For UW: Canon 30D/20D vs. Nikon D80

Hi folks!

I finally reached the the limits of my Olympus C-7070 and it is time to move for dSLR setup. And indeed, I've been reading info about good choices like maniac and to be honest, the decision is driving me crazy!

It seems that Nikon D80 and Canon 30D (and 20D since they are practically the same camera!) are the best choices. Lets compare the lens decision for UW:

Micro:

Nikon D80: Nikkor 60mm 1:1 macro. Very sharp lens with good reviews. Price about 480€

Canon 30D: EF-S 60mm F/2.8 1:1 Macro USM. Very sharp lens with good reviews. Price about 430€

WA Zoom:

Both can use Sigma 17-70mm so no problem here

Since these are the only lenses I will buy I don't want to compare other lenses used for UW.

So my bottom line is that why everyone is fuzzing about Nikon D80 (and other Nikon) when Canon 30D/20D beats Nikon in noise hands down 6-0.

And if somebody is interested of my UW needs: I will do macro with 1 small macrostrobe like Ikelite DS51. Wide angle I will be doing with Magic filters so I really need that ISO 1600. I only dive in tropical waters...

Please discuss/comment!

___________________________

My UW images: www.dsiponen.fi

hi scorpius.

the reason nobody talks about the 30D is simply the minor changes, that have been made compared with the 20D. so many housing manufacturers did not come out with a new housing for it ... because they think, that not many people will upgrade from 20D to 30D. But if you are gonna buy a new camera ... the 30D is a very good camera.

i am using it UW since 3 weeks and i am very happy with it. the big screen is really good and also the viewfinder is quite nice. i like the menu and for me funktions of the 20D/30D are way easier to access, than in the KISS models.

if you go nikon or canon ... well. i think it does not really matter. but if you go mainly macro ... the canon has 1,6 crop compared to the 1,5 of the D80 ... so you're already a bit closer

anyway: so far i am very happy with my 30D. you will not make a big mistake if you go for it.

greets,serge

The 30D is sort of an oddball as serge has said. For just a few dollars more you can get the 12.8 megapixel full frame Canon 5D. The housings pretty much cost the same amount, so I think a lot of folks either stuck with the 20D or got the 5D upgrade. That's what Sarah and I did when her 20D got stolen.

With that said, some good lenses for the 20D/30D would be the Tokina 12-24 or Canon 10-22 or the Canon 100mm USM macro lens.

Cheers

James

The 30D is sort of an oddball as serge has said. For just a few dollars more you can get the 12.8 megapixel full frame Canon 5D. The housings pretty much cost the same amount, so I think a lot of folks either stuck with the 20D or got the 5D upgrade. That's what Sarah and I did when her 20D got stolen.

 

With that said, some good lenses for the 20D/30D would be the Tokina 12-24 or Canon 10-22 or the Canon 100mm USM macro lens.

 

Cheers

James

Both are fine cameras. But for the record, the 5D is more than twice the cost of a 30D, which is way more significant than a "few dollars more" in my book. I've been quite happy with my 20D and 10-22.

I'm a bit noob when it comes to UW photography and I'm starting to move away from my point & shoot (Canon A710 IS) to a dSLR - 30D.

If you're going to "upgrade" then going from a 20D to a 30D isn't an "upgrade" really. That's why I think you see people using the 20D going to the 5D, because of the differences.

However, I think the 30D is a great camera for new people (like myself) that don't have the coin to drop on the 5D and don't want to buy a used 20D. Since the 20D is well established and the 30D will function like it in many ways, I'm finding a lot of great information that translates from the 20D to the 30D.

Being new, I don't know what people consider "a lot" of housing options are, but I found more than a few listed on digideep.com and digifish.nl. For my purposes, the Ikelite will be more than sufficient (and many of the other housings start to get out of my price range).

James,

I've been giving some thought to upgrading my 20D to a 5D. Any thoughts on the difference between the two of them. Always had a preference for wide angle, so my thinking is that the 5D ought to give me more coverage. Do you notice much difference in overall quality or is it just a bigger file & the lenses are the key?

Hamish.

