Canon 1D MK2 or 20D?

[canonater22]

I am about to move into the digital world (FINALLY!). I need some advice/input in choosing a digital SLR camera. I am coming from Canon EOS 1V and EOS 3 film bodies. I shoot primarily Motorsports. Over the years, these film cameras have provided me with great high speed action shots. I want to make the transition from film to digital as seamless as possible. I have a good amount invested in L glass so I need to remain in the Canon system. Speed (focusing) is a heavy factor in my choice.
Do you feel that the new Canon 20D is on par with the 1D MK2 as far as the focusing speed. I think I can live with the 5 FPS the 20D provides although the 1d MK2's 8.5 FPS would be great. How do you think the 20D and 1D MK2 stack up against my film bodies?
I have a question concerning the lens crop factor in digital cameras. The 20D is 1.6X and the 1D MK2 is 1.3X. Does this mean that the 1D MK2 has a larger sensor to capture the image and potentially provide a higher quality photograph? My (novice digital) thinking is that it's the same theory going 35mm to 6 X 7 medium format in film, in that a larger sensor equals a higher quality image(?). I do like the 1.6X factor in making my lens's higher magnification but I do not want to sacrifice image quality. I have learned over the years in photography there is no free lunch. Would I get the same results simply cropping my images in photoshop? How would this effect image quality? Can someone please clarify/explain this.
Thank you for any input.
Regards,
Canonater22

[Lionheart]

Having had both the 1V and 1D, as well as the D30, D60, and 10D cameras, I think you would do well to get the 1D Mk II. The other camera bodies simply don't live up to the speed of focus lock and tracking that the 1 series bodies have. Quality wise, I don't know. I've printed 20x30 prints from the 4 Mp 1D with results as good as any I've shot from the 1V. The 6 Mp D60 and 10D easily blow away anything I've shot on Velvia, Provia or any other film on the 1D. I seriously considered the 20D for that reason, but I've really missed the sheer raw athleticism of the 1V/1D bodies, so I splurged yesterday and ordered the Mk II over the 20D. Hopefully arrives tomorrow noon
Well, that's my 2 pennies. Hope that helps some.

[canonater22]

Lionheart,
Thanks for the input. I am leaning heavily towards the 1D MK2. I'm just trying to justify the cost difference between the 20D. Good luck with your 1D MK2. I'm planning on purchasing mine in December.
Regards,
Canonater22

[ustein]

Two issues in favor of 1D Mark II

- Better viewfinder
- more speed

We will get a 20D for review hopefully today and own a 1D Mark II. We willl compare.

But the price difference is huge too.

Uwe

[canonater22]

Ustein,
Thanks for the input.
I would be very interesed in your comparison. Specifically in terms of autofocus speed and auto focus tracking capabilities between the 20D and the 1D MK2.
Regards,
Canonater22

[Lionheart]

My initial impressions are similar to those of the 1D when I first had it. Photo quality is somewhat less than desirable, although closer to the 10D than the 1D was. Much better than the 1d in terms of noise/grain, but definitely inferior to the 6 Mp 10D. Much faster too, than the 10D, but only a notch faster than the 1D in terms of AF speed and lock. I haven't had the opportunity to try out the 20D, but we may be replacing the 10D's with 20D's soon, when they are available, if the reviews and photo quality is better than those of the 10D by a considerable margin, which may be a tall order since the 1D Mk II is still somewhat short of the 10D in terms of picture quality imho, especially in the higher ISO settings, and so far none of the reviews I've read have placed the 20D in a position that justifies replacement of the 10D. The 1D MK II will replace the 10D's in the studio for now, where at the lower ISO settings they are the equal or better than the 10D, until the intraoral photos are conclusively better than those of the 10D's. More news on that tomorrow when I take the 1D Mk II through the paces on new patient exam photos (we use our digital cameras in our dental practice for before/after photos and for patient education/treatment plan presentation).
btw, I ordered 4 off brand np-e3 batteries for the 1DMkII, but I don't recommend them due to their poor fit with the 1D MK II, although they do have a significantly higher capacity than the original np-e3 (1650 mAH vs 2200 mAH).

[JeffHall]

Wow, that's the first time I've heard a 1D II photo quality being less that the 20D. All other reports indicate better noise, higher resolution, less sharpening artifacts, etc. Not to second guess your post-processing, but maybe you are used to 10D files?

By all my photos, the 20D beats the Rebel that I had, which I guess is close to 10D photo quality.

[travelerjb1]

I've worked with most all of the Canon DSLR bodies and the main thing that can be said is that while they have some similar characteristics as far as their numbers, their handling and build are indeed different. The 1dMK-II is intended for tough day in day out pro use in conditions that most bodies would discintergrate in. It is weather sealed, built from a solid hunk of magnesium alloy, utilizes Canon's finest focus and metering system, has a brighter and larger viewfinder and weighs about twice that of the 20D or more. It also has it's nicely integrated grip as part of it's construction, not an added on hunk of plastic.

With that said, under the right conditions the 20D will take pictures of very similar sharpness and contrast. However the 20D WILL be limited in some regards where speed becomes an issue. In that regard there is NO comparison with any DSLR body to the 1DMK-II. Having had a 1D previously and now a 20D I do however find that the 20D is much more like the 1 Series in every way in performance as opposed to it's predicessor the 10D. Evolutionary indeed as it shoots faster, has excellent color consistency and exposure consistency compared to the older 10D. Also the 20D is more forgiving in the highlights and doesn't blow them out as the 10D was famous for. All in all if there is ANY way you can afford the 1DMK-II just go for it and NEVER look back. You'll never have to compromise in any way, and it will be a freeing experience for your photographic use.

[Lionheart]

Well, the assistants all agree. Heavy, very heavy, but a joy to shoot nonetheless, compared to the 10D. It's speed of focus lock under low light conditions is uncanny. The images are about par with the 10D images. The file sizes even at the lowest resolution are twice that of the 10D's at medium (this is a factor for us since we are reluctant to upgrade the RAID on our main server any time soon if we can help it). Noise is more evident in the shadow areas than the 10D (we shoot at iso 200 for intraoral photos, f/16 @1/200, 100mm macro with MR-14EX ring light), but who's looking at the shadow areas when the focus of the pictures are TEETH, . WOW. I love the athleticism of this beast of a camera. It's great in the studio too, where we shoot in RAW mode at ISO 100. I'd post pictures, but I don't have model releases from the patients, and I'm not about to violate any HIPPA rules here If the 20D is at least close in AF focus speed, it might well be worth getting. I'm tired of the complaints about the weight of the 10D, since the only reason it's "heavy" to the assistants is that it takes its sweet time focusing. My only major peeve so far is that the auto white balance setting isn't very good. Actually it really bites big time compared to the D30, D60, 1D, and 10D, especially under incandescent lighting. Why Canon changed the AWB sensor to TTL only is beyond me, since it obviously doesn't work. Well, this weekend, i'll try to take the 1DMk II for a real test run.