photojournalism and 20D

just wondering if you guys think the 20D would be a good photojournalism body. i know it isn't the best out there, but i have one and it is paid for. i mostly want to do war/poverity type shooting. i know the main differnce will be when i get things printed in poster size. i have a 16x20 that i have from this camera and i must admitt i was a bit weary in the begining but it actually is pretty damn good. so what do you guys think? keep this one and upgrade lenses then body? any info would be great, and thanks in advance.

it'll work, but a 1 series is almost must for a working pro. you won't always be working in the most favorable of enviornments, and need the durability and reliabiliy and quality of a series.

murtaugh wrote in post #2258914
so what do you guys think? keep this one and upgrade lenses then body?

You definetely need to upgrade those lenses.

MALI

I'm in complete disagreement. Your camera and lenses are least important in photojournalism. You'll either sell or not sell your shots based on the story they tell and the emotion they invoke, not based on their super optics.

RichNY wrote in post #2258988
I'm in complete disagreement. Your camera and lenses are least important in photojournalism. You'll either sell or not sell your shots based on the story they tell and the emotion they invoke, not based on their super optics.

I will say that both arguments bring out very good points... just because you have high end/pro equipment, doesn't necessarily mean you'll produce a front page or cover photo. Though, with high end/pro equipment, the chances of getting the photo are better. If you're just starting into photojournalism, a 20D/30D might carry you for a while 'til you sell enough photos to justify stepping into a 1 series body. Since your 20D is paid for... start investing in lenses. You will always keep good lenses and use them with better camera bodies. This is just my $.02 .

RichNY wrote in post #2258988
I'm in complete disagreement. Your camera and lenses are least important in photojournalism. You'll either sell or not sell your shots based on the story they tell and the emotion they invoke, not based on their super optics.

The body is fine, but part of having better equipment is being able to handle situations with more versatility.

It's not necessairly the optics, but having the ability to shoot in low light or isolate the subject more is an important aspect in maybe telling a story.
The OP will want a better wide angle than the 18-55. The wide angle is the most important PJ lens. Then would come the 70-200/80-200 focal length.
It comes down to the photographer, but then having the proper lens set is important afterwards.

thank you all for the help,and i was planing on getting the 17-55 2.8 is but then i was also thinking i wouldn't be able to use that on a 1 series, and i hate to buy the same stuff twice so i guess back to the drawing board i go, i do know the next thing i will get after a wide angle will more than likely be the 70-200 2.8

murtaugh wrote in post #2259257
thank you all for the help,and i was planing on getting the 17-55 2.8 is but then i was also thinking i wouldn't be able to use that on a 1 series, and i hate to buy the same stuff twice so i guess back to the drawing board i go, i do know the next thing i will get after a wide angle will more than likely be the 70-200 2.8

Well you have to make a decision then. If you think you'l be adding a second body(which is almost a must have for a photo journalist), then you probably should get the 16-35 2.8 or 17-40 at the very least.

70-200 2.8 and 16-35 2.8 are two of the must haves, i'd say. Any big newspaper will supply their photographer with those two if they are using Canon. Or the Nikon equvilient.