20D vs 400D

[Tannin]

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.

[Birdsnapper]

I've got a 20D, but find using my wife's 350D very good when snapping birds with camera on a tripod - all the info you need is on the LCD meaning that you don't have to move off the subject when changing shooting settings.
I always tuck my little finger under the camera (whatever camera I've used over the years) to give additional support, so the smaller size of the 350D doesn't matter to me. the 350D with a Tamron 24-135 lens is also great for carrying around - nice and compact and light.
I do love the 20D, but am very pleased that I have access to 350D.

[Roy C]

I have just got a 30D as a second body to go with my 350D( simular layout to the 400D i think) - biggest advantage I have found in the 30D is the Controls and menus, the big wheel is great.

[yelvertoft]

Many thanks Tony for a very comprehensive write-up, I'm sure many people will find this to be useful.

[postcardcv]

I totally agree about the extra 2mp... a couple of years back I changed from a 300D (6mp) to a 350D (8mp) and never noticed the difference, I recently added a 400D (10mp) and don't notice any sigificant difference.

Having never owned a 20D I can't comment on the difference in controls, but personally find the 350/400D very easy to use. I guess it's because I've used them for a while, but I can change most settings without taking my eye from the view finder. My only grumble with the 400D is the lack of a seperate display for camera settings.. but that's probably just me.

It's interesting to hear that you felt that the slower frame rate wasn't a big issue. I've only ever had 3fps and feel it does the job fine, though 5fps has always been a bit tempting... the 10fps of the new 1D mk III sounds a bit over the top to me. A couple of those in a hide together and it will sound like a warzone.

[Tannin]

I agree with you both. (Roy and Postcardcv, I mean - I'm too modest to agree with Yelvertoft.) Yes, Roy, the 20D/30D/5D controls are clearly superior to the 350D/400D controld, especially the big wheel, which gives you the ability to change two things without fiddling about pressing buttons. (For me, this is aperture and EC; a button press gives me ISO on the wheel, but it's partially customisable.)

And I agree with you too Postcardcv that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the controls on the 400D. (The 350D is almost the same, if I remember my brief experience with a friend's one at Christmas correctly.) Perfectly usable, and if you haven't spent any amount of time with a 20D/30D/5D, you wouldn't know what you are missing.

That's not to say that you are misssing much. I'd give the 400D 7 out of 10 for controls, and 8 out of 10 to the 30D - and I'm a very hard marker. I haven't seen any camera that I'd give 10 out of 10 to yet, though if I ever get my hands on a Pentax K10D I might, and looking at the specs for the 1D III that might rate a 9.

(Nikon users are probably wondering where this Canon man rates the Nikon bodies. Not sure, actually. I must have another play with my father's D70 next time I see him. Only I have to make sure that I don't like it too much as I have too much invested in Canon glass to change now!)

Errr ... I seem to be off topic. Again.

[Tannin]

Oh, and as for the frame rate, Postcardcv, I was surprised how little I missed the 5 FPS of the 20D. Yes, I did miss it, but I could live with 3 FPS long-term if I had to. A lot of the time you just get 60-odd percent more shots of the same thing anyway.

But there are times when it's one of those two "missing" shots that was going to be the keeper. Example: you have a bird in frame from an angle early in the morning when it's half in light, half in shadow - i.e., you are side-on to the sun just after sunrise. This can make a fantastic shot, but only if the bird has its head at exactly the right angle. With thornbills and small honeyeaters and the like, they move so fast that you haven't got a hope in hell of timing your shutter press by eye, you just have to squeeze the shutter when it starts to move, hold it down, and hope you will hit the magic moment.

This is the sort of thing that the 1D III will excel at, of course. And the sort of thing that makes my storage media suppliers rub their hands together in glee .... all those extra flash cards and backup drives.

Oh, and you won't need two of them in a hide to sound like a war zone. Have you heard any of the MP3s floating around the web? At 10 FPS and a design life of 300,000 actuations, if we shoot small JPGs to prevent the buffer getting full and ignore stopping to change flash cards and batteries, you could wear the thing out 8 hours and 20 minutes after opening the box for the first time.

