40D to 60D is it worth the used price difference?

I have a nice 40D that has no issues with 15k clicks. Is it worth the $350 or so to move to the 60D in likewise condition? Keep in mind my limited income (SS) or should I just be happy with what I have.

Unless the 60D has a feature you can't live without, stick with what you have.

The 40D is a great body. As above, what does it not do that you must have?

We just recently purchased a used D40 body for our first DSLR camera and I love it. The quality of the photos that I have taken are much better than our point and shoot cameras. I am a novice and still trying to learn the camera, but I am happy with it.

Leon

2nd that: Unless the 60d has features you need, then the 40d is perfectly fine.

I had both and decided to keep the 60D just because I needed the video capability. If it wasnt for that, I would've kept the 40D. It has everything I needed for stills.

I have a 60d and I think if I had a 40d I wouldnt spend the money for an upgrade.

Thanks everyone. I don't need video but was hoping others that moved from the 40 to the 60 could tell me if it was worth it minus the video. BTW, I am happy with the 40 but like most folks wanting more is a common thing.

I have a pretty new 7D and needed a good backup body for some upcoming shoots. After comparing features against price, the 40D became the go-to body. I happened to score a great deal on one here a couple weeks ago. I'd say, given your particular situation, I'd hang with your 40D.

Video aside, the only two other features that might or might not be a factor are better high-ISO performance and the pop-out and swivel LCD.

I was recently seeking a body with reasonably high sequential frame capability, and looked at the 40D, 50D, and 60D. It seems that the 60D has some AF improvements, some color handling improvements, and video; OTOH, it's a less rugged body. The 50D seems to have worse low light image quality than the 40D. I ended up with a 40D - YMMV.