20D as good as 40D at high iso?

Hi.....I am a former Canon 40D user. After owning 40D for a while, I sold all my Canon gear and went to the dark side. Actually I had both N and C gear at the same time, and then I decided that it was too costly to continue buying gear from both mfrs. I liked and I still do the button placement, the menus, on my D300 better than that on 40D, it all felt more natural and logical to me, and the 53-point-auto-focus system does not hurt either.

Of course, as time went by, I started missing my Canon gear. And now I have a chance to pick up a 20D body for very very cheap. I am thinking about getting into Canon gear again with this 20D body.

So I am going backwards from 40D to 20D.

However, when I compared samples, reviews, etc, on 20D vs 40D, other than smaller screen, and 5fps vs 6.5fps, it does not sound like there is a big difference. I often shoot at high ISOs and I did not observe from the samples I've seen that Canon 40D significantly improved low light capabilities over 20D. Despite the fact that 20D uses Digic2 chip and 40D uses Digic3.

The autofocus system seems practically the same. Battery life seems the same (same battery). Built-in flash seems the same.

Am I missing something here, is there any reason I should pass on picking up an older 20D body? Will a former user of 40D be disappointed with high ISO on 20D?

Loved my 20D. If I hadn't broke it I'd most likely still be shooting with it. I thought that instead of getting another used 20D that I would move to the newer technology and bought 40/50D. Should have bought a used 20/30D. Yes, Personally I feel the 20D is better than 40D at high ISO

I have not had a 40D but I used to have a 20D and now have a 50D. I have read all the threads about 40D being better at High ISO than the 50D but no direct experience. The 50D is at least 1 stop better than the 20D maybe 1.5 stops. Keep in mind that the 40D is higher resolution so you can't really compare at 20D crops at 100% to 40D crops at 100% to determine which is handling it better.

Unless you like poring over 100% crops, you won't really be able to tell. The AF system and LCD screen will be big changes, though.

tkbslc wrote in post #9479915
Unless you like poring over 100% crops, you won't really be able to tell. The AF system and LCD screen will be big changes, though.

Oh the AF system is not the same as on my old 40D? I thought it was

I must have the worst Canon corrected 50D ever. Still think 20D was better than both 40&50D. The LCD screen will do nothing for IQ.

absolutic wrote in post #9480052
Oh the AF system is not the same as on my old 40D? I thought it was

No, the AF system was slightly tweaked for the 30D (although it's apparently not a big change) and then improved significantly for the 40D.

The 40D is much better at high ISO than the 20D/30D.

When viewed in prints of like size, the 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D, XTi (400D), XSi (450D), and Ti1 (500D) all have about the same noise levels.

Be careful of the phenomenon here at POTN that people expect newer cameras will automatically have better noise characteristics. There is also some cognitive dissonance that makes people assume that their newer camera must be better than some older model.

I have shot and used files from a Rebel XT (350D), 30D (same as a 20D), 40D, and 50D. The noise looks the same. If one of these stands out as different it is the XT (350D) which is a little worse. There might be a 1/2 stop total difference from the XT to the 50D.

Worth pointing out in this thread, the 20D and 30D are nearly the same camera. The only differences are that the 30D added spot meter, a larger LCD and RGB histograms.

Going from the 30D to the 40D the main change is the AF system, which got a lot better with the 40D. The viewfinder of the 40D/50D is also a little bigger.

If you find a 20d for very very cheap why not flip it and make some money to put towards your current Nikon system?

Not saying you "shouldn't" buy Canon just having 2 systems seems redundant (unless you were buying a different kind of camera, like Olympus EP-1 which is very small)

I would have to agree with Jeffrey that i don't think there is a huge difference in noise between crop bodies. Anything from 20d-50d, XTi-T1i will be quite close (7d being a bit better), with some of the higher megapixel cameras possibly having an advantage of "shrinking" the noise when you downsize the pics. 20d-40d is only 2mp though, hardly noticeable difference.

I have both the 20D & 40D and haven't noticed any difference in noise. The 40D is faster and the AF is better without a doubt. Honestly, though I don't shoot at 1600 ISO often at all!

gcogger wrote in post #9480400
No, the AF system was slightly tweaked for the 30D (although it's apparently not a big change) and then improved significantly for the 40D.

Canon's marketing material may state an improvement but in actual practice there is certainly no "significant" improvement in 40D focus over 20D. Much the same AF performance with the two bodies in my experience.

I noticed a noticeable improvement in AF going from the 20D to 40D. Also noise seemed to be better on the 40D but not significantly.

JFusion wrote in post #9481208
I noticed a noticeable improvement in AF going from the 20D to 40D. Also noise seemed to be better on the 40D but not significantly.

Misconception about your autofocus performance .. I'll look for the link but a Japanese tester compared the 20, 30, and 40D's with dogs, horses, cars, and joggers and found no difference in keeper rates. If I remember correctly all three camera bodies averaged about 40% sharp photo keeper rates with these subjects. But he had cool filmstrip 100% type files showing the series of drive bursts.

Or try it yourself .. get a friend to run towards you and shoot them with both bodies and compare the keeper rates. And if you get more than 50% acceptably sharp, post 'em up and you'll get a prize.

Canon's marketing and our own upgrade spending justifications often cloud judgement.

Same noise level, bigger resolution. Isn't it an upgrade already ?