Am I making a mistake by buying a 30D

Why you need a 2nd body if you don't mind me asking?

I get tired of having to change lenses from the 400 to the 70-200 depending on distance, etc. Rather have another camera and lens hanging at my side to just pick up and shoot rather than trying to balance lenses, camera, risk dropping both...plus if your batteries die you've got another camera there.
Hey I can rationalize anything!
Karen

^Yes you can!

radiohead wrote in post #4188350
The 30D has a larger sensor than the 40D?

Yes, it's just slightly bigger on the 30D.

40D: 22.2mmx14.8mm

30D: 22.5mmx15mm

pttenn wrote in post #4188198
instead of the 40D??? MY thinking was...#1 I'm not a pro, #2 Cheaper #3 controls are the same (almost) as on my 20D. I basically want a second camera to keep another lens on when out shooting. Mostly birds, wildlife. The 20D has been sufficient and I am not real camera savvy (read Newby and uneducated). I had a 300D to start with, and now when I go back to it, I can't remember how to set everything because it is so diff. than the 20D. Is my reasoning sound about getting a 30D to keep the controls similar???? (and yes I've read the threads about how nice the 40D is)
Karen

Ok... well let me throw this one at you. If you're happy with your 20D, why not pick up another 20D. It's even cheaper than the 30D, and you'd already know what to expect. I have a 20D and 30D and being completely honest... if not for the larger LCD, RGB histogram, and 1/3 stop ISO settings, I can not tell one from the other. These three items are the only things I use on the 30D that I don't have on the 20D. Both focus identically... the 30D used to focus slightly better but I sent the 20D in for service after I got the 30D and now they are both the same. Image quality is identical... Heck, I even have custom settings that get real close to some of the "Picture styles" which I don't use much of anyway since I mostly shoot RAW.

If you can save a bunch by getting the 30d and it does everything you want then it's a no-brainer.

From what I've read the 30d is an entirely capable camera and will still be an upgrade from your 20d. Not as much as an upgrade as the 40d but hey.

Main reason I went with the 40d is a fear of buyers remorse! I was literally hours away from buying a 30d when I heard about the release of the 40d and decided to wait a couple of weeks for the launch day. Of course whatever you buy is sooner or later going to be superceded with the next whizz-bang upgrades but the sooner you get into something the longer you can spend without feeling that pain. I'd waited a LONG time to actually buy a DSLR in the first place and knew it would be another long time before I'd consider buying a new body.

If I owned a 30d I wouldn't be thinking about an upgrade to a 40d but if I'd only bought one a couple of weeks before the 40d came out, (as I've done several times in the past), I'd be a little gutted and this feeling could affect ones enjoyment of a product.

Sounds like you are really happy with your 20d so you may even want to consider another 20d?

[QUOTE=forkball;418885​2]Ok... well let me throw this one at you. If you're happy with your 20D, why not pick up another 20D.

Because I HATE that tiny display screen..I have no clue whether I have got a decent shot until I get home and see them on the computer. I think the 30D is going to really help in that regard.
Karen

no, i think you should just get the 30D for your new primary. the only difference in the 40D that i know of is: live veiw (i would never even use it), a larger LCD, 10.1 mp (but the 30D is sharper), and maybe a little weight. i think thats it.

I have had a 20d in the past and yes it was a good camera,got my wife a 30d and she loves it,to me the 30d is just a better all round camera so if thats what you want just go for it,im sure you will love that big screen.

I doubt the larger display (even if you were to go all the way to a 40D with the 3" screen) will really help much in evaluating your photo quality. However, I think your reasoning is sound - with two cameras, the closer to identically they function the better. The only real problem I encounter between my 5D and 20D is that the 5D has a different procedure for setting the time. And it's non-obvious if you do it wrong, until you discover all the shots on one camera are 3 hours later than the shots from the other. And while you can still get a new 30D, that's a better move than getting a used 20D or 30D. You'll have a warranty and extra life expectancy.

While I do have the 40D for some very specific reasons to my work, if your not a pro, I would focus on training the brain and eye more on how to make images, not the tool.
Use some of the extra money to buy some good books on Exposure, learning how to see creatively, etc.... That's the best way to make an Image IMO.

I know of some awesome Pro's that have shot with simple p&S cameras and have made some of the most stunning pictures I've seen.

Also, with the extra, buy a second Hard drive for back-up. Does not matter what your digital tool is, if your disk crashes, it does not know if the images were a 30D or a Mark III. They're toast.

Best,
Tom

TeamSpeed wrote in post #4188220
There are many of us with 30Ds that are not jumping at the chance to upgrade to the 40D, so that might tell you something. The 30D is a very capable camera, and the 40D has some very attractive new features, but for me, I am waiting for the holiday sales or post holiday sales on the forums to bring the price of the 40D body down under $1000. In the meantime, I just sit back and enjoy what the 30D can do for me, at this point the camera is not the bottleneck, it is the bloke operating it.

The lower prices are close now, the cheapest new for the 40D body is around $1025 with rebates/lens sale through shop.com.

I'm with you!! I'm actually waiting to see if the anticipated 5D MII comes out. But my 30D services my needs VERY well!!

Also, with the extra, buy a second Hard drive for back-up. Does not matter what your digital tool is, if your disk crashes, it does not know if the images were a 30D or a Mark III. They're toast.

Best,
Tom[/QUOTE]

That actually happened to my brother, he lost a bunch and it broke his heart! I put everything on CD's the same day I process the shots. I've thought about the second hard drive, just haven't done it. Anyway, the 30D is ordered, too late to change my mind. You can drive yourself crazy trying to make up your mind.
Karen

JVolz wrote in post #4188504
Yes, it's just slightly bigger on the 30D.

40D: 22.2mmx14.8mm

30D: 22.5mmx15mm

Jon_doh - like that's going to make a difference.

I won't upgrade until the second upgrade from the 30D (i.e. 50D, or whatever it is) because IMO, the picture is made mainly by technique and the lens.

Jon_Doh wrote in post #4188286
Reviews like the one over at dpreview dot com would suggest no. They prove the 30D, with its larger sensor, is sharper per pixel, not to mention there seems to be no advantage in the 40D's 14 bit processor in IQ.

More dynamic range is not an improvement in IQ?