I've been running a pair of 20Ds for some time. The shutter failed on one the other week and I haven't had it repaired yet. I want a 1D III (of course - doesn't everyone?) but needed a replacement second body before that.
In the end, I went with a 400D over the 30D. My reasons
at the time were:
pro 400D:- 2/3rds the price
- higher resolution (only 2MP but maybe extra reach?)
- very small and light (see below)
against 400D:- Only 3 FPS
- Clunky controls and menus compared to 20D/30D
- no spot meter
- very small in the hand
Re the small and light thing, it doesn't make much difference to me as my lenses are so heavy, and in fact I prefer the larger 20D feel in the hand, but in the back of my mind I had the idea of passing the 400D on to a friend when I get my spare 20D back and/or buy a 1D III. (She needs a DSLR to replace her elderly high-end P&S and isn't happy with the weight and bulk of my 20Ds.)
I think the price and the extra 2MP swayed me to the 400D in the end. So that is what I was thinking when I bought the 400D. What about
now - after shooting with 20D and 400D side by side?
I've only had two weekends to shoot with the 20D and 400D, but one was the Labour Day long weekend so I had three days in the Big Desert doing landscapes, wildflowers, and (of course) birds, using both cameras and swapping them around: sometimes the 400D with the 500/4 on a tripod, sometimes the 20D; sometimes the 20D with the 100-400, 60mm macro, 18-55, 50/1.8 and 10-22 - that 10-22 is just
so good for the desert landscapes - sometimes the 400D. Last weekend I spent in the Little Desert.
In short, I have more to learn, but I feel that I have a pretty good idea of how the two cameras are going to pan out.
- Price: the price advantage still stands (of course)
- Resolution: not worth 10c either way. If there is an advantage to the extra 2MP, I'm not seeing it. In fact, I'm inclined to think that the 20D produces a better overall image, even when you have to crop a lot, but maybe that last is my imagination. Take home message: don't buy the 400D for the extra MP, at best, it makes no difference.
- Size: the 20D/30D is nicer in the hand for sure. (YMMV.) But the 400D is OK. No big deal.
- Speed: I'm surprised how little difference the slower speed made. I expected 3 FPS to be a major factor when shooting birds with the 500/4 and the 100-400, but although the 5 FPS is nicer, I didn't miss a whole lot.
- Controls and menus. A fairly major difference. A clear win to the 20D/30D here. Partly this is just familiarity, of course, but the 400D is clunky and awkward at times. I particularly dislike the way that the menu disappears in bright light because of the stupid colours - the black and white main screen is readable all the time, but the coloured menu lacks the necessary contrast and you can't read it when you need it. And, of course, there are things you need to use the menu for on the 400D which you have buttons and a rear wheel for on the 20D/30D.
- Shutter button. The 400D shutter button is too light - bit of a hair trigger. You get used to it, but I still sometimes take shots without meaning to. No big deal.
- Spot meter. The 20D hasn't got one either, can't compare. But I did get a fairly consistent trend with the 400D to under-expose in high-contrast, bright scenes. Is the partial circle on the 400D bigger than the one on the 20D? I wondered if maybe I just accidentally switched it over to matrix and didn't notice - it is very easy to set the 400D to something you didn't want by accident. But no: a second weekend clearly demonstrates that the 400D tends to under-expose things. I'll probably wind up using a half stop of EC on it all the time.
- Sensitivity: the 20D sensor wins comfortably. The 400D needs to go to a higher ISO to keep shutter speeds up sooner than the 20D does. It's a subtle difference, but a significant one. Canon clearly did the right thing when they kept the 20D sensor for the 30D.
- Viewfinder: a clear win to the 20D - the small 400D finder is not nearly as good. Most of the time, this is OK, especially for birding work, but you notice it when you are framing landscapes and especially macros.
Overall, I'm very impressed with the little 400D. It's a great camera. But It is clearly not as good in day-to-day use as the 20D. If I was planning to keep it for any length of time, I'd be annoyed that I didn't spend the extra and get a 30D. But given my plan to pass it on to my friend and replace it with my other 20D (after repairs), then a 1D III not too many months down the track, I'm happy with my purchase.
For birding, the 20D/30D is still the king. The 400D resolution advantage is no advantage, the extra 2 FPS is worth having (though less critical than I'd expected), the speed and accuracy of the 20D/30D/5D control set is a significant factor, the better sensitivity of the 20D/30D is worth having. So, for now, I'm mostly using the 400D as the second body, for macros and landscapes, and mostly using the 20D for serious birding. But if, for example, the shutter of the 20D blows up (it's done almost as much work as my other 20D, so it can't go for too much longer), the 400D will get me by.