20D VS 40D? Anyone got hands on experience of both?

glowie

Hey all,

A while ago on here, I was asking about the 7D. Was planning on going all out, nWo style, and picking it up.

After a lot of thought, i decided that I'd be better off upgrading my lens selection and using the money to move away from my Olympus stuff to try and stick entirely with one brand.


So, as I currently try to sell my Olympus E-420, I still find myself on the lookout for second Canon body. I've only ever owned one Canon body, a 20D, which I picked up off boardsie DKMan around January last year. I've loved the camera since, and we've shared many nights of passion together.


So, I've started moving on with photography, and have found myself taking posed photos of people in pubs and such at the weekends. Prior to this, I was doing landscape/light trails/etc. for my own enjoyment.

However, now that I'm taking a lot of photos of people out and about, I find that I'm a little peeved at the 20D's 1.8" LCD. For some reason, when I zoom on the image on the 20D, it looks soft, even if the photo is razor sharp, it'll tend to still look soft on the screen (until I get it to a PC and view it properly). It's also a tad annoying when people want to see the phoro and the screen is tiny.


This leads me to think that perhaps the 40D is a better camera to buy next. The improved screen size is one of a small number of things I'm thinking about.

Considering it's a much newer camera (relatively speaking, of course), I assumed it's ISO performance, Image quality, yada yada, would be significantly better than the 20D.

Then, however, I read this post on the "Photography on the Net" Forums;

glowie wrote: »

20D still beats the 5D and 40D in IQ.

andy41 wrote: »

I completely agree having just bought a 40D, I wanted the high frame rate, spot meter and increased resolution but wasn't banking on the crap lcd which i can nolonger judge my shots on.
On close inspection the 20D IQ outshines at anything over iso 200 by miles. I will be selling the 40D and won't be considering upgrade again for a while.

I thinck all the reviews of the 40D have grossly overrated it's IQ, if you doubt this have close look at 100% crops of 20D + 40D Images Taken Of The Same Image Under The Same Conditions At iso 400 upwards.

The Noise is not as well controlled at all.

I have blind tested these on quite a few friends and family Just asking which image they prefered and without fail they picked the 20D shots.

So i will Be Sticking With It.

From: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=513265&highlight=17-85&page=4



And it has me a little confused. I'm not entirely sure what to think now. Judging from those posts, It would seem the 40D doesn't exactly outshine the 20D as much as I'd have liked it to.


Now, a 20D can be picked up much cheaper than the 40D, and I'm not exactly rolling in money, so what I'm trying to work out is, would it be best for me to just get another 20D, instead of spending the additional money on a 40D?

The LCD thus far, has been really my only big issue with the 20D, but I'm not sure the price difference makes it worth the additional cost?


Just wondering if anyone has any opinion at all? Preferably anyone who would happen to have used both at some point? (ie; i don't want "feature comparisons" that I could just as easily get by comparing on DPReview).


Cheers guys


EDIT: I have read that the Autofocus is improved noticeably on the 40D. I am curious though, how does that work? I assumed AF accuracy was down to the camera and AF speed was a property of the lens. How does AF get improved? I tend to only really use the centre focus point...

Borderfox

The screen on the 40d is larger but has the same amount of pixels as the smaller one so the only improvement is in size. why not get a 30d? same sensor but slightly larger screen, second hand price should be very similar to the 20d. I had a 40d and the at was no better than the 20d/30d

FoxT

I have a 40D, but have never used the 20D or 30D.

The screen on the 40D is just OK. If you zoom in it is good for Manual focus in live view mode - and for chimping it is alright - but don't rely on it for making a detailed assessment of either IQ or exposure - You MUST use the histogram for exposure ( and even that is a bit hard to read sometimes...)

ISO performance gets a bit slushy above ISO 400. You can get OK results at ISO 800 , especially if you 'expose to the right' a bit - but beyond ISO 800 the keeper rate plummets.

Regarding AF - I have no idea if the 'cross-type' AF sensor is a big improvement or not. I do know that the AF works well with any of the lenses I have tried, especially f/2.8 or wider.


Also the 40D has 10Mp instead of 8 or so - but I suspect the difference there is academic.

I think that used, the 30D is about 30% cheaper? But 30Ds are getting old now , as well.

I guess all of this is a long way of saying - No huge diff (live view?) between the 40D & 30D, but the 30Ds are older... If I wanted a 2nd body I'd be quite happy to buy either a 30D or a 40D, depending on price,condition etc.

Borderfox

I know you mention it above but have a look at the 5dmk1 for people shots, iso handling is excellent (distance between pixels largest in class) larger viewfinder, full frame etc

swingking

I have a 20d and I upgraded to a 40D. I wasn't really impressed with the benefits of the upgrade so sold that and am still using the 20D. The only thing annoying about the 20d is the ISO increments. you either use ISO 400 or ISO 800. There's nothing in between which is a real pain

Borderfox

30d introduced 1/3 stops in the iso

I'd say the going rate for a 20D is about €200-€230, based on what I paid and the average eBay price that pops up. 30D Seems to jump up to the 300-400 range, and the 40D to the 450-550 range.

So there's a fair price saving to be had by sticking with the 20D. I think I'm just gonna stick with it at this stage, to be honest. I'd have thought that the 40D, being significantly newer than the 20D, would be a generously better camera.

It seems to be about the same, with the exception of the screen size, and as much as I'd like a bigger screen, I don't think it's worth the additional cost.

FoxT

I find the 40D screen is adequate, but not great. I bought the 40D at the time for its frame rate as I have used mine a lot for soccer games.

A nicer (bigger and/or more dots) scrren would be nice, but not worth a few 00s IMO!

Cheers, FoxT

Thecageyone

I know cost is a big issue here, I know that feeling! But if you were to wait a while and keep saving, you might be better to get one of the latest models. Like the 1100D it'll have a much better LCD, a better sensor, better image quality and you'll have warranty and resale value.

Paulw

I moved from a 20D to a 40D. The step was a fair bit at that stage.

But now, you'd be better off going for a 7D or 60D. I don't see a major leap going from 20D to 40D.

Borderfox

I have heard of lot of error 99's from the 40d