Looking for New Canon DSLR - Is Age a Big Deal?

woof woof said:
I suppose in these gas days it's rather pointless suggesting that the above image quality critisisms of the 20D should really be looked at before spending quite a wedge of money on new kit?
Click to expand...
I think he explained this saying it was the degradation after heavy cropping (y)

For dynamic range, limited ISO and resolution a 20D can't live with modern kit but within its limitations it's certainly capable of being used to produce vibrant sharp pictures which should stand up to heavy cropping for screen use and reasonably sized prints.
Click to expand...
You think 8mp can live up to heavy cropping? :eek:
 
snerkler said:
You think 8mp can live up to heavy cropping? :eek:
Click to expand...
Isn't that going to depend a great deal on the end use, your own ideas about image quality and the expectations of those you are sellling to or sharing with? I've cropped 3.4MP images to half the area and the results have been adequate for their intended use. I really don't think there are any hard and fast rules.
 
snerkler said:
I think he explained this saying it was the degradation after heavy cropping (y)

You think 8mp can live up to heavy cropping? :eek:
Click to expand...

Yes, I used to crop all the time for screen use, flower shots and detail and the like. I you can crop 100% but it's the final output size and viewing distance that matter. I have 20D A3's that look good to me and a 100% crop filling the screen in CS5 gives 1364 x 735 at 998kb which at 1000 wide has to be saved at quality 11 rather than 12 and ends up at 454kb and looks like this.

These will lose some quality/sharpness for being posted here.

vdnoHK6.jpg


The whole picture has to be saved at quality 10 at 1000 pixels wide to be posted at under 500 pixels wide here.

yqRRGLl.jpg


This all depends on the intended use. A 100% crop won't make a staggeringly good A3 print if you stand with your nose against it but may well look lovely at A4 viewed anything like normally and should be adequate for a picture to be viewed on screen.

I do understand the urge to buy new kit but when anyone says things like the op has about image quality or other issues I do wonder if these same issues could be carried over when the new kit arrives and comes out of the box. IMO it's maybe best to look at the causes of issues before moving on.
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
Isn't that going to depend a great deal on the end use, your own ideas about image quality and the expectations of those you are sellling to or sharing with? I've cropped 3.4MP images to half the area and the results have been adequate for their intended use. I really don't think there are any hard and fast rules.
Click to expand...
woof woof said:
Yes, I used to crop all the time for screen use, flower shots and detail and the like. I you can crop 100% but it's the final output size and viewing distance that matter. I have 20D A3's that look good to me and a 100% crop filling the screen in CS5 gives 1364 x 735 at 998kb which at 1000 wide has to be saved at quality 11 rather than 12 and ends up at 454kb and looks like this.

These will lose some quality/sharpness for being posted here.

vdnoHK6.jpg


The whole picture has to be saved at quality 10 at 1000 pixels wide to be posted at under 500 pixels wide here.

yqRRGLl.jpg


This all depends on the intended use. A 100% crop won't make a staggeringly good A3 print if you stand with your nose against it but may well look lovely at A4 viewed anything like normally and should be adequate for a picture to be viewed on screen.

I do understand the urge to buy new kit but when anyone says things like the op has about image quality or other issues I do wonder if these same issues could be carried over when the new kit arrives and comes out of the box. IMO it's maybe best to look at the causes of issues before moving on.
Click to expand...
Yep, full get all those factors but maybe my idea of "heavy cropping" are different (y)
 
snerkler said:
Yep, full get all those factors but maybe my idea of "heavy cropping" are different (y)
Click to expand...
This example wouldn't win any quality wars but it does show what you can get out of a 6.1MP camera like the old Nikon Coolpix S10. The inset at top left shows the full frame...

Palamino mare and foal Mayrhofen Austria S10 NIK_0976 Cropped.JPG
 
The op is an adult and I'm sure he'll think about his options carefully, weigh up his own realistic needs and then buy a 5DIV and a set of L lenses :D

And a ps.
The 20D was the first camera which made me think that lenses can be too sharp for some uses, like portraits of women. I remember taking a picture of my then GF with my 20D and a Tamron 18-50mm f2.8 and looking at it closely and realising that it was unflatteringly sharp and showed every flaw and blemish.

So of course I ditched her the next day.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
That lower mp cameras don’t crop well (y)
Click to expand...
Which is true for a particular context of "well". Alan and I have illustrated different contexts.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Which is true for a particular context of "well". Alan and I have illustrated different contexts.
Click to expand...
Yeah I know, my initial reply was tongue in cheek hence the emojis (y)

However, if you’re not concerned with quality then anything can crop heavy. The original point raised by the OP is that he wasn’t happy with the quality after heavy cropping with his 8mp camera, and I would agree. However, this will come down to the individual as well, for example some would find your horse crop ”acceptable” and some wouldn’t (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top