New Camera in Mind

[davaglo]

I shoot with a Canon 20d using 17-40L f4 and 70-200L f2.8.  I am thinking about purchasing a Canon 40D and maybe eyeing the 5D. I know there is another thread comparing the two which I have already read. I shoot wildlife and landscapes.

Heres the question, is the image quality significantly better shooting the 40D and 5D over the 20D or is it a question of chaseing technology for technology sake, what will I gain?


Thanks for your thoughtful replies.

Jerry

[DarkPenguin]

I do not own a 5D so I've no comment on that.

One thing to keep in mind is that the 20D's iso settings are under rated.  So if you are used to shooting high iso on the 20D you'll have to go higher ISO on the 40D.

There are IQ differences but not a ton.  8mp vs 10mp isn't huge.  I think the 40D is better but I can't demonstrate it.  Does seem better with highlights.  So maybe there is something to that 14 bit thing.  (Or it meters better.)

From a usability standpoint the 40D is nicer than the 20D.  If you shoot wildlife you might appreciate the better focus of the 40D.  It is noticeably better.  Live view also helps in landscapes.  The viewfinder is far better.  The metering also seems to be improved.  (I've no long term opinion on that.  Just noting that it hasn't missed much.)

Just some thoughts.

[Ken Bennett]

I have both a 20d and a 40d. The 40d is significantly better in terms of handling, focus, viewfinder, etc. Canon has made this a much more usable camera in many small ways. I find image quality to be much improved, as well.

I haven't used a 5d.

[DarkPenguin]

Canon has made this a much more usable camera in many small ways.

It really feels like they've changed so much more than they have.  Far more impressed with the 40D than I thought I would be.

[Ken Bennett]

It really feels like they've changed so much more than they have.  Far more impressed with the 40D than I thought I would be.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181825\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I use 1-D Mark II cameras at work, so I have certain unreasonable expectations about camera handling, speed, etc. The 20d drove me nuts. The 40d is so much quicker -- not just in focusing or frames-per-second, but in basic handling, it just becomes more transparent in my hands.

An example: the 1-D series bodies are built for shooting priority. Pick one up, hit the rear focus button (the * button), and it immediately "wakes up" and is ready to shoot -- oh, and it's already in focus, too. On the 20d, when the camera is asleep, hitting the * button does nothing. One has to press the shutter button halfway to wake up the camera first. A small thing, but it was no end of frustration. The 40d has fixed this.

[mfunnell]

Many (but not all) of the improvements in the 40D were made in the 30D - but with little or no change to the imaging chain over the 20D. The 40D has imaging, AF etc. improvements as well.  Whether the upgrade is worth it, to you, only you can say.  Me, I decided to keep my 30D and deploy my dollars elsewhere.  If I'd had a 20D I'd 've been more tempted.

    ...Mike

[pete_truman]

I moved from a 20D to a 5D about 6 months after the 5D became available and have never regretted it. The 5D image quality seems to set the standard - there's a big difference in noise especially at higher ISO. It appears to have an almost perfect balance between sensor size, resolution and sensitivity (maybe, until the next version appears at some point!)

The full sized sensor f the 5D means that the 17mm wide end of the 17-40mm lens is just that, but of course the longer end of the 70-200 is now just a 200mm lens rather than 320mm! The 5D is a little larger than the 20D - and you will notice the difference in handling. And going from 8 MP to 12 MP makes a big difference when printing large. I regularly print at A3+ without worrying, whereas with the 20D this took more fiddling.

For landscapes you will probably love the difference between 20D and 5D, but for wildlife you will probably find the overall speed and lack of lens "magnification" due to sensor size a pain.

I've never even touched a 30D or 40D so cannot comment on those.

[andybla]

I have used a canon G2 and a small Backpacking Tripod for several years. I also carry two extra battery packs and two flash cards. Iusally go out for a week at a time into Colo. wilderness areas. My 10D + lens(s) would be too heavy. I carry the G2 in a pouch attached to a pack strap for quick access. WhiBal card.

 Andy

[Bart Heirweg]

I have had the 20D, 30D and now the 40D and I think the upgrade from a 20D is definitly worth it. Except from image quality, noise performance, AF, live view, viewfinder, sensor cleaning and hanling it is also much faster. Nog only when taking images in burst mode, but just the whole camera. The menu is faster and with the 20 en 30D, formatting a large CF card could take some time, in the 40D this is done almost instantly.
If wildlife photography is your thing I would consider the 40D instead of the 5D. It is much faster and the cropfactor comes in handy here, since you can use the extra mm's. If you are a landscape photographer I would consider the 5D which is still better in noise performance en IQ.
I am thinking of purchasing a 5D as extra body, then I have a 40D for wildlife and a 5D for landscape.