I just read, in the Buy & Sell forum, an ad stating that someone was upgrading their XT system to a Canon 20D. Hmmm.
As I think about it, I see lots of people buying and selling 20D and 30D systems, most north of the $500 mark.
Does it make sense (for any reason other than budgetary) to buy old technology like this?
Is it me or is just crazy to plunk down over $500 to $700 for a 20D or 30D when a brand spanking new 40D can be found from a reputable dealer for under $1k?
Edited on May 27, 2008 at 02:58 PM
May 27, 2008 at 02:58 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I am one those people that upgraded a XT to a 20D in the last little while. I am quite happy with the move. The upgrade cost me about $200 (new price of 20D - resale price of the XT). For that $200 I got a camera with a much improved autofocus system, a noticeably more responsive camera with double the frame rate, a much brighter viewfinder, a larger camera that fits in my hands better and I really like 2 dials to control the shooting. For me this was easily worth $200. I also plan to complement the 20D with a 5D by the end of the summer and I like that the controls, batteries, and remote release for the 2 cameras are the same. I wish I had money to upgrade to a 40D plus a 5D, but by saving money and only getting the 20D now, I am pretty sure I will have enough for a 5D later.
Edited by Steve Spencer on May 27, 2008 at 03:06 PM GMT
I hope so. I have a 30D being delivered tomorrow and you can still buy 'em new I believe. I am going to hang a Tamron 17-50 on this and use it for trips and other times I don't want to drag a big rig with me. Plus if someone steals it, oh well...
Edited by John Power on May 27, 2008 at 03:08 PM GMT
John Power wrote:
I hope so. I have a 30D being delivered tomorrow and you can still buy 'em new I believe. I am going to hang a Tamron 17-50 on this and use it for trips and other times I don't want to drag a big rig with me. Plus if someone steals it, oh well...
Edited by John Power on May 27, 2008 at 03:08 PM GMT
Ahh, so, sounds like lots of folks buy these as a second or third camera where the 40D would be overkill.
I just received my refurbished 30D. Cost me about $550 including shipping, and I'm hoping to sell my XT + 18-55mm and the accessories that won't fit the 30D (batteries, remote shutter cable, case) for $400-450.
The upgrade is easily worth $100-150 for all the reasons Steve mentioned. Sure, I would rather have a 40D. But the upgrade cost there would have been more like $500, well more than 3x the cost of the upgrade to the 30D. I'll use that on a 70-200 thank you very much.
Obviously, everyone's situation is different. If I already had a full complement of glass, then maybe I would have waited until I had the funds for a 40D.
Edited by ScooberJake on May 27, 2008 at 08:39 PM GMT
Edited by ScooberJake on May 27, 2008 at 08:40 PM GMT
The 20D and 30D are fine cameras, and will continue to be fine cameras regardless of whatever else becomes available. I recently sold my two 30D's to help pay for two 1DII's that I "upgraded" to, but my venerable 20D still gets lots of action. I'll be flying to Ottawa this Friday for my sister's surprise 50th (don't tell her!), and I'm travelling light: 20D, 5D, 24/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.4 & 135/2.
I went out shooting birds last weekend with the 20D and the 300 ƒ4 L IS. I left the 5D at home. It's still the camera I choose if I need a little extra reach.
Edited by Ronan O Keeffe on May 27, 2008 at 08:28 PM GMT
My 30D is a fantastic camera, and it gets me the shots I need. I really don't feel much of a pull to upgrade to anything right now. I wouldn't mind having a full frame setup, but honestly, my crop lenses are so good that upgrading to FF with similar quality would be very costly. I plan on keeping my 30D until it breaks.
I use a 20D every day. I'm still amazed by what it will do.
I've been tempted by the price of the 40D now, but I just can't bring myself to part with the cash.
I have a 20D and whilst it may be as you put it 'old technology' it still does the job.
Is it relevant you ask...well I imagine every 20D owner would say yes.
Put it this way I have 2 computers at home, one is 12 months old and one is 12 years old, if I wish to type a letter to anyone they both do the job, in the same time and to the same standard.
Another valid point I feel needs to be made here and its this: There are Canon Pro cameras and Canon Amateur/Hobby/Keen Photographer cameras.
The 20D is in the latter class as is the 40D...is it an advance in technology? YES is it an upgrade to discard a fully fuctional 20D and move to a 30D or 40D? In my opinion the difference in IQ etc for an amateur the answer would have to be NO.
Chasing the market hype about technology is not what photography at any level is about. To move to get a marked improvement from a fully functioning 20D the leap should be to the 5D minimum....$$$$. The 20D is relevant as a good solid piece of kit so long as it yields good results...could be 10 years before it gives trouble.
I did some serious pixel-peeping this weekend because I was thinking that one of my lenses was mis-calibrated. I had a borrowed 20D, plus my own 30D and XTi, and took the same test pics on all three. The 30D and XTi were better, but not by much, and it took 300% and higher enlargement to see the differences. The 20D and 30D both have problems handling big blobs of bright red; it comes out a bit oversaturated. The XTi, on the other hand, balances all colors beautifully. The 30D is the most low-noise, with the XTi a close second, and the 20D not very far behind. The detail resolution on the XTi is great, with the 30D and 20D close runners-up. If I weren't looking for differences I doubt I was have seen any.
Like a lot of folks, I'm curious about full-frame cameras, so one of these days I'm going to rent a 5D and see what it can do.
These are great cameras, and when they are paired with quality lenses and a bit of skill you're going to get great-quality photos. This is amazing stuff. I grew up using a black-and-white darkroom, and color processing was something you sent to a lab. I like this digital world.
I would still recommend both the 20D and 30D to people.
I think the 20D is a breakthrough camera. The first, fully capable amatuer D-slr which wasnt made from plastic. The slow response of the 10D is an absolute show stopper in my opinion.
For $500 you can buy an almost new 20D capable of exhibition quality prints to 18x12. Compare that to the 40D which costs twice as much yet offers a minute image quality advantage. It is clear that if you shoot sports, protraits, weddings etc then the 40D is a beter bet. If you are a landscape photographer or just need a cheap but good 2nd camera, the 20D is the way to go.
Even with the rebate a new 40D is going $950, for a student or other very budget aware person a the step down to $450 for a 20D makes a big difference. And it was, as Alex said, a breakthrough camera. In skilled hands the IQ is very nice.
Jeez, how did we ever manage to survive before the 40d People buy the 20d now for the same reason people bought them new so many years ago: they are great cameras.
I have made 20x30 prints from a 20D that look terrific. It is my second camera now, as I shoot a 5D primarily now, but the crop factor still comes in handy, and gives me two lenses for the price of one. I still use the 20D as a primary for sports where I am shooting at 800 ISO and under.
there really isnt much difference between the 30d and 40d. mostly bells and whistles.
you would be hard pressed to tell the difference of a 30d and 40d with the same settings,same shot,same lens. when you look at an 8x10. I would love to get a FF,
but people have different budgets and there is still a need for low end, mid level, and upper level, equiptment...notice I didnt say PRO
Buying a used 20D vs. the then-new 40D allowed me to allocate the hundreds saved toward quality lenses that I otherwise wouldn't have been able to fit into my budget. I've yet to run into a situation where the camera's capability was the weak link (it's almost always me) ;-)
