20D as point & shoot?

Something just occurred to me... I have an Olympus Camedia point &
shoot. (I'm really happy with the model that I have.) Now if I buy the
20D, will I be able to use that effectively as a point & shoot? I just
assumed no, because I have an 35mm slr that's about 25 years old that
cannot function effectively as a point & shoot.

If the 20D does work good as a point & shoot then I'll be able to sell
my Olympus to my brother (who also loves the camera).

What do you think?

Mike

 

If the settings in Auto is OK then it should, that is what Auto is for. If
you want to change any of the settings you can do this also.

 

Rob,

Yes you can 'point and shoot' with a 20D it has all the consumer zone stuff
built in (portrait, landscape, etc.) but why anyone would want to use such a
capable camera in such a limited way is beyond me (how much more can Av and
Sv be to get to grips with?)

Regards

DM

 

Absolutely. In fact, it will perform MUCH better than a P&S (POS?):
Shutter/AF "lag" is virtually non-existent and you can "switch away" from P&S
to more creative settings whenever you wish.

Perhaps your criteria are different from mine: My AE1 (1979) and T90 (1989)
served me well for P&S, even considering their manual focus.

You may start your negotiations. I am VERY pleased all aspects of my 20D.


JR

 

To get the most out of a 20D you really need to be aware of all the
setting. I tend to shoot in Av mode to get in the sweet spot of
whatever lens I am using, then watch the shutter speed and adjust the
ISO if needed.

I don't want the camera deciding for me the trade off between shutter
speed, aperture and ISO.

But if you really wanted to, sure you could use it in full auto mode
and it would work ok as a point and shoot. But there will be a number
of us that kind of cringe at the though of doing so.

Scott

 

yes, but watch out for Auto Focus which can give issues like choosing the
'wrong' point (ie a point you didn't want), not just on a 20D.

 

Thus, "Program" rather than "Automatic..."

 

also, If you want to replicate most point and shoot cameras you will
need a lens that offers 28-105mm actual which would be the Canon
17-85mm lens and then just set the 20D on P for program. The greatest
advantage besides image quality would be reduced shutter lag and
useable ISO settings to 1600 which really enhances ability to shoot in
low light.

Art

 

Yes, it works fine as a P&S. Also, the "P" mode (for Program) is sort of in
between and you might learn to like that mode. It's automatic but let's you
easily fiddle with ISO, focus points, aperture, etc. I sometimes switch to
the Sports mode when out looking for birds as they can kick up in a hurry.
It's a very quick way to boost the ISO, select continuous shooting and AI
servo focus, all at the same with just a flick of the dial. I fail to see
how some posters can bash the auto modes to the point where one might think
that they are totally useless. I wonder if some these folks ever take a
variety of shots. I mean, a studio photographer has a different agenda than
a general user!

 

Yes, it can (ofcourse) - but then why bother with "Auto" mode. The most auto
that I ever go on my 20D is Av or Tv. I cant imagine why you would want the
camera to decide the Aperture and Shutter. You probably think I sounds
sarcastic ( I dont mean to) - but after about a week of owning your 20D, you
will know what I am talking about. Also I recommend reading the following
short book:

"Understanding Exposure: How to Shoot Great Photographs with a Film or
Digital Camera (Updated Edition)"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...42/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/102-4076148-6590562


From my point of view, the _only_ purpose of a P&S (if you already have
DSLR) would be compactness. Its worth keeping around for those situations
where you cannot lug around your gear.

 

Just FYI, a good alternative to "Sports mode" is to put the camera in
apeture priority and set it to the widest apeture your lens has, you will
automatically get the highest shutter speed at your selected ISO and retain
the ability to overide the setting the camera chooses.
Two thoughts about using the 20D as a P&S camera: 1) The digital rebel is
approx $500 cheaper if you are merely looking to improve upon a consumer P&S
and 2) depending on the size of your current P&S you might want to save it
as a conveniance camera. I love my 20D, but for some ocaisions I take my
Sony Cybershot for conveniance. No comparison when it comes to image
quality, but much easier on the neck to carry, especially in close quarters
(Partys, public transportation, etc.).

My 2 cents.

 

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Or 18-55 kit lens...the 17-85 IS replicates the 28-135 IS.

 

The usual 'sports' mode is speed priority and let the camera select
aperture. For the simple reason that sports editors prefer sharp frozen
action shots. So higher ISO setting if required, shutter speeds in the
1/250 and faster.
Better yet, if the lighting is not shifting, determine the manual
setting (by meter or chimping) and set that and leave it. Consistenct
in expsoure is welcome too.

 

Absolutely! Canon's algorithms, after over 25 years of experience, are
extremely sophisticated. The various automatic basic zone modes do an
excellent job of selecting the appropriate shutter speed and aperture under
most conditions.

 

It has a mode that you could set, and hand it to somebody's grandmother,
sure. It's even very obvious, a nice green square. Considering how
versatile this camera is, it's really cool that it has this "auto" of an
auto setting.

 

The ergonomics of the controls for this type of thing is also what makes
the 20D so much better than the Rebel XT. $500 better? For me there
was no contest. The location of the controls stole the show.

 

I found myself compelled to buy a Powershot A85 along with my 20D.

I really like that the Powershot has the same basic Canon architecture.
It makes a nice complement, IMHO.

 

I don't get this either. But there are situations where you need to
hand the camera to someone, and let them take a picture with it. And
what's strange about this, well, my Dad had a Rollei. My Mom had an
Argus C-3. Some of my grand-parents had cameras. At least one of my
grand parents had a 4x5 camera at some point and enough of a darkroom to
make contact prints. And none of these people even passingly considered
themselves to be photographers, that was just life.

Okay, so everybody else probably had Brownies. But even some of those
had aperture control, didn't they?

I've played with auto mode a bit on my 20D just to get a feel for the
decisions the meter makes.

 

I agree. I have the G2 and my 300d, but I would really rather have
the A85 rather than the G2. I've recommended A85 to several
friends, and my 70 year old mother friggin LOVES the thing.

Canon electronics, fast lens, it's just a joyful little camera.

The irony is that to get available light pictures that an A85 can get
with a DSLR, you've gotta spend some bucks because you need to get
down to that fast lens they put on the A85 and G series stuff.

With my 550EX flash on board, the G2 routinely takes better shots
than my 300D. The only real downside is that you don't have very
precise control over the focus on the G2, and the shutter lag blows.

Best Regards,

 

This is not a flame, but merely a question which may generate some useful
dialog. Assuming an average scene where you want a normal exposure, good
depth of field and a shutter speed high enough to eliminate blur caused by
camera movement, why not trust the Canon electronics, honed since the
introduction of the A-1 in 1978, make the proper decision?

Used and liked your Mom's camera, it was called "the brick" for good and
many reasons. Never liked, and still don't, TLRs such as your Dad's Rollei.

I used a Crown Graphic for sports photography in high school, understand and
anticipate the moment, a long way from a 5fps burst. Now days, everyone who
buys an SLR believes themselves to be a photographer, whatever that is,
while they blissfully record family photo ops and bird pictures.

Two, sometimes even three, selections.

And how did the 20D's decisions vary from yours in full auto? Would
choosing a more appropriate Image Zone mode have resulted in the same choice
that you would have made? If you are not trusting the Canon's meter, how
are you determining exposure? Again, not a flame, but a legitimate enquiry
as to how those that downplay auto modes believe they obtain a better
exposure than the camera's electronics.