20D V 40D

happygolucky

happygolucky

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,101
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
What are the advantages of up-grading to a 40d from my present camera?

Thanks in advance :thumbs:
 
bigger lcd, better noise performance, faster fps shutter speed.
 
Bigger screen
Better high ISO
faster fps
More megapixels
Liveview
Think weathersealing is better
More menu options to create custom functions
Auto ISO

At work we run 20/30/40/50D bodies. The 20>30D difference is negligible - slightly bigger screen being the most obviosu difference - but essentially they're the same camera. When we got the 40D we didn't instantly notice the extra 2mp from the sensor but we did see a marked improvement in high ISO handling; with the 20D, ISO 800 is useable but anything above that has to be 100 per cent nailed - get it slightly underexposed and things go pear-shaped with noise. On the 40D there is so at least a stop extra of useable high ISO (1600) and ISO 800 doesn't have as much of that contrasty look you get when the dynamic range is narrowed as you go up the ISO scale. Of course, there are loads of other key things that made the 40D an improvement but in terms of the image, it's better.
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
Bigger screen
Better high ISO
faster fps
More megapixels
Liveview
Think weathersealing is better
More menu options to create custom functions
Auto ISO
Click to expand...

Brilliant, thank you. All of the above would be a big advantage :)
 
The auto ISO isn't much on the 40D though.
In most modes it just seems to fix it at 400.
 
I upgraded from a 20D to a 5DII, but my photobuddies all use (or have upgraded from) 40Ds.
You will definitely appreciate the bigger screen!
Live View is a wonderful tool; though it will take you a while to remember it is there.
40D will produce usable images at considerably higher ISO than 20D, but top end of Auto ISO is not good quality making the feature far less usable than on 5DII.
Buttons layout is virtually unchanged, so no learning curve needed apart from the menus; initially you will miss the 20D menu system until you learn your way around the 40D.
Rest is nice to have to :)
 
DuncanDisorderly said:
I upgraded from a 20D to a 5DII, but my photobuddies all use (or have upgraded from) 40Ds.
You will definitely appreciate the bigger screen!
Live View is a wonderful tool; though it will take you a while to remember it is there.
40D will produce usable images at considerably higher ISO than 20D, but top end of Auto ISO is not good quality making the feature far less usable than on 5DII.
Buttons layout is virtually unchanged, so no learning curve needed apart from the menus; initially you will miss the 20D menu system until you learn your way around the 40D.
Rest is nice to have to :)
Click to expand...

Thank you for your input, appreciated.
 
specialman said:
...but we did see a marked improvement in high ISO handling; with the 20D, ISO 800 is useable but anything above that has to be 100 per cent nailed - get it slightly underexposed and things go pear-shaped with noise.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. I've shot... probably thousands of 20D shots at ISO 3200 and after basic noise reduction in CS5 I'm happy with the results for whole image shots although I would be less happy to crop and enlarge, although having said that actual prints very often look better than on screen images. Before CS5 I was using RSE and the NR wasn't up to it but newer packages seem perfectly capable of giving good results. I also tried Lightroom and Elements 9 and they gave essentially the same acceptable results as CS5.

I'm not trying to say that the 40D isn't better, I wouldn't know as I've never tried one... but the 20D should be perfectly usable above ISO 800 and indeed at ISO 3200 as long as you are half way competent with your shooting technique and basic post capture processing.

Given the choice I'd go for a 40D as they are obviously newer. 20D's are a bit long in the tooth now and the shutter count can't be confirmed.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I beg to differ. I've shot... probably thousands of 20D shots at ISO 3200 and after basic noise reduction in CS5 I'm happy with the results for whole image shots although I would be less happy to crop and enlarge, although having said that actual prints very often look better than on screen images. Before CS5 I was using RSE and the NR wasn't up to it but newer packages seem perfectly capable of giving good results. I also tried Lightroom and Elements 9 and they gave essentially the same acceptable results as CS5.

I'm not trying to say that the 40D isn't better, I wouldn't know as I've never tried one... but the 20D should be perfectly usable above ISO 800 and indeed at ISO 3200 as long as you are half way competent with your shooting technique and basic post capture processing.

Given the choice I'd go for a 40D as they are obviously newer. 20D's are a bit long in the tooth now and the shutter count can't be confirmed.
Click to expand...

Interesting, so would anyone know how much I could get for my camera with a kit lens, good condition, boxed, manual, 1 gb card etc?
 
woof woof said:
I beg to differ......
Click to expand...

You'll note that I said that if you get your exposure good, then there shouldn't be a problem at high ISO. But I know both from personal experience and by looking at the stuff that's reprinted in our magazines each month, that if you are too far gone you will struggle. The guys at my place who aren't full-time tog provide some horrific stuff and even the shots that are say, a stop out, struggle with chroma noise. And be honest, is it really that good at its highest setting? It's not equal to the 40D for sure....

I concur though, that good NR software can help massively, but I don't presume that everyone has awesome NR software, even when the Canon software seems to be pretty good but so many people overlook it.

OP - price for yours.... probably maximum £250 selling private. Just look at the good used dealer like MPB to see what they;'re selling their for. They probably add 15 per cent mark up.
 
