lindabrowne wrote:
Buy the 20d now if you can't afford the 40d. Don't wait. I'm pretty sure the "two is one and one is none" quote came from Evan. Wise words.
Not good at high ISO's, imo, but it could be me missing my exposures more than the equipment. If the 20d is all you can manage right now, buy it, but test it well and be aware of what it can and cannot do. If you can swing the 40d, go for it. It'd be a nice addition to your 5d's.
My 40d wouldn't recover from an error 99 at a wedding in May. Hadn't been dropped, had a Canon lens on it, no previous problems -- it just decided to stop working. This past Saturday I dropped my 20d/70-200 f/2.8 non IS combo. A hard drop. Turned it off, popped out the battery and replaced it, turned it on and no problems whatsoever. I know it's a crap shoot as to what these lower end bodies will handle, but I've heard a lot more about error 99's on the 40d's than 20d's. YMMV of course!!
i used the 20D much of last year-NOT good at high iso-it's a competent camera but i'd say AT LEAST spring for a 30D if you can-if you have approx. $700, then get the 40D-IQ is noticeable IMHO
besides IQ and better features and larger LCD, the 40D has much better AF than the 20D/30D and for me, that's very important
economics will decide the rest but comparing those cameras, that's my thought
You can grab a 20D for about $350 these days, about $475 for a 30D, or $675ish for a 40D. Normally, I would say get a 30D - the handful of extra options (Larger screen, spot metering, RGB histogram) are worth the money, however, being that it appears the 20D is going to be a purely intermediary camera for you, get the 20D, hold on to it for a couple months, and grab a 40D when you're good and ready.
mineymole wrote:
Do you know if the 20D handles noise well?
Compared to a 5D? No.
But for an affordable solution to your desire for triple redundancy, it'll do the job. Just use the lowest ISO setting that'll meet your needs, avoid harsh contrast, etc.
I'vr had my 20D for 3 1/2 years now, and although I'd love to get a newer body, I can wait. The 20D is doing fine.
lindabrowne wrote:
My 40d wouldn't recover from an error 99 at a wedding in May. Hadn't been dropped, had a Canon lens on it, no previous problems -- it just decided to stop working. This past Saturday I dropped my 20d/70-200 f/2.8 non IS combo. A hard drop. Turned it off, popped out the battery and replaced it, turned it on and no problems whatsoever. I know it's a crap shoot as to what these lower end bodies will handle, but I've heard a lot more about error 99's on the 40d's than 20d's. YMMV of course!! :D
FYI:
Error 99 typically caused by dirty connections or mis-alignment with your lens. Grab an eraser (different brands for different countries - the white puppies) and give the connections a clean/rub (yes of course, beware of gunk falling into the body, blow it out afterwards) and you'll be fixed.
It's a Canon recommended fix. It happened to me once on my 40D and never again after cleaning.
plus the menuing system is much different on the 1D - as a backup on the fly, you want something that you can just grab and go - and the 1D won't do that for you.
I still have my aging 10D as my third/backup body. I still use it for a lot out stuff outside events, and it's still a great camera. It's RAW files are more like sRAW today . It's colors are more accurate than my 40D though. High ISO is...well, not as good as today's bodies, but it's not as bad as you'd think but getting the exposure spot on is critical. There's no room to boost it in post without an explosion of noise. I bought it new (my first DSLR actually) so I could use it blindfolded if I had to. It's only real downside is it's so slooooooooow.
If you're just looking for the redundancy of a third body, I wouldn't be afraid of a 20 or 30D. Whatever you get, just be sure to use it enough that you're familiar with the controls before you actually need it.
A third body backup is not something worth spending a ton of money on. Don't overextend yourself and spend more than you should on a body that is likely going to depreciate rapidly.
The 20D is a capable body for what it is and an absolute steal at the price they are currently selling for.
mineymole wrote:
I have two 5D's and am thinking that I should have a third backup camera after reading some of your horror stories.
I don't have much to spend right now, so I'm thinking about buying a lightly used 20D.
I'd love to hear if you all think that is a wise choice or if I should wait until I can afford to buy a used 40D... etc.
If you can afford the 30D you may find the larger screen and the spot meter to be useful, also the ISO in viewfinder... it think the 20D doesn't do that at all (the 30D shows it when you're changing it).
There are certainly good reasons to go with the 40D rather than the 20D ... AF being one, the custom modes being another, the brighter larger viewfinder being a third.
Having owned a 20D and now owning a 40D (as well as a 5D and a 30D) I can honestly say that:
1. The IQ difference between the 40D and the 20D is minute under real world circumstances. The difference between the 5D and either camera is much larger
2. The button layout is virtually identical between the 20D/30D and the 5D ... not so with the 40D. Someone at Canon needs to be taken out back and shot in the kneecaps.
Bottom line.. if you can live without the higher focusing performance (probably higher than the 5D as well) of the 40D I would definitelly go for the 30 or 20 and save some bux.
Screen on the 20 is really small... and lack of spotmeter can be a pain if you use that at times (I do) so 30D is definitelly recommended.
