I switched from Nikon when I went digital because the camera I
examined when I was deciding seemed to offer many more customization
options than the D100 I had already used.
In addition, the Auto WB on the Canon seemed to give me accurate
color outdoors while the Nikon WB required incessant calibrating.
Although the colors are flat in the RAW files I get now, I have
learned how to tweak them in ACR for the Velvia-like intensity which
is the stock-in-trade of landscape photography. I rarely need to
correct the color temp in my captures, whether they're under
incandescent/fluorescent light (as in the pic I put in the gallery
last week) or "daylight", when I open the RAW files. Saves lots of
time.
The 10D has some characteristics which have been abandoned, like the
1.5 second lag time between switching the camera on and when the LCD
screen comes up, and the jpeg embedded in the RAW file, which can
only be extracted with the Canon software. The 20D has one
characteristic which I don't care for at all - the mount is designed
for Canon's new line of lenses which are tailored to the smaller
sensor, and some of those lenses are not backwards compatible. But
all the older Canon lenses will mount on the 20D.
Something I don't like about my 10D is that the viewfinder is nowhere
near 100%, it must be something like 92%. Careful composing in the
viewfinder turns out to have stuff in it I couldn't see. But for
$650-$700 on eBay at present I would not be unhappy if all I could
afford was a second 10D body.
Canon Pro glass is right up there at the top of the heap and I
recommend sticking with it. Although Tokina is highly regarded, my
experience is that the best EOM lenses are actually the best lenses.
--
Emily L. Ferguson
mailto:elf@xxxxxxxx
508-563-6822
New England landscapes, wooden boats and races, press photography
http://www.vsu.cape.com/~elf/
