20D v. 30D v. 40D

[AggieHunter]

In my quest to buy a new camera, I've narrowed it down to Canon ("Buy what your friends shoot")... But I'm stuck again... I thought I'd post here to see other's opinion... Here's my argument w/ myeslf.

I would like the 40D b/c its the better of the 3 cameras and has many more features. However, as a beginner will I use enough of these features to justify having them? I can always get this one and "grow" into it, but the initial investment is higher.

The 20/30D isn't a bad camera by any means. There are a few people on here that shoot them, but most have upgraded to 40/5D. As a beginner, I think this camera may be a little easier to use, but will I quickly grow tired of it and want to upgrade to the 40D anyway? If I decide to go this route is the 30D that much better than the 20 to justify the cost increase? Also, if I go this route, I can probably make the move to purchase one sooner since the initial cost wont hurt as bad as the 40D... Then if I want to upgrade, I can do so later down the road (when the 40 is cheaper )


I was hoping I could get some of the 20D shooters to chime in and tell me their opinion on this camera... Or maybe even make me a really good deal on one that would make up my mind As a beginner, do you(yall) think I would be satisfied with this camera?

Also, I know this is only one little part of the whole picture (no pun intended), but for regular phography, does the 2.1 mp difference in the cameras make all that much difference?

Here are 2 websites I've been looking for comparisons.
20D v. 30D
30D v. 40D

[bowhuntertex]

I have a 30D that I am still trying to figure out all the features.....If you can afford it now I would go with 40D and grow into it.......

[Hawg]

I would also suggest going with the 40D. Prices seem to vary widely. Shop around and you can probably find a body only or a package comparable to the 30D. This site has the body for under $400, and the packages seem reasonable too.

[Shane]

Just get the 50D and be done with it. I sure want that one pretty bad.

I'd say get the best one in your price range, factoring in money set aside for a lens or three. Any of them are capable of taking great pictures, but more features are nice - even if you don't know how to use all of them at first. You'll be able to grow into it.

[Shadow]

I would go with the 40 if you can find one. If used scour all of Craigslist with craigspal, also be sure to check out Circuit City and not just one or two. I was able to find a 50d package with lens for $1K NIB.

[gspbrad]

Honestly, I think you're looking at this all wrong. Don't buy any of them. Buy an entry level Rebel 1st and spend the extra money on glass. Build your system around your glass not the body. You need to figure out what you plan on shooting. Does Canon have the lens packages that you need? If not, does another brand (Nikon, Sony, etc). Most people change out bodies every other year anyway.

I'm not as familar with Canon glass, but if you had the following lenses - you would be pretty well covered:

18-200 mm (Nikon has this in a single lens, not sure if Canon does?)
f/1.8 50 mm (f/1.4 is better, but I'm not sure it's worth the difference in price over the f/1.8)
External flash
70 -200 mm f/2.8

These lenses + flash would cover you for about 99.?? of the time.

You can add other specialty lenses later if you need them.

[mesquitecountry]

I had a 20D. Hated the small screen. I bought a 400D around 500. Love it.

I think Casey has/had a 20D.

[Shadow]

Honestly, I think you're looking at this all wrong. Don't buy any of them. Buy an entry level Rebel 1st and spend the extra money on glass. Build your system around your glass not the body. You need to figure out what you plan on shooting. Does Canon have the lens packages that you need? If not, does another brand (Nikon, Sony, etc). Most people change out bodies every other year anyway.

I'm not as familar with Canon glass, but if you had the following lenses - you would be pretty well covered:

18-200 mm (Nikon has this in a single lens, not sure if Canon does?)
f/1.8 50 mm (f/1.4 is better, but I'm not sure it's worth the difference in price over the f/1.8)
External flash
70 -200 mm f/2.8

These lenses + flash would cover you for about 99.?? of the time.

You can add other specialty lenses later if you need them.

Canon has all those lens and then some...The EF lens fit all the rebel and 20-50d cameras. LENS ARE EXPENSIVE! Craigs list is your friend in this respect, I picked up a Canon 70-300 F4-5.6 IS USM for $350...it's $700 +tax new. If going with Canon try to stick with USM lens...faster and much quiter!

My next lens is a 70-200 F2.8, just waiting on the right deal to come across as is the all round lens Canon 28-300 F3.5-5-6 IS USM and will be picking one of those up in the very near future.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=149

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=150

[AggieHunter]

I had a 20D. Hated the small screen. I bought a 400D around 500. Love it.

