I just took several frames and stitched it together in post. Worked really well; do four put it together et voila you have a medium format sensor :p
 
What I love about Landscape Photography is that it's a great financial leveler.

Unlike sports or wildlife it's less about high ISO performace to maintain shutter speed, less about striving for extra lens length, less about autofocus ability etc etc

Unless you want to print HUGE, resolution shouldn't be an issue either.

A decent tripod, low ISO, kit lens, understanding of aperture and you're off. Understand hyperfocal distance and get a couple of ND Grads and honestly the world is your oyster.

By all means look at better lenses and perhaps appreciate the benefits of upgrading including full frame but with landscapes it's not a must. Fine margins aside - it's much more about the light and the photographer than the gear.
 
Last edited:
The problem with going much wider than yout 18-55mm is that its not going to be cheap, the cheapest ultrawide lens you'll get is probabley the Sigma 10-20mm for £250ish used.

Within its range the 18-55mm is fine in terms of sharpness, the main disadvanatge for landscape shooting is I'd say that the front rotates as you focus meaning filters need to be readjusted afterwards.

The #1 investment I'd make for landscape shooting personally is some form of graduated ND filter, that is a filter with the upper area darker than the lower to balance out light levels. You can edit shots in post to achieve this of course but alot of the time in interesting lighting condictions such as those shots richard posted the dymatic range is just too much for the camera, either the sky turns white and loses all detail or the ground turns to dark mush.

You can buy them in slot in and screw in types, the former has the advanatge that you can shift the graduation line up and down as needed.

neutral_density_grad_large.jpg


A Cokin P grad kit and a 58mm adaptor ring should be about £50ish.
 
Agree with others comments - 20D is a great camera.

The only thing I found limiting was the low amount of MP as due to my insistence on using one prime lens means I sometimes crop quite a bit and it wasn't ideal for that. Doesn't sound like that would apply to you though.
 
In terms of upgrading for more megapixels I'd say that depends what you want to do with the pics. For PC viewing its not really needed and I'd guess the 20D would not show any great limatations up to a 10 by 15 inch print size.

If you wanted to print 18 by 12 or up to A2 then I do think you'd see a more noticble improvement from something like a used 50D or 550D although your looking at £300-400.
 
Hello.
I use a 30D which is basically a 20D and i have found it a great camera and have had a great deal of fun whilst using it, i don't print bigger than 10x8 so MP size is not an issue with me.

I have bought a 50mm 1.8 the nifty 50 and it is great and has made a real difference, what they say on these forums is correct a decent lens can make a bigger difference than upgrading your camera.

Picture taken during a airsoft game.
8169296206_cd058376b8_b.jpg
 
Thanks for the feedback folks!

I think I'll be sticking with the camera for now... the only decision I need to make is whether I should get some filters now or wait until I can get a decent, wider lens and aim on saving up for that.

The plan is to spend on lenses and only upgrade the camera if I personally see it holding me back from the results I'm getting and obviously, if my budget says I can! :lol:

If I decide to buy filters first then I'm going to be stuck with the 18-55mm kit lens for a little longer, however if I go for the lens first then I will have to wait a short while for the filters... makes sense really :) I just need to decide :p
 
Keep the body because of the subjects you shoot you are unlikely to be using high ISO and the 8 megapixels of the 20D will be fine for all but the biggest enlargements,save up for good glass and only upgrade your body when it really is stopping you doing what you want to do
 
For quite some time my 20D was a dust bunny magnet but then it all settled down and it hardly ever needed cleaning. As most contamination that ends up on the sensor is actually oil and debris that comes off the cameras own internal parts I assume that my camera got to a point at which it was worn in with less internal debris being created :D

I hope therefore that the OP's camera is well worn in too and isn't affected too much by debris.
 
I actually need to clean it for the first time soon, noticed a few visitors when I took a recent high aperture shot :p

Anyways, filters or lens? :lol:
 
Joshwain said:
I actually need to clean it for the first time soon, noticed a few visitors when I took a recent high aperture shot :p

Anyways, filters or lens? :lol:
Click to expand...

Give it a blast with a rocket blower, if you still have bunnies buy some eclipse fluid and pec pads to give it a wet clean. Lots of tutorials on the tube.

Get a wide lens and some welding glass until you can afford some good ND's.
Just a thought..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top