I am looking to buy my first DSLR. I currently have a Panasonic FZ20 point and shoot camera. It does pretty well shooting outdoors but I won't shoot above ISO200 because 400 is very grainy. I am wanting something more versatile and professional.

Can someone more knowledgeable than me (which is almost everyone on this forum) tell me what I should be considering when comparing a used 20d and new 400d? They are similarly priced but it is difficult for me to distinguish all the pros and cons between them.

Thanks!

Oh, that's one that I've not answered before. Many times people have asked about the 30D and 400D but not going back to the 20D. I'm trying to remember the spec differences and I think the only real gains of the 20D is the ability to shoot at ISO3200 and 5fps. I would also say the 20D is a better handling camera (400D for me is too small).

I would be concerned how much use the 20D has had, as it is quite old now, so unless it is a Canon refurbished one with warranty then don't think I would risk it. The next important thing is to work out what glass to get..... trust me, you will never have all that you want so be warned it can get expensive!!

The 400D is a better camera on a features basis, particularly in regards to features that you'll actually use. It is a more modern camera that includes most of the features of the most recent Canon DSLRs. It should autofocus better than the 20D since it picked up the AF system of the 30D. The higher MP count can't hurt. The dust reduction system might be useful. It has a larger LCD.

Regarding the difference in size between the 20D and similar bodies as compared to the 400D and similar Rebel models, this is a very subjective thing. I currently shoot a larger full-frame DSLR, but I used to also shoot a Rebel. (A 350D) The fact is that some people in some circumstances prefer the smaller body. Having used both control systems I am convinced that the differences between them are overblown, and that there are certain situations in which the wheel-and-button system of the Rebels can actually be better.

Be aware that there are those on these forums who will automatically try to "up-sell" new DSLR buyers to cameras that have features they don't need.

Take care,

Dan

Thanks alot.. that's all very helpful for me to hear. I've always wanted a 20d.. but since it is similar in price USED to a new 400D, I'm just trying to see if I should reconsider! As far as camera size.. not an issue. My Panasonic is already big enough I don't take it to parties/casual events. I'll probably use the SLR for strictly "photography" and pick up a real small p&s cam for little casual events where I'm not concerned about having perfect photos.

Also as far as lenses. I am an amateur.. I was thinking maybe the 18-55 IS since it is really cheap and I hear it decent as far as kit lenses go. After that I thought I wouldn't mind getting a 35 or 50 or 85mm prime.. since they all can be found with large apertures for pretty cheap. I know they aren't amazing L lenses, but from reviews it sounds like they are all decent for beginners. I think I would like to have one of the primes just for the aperture being a lot larger than the kit, and I would think much more usable in low-light situations.

How much do you have to spend on then body? I would say, wait and see how the XSi (exercise? ) fares with the competition out there (especially with Nikon's equivalent). Wait a month until the XSi is out and see. For $800, it may be worth. The 40D will also come down in price, and we may even see it at under $900 in 2 months from now. us1photo.com has it for $1165, and I am sure you can apply a rebate to it too until mid later this year.

Once XSi comes out, you may go that route, or perhaps throw in a few extra $$$ and get the 40D if you like studier and more manly feeling camera body.

In regards to the lens - you do not need 10 lenses! As you get better and better with dSLR you may end up in time with a wide angle, another for your general walk-around, and a telephone lens. Macro is always nice if you like that, or perhaps use it also for portraits. Get a good lens from the start, and skip throwing money on so-so lenses.

Well.. ideally I'd like to spend only 800-900 for my first body and lens. That's why my first choices were the 400D or 20D, as I could get them in the low 500s and then spend a couple hundred on a lens to get started.

depending on the ergonomics you like better, ie. go hold the XTI and the 40D and see which you like better, a well taken care of used 20D will last you a while.

I got my 20D with 5500 actuation on it and its been perfect for the last 6 months.
i take care of my gear, and don't mishandle it, and i suspect it will last me long enough to have it as a backup to a future 40D that I'd love to own

I would agree that just holding each one in your hand can help: I have a 20D, and my friend a 400D. I've played with his, but just like the grip and feel and size of the 20D more...perhaps I'm just used to it. Still, they do feel quite different to hold and use. As pointed out, the 400D is a bit newer with a few more features, bells, whistles, but in general you'll get dynamite shots from either camera.

