StinkyDaddy wrote:
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 30d and a 40d. To me the files have a different feel and initially I preferred the 30d files they seem richer to me however the 40d is faster in every respect and the ai focus is a real step forward.I feel the 40D over exposes by almost 1/3 compared to my 30d and I now process accordingly. In my opinion the 30d still rocks but if cash wasn't a problem id get a 40d in some ways. The extra $ could easily be justified depending on your needs....
Yep... I have started with a 20D and I am still impressed by the picture I have done with it before having upgrading to the 5D which was a real upgrade, FF versus APS... Some people are more tech oriented than photo oriented, and will always glorify a cam with new gadgets, as dust cleaner, bigger screen, more fps, etc, as the 40D. But when I see pix form the 40D (new tech), and the one produced by the 5D (socalled old tech), the old tech still win.... So the real upg to the Rebel is the 20D, as the 40D is the upg for the 20D , and like the 5D is the UPG for the 40D, and the 1DsII for the 5D, and the MarkIII for the rest of the gang..... Period. So nothing to laugh about upgding a Rebel to a 20D (actually the 40D is closer form the 20D than the 40D from the 5D...). And spending the difference in money to more good lenses sounds smarter for me.... Usually, that the photographer and the lens who produce a good photo, less the camera...
IMO, the 20d and 30d are way more camera than most non-pros will ever need. Most hobby shooters I know who have those bodies don't take them out of P mode or the other auto modes.
The 20D is a fantastic camera.. my friend has a 40D, and I played with it a bit. Sure the AF is a bit snappier, the files might be a little nicer, the viewfinder is a lot nicer, and the screen is big.. but none of those are a deal breaker. My 20D can still put out super 16x24in prints from iso 1600... I don't need much more, few people do..
I don't think I'll ever upgrade to a new XXD body, better to save that money for a 1 series, the 20D does everything it should IMO.
I found that price wise I got a better deal on a used 20D than on anything else I could find. It takes pictures that are MORE than adequate for my use and allowed me to buy some better equipment on my limited budget.
as the user in the first response said, that he paid the balance of $200 to go from an XT to a 20d. one must apply a value judgment to see if that makes sense. for one person, $200 isn't much but for another it's a lot of money. and is that monetary delta worth the features that you're getting? thus, this whole debate really does center around budgetary matters. some folks out there are looking for the most bang for the buck...
My guess is that there are still people out there making money with their 20 and 30 Ds. You don't have to have a 1 series to make money in this bidness.
I have a 20D and a 40D. I still use my 20D a lot. The 20D for my everyday stuff is great, smaller files (obviously, only 8mpix compared to 10mpix) and just as good images.
Definitely still relevant...I use one for newspaper work, and as a backup...used it today because I still have the 18-55 kit lens, and I don't have anything that wide in my EF mount lenses...
I upgraded from 300D to 20D in December 2005. From then on, Canon has not made a camera that make me feel the urge to upgrade. From my point of view, 30D/40D are in the same level of 20D with minimal enhancement, and 5D is still not a mature product. So I upgraded my complete line of lens, and am still waiting for a $1k FF DSLR. :-)
One photographer I know still using his 20D(main) and 10D (back-up/second camera) and he is still keep making very nice photos.
When I asked him why he didnt "upgrade" them, he said because they are still working, both are good cameras, he has no problem on them and the value is very good.
They are cheap enough so he is not worry too much if he lose them or it got stolen.
He is not hesitate to use them in any location because if it breaks/stolen/dropped, etc, he can get another one easily. He said he can keep buying the same model in the used market since there are lots of it with good price.
Also he said DSLR is like computer, you cant keeping up with them, they have the new one every 1-2 years.
So the best way to use them is find the right camera for you and use it till it falling apart.
I think his reason makes sense, so I think I will do the same thing, I will find the right camera (prolly the 5D) and keep using it for long enough time.
I have a 20D as a backup/compact camera. For the past two years I've been shooting mainly with a 5D and then a 1Ds3.
Given that people tend to be dismissive of the 20D in comparison with the 5D and the pro bodies, I'm always startled by the quality I get out of raw files shot with the 20D. Only the seriously anal-retentive could knock it.
John Power wrote:
My guess is that there are still people out there making money with their 20 and 30 Ds. You don't have to have a 1 series to make money in this bidness.
I think my point to the OP was that I think its foolish for someone who is attempting to upgrade from a 10D or one of the Rebel's to spend $600+ for a USED 20D or 30D when you can get a brand new 40D for a couple hundred dollars more
Seriously, especially considering that most of these cameras are likely WAY up there in actuations and the feature set of the 40D is quite a upgrade from either one of the other xxD cameras. Plus, I like to think of resale value. In 2 years, I would venture to guess the 20/30D will be selling for little to nothing, but the 40D will still be worth something. The extra couple hundred spend now will pay off in the future.
May 29, 2008 at 02:24 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
There certainly are reasons to want a 40D over a 30D or 20D. It has some nice features (larger brighter viewfinder, better autofocus system, etc.) that the other cameras don't, but doing so for resale value to me doesn't make much sense to me. Buying new is going to result in more depreciation than buying used. The 20Ds and 30Ds don't have much room to drop, but 2 years from now after the 50D has come out and the 60D (or whatever these cameras are called) is about to come out the 40D will have lost a lot of its value. I agree that buying used with high actuations may be not be the best deal. Just like buying cars, however, where buying a quality used care with low miles can be an excellent deal, buying a quality used camera with low actuations can be an excellent deal, and just as buying a new car is fun and has it perks, buying a a new camera has its advantages, but reducing depreciation is not one of them.
Right now, you can pay roughly 30% more and get a brand new camera with better features than a 1-3 year old body of unknown quality. The 20/30D are overpriced at this point, IMHO, I think anyone paying $600 or more for a used 20/30D is getting ripped off. Especially for a 20D, even though they are pretty much the same camera, capability wise. I guess if you could find a new or very low actuation mint 30D for ~$600, it wouldnt be too bad, but I see these things go for well north of $600 for just the body, here and on places like ebay and craigslist and I just scratch my head. I just think right now considering the outrageous prices people are expecting for 20/30D's, the 40D is a bargain. And yes (although it wasnt my primary point) it will be worth SOMETHING in 2-3 years (likely as overpriced as the 30D's are now) whereas the 20/30D's are going to be in the sub $200 range, or maybe lower and worn out.
Interesting.