PhotoMonkies: 20D vs 30D vs Rebel XT

Smelly said:

holy freakin' thread deterioration...

I'm considering buying a D-SLR in the not too distant future, so I'm wondering the same question as Narlus, which has yet to be answered. Is the D20 worth a few hundred bucks over the Rebel XT? If so, why? If not, why?

Click to expand...

Personally here are the main reasons that I would spend the extra cash.
Mag. body is going to survive more abuse, droping, kicking, ect.
Better more ergonomic placement of buttons, so you get fewer missed shots because you're fiddling with settings
The faster fps. to me is a big plus
Another consideration is shutter life, the 20d is rated to 50,000 actuations I don't know the rating on the XT. I do know that sveral of my freinds shoot 20d's and have surpassed 70,000 shots without issue.

If you think that these will be helpfull traits on your camera then it is worth the cash, spending more initialy is always cheaper than upgrading later.

Smelly said:

That still doesn't answer the question. Ok, so it's more comfortable to hold. Obviously it has things the rebel doesn't have. It f'in better, it's hundreds more. For someone buying their first D-SLR, someone who is getting into photography and won't be trying to make a living off of it with this camera, is it worth spending that extra money on the 20D or will the Rebel allow plenty of room to grow?

Click to expand...

If you have never used an SLR camera before, or used older or cheaper SLR's, the Rebel is a fine camera. It gets the job done, takes good quality pictures, has interchangable lenses, and quite a few nice features. It is aimed more at the general consumer, whereas the 20D and 30D are aimed at a little more serious users.

If you have used SLRs in the past, think you might become a more serious photog, etc, I'd say go with the 20D. You get MUCH more camera, its a bit more beefy, and the extra features can't be beat. And as said at the beginning of this thread, the 20Ds are going down in price a bit, which is a plus.

Transcend said:

Well to me, that does answer the question. The cheapest $100 slr will work just as well, but a better built camera wil last longer, and has added features you may want in 6 months or so.

Click to expand...

Wha??!!
How about some information that matters?
The heft of the camera is subjective. Anyone can go pick one up and see if they like how it feels. The sensor on the 20d and 30d is much better than the little one on the Rebel and has less noise.
If you're serious about getting into it, my opinion is that you'll have plenty of room to grow in the 20D. You might hit the limits of the Rebel sooner but I don't know you or how fast you plan on jumping into this.
I haven't looked at the differences in the 20D to the 30D so I can't tell you what the $100 difference is all about but it sounds fairly insignificant to a novice from what's been posted. Either way, it's only $100. If you haven't been to www.dpreview.com you should check there before soliciting the "stellar advice" of these ridemonkies. It is amusing entertainment though.

Qman said:

Wha??!!
How about some information that matters?
The heft of the camera is subjective. Anyone can go pick one up and see if they like how it feels. The sensor on the 20d and 30d is much better than the little one on the Rebel and has less noise.
If you're serious about getting into it, my opinion is that you'll have plenty of room to grow in the 20D. You might hit the limits of the Rebel sooner but I don't know you or how fast you plan on jumping into this.
I haven't looked at the differences in the 20D to the 30D so I can't tell you what the $100 difference is all about but it sounds fairly insignificant to a novice from what's been posted. Either way, it's only $100. If you haven't been to www.dpreview.com you should check there before soliciting the "stellar advice" of these ridemonkies. It is amusing entertainment though.

Click to expand...

Read the last 3 posts.

Transcend said:

Read the last 3 posts.

Click to expand...

I don't see anything about sensor size/quality in the last 3+ posts. Nor the advice to look somewhere other than a mt. bike forum for camera buying advice.

Thanks for the tip and the smiley though.

Qman said:

I don't see anything about sensor size/quality in the last 3+ posts. Nor the advice to look somewhere other than a mt. bike forum for camera buying advice.

Thanks for the tip and the smiley though.

Click to expand...

Metering modes missing, slower shooting speed, slower buffer speed, smaller buffer size, Digic 1 vs digic 2 processor (i think- 10d was digic 1), much better low light response in 20d, better auto focus (by a mile) in 20d, different AF modes.

oh really? How about that post?

No offence guys but Camera threads are SOO boring. (Yeah I know I don't have to read them but I have a morbid fascination.) Can't we get some photos of hot chicks you've taken with your fancy kit at least? The BMX sequence pic was the highlight of the thread for me.

Qman said:

I don't see anything about sensor size/quality in the last 3+ posts. Nor the advice to look somewhere other than a mt. bike forum for camera buying advice.

Thanks for the tip and the smiley though.

Click to expand...

The sensor size is exactly the same, the high ISO noise is better on the 20/30d. And why not look here for advice? On camera specific boards all you get is a buch of Nikon vs. Canon arguments, here we only had like 10 of those posts.

Just a couple notes:

narlus said:

- nominal sensor size difference (22.5 x 15.0 mm CMOS sensor to 22.2 x 14.8 mm CMOS sensor), and corresponding .3 MP size difference in image

Click to expand...