Just to jump in and add my two pennorth -jumping to a 5D has both upsides and downs. (I actually have 1DS and 20D in Seacam - its a long story!).

Up is image 'quality' and full frame format which is 'different' to 1.6x crop and 'different' to Nikon's 1.5x crop in much the same way that medium format film was/is different to 35mm. This said, unless you appreciate the differences then it might not be such a big deal.

Down are wide-angle availability is somewhat different and can be expensive or cheap depending on your needs/desires and the 60EFS macro can only be used by adding a 12mm extension tube (MkII) which gives stunning performance within a restricted range. The 100mm macro is stunning on FF underwater though.

Hi Hamish,

The differences at the camera level are:

Bigger files (duh)

Better image quality

Bigger viewfinder

Bigger screen

More AF sensors

No flash on the 5D

At the housing level they are both very similar. The viewfinder on the 5D is slightly better but a bit more difficult to use as you have to get your eye very close to see the while view. The 30D housings are a bit newer and have better innovations (like the control locations on the Aquatica housing are better for the 30D).

Wide angle, you can use the 17-40L instead of the 10-22 but there isn't really much difference in image quality between the two. Also you can use the 15mm fisheye as a real fisheye.

Cheers

James

Thanks James, that's pretty much what I thought, but good to get that confirmation.

Hamish.

If we talk about only underwater photography, is there really any reason to choose the 20/30D over 400D now that the 400D has the same AF unit as the 30D? I can't really think of any major differences between them in underwater use...

400D:

+ cheaper

+ smaller & lighter --> better chance of having a neutral rig

30D:

+rear control wheel (marginal '+' IMO)

+spot metering?

+5fps

+tiny bit bigger viewfinder, still a pain

Topside I'd choose the 10-series anytime over the 100-series, since the 350/400D simply don't fit in my hand, but I can't think of any compelling reason to dish out the extra cash for 10-series if I used it only UW.

//LN

The viewfinder on the 400D is tiny.

Cheers

James

Hamish,

Lauri has the main differences detailed except one. Cost.......Rebel XTi / 400D can be had for 60% of the cost of a 30D. Allowing you to buy TWO bodies!

Canon 400D (Rebel XTi) has same AF and Picture Styles, etc. as 30D. 3 versus 5 frames per second? Who cares?

Viewfinder differences as James and I have debated ad nauseum exist, but not to the extent many people think. I still see folks with the "bigger" viewfinders who can't frame worth a damn no matter what housing they own. Low volume mask and practice plus time underwater will make more of a difference in your photos.

I just came off a week using a friend's Canon 20D (supposedly a "bigger" viewfinder, too) and didn't feel any advantage from using my previous Rebel XT and soon XTi bodies. Many who lament the viewfinder issue have never even shot a Rebel XT or XTi underwater. Any system will require practice and some accomodation of technique.

Many dislike the smaller body of the Rebel XTi. I love the small size for traveling. Last year I put 10,000 clicks on each of two Rebel XT units, and they kept on going.

Your mileage may vary, though

dhaas

Up is image 'quality' and full frame format which is 'different' to 1.6x crop and 'different' to Nikon's 1.5x crop in much the same way that medium format film was/is different to 35mm. This said, unless you appreciate the differences then it might not be such a big deal.

I'm interested in seeing evidence that supports this claim. IQ differences among top dSLRs is incremental whereas medium format film offers substantial IQ benefits over 35mm. I'm really curious why you would claim otherwise. Can you point to tests that show that the 5D is substantially better than the D2x in IQ? Do these tests hold true in WA where the 5D has to deal with edge softness issues?

So my bottom line is that why everyone is fuzzing about Nikon D80 (and other Nikon) when Canon 30D/20D beats Nikon in noise hands down 6-0.

Ignoring that the D80 is a higher resolution camera than the 20D/30D, this review suggests that the D80 is not beaten in noise "hands down 6-0". Nevertheless, high ISO is generally not a priority underwater. Choosing a 30D against the D80 because you think ISO 1600 UW shooting is important is silly. You should be choosing a 5D or a 1D in that case.