I think your impulse to get a cheaper body now and use some of your budget on lenses is a wise one, and I would recommend a cheapish zoom and a nice little prime. I think the 18-55 IS is (as you said) a good beginner's choice, and the 35 f/2 (a little more than $200) Canon makes is a great "normal" prime on either camera.

Just my 2 cents. Good luck, and welcome to the world of the DSLR.

I think there are pros and cons to either camera. The 20D has a bigger and brighter viewfinder. To me this is no small matter, as it affects virtually every shot. The 20D also has twice the frame rate and in general is a more responsive camera than the 400D. To me these features would matter more than the dust shaker and the extra megapixels of the 400D, but for others these factors might matter more.

For glass I agree that starting out with the 18-55mm f/3.5-4.5 IS and the 35mm f/2 is good way to go. I hope this helps.

I bought 20D as my first DSLR. Bought XT as back-up then sold XT and got XTi. Now I moved to FF(5D). I sold XTi and kept 20D to use with my 300mm. Now I thought about upgrading 20D to 40D for new features but decided not to.....

20D is a great camera for what you can get used these days. My 20D never failed me. Only one thing about 20D that I don't like is it's noise showing at ISO 1600 & up. But XTi is not any better at 1600 ISO neither. 20D was the choice for me to keep between two.

danmitchell wrote:
It should autofocus better than the 20D since it picked up the AF system of the 30D.

I could be wrong but I thought the 20D and 30D had the same AF system. Therefore the 400D and 20D should be the same too.

IRT The Topic: There's literally dozens of 400D versus 30D (very similar camera to the 20D) topics on the forum if you care to wade through the archives. Basically it boils down to personal preference. The best way to gauge would be to go and have a play with a 400D and a 40D in a shop.

Just bear in mind that the 20D has a lot smaller LCD. This might be an issue for a beginner or more casual photographer.

For what it's worth, after I had a play with various models I made my mind up fairly quickly that I wanted a 30D over a 350D or 400D. I've not regretted it.

EDIT: Oh and another vote for the 18-55 IS version as a starter lens. The 50 1.8 is also as cheap as chips and does magnificently for the price.

Your question sounds similar to what I asked couple of years back... my first digital camera was a Panasonic FZ10.. when I decided to upgrade to a DSLR, I wanted to buy a Canon 350D.. but I had the opportunity to hold both 20D and 350D at a store, and immediately i fell in love with the 20D.. to me, the look and feel, in addition to the features of the 20D were hard to pass and I ended up getting a 20D with 18-55 kit lens and a 50mm (I used this setup for about 6 months before adding more gear)...

I have also tried my friend's 400D and personally, I would go for a used minty 20D over a 400D..

Joe
-------------------
www.rain-drops.net

i recommend as a 1st lens a tammy 17-50 f/2.8

If you don't mind second hand then 20D or 30D is great.

As 450D is already out, then price of 400D will drop!

20D has already at rock bottom price for a cracking camera, so my bet is go for 20D and get as the best lens you can afford!

If you staying with 1.6 crop factor then I suggest 17-85mm is or 17-55 is if you can afford it, otherwise go for 28-135mm IS

Two further points.

1. From everything I hear it would be worth the small extra cost to get the new image-stabilized version of the kit lens. Not only is the IS feature useful, but all reports are that this lens is a better performer in terms of image quality as well. (Starting with the kit lens is a great approach - after you use it for awhile you'll have a much better idea of whether you need other lenses and specifically which lenses might be best for your purposes.)

2. If it is within your budget boundaries I'd wait to see what happens with the XSi as well. It will cost more when it first comes out, though it seems to be enough of a step up that it might be worth it. On the other hand, if you end up feeling that the XTi is still the right camera for you - and it could well be - the price for that camera will likely start to move lower at least a bit.

OK, one or two more... I sometimes seem people recommend a 28mm-XXXmm lens for these cameras. In general those are not the best lenses for crop sensor cameras like the Rebels. 28mm is barely a wide angle focal length at all on these bodies, so stick with something that goes to 17mm or 18mm unless you know from experience with crop sensor bodies that you do not like shooting wide angle.

Some caution is in order regarding the 17-85mm EFS lens. It can be a fine lens for certain purposes, but it only gains you a bit of reach over the 55mm, and at the expense of size, cost, and some image quality issues. If you are certain that you'll mostly produce small prints and web images and that you want to just put one lens on the camera and leave it there it _could_ be a good option, but be careful.