Last edited:
I'd be inclined to keep the 20D as well, as its always handy to have a second body - especially one that takes the same batteries and cards
 
I know this was not your question, but just in case you have not considered, dependent on the lenses you currently own an upgrade to those may prove more beneficial than the 20d-40d.
 
akr said:
I know this was not your question, but just in case you have not considered, dependent on the lenses you currently own an upgrade to those may prove more beneficial than the 20d-40d.
Click to expand...

My few main reasons for considering the up-grade is the benefits of a bigger screen, live view and better (just) in low light.

I currently have the 18-55 non IS,55-250mm IS and a 50mm 1.8

My next lens will be the tamron 17-50 2.8
 
futureal33 said:
Dont forget Auto Sensor cleaning (which I dont think the 20D has?)

Its a nice feature :)
Click to expand...

It doesn't have it.

Mine was a dust magnet for quite some time but now it hardly ever needs cleaning, I assume because anything that was going to come off the internal moving parts has now done so... most of the crap that lands on sensors was (and maybe still is these days?) internally generated.

I don't think I'd worry too much about dust with a well used 20D but the shutter count may be a problem as the shutter wasn't as highly rated as later models. Personally although I love my own 20D I don't know if I'd buy any digital SLR of a similar age and spec as milage may indeed indeed vary, unless of course there's a clear and honest known history.
 
Didnt Canon add spot metering when they went 30D so I assume the 40D has it too.
My lad upgraded from 20D to 30D and said the 30D nailed all the slight issues he had with the 20D, obviously the jump to 40D would be the same but more so.

Matt
 
Other thing no-one has mentioned is that the 40D had all cross type AF points as opposed to the 20D which only had a cross type centre AF point. This did make the outer AF points a lot better at locking on to something than the 20D.

I went from a 20D to 40D and am now on a 7D.

TBH I never found much difference in ISO peformance to the 20D, and although the 40D screen is bigger, it wasn't higher res, so I found it still meant you couldn't judge actual sharpness on camera. The 7D screen is higher res, but same size, and is MUCH better.

I don't think either the 20D or the 40D had any weather sealing, so I wouldn't trust either in inclement weather.

20D was a cracking camera, the 40D was a small step up, the really big step came when going to the 7D. 7D gets much better view finder, huge AF upgrade, reasonable MP upgrade, weathersealing, and much better customisation in general.
 
Cross type AF - Dont you need "fast" L (or prime) lenses though to make them work?
Weather sealing - 40D has slightly less than 50D which had less than 7D, all apparently are ok(ish) in damp conditions in order of "sealing". Again though an L lens (some) and a 1D would be preferable for true "sealing".

Matt
 
MatBin said:
Cross type AF - Dont you need "fast" L (or prime) lenses though to make them work?
Click to expand...
No, they work as cross type from f/5.6. The centre AF point has extra sensitivity at f/2.8 or faster.

I have a Sigma 12-24 that really struggled on a 20D to lock on to stuff on outer AF points. It was significantly better on the 40D and is not a fast lens.
 
I went from a 20D to a 40D. I found a noticeable difference in high ISO output, but it's not night-and-day.

As above I found it focused more quickly and more accurately, but the major reason I upgraded was because of the screen size and liveview. Liveview's a godsend for manual lenses, it allows you to get the focus pretty much perfect.

Never bothered with the 50D as supposedly it was getting to a point where the MP count was affecting IQ output. Don't know what the truth in that is, but I got my 40D for a good price so I didn't mind.

My next upgrade would be full frame.
 
2Thumbs said:
Never bothered with the 50D as supposedly it was getting to a point where the MP count was affecting IQ output. Don't know what the truth in that is, but I got my 40D for a good price so I didn't mind.

My next upgrade would be full frame.
Click to expand...

I think that at least part of the problem is that people started looking at 3mp images at 100% and kept looking at 100% as they bought new cameras with ever increasing mp counts regardless of what size image they wanted to produce. Viewed at 100% a load of issues might be visible but viewed at a more realistic zoom the image is possibly going to look, actually, quite good :D

I bought a 5D not too long ago and to be honest I'm a bit underwhelmed. It's probably better, but it's not a night and day thing. Far from it. But it does give you more choice and more possibilities at the wider end.
 
No experience of a 20D, but just got a second hand 40D to replace my 10D

Not too convinced about the high ISO noise argument myself, these pics were all taken at ISO 1600 on my 10D and I'm more than happy with the results. I have to say that in many ways - purely on the feel of the camera in the hand and the noise it makes, the 10D is far better. As to image quality well only used the 40D a few times so far and still trying to find out what it's doing to the image that I'm going to have to compensate for. Larger screen, well not too fussed except if I was to use live view, but the auto sensor clean and ability to change the focusing screen are positive pluses in my book.

Paul
 
Thanks guys, I appreciate all comments.
Going to advertise my 20D then see how much I need to put towards a 40D

I'd love a 7D but funds are very tight atm :'(
 
changed my mind about commenting after reading a review.

Matt
 
Last edited:
Another good thing about the 40D over the 20D is 1/3rd stop ISO selection. The 20D only had one stop increments.

Auto ISO is a waste of space though. Is it possible to turn it off in the custom functions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top