I think Casey has/had a 20D.

Thats one of my concerns w/ the 20D. Think I would want bigger. 1.8" is pretty small. You bought a 400D or 40D?

Buy an entry level Rebel 1st and spend the extra money on glass. Build your system around your glass not the body. Most people change out bodies every other year anyway.

This was also a thought. The more I thought about it though, If I buy a body I'm satisfied with, then instead of changing bodies, I can continue to grow in my lense selection... 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other i think.

[gspbrad]

This was also a thought. The more I thought about it though, If I buy a body I'm satisfied with, then instead of changing bodies, I can continue to grow in my lense selection... 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other i think.

I don't agree, but it's your money. Your body isn't much good without a lens. A quality lens and the right lens for the application makes up for a lot. Don't get caught up in mega pixels. More mega pixels, does not equal better photos. Maybe another way to look at it. Based on your admitted inexperience, how much better is your picture quality going to be with a 40D vs. a XSI? You need to learn composition, ISO, white balance, etc.

If you must have a Canon, you can buy an XSI w/two lenses; 18-55mm & 55-250mm for the same price as a 40D body only. These two lenses will cover about 90-95% of what you need. If you went w/the 40D, you would still have to buy a lens for it. The 40D is already outdated due to the 50D.

I think the best buy on the market right now (quality glass, good body, functional that you can grow into) is the D40 by Nikon w/two VR lenses:

http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/SLR1172.htm?bct=t13079503%3Bcislr-digital-cameras

You would have enough left over to buy a quality flash, tripod, SD cards, and the F/1.8 50mm lens. All of this will cover about 98% of your needs. All of this for the same money as a 40D. Wait about a year and upgrade to D90 body after you learn more and your photos improve. Plus the D90 will shoot circles around the 40D Canon.

One more take - imagine you want to start repairing cars. You need tools, right? You have 1K to get started. You know over time that you're going to add all types of tool, but you really want one of those top of the line tool boxes with wheels. If you buy the tool box, you can only afford 1 screwdriver. If you buy a less fancy (even smaller) tool box, you'll have enough money left over to buy, box wrenches, screwdrivers, socket set, allen wrenches, etc. How many cars can you repair or what will the quality of your repairs be with a fancy tool box and 1 screwdriver? Make sense?

Good luck!

[Casey]

I have a 20D (in addition to my 50D) and there isn't a thing wrong with that camera. The small screen never slowed me down. Once you figure out what you're doing, you should be able to get decent shots without the LCD.

For a beginner, all 3 of those units will far exceed the operator's knowledge.

If it were me, I would probably get the 30D since they can be had relatively inexpensively. Use the remaining cash to get better lenses. You can have all the body in the world, but if the image has to pass through a crappy lens to get to it, you won't ever get the most out of the camera.

If you know your budget, throw it out. I can suggest lenses to go with your 30D that will get you some nice results. If it has glass in it (scope, binoculars, lenses) you get what you pay for.

[Split_Brow]

I bought the 40D last week at best buy as a package deal...i went in to buy the 50D but they had too good of a sale going on with the 40D...Body, 28-135mm IS, 70-300mm IS and a 4GB CF card tax and all was $1800...was going to be nearly a grand more for that set up in the 50D...i LOVE it so far...next purchase is a good external flash...looking at the Canon 580...the big differences between the 50D and 40D are 5 more megapixels and a faster processor...i took pics of my nephew at his basketball game and was taking nearly 7 pictures a second...hope this helps...

[Nitro1970]

I'd rather skimp on the body and invest in glass. Whatever body you chose will not be worth very much in a couple of years anyway but he glass will still have value. If I'm not mistaken with the RebelXT first came out it was near 1K new, now check out the price of one.

Remember whatever your takin' pictures off HAS to go through the lens first and (IMO) has the most impact on how your pictures will be.

Of course the person behind the camera has EVERYTHING to do with it.

[Atfulldraw]

Shutter speed is also a factor here -- on the rebel line the fastest shutter speed is 1/4000

I'm not sure what the max is on the 20 D, but it sure sucks to need that 1/8000 and not have it.

That said, I love my 30D -- if it had live view, like the 40D, I wouldn't be thinking about trading it.

My 30D has been a great camera for the last two years. I don't really need an upgrade, I just want an upgrade.

[AtTheWall]

If I were you....I would jump on the 40D and not look back.