I agree with the "best lens you can afford" strategy, but with a very important qualification. You must also understand quite precisely which lens, exactly, is the right one for you. Buying the best version of the wrong lens is not a good strategy at all. This is precisely the reason to start with the kit lens - going in you do not have any idea what the right lens will be for your approach to photography, but the kit lens is an inexpensive way to get some experience under your belt so that you can soon begin to make intelligent decisions about what the "best" lens for you might be and invest accordingly.

Dan

You mentioned high iso capability.
The xxD series have good high iso capabilities compared to the xxxD. You may try to get a good deal on a 30D instead of the 20D, as the prices have come down a lot.

Heres a sample of 3200 ISO on a 30D

I had a very similar decision to make in November. I had a Panasonic FZ50, and grew quite annoyed at the lack of low-light quality, and was trying to decide between a used 20D and a new XTi. The bottom line is, they're both excellent cameras (if the used 20D is in good condition). Feature-wise, they're pretty similar. The XTi has that dust shaker, and a much bigger LCD. The 20D has a faster frame rate and better high-ISO performance. You can't go too far wrong with either one.

I ended up with the 20D, mostly because I liked the build quality so much better...the XTi felt like a toy to me.

With regard to glass, a lot of your choice depends on what you want to do. You said you were looking at the 18-55 IS. It's a decent lens, but also take a look at the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It's a little more expensive, but it's a better-quality lens, and the aperture is two stops bigger, which usually helps more than the IS does.

(I replaced my 18-55 IS with a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Everyone told me "28mm isn't wide enough for a crop body", but they were wrong It depends on your style of photography.)

adam613 wrote:
The 20D has a faster frame rate and better high-ISO performance.


Not my findings at all, I have found the 400D to be far less noisy and better at focusing in average light than the 20D

Speaking personally I sold my 20D for a 400D becasue it was smaller, had better image quality, better focusing, a bigger LCD, the info on the rear screen, anti-dust, a better positioned on off switch, and other bits and bobs.

However the 20D is better made, has the rear dial, a faster frame rate, a better viewfinder a more comfortable grip and other bits and bobs too.

I have found the 400D actually is more accurate at focusing and the image quality actually is better and for me, as my travel cam, the small size is great. If you put the grip on a 400D it makes a fab tiny dslr camera

However, I simply wouldn't buy a used dslr if I could afford a new one, so for me the choise is easy

David

Get the 350/XT to start out with...it's cheaper than both the 20D and 400 (and a bit larger than the latter) and you may find like many do that it is a fine camera adequate for your needs...you may end up upgrading to the xxD series, but if you're like me you'll keep the XT for your "walkaround" cam, keeping the xxD cam for explicit shoots this way they'll complement each other (as opposed to XT being an unsed backup)...and...both will last longer that way...

I think that its better to start with a XTi/450D just to be updated into the latest chipset and keep it for longest time there are several advantages on that chip than the oldest one that will keep you happy and confortable for long long time

I believe its all a matter of personal preference. A lot of people don't like the size of the viewfinder and the physical size of the Rebel series. I have never noticed. Maybe its that I'm still free from the temptations of the XXD and XD models, but I've used a Rebel G, Rebel K2, before moving to the Digital Rebel XT. I've had the latter for almost 4 years now and I find that I am constantly the limiting factor, not the camera. Basically, you can't go wrong. I know a lot of people here have purchased used cameras with great success, but as far as my nerves go, a body is something that I will not purchase used. Too many pieces, too many parts, too much that could be slightly off or broken without showing signs when you buy. Partly for that reason, but partly for reasons named above, I would take the 400D in your shoes. Granted I would wait until April to see if the price comes down any more as soon as the XSi comes out, but if you can't wait you certainly aren't getting a bad camera either way. Look were we all were 5 years ago...

dhphoto wrote:


Not my findings at all, I have found the 400D to be far less noisy and better at focusing in average light than the 20D


Are you shooting RAW or JPG?

I used to do night photography with an XT - you can't test low light performance much more than that, with exposures measured in minutes.

While people would _like_ to believe that the X0D models "blow away" the Rebels in low light performance, it just isn't so.

Dan

fugu wrote:
dhphoto wrote:


Not my findings at all, I have found the 400D to be far less noisy and better at focusing in average light than the 20D


Are you shooting RAW or JPG?

Usually RAW.

I shot some 1600 ISO shots at the Lion King show at Animal Kingdom using the 20D one year and the 400D the next year, both with the same lens and the 400D were vastly better - more sharp shots, less noise, better colour. Not scientific, but definitive enough for me.

Fantastic value the 400D IMHO

David