The lens choices offered aren't a convincing argument, either, and I don't think you are going to make a compelling argument for one system over another based on a couple of lenses esp if what you choose is available on both mounts. If you are so undemanding as to need only a midrange zoom and the shortest macro lenses then either system will work fantastically.

Both manufacturers makes very good systems in the midrange and preferences for one system over another should come down to above water issues or housing choices. Having used both systems underwater, I don't find the choice between them at all clear.

So my bottom line is that why everyone is fuzzing about Nikon D80 (and other Nikon) when Canon 30D/20D beats Nikon in noise hands down 6-0.

And if somebody is interested of my UW needs: I will do macro with 1 small macrostrobe like Ikelite DS51. Wide angle I will be doing with Magic filters so I really need that ISO 1600. I only dive in tropical waters...

First, both the D80/20D/30D/400D can handle noise very well. INMO not that interesting for people who take pictures. Mostly intersting for people who ... compare noise. Second, there are tests contradicting what you claim. But they're just tests. More important is that I have seen great images taken with all cameras. So it is more down to ergonomics and economics, which one ise better for you.

If you're serious about shooting at 1600 ISO UW, I would consider to save for a full frame Canon camera, as they can show significantly better noise performance at high ISO levels. But even then, I'm not sure you can achive good results (at least not to most peoples eyes). If you are happy with the high ISO results you can achive with a DX-sensor or Canon APS-sensor, perhaps the D80 is better, beacuse you can go all the way to 3200?

/christian

The HI marking of the 20D/30D is also 3200 ISO.

Gerard

I'm interested in seeing evidence that supports this claim. IQ differences among top dSLRs is incremental whereas medium format film offers substantial IQ benefits over 35mm. I'm really curious why you would claim otherwise. Can you point to tests that show that the 5D is substantially better than the D2x in IQ? Do these tests hold true in WA where the 5D has to deal with edge softness issues?

My own experiece is based on my own perceptions backed by basic photo theory. I used to use Contax 645 and Nikon 35mm (but have shot on everything up to 6x12 and 5"x4" on Ebony) and both Nikon/Fuji 1.5x crop cameras Now I use Canon FF cameras (and a 1.6x crop 20D). I would actually place the files from Canon FFs as something of a midway between 645 and 35mm in that the image files are substantially better than anything off 35mm film but not quite as vibrant as good Velvia trannies from the Contax 645 - which probably represented a pinnacle optically and film flatness-wise. I still can't obtain as smooth tonality in blue skies using pola filters on the Canon FFs as from the Contax 645 due primarily to noise in the blue channel I suspect. But image tonality - especially in oof areas - is very smooth from my 1DS cameras - this is difficult to define in tests and anyway is pretty subjective. Its better than from the smaller format digitals but then you can only appreciate this if your techniques or style enables you to do so. Larger formats have differing characteristics in terms of tonality and depth-of-field parameters - and these can be argued about forever. Comparing a D2X and 5D is about subtle characteristics - perhaps my post should have said 'tonality' rather than quality, but add in DoF characteristics and optical availability and I used the encompassing word 'quality' albeit perhaps unfairly.

Many years ago I used to carry out MTF testing of 35mm camera lenses and my undergraduate project was a comparison of Leitz and Minolta lenses. This taught me that there is a great deal more to lens design and image production than figures can easily tell - they are a starting point. If I remember correctly the Leitz lenses exhibited better delineation of fine detail at the expense of overall contrast relative to the Minoltas but analyzing the numbers to show this was less easy than you might think.

Wide-angle design will no doubt change but again with the Canon FFs you simply have availability of lenses for which equivalents don't exist in the smaller formats (24/1.4L would require a 16mm f/1~1.2ish to provide similar results for example). Edge performance is important but isn't everything as I have discussed in other web fora many times. This is especially true underwater where domes limit edge definition anyway.

James made a point about the 400D having a small viewfinder. Interestingly I accompanied a friend to buy a new dSLR with no preconceptions. The choice came down to a Nikon D50 or D70 or the 400D and it was the 400D which won out because the viewfinder information was easier to see! Like everything else in life people have differing likes and dislikes (I'd have gone for a Nikon on viewfinder personally but there you go....).