The sensor size difference indicates that it's an entirely different sensor - the .3 MP increase may correspond to the size difference between the sensors, but there's no direct correlation here. The amount of MP depend on how tightly the photosites on the sensor are packed.

Thus, this:

narlus said:

yes, can shoot at ISO3200; since the sensor is the same, i would expect the noise levels to be the same at 1600 and under (but i could be wrong)

Click to expand...

...is not necessarily true.

I do completely agree with this:

my conclusion: for a person starting w/ a DSLR, those additional options aren't worth a 50% premium. maybe you have different needs.

Click to expand...

I don't see the 20D as being a great jumping off point, more like an excellent pro backup body or someone who just has more money to start with. For someone stretching a budget, the difference will be small in upgrading to the 20D, but investing that extra $350 in a nicer or another lens will give a noticable improvement to your photographs.

I know Nikon isn't your system, but I'd say the next step up (at least IMHO) from these consumer cameras like the Digital Rebel and the Nikon D50/D70 is really something like the Nikon D200: a truly rugged, pro-level body with an awesome viewfinder and many of the specs of the top end cameras, with an affordable pricetag.

That's not to say I'm recommending a Nikon (I know why you want to stay with Canon, since you already have an investment in the system), I'm just providing a reference point here - for me, there are better ways to invest the extra money when you're on a budget than jumping to a 20D.

Thanks narlus, bigmike, qman, and max and binary. That's exactly the kind of info I was looking for. It sounds to me like my best bet is to hold out a little longer and figure out how serious I want to get. Although the Rebel seems to be a much more reasonable starting point
off to dpreview...

narlus said:

i've never used a 20D so i am not sure what that AF 'manual focus' mode does...i do know that i can use manual focus on the 350; it's a button on yr lens which you flip on or off.

Click to expand...

The MF mode, AFAIK, just switches off the auto focus capabilities of the 20D. Perhaps this is required for certain lenses? Older, MF-only lenses?

Anyhow... as narlus said, most current lenses have a switch on the lens that lets you toggle MF on or off.

Qman said:

Nor the advice to look somewhere other than a mt. bike forum for camera buying advice.

Click to expand...

Do you know how many professional Photographers are on this board? Why not ask here? If you haven't noticed, there has been a LOT of useful stuff in this thread, and the people here know what they are talking about.

BigMike said:

Do you know how many professional Photographers are on this board? Why not ask here? If you haven't noticed, there has been a LOT of useful stuff in this thread, and the people here know what they are talking about.

Click to expand...

I don't. Do you? 'a LOT' seems a bit generous.

Ask away, as I said, it's very entertaining but I think there are a lot more people that think they're professional photographers and that's why we end up with contradicting and/or confusing information as well as prospeak that might further confuse someone who's admittedly a novice.
Either way, read my post again. I don't say to not ask ride monkies. I suggest starting at dpreview then bring your questions and comments to ride monkey if you want. Now check the initial post. He says he knows the 30D has a shorter start-up time and a bigger screen. Two things that are fairly insignificant in the long run especially when the start-up time differences are probably barely perceptible to the untrained shooter.
I'm merely suggesting he check out a site with more info than he could process in one sitting about each camera. If that hurts some fragile egos here that need to feel like the authority on everything Canon or Nikon then I sincerely apologize and you may now continue confusing this person.

Metering modes: 30d has Spot, 20 and 300/350 does not.
Processor: 10d and i believe 300 are digic 1, all newer cams are digic 2
Af: 20d AF is faster then 300d. Not sure if their is a difference with the 350.
ISO: Incorrect. The 20d is much quieter noise wise then the 300, and nominally better then the 350. It's a different sensor, with different photosite density. Therefore noise is different.

narlus said:

transcend, the OP never once referenced the 300, so why do you insist on keep mentioning it?

the seemingly benign flashpoint of this thread was my contention that $350 was not worth spending on the difference between the 20D and 350D, based on my assessment of the specs of each. so far there's been a lot of light and heat, but most of outside the usable spectrum of this thread.

Click to expand...

Just pointing out what my points were on.

So to make it clear, yes it's worth the extra coin. The 20d is a MUCH better built camera, which in my opinion, makes it worth the extra money - features aside.

the 20d is the way to go. i have one and i could not be more satisfied for the money. its great. the only reason to make the jump to the 30 would have been if they made the censor full sized. but they didnt. so theres no point. and im actually not sure if they made it environmentally sealed. if so then thats nice but still probably not worth it.

I still recommend the 20D.

BAH said:

I still recommend the 20D.

Click to expand...

but even more so now than the original post as used prices are going way down with the 30Ds hitting the market in full force.

I own a Rebel XT and it's a bit small to my liking. I just ordered the battery grip for more battery life and more area to hold my camera steady.

I have the 20D and love it, I say go with it, for a good deal look at costco

I'm really happy w/ my Rebel XT. I wouldn't spend more money for schnazzy features, but I'm no pro.