20D vs. 30D

So, I've been on the hunt for the past several weeks for a nice 20D. I was under the impression I could score one for around 600-650 used, but more and more, its appearing thats not the case; instead, they're going for more like 700-750 or higher used.

Meanwhile, I've been watching 30D's sell like hotcakes around 850-900 used.

My question is this, what are the differences, major or minor between the 30D and 20D, and are they worth it for the extra 200 dollars or so?

You're basically paying extra for a larger and brighter LCD, spot metering, picture styles, 1/3 stop ISO increments, ISO in viewfinder, luminance or RGB histogram display, improved continous buffer, and selectable continuous shooting speeds. Whether or not these features equate to the price difference is subjective.

Like Lord Malone says and don't forget also that many older 20D had lockups
during working. In such a case you have to remove the batterie, wait a few
seconds and then reinsert it. With the 30D it seems that this problem is
solved.

Good luck.

Seems I should save up an extra few pennies and just go for the 30D...

I believe the 30D has a different shutter mechanism as well, with an expected life of 50,000 clicks... and less noisy (the shutter noise). Worth the extra $$? If I was getting one now I would opt for the 30D.

jedwards wrote in post #2555157
I believe the 30D has a different shutter mechanism as well, with an expected life of 50,000 clicks... and less noisy (the shutter noise). Worth the extra $$? If I was getting one now I would opt for the 30D.

The shutter life expectancy for the 30D is actually 100,000 clicks. Exactly half of the 1 series expected life cycle.

I have used the 20D and 30D.

Of the new features that the 30D offered, I found the bigger LCD and 1/3 stop ISO increments to be the most useful. 30D also has spot metering, but the Partial metering in the 20D might be good enough, no? Of course the 100k shutter life is a nice improvement over the 50k on on the 20D.

You are right. You can get a used 30D for $900. (You can even get a new one for around that price, but you have to bother with DOUBLE rebate to get that price)

If $200-$300 isn't a big deal for you, then I'd get the 30D. It's the more recent model so even in the used market you will get a fairly recent one. They've most likely ironed out all the "kinks" that the 20D used to have, as mentioned by the othere here.

Either way, they are both great cameras!

Salleke wrote in post #2554876
Like Lord Malone says and don't forget also that many older 20D had lockups
during working. In such a case you have to remove the batterie, wait a few
seconds and then reinsert it. With the 30D it seems that this problem is
solved.

Good luck.

That was a grip issue, not a 20D issue. I've seen the odd report on here that sounded like the same thing with the 30D.

jedwards wrote in post #2555157
I believe the 30D has a different shutter mechanism as well, with an expected life of 50,000 clicks... and less noisy (the shutter noise). Worth the extra $$? If I was getting one now I would opt for the 30D.

IIRC both the 20D and 30D have about 100K actuations. Canon hasn't been terribly aggressive about listing shutter MTBF, especially for the non-1-series though.

Jon wrote in post #2555380
That was a grip issue, not a 20D issue. I've seen the odd report on here that sounded like the same thing with the 30D.

I had my 20D for about 18 months and never had a grip on it.
And every average of 500 shots it was hanging up.

The grip issue was another havy problem from Canon.
But that's another problem ...

Anyway, if I was the OP I would go for the 30D. For me the
bigger LCD, the spotmetering and the other enhanchments
were worth it. But that's my 0.02 ofcourse.

Good luck.

Does anyone know what the shutter life expectancy is of the 20d? Or did Canon never say.

I ask because I thought the 20d and 30d would be the same, but Canon touted the 30d as having a more durable shutter.

red hot sheep wrote in post #2555747
Does anyone know what the shutter life expectancy is of the 20d? Or did Canon never say.

I ask because I thought the 20d and 30d would be the same, but Canon touted the 30d as having a more durable shutter.

For the 20D the shutter is rated at 50.000 cliks.
and the 30D is at 100.000 cliks.

Good luck ...

Salleke wrote in post #2555626
I had my 20D for about 18 months and never had a grip on it.
And every average of 500 shots it was hanging up.

The grip issue was another havy problem from Canon.
But that's another problem ...

Anyway, if I was the OP I would go for the 30D. For me the
bigger LCD, the spotmetering and the other enhanchments
were worth it. But that's my 0.02 ofcourse.

Good luck.

Well, I got my 20D when it first came out, still have and use it regularly, and the only time I had hangups was when the IS on my 100-400 packed up. There's no history of lockups with the 20D, just a few scattered cases. If you have a reproducable problem, you send it in for repair. Case closed.

Ok, so I'll ask it this way.

Say you're an enthusiast, that every now and again, sells a print or two, would you spend the extra 200 or so on a 30D or just keep searching for a cheap 20D and put the extra money towards some nice glass?

Only you can answer that question. I shot with the 20D with excellent results and probably wouldn't upgrade if I was on a really tight budget. The modest upgrades in the 30D aren't exactly Earth shattering innovations. However, if you can afford to get the newer model and have extra left over for decent glass why not? In your case you'd be just fine with the 20D. Both cameras use the same processor. Are the improvements in the 30D worth it to you?

Do you want the bigger screen (2.5" vs. 1.8")? Do you want true spot metering in stead of partial? If you can answer "Yes" to either, get the 30D; otherwise get the 20D. 1/3 step ISO isn't that big a deal, nor are picture styles. Both can be readily faked in PP.