Paul, there is no "basic photo theory" that suggests that FF sensors offer better IQ that cropped ones. Regarding your perceptions, I would suggest that those are influenced by your prejudices, not objective tests.

"Tonality" has become a buzzword for all the hoped-for differences in technologies that are difficult to realize in practice. Yes, tonality refers to something specific, but in digital sensors there is no tonality, there is only dynamic range, noise, and color filtration. All 35mm-based dSLRs offered today used 12 bit converters and therefore offer the same ceiling in dynamic range. With noise performance being so good at base ISOs there can be no appreciable difference in "tonality". Sensor size has absolutely nothing to do with this. You are not getting better tonality out of your FF sensor than others are getting with their cropped ones unless you are shooting everything at high ISO.

With the introduction of the 1D3 and its 14 bit converter, Canon was careful not make specific claims regarding noise performance and dynamic range. Instead, it said the extra bits would result in improved "tonality". Why did they say this? The extra bits allow the 1D3 to extend its dynamic range performance up to two additional stops at low ISO. It offers nothing at high ISO. The problem is that most images don't need and can't benefit from two more stops of DNR when 12 stops is already plenty. Because of that, Canon realizes that it may be hard to demonstrate the benefit of 14 bit converters so it uses the weasel-word "tonality" instead. Note that I'm not against 14 bit converters--quite the contrary. For a while, the 1D3 is likely to be the king of low ISO image quality yet it is a cropped sensor camera. When the 1Ds3 arrives, assuming it also gets 14 bit converters, it will likely retake that crown not because of FF but because it offers 2x the pixel count.

Paul, you use "tonality" in much the same way. You believe FF sensors are inherently better yet you can't point to anything specific to make your case so you resort to the intangible and unmeasurable. To add insult, you dismiss others by claiming their technique doesn't enable them to appreciate the differences. The real reason is that any inherent IQ differences are imaginary. Your acknowledgement that the differences between the 5D and D2x are subtle is proof that your imagined IQ benefits don't exist. There is ample proof that, at low ISOs, the D2x is certainly a match for the 5D regarding IQ. Even the contentious forums at dpreview largely recognize that.

UW photo pros can consider the use of wide primes whereas amateurs want and benefit from zooms. Canon has, to date, had no acceptable wide angle zoom for FF yet it offers arguably the best WA zoom for its cropped sensor cameras. There is simply no argument that shooting WA underwater is much more challenging with FF sensors and no one would dismiss soft edges as being a non-issue. Regarding macro, FF sensors require the use of 1.5x more magnification to shoot the equivalent subject. Depending on your subjects that may not be difficult, but a 60mm becomes a 100mm, a 100mm is now 150mm, and 150mm needs a teleconverter. FF sensors may or may not offer better IQ for macro but there's no doubt that they will require larger, heavier, more expensive lenses to shoot equivalent subjects.

I am not a FF detractor, I was once and still am an advocate, but with the benefits of FF come considerable liabilities and the end result you get underwater comes not just from your choice of sensor but also from your lenses, ports, housings and strobes. No one would sanely argue that FF bodies have a superior choice of lenses suitable for UW use, but if you are a photo pro with the ability to log sufficient hours underwater, FF may be a justifiable choice. If I were to go that route, it would be with a 1Ds2, not a 5D. I would want the extra resolution in exchange for the pain.

Getting back to the original claims, if ISO 1600 were really a high priority underwater (an odd choice) then the user should seriously consider a 5D. A 20D/30D would not be a compelling choice over a D80 for that. Likewise, there is no advantage for a Canon system over a Nikon for the choice of lenses listed either. Finally, if IQ were considered, a case could be made that the D80 is better than a 20D/30D.

Craig

Here is not the place to discuss the finer points of photo theory, but .....

First, if 'tonality' is not an issue on different digital sensors, why did medium format cameras produce better 'tonality' than 35mm on the same film stock? (Or waere all those MF photographers mislead?). Tonality may well have become a 'buzzword' but to me it has a clearly defined meaning, and better tonality indicates a smoother transition between dffering tones - and there are other causes beside sensor. (And theory does back this up, but here is NOT the place).

