[re_guderian]

I would really like to upgrade to a DSLR, and have had severl Canon point and shoots. There are several used 20D's floating around the area here. Would you prefer a used 20D to a new Rebel XTi, given that the price is about the same? The used 20D comes with some so-so lenses, which I would probably sell right away and get some decent ones. I would like to get an EF-S 10-22, and and EF 28-70 2.8L for everyday use, and when I can afford it, the 70-200 2.8L IS zoom. I realize that these 3 lenses combined would cost about 4x the cost of the body, so maybe 20D v XTi is a wash in the end. What do you think?

[nat]

I love Canon gear

The great thing about buying good lenses, is it will work with any of the Canon dslr bodies, with the exception of a couple lenses.

I think the main difference between the 20D and the XTI is build quality.

check out dpreview.com, you can compare side by side the two models.

Either way you choose, you will have a blast. The best Canon forum is: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php

you can find picture examples of each of the bodies plus any lenses you are interested in.

[NaterGator]

save your money on the body now while you learn and get better lenses... the XTi will be more than adequate as you acclimate to canon dSLRs...

[cary]

I'm going to say get the 20D. I have a rebel XT and love it, but the ergonomics and build quality of the 20D are far superior. The new XTi appears to also be much more consumer oriented in its operation which may hinder you as you get more into photography.

You may want to consider buying the 18-85is lens as your first lens. Covers a great range and is a great all purpose lens.

[SINCITY100]

What type of photography do you plan on doing most (landscapes, portraits, closeups, action/sports..etc...) ?

If you really plan on geting into photography, I would buy as much body as you can afford/justify, and then compliment that body with the best-valued high quality lenses available.

I`ve shot with a 20D a 1DMKII and a 5D ( the 5D being used most often) and even though (compared to the higher-series Canons) it too is even a bit "consumer" styled , I really do like the 20D and it can produce some really beautiful prints.

Lenses ? 17-40L f4 , a 50 1.8 , and a 70-200L f4 would cover most of your usual focal lengths with some VERY high image quality without totally breaking the bank.

If you are just "testing the waters" of digital photography and your budget is limited, I would go with the 20D an earlier mentioned EF-S lens or two. Just remember... Dont EVER borrow or rent an L" series lens because you will never settle for anything less again..it can get very expensive real quick.

Good luck !

[tkorade]

I've had a 20D for a couple years now. I moved from a Canon "A" body and am very happy with the results. You don't need to look at the "L" series lens unless your doing pro work. I'm using the 70-300 IS lens for both Macro and long distance. It is a bit soft in the focus at the full 300, but lots more affordable. I can post some pics if you want. Also Canon seems to keep up on the flash (operating system) updates on the "prosumer" line more regularly.

[NaterGator]

Originally Posted by SINCITY100

What type of photography do you plan on doing most (landscapes, portraits, closeups, action/sports..etc...) ?

If you really plan on geting into photography, I would buy as much body as you can afford/justify, and then compliment that body with the best-valued high quality lenses available.

I disagree... spend all the money you can on lenses keeping just enough left over for a sufficient body. Lenses stay good and technology is not leaps and bounds better (except for IS) wheras an 18 month old body is already obsolete.

[Trollhole]

20d owner. Have been for about 2 years. Great camera.

Check out. http://bobatkins.com/photography/dig...00dlenses.html

I have a Canon EF 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens. It is perfect for a wide variety of shots. A 18-55 that I never use because the 28-135 is such a better lens. The EF 50/1.8 II will be my next lens.

[SINCITY100]

Originally Posted by NaterGator

I disagree... spend all the money you can on lenses keeping just enough left over for a sufficient body. Lenses stay good and technology is not leaps and bounds better (except for IS) wheras an 18 month old body is already obsolete.

Sorry... I disagree


I said " get as much body as you can afford/justify " If you can affod it, buy the better body ( it will have enough extra features that will keep you satisfied for a long time, such as mirror lock-up, more ISO settings, better image sensor etc..) . IMO, As long as you are at 8 mega-pixels or higher, you more than likely wont need to upgrade to the "newer technology" body for some time. Well... unless of course, jpegs tiffs and raw formats are no longer the image standard !

It is true that the lens (ultimately) is the main factor for fine image quality, but it is still the camera body that makes the actual image capture easier or perhaps even possible at all... especially for someone who regularly takes their camera off of the "auto" setting .

[Trunk Monkey]

I can't remember where I saw the review, but it compared the Rebel XT to the 20d. The 20d's shutter and components were rated at 2x the usage over the Rebel (100k shutter cycles vs. 50k for the Rebel).

I had a 20d and just upgraded to the 30d. I would have kept the 20 but had the chance to get the 30 for almost no additional cost. Having the slightly bigger view finder is nice. I have a friend that has the XT and he loves it too. I don't think you can go wrong with either, handle them both and see what you think.

[NaterGator]

Originally Posted by SINCITY100

Sorry... I disagree

Gotta warn you, you are in the vast minority of dSLR owners who hold the opinion that a more expensive body now is better for your pictures than more expensive glass

[C6H12O6]

Optics, optics, optics. It's all about the glass.

That said, the days of the body being just a box that held the film for your kick ass lens are gone. There is a hell of a lot going on in a digital body these days. It still isn't as important as the lens you are using, but the gap is starting to close. The higher end bodies have better sensors, regardless of MP rating.

[NaterGator]

Agreed... buts 4-5 years max until we have usable ISO 12800 and I'm sure HDR sensors are just around the corner. There is alot going on with silicon sensor technology, and today's best bodies will look pathetic compared to tomorrows, but I'm more than willing to bet today's best lenses will look great with tomorrow's bodies

[re_guderian]

Appreciate the input, especially on general purpose lenses. I think I would be doing mostly landscape (and wheelin'!) shots, plus a lot of indoor basic family photography, so I'm prioritizing wide angle over high zoom lenses. Sin, I've seen your photos and they are great!