[postcardcv]

Originally Posted by Tannin

Oh, and you won't need two of them in a hide to sound like a war zone. Have you heard any of the MP3s floating around the web? At 10 FPS and a design life of 300,000 actuations, if we shoot small JPGs to prevent the buffer getting full and ignore stopping to change flash cards and batteries, you could wear the thing out 8 hours and 20 minutes after opening the box for the first time.

So there might be a few of these being repaired under warranty...!

I know there is an advantage to higher fps, I just tell meyself there isn't as there's no way I can afford a 1D... much the same way that I tell myself that you don't need IS on a long lens... I'm almost believing it all now

[sassan]

How did I miss this thread?

As a owner and in fact mostly use together a 30D and XT (Oversea called 350) I can give some first hand opinion but unfortunately I don't have a XTi (400D) for exact comparison.

Tony one very important feature you forgot to name under "pro", in fact a reason that I may consider changing my XT for XTi is the introduction of "Sensor Cleaning" on XTi that canon added for the very first time on its production line. This is both software (finding that dirt spot intelligently and clone it with adjacent area (As I think it does) and then the "Hardware sensor cleaner" that actually mechanically cause removal of sensor dirt.
I have no doubt that every one knows how dirt on sensor is frustrating and also how commonly this happens. But how good Canon has managed to create this sensor cleaner is the question I need to find in my own way and like to here opinion of those who work with it.

Three or Five frame per second, IMO is a major major difference. It makes that needed latitude, when you need the fast motion captured. So it is type of photography you indulge that determine if it is needed or not. Of course if you only do macro or portrait, you don't need it but shooting model in action, photojouranlism, bird shooting, sport event or so on, you will see the difference in terms of winner or looser image. it is a 40% difference and in my hand a very significant one. 20D and 30D are among the very few Canon models that give you this speed even very much higher priced bodies don't. To me MK III's speed is a bit dreamy for now, but 30D is a must. One very important thing here is the size of buffer as if small, and you fill it up quick, then there is no real use. Also note that 20D only gives you 5 fps but 30D gives option for 3 or 5 fps. Another really good feature as I commonly noticed with rapid 5 fps, I do take more excessive, not needed shoots. Seems like body can't act fast enough for these machines.

In a bird shooting photo session on one weekend morning at pier when I was in a constant machine gun use of burst 5fps mode, (Dan is gonna laugh at me now...) I successfully managed to kill my 30D when red access light was constantly on and nothing else was working. To make a long story short, being under warranty still, my beloved 30D had a vacation at Canon's factory center that fortunately is only one hour away from where I live. The magnificent thing that happened was for me to learn how nice, helpful, polite and even passionate these Canon personal are. I was too impressed with kind of care I got. Adding that to a turn over time of 5 days. Gush there is even more reasons why I love Canon...
Take home lesson for me, though you have, use it wisely and only when needed. No this is not a Cine-camera.... But to say if it is a useful feature or not, I say YES firmly.

Two extra megapixel? Well here I laugh. After introduction of 2 MP pictures (When I learned how to struggle with 0.5 and subsequently 1.3 MP image resolution), I really never saw any difference in quality. Well I am not one who shoot to make a billboard size enlarged picture or poster.

One very important thing you need to keep in mind is that Control Bottoms and ergonomics of XT and XTi or 20D/30D/5D are very similar. You may hardly figure out which one you are using as you have one of the two series. But when mixing for eg in my case XT and 30D, you constantly need to struggle to fine how to do what, on every switch between the camera bodies. I remember very well on first days of owner shipping 30D, how hard everything, for eg change of ISO, Costume WB etc was, when you go for familiar locations from your other camera.

Feel of camera; Sure different but IMO small and light is an advantage. If you need the rough rugged feel of 20D/30D just add a power pack to XT. You will be very satisfied.

Now finally to answer your simple question;
I don't think XTi is a good substitute for you. Not to say I think any less in terms of quality you get from XTi but just its the combination that needs to be complimentary in my opinion.

My Suggestions:
1) If money is not an issue, go for 30D as backup.
2) If so, think of buying a used 20D that you are completely familiar with. Thanks to new brother introduced, the 20Ds price is significantly dropped. You may even fine a new 20D for dirt price if your camera shops inventory permits.

Out of topic: But I was curious what made you to think in your scoring scale, to give a 10 to Pentax 10K? In other words is it to give a 10 or get a 10 (Now Duncan is gonna hate me).