I am not in the habit of insulting readers of this forum (although I am happy to post strong views!) and whether you want better tonality or have other requirements is a more pertinent question. For myself, I like shooting with wide lighting and substantial oof background and tonality/gradation/colour transition is important to me because the oof background is well lit and intended to be a part of my images, but many people DO prefer harder lighting with greater depth of field, more in focus, etc., etc., so clearly a smaller format might be a better choice. Smaller formats DO have different characteristics and not all are suited to everyone. I suspect that anyone asking the question as to which to go for may not , inherently, appreciate these differences because they are asking the question (!) and it is all too easy to be swayed by techincal specification as opposed to understanding the differing qualities of each format in the final image.

Lastly, the www is a marvellous place but can perpetuate both myths and disinformation too easily. Tests and reports abound. Some are very good, others are dodgy to put it mildly. However, photography is fundamentally PRACTICAL and yes, you can believe what your eyes tell you (providing of course that they have been appropriately tested)! The final image is, after all, what it is all about.

Perhaps all those MF photographers were misled, but it is irrelevent as the characteristics of film in this instance don't translate to digital. Tonal gradations are limited by the ADC in a digital system. All current 35mm-based dSLRs, except for the upcoming 1D3, use 12 bit ADCs so their ultimate "tonality" is limited identically. MF digital backs typically have higher resolution ADCs and offer more dynamic range thus smoother tonal gradations.

It makes no sense whatsoever to observe that entirely different platforms with differing bodies, imager sizes, optics, and shooting techniques yield different results and therefore conclude that minor differences within a system will yield similar differences especially when the imager technology itself is fundamentally different! That's exactly what you have done. The systems you attribute differences to are heavily tested and compared and they do not exhibit the substantial differences you claim.

Regarding your like for oof areas in your images, I don't see that as being uncommon even if it is uncommon with UW wide angle. Macro photography frequently has large amounts of oof areas. I'd welcome any images that demonstrate that a 5D/1Ds/1Ds2 can deliver substantially smoother oof tonality than a cropped sensor can. We all know that larger sensors, as a practical matter, are capable of shallower DOF with existing lenses. If that is ultimately what drives your preference then I would not criticise your choice. It would be a far cry, however, from your original claim which I objected to:

Up is image 'quality' and full frame format which is 'different' to 1.6x crop and 'different' to Nikon's 1.5x crop in much the same way that medium format film was/is different to 35mm. This said, unless you appreciate the differences then it might not be such a big deal.

IQ and DOF control are entirely separate concerns.

Lastly, I agree that the internet is great at perpetuating myths. I feel I'm fighting one here. It is most important that an image pleases your eye but that's not to say that your eye is a good scientific measuring tool. Far from it. There are plenty of sites that attempt to be objective and others that are filled with errors resulting from prejudice. It's easy to tell them apart.

"Perhaps all those MF photographers were misled, but it is irrelevent as the characteristics of film in this instance don't translate to digital."

Curious. Why not? Its very odd that MF and 35mm used the same film yet exhibited differences and yet digital doesn't!!! Odd too that cutting out a 35mm transparency from a medium format slide never had quite the same feel to it as an original 35mm slide. Odd too that the images from my Contax 645 produced substantially better scans tonally than those from my 35mm Nikons and yet apparently FF Canon produces an image identical to that from cropped formats. Its somewhat intriguing don't you think???

I think that if you were to mount a lens on a FF body then a cropped body and examine the resulting file at 100% then they would (assuming the same sensor pixel size) appear prettywell identical. BUT of course this is not a valid comparison because in the real world the actual viewed images would be different as one would be cropped. In the real world different formats are used to capture similar image content by using different lenses and as a consequence the image 'quality' is different and this certainly includes tonality! This is true of FF and cropped sensors and the results ARE accordingly somewhat different.

Comparing like with like is a tricky task and to a degree somewhat fuitless. Analysis of results is time consuming but can be very useful at times. So to finish all I can say is that I personally prefer using a longer lens to cover a larger format to produce the images that I like and by so doing the tonality within them will show a 'different gradation' than those from a smaller format using a shorter lens to produce the 'same' image (or should I say an image with the same compositional content?). We could continue to engage in argument for ever but for me this topic has now ENDED!