I've been playing around lots with all the non-auto settings on my Canon S2 IS that I have now, but find its lens a bit limiting for low light shots. The AF hunts quite a bit in low light. The 12x zoom and IS are nice, as is the video clip recording, but the image quality of the SLR's is in a whole other league. Since both the 20D and XTi are 1.6 crop factors, but the XTi is 10 MP, I was wondering how much more that was "worth" if any. Supposedly the XTi has a lot of features from the 30D, which doesn't seem to be that different than the 20D really.

How important is the warranty factor on a new XTi v a used 20D? Has anyone had problems with theirs?

I went to B&H's web site and just created a shopping basket of stuff I'd "like" to have. Sticker shock...

[NaterGator]

I've got a 350D I still shoot with, and I've got well over 110K exposures on it with no need for warranty claims. It still feels good in my hand and is still completely intact and does not feel 'loose' in any way.

The XTi is closer to the 20D than the 350D was to the 10D... it is a very good camera and I think exactly what you need. If you were shooting sports for the paper like I sometimes do, yeah 5 or 8.5 fps would be nice in a 20D or 1D MK II body, but thats not your primary goal. As such I would invest in lenses. Maybe even consider the 16-35L, because if you ever go full frame that 10-22 isn't going to work on anything other than APS-C sensor cameras. (That said its a chuffing AWESOME lens and deserves an L rating as much as any other L lens)

Also, you should focus on fast lenses... in other words always opt for the smallest f-number you can afford. IS is fine if you are shooting anything static, but nothing beats a fast lens. Besides, the AF is more precise with fast lenses.

[SINCITY100]

Originally Posted by NaterGator

Gotta warn you, you are in the vast minority of dSLR owners who hold the opinion that a more expensive body now is better for your pictures than more expensive glass

Gosh dang it Nater !

I swear that I have personally been through the DSLR "upgrade" phase and realized that the mid to high-end bodies are superior for the actual image capture. The reduced noise level and extra settings alone are reason enough to buy a better body(there is after all, a reason that camera bodies vary greatly in price) Sure, the technology will eventuallly find its way into the lower-end consumer cameras.. but untill then only YOU are taking pics with the best quality and with more control over the image itself.

Here is a example of a high-end sensor and a pro lens...

Poor and very harsh lighting on a hazy day with lots of shadows..The lens gave me more color and contrast, but because this shot was heavily underexposed only the sensor allowed me more leeway in regards to to final editing by holding detail and color in the shadows... I could also crop this shot by 25% or more and still lose NO image quality on a 16X20 print : )

[NaterGator]

Originally Posted by SINCITY100

Gosh dang it Nater !

I swear that I have personally been through the DSLR "upgrade" phase and realized that the mid to high-end bodies are superior for the actual image capture. The reduced noise level and extra settings alone are reason enough to buy a better body(there is after all, a reason that camera bodies vary greatly in price) Sure, the technology will eventuallly find its way into the lower-end consumer cameras.. but untill then only YOU are taking pics with the best quality and with more control over the image itself.

Here is a example of a high-end sensor and a pro lens...

Poor and very harsh lighting on a hazy day with lots of shadows..The lens gave me more color and contrast, but because this shot was heavily underexposed only the sensor allowed me more leeway in regards to to final editing by holding detail and color in the shadows... I could also crop this shot by 25% or more and still lose NO image quality on a 16X20 print : )

For a first timer? Is it necessary? No. Learn on a cheap body, buy the great glass. When you have the skills, get the fancy body. Thats how it works. And besides, alot can be done in photoshop, agree with it or not. I can make a point and shoot image look that good. Granted it wont print 16x20 or anywhere near it, but on a monitor, easy.

Not doggin your skills or pic, its a great pic and clearly you know what you are doing. I just don't think you are giving the appropriate advice for a newbie. There is a huge learning curve to dSLRs, and by the time one has 'mastered' dSLRs (to the point where you can steady your hands, not hold your breath, stay on top of all your settings, track your subject, etc) you are ready for one of the "new" bodies

[SINCITY100]

Originally Posted by NaterGator

For a first timer? Is it necessary? No. Learn on a cheap body, buy the great glass. When you have the skills, get the fancy body. Thats how it works. I just don't think you are giving the appropriate advice for a newbie. There is a huge learning curve to dSLRs, and by the time one has 'mastered' dSLRs (to the point where you can steady your hands, not hold your breath, stay on top of all your settings, track your subject, etc) you are ready for one of the "new" bodies

Dont forget, I too was a newbie and I lost a LOT of money moving my way up through various bodies to get where I am now :( It seemed everytime I "missed" a good/percieved shot, once in a while it would be the lens, but it would usually be because of limitations in the camera body . Its well known that Canon purposely disables key functions and menu options on their lower end models, and this can frustrate even the most novice photographer. Add a superior low-noise sensor to the mix and its a no-brainer.

I stick by my suggestion... Buy the best body that you can afford.

Peace !

[nat]

I think a combination of two is really best. I used my 10D up until 2 months ago and I have some killer 10x15 prints hanging in my house and office at work. I think build quality in a body is important, and having quality glass is important. It does you no good to have a great body but have a lens that gives poor "bokeh" or soft images with wider apertures.

Check some of my postings, up untill recently, most of my thursday glamour and nature photographs were with my 10D, now I have my 5D Now I am lusting after the 16-35 2.8L

[SINCITY100]

Originally Posted by nat

Now I am lusting after the 16-35 2.8L

With a 5D that is a sweet lens indeed...The build quality is tops, I`m a cheap bastard so I went with the 17-40 F4, but that 2.8 sure can come in handy .