40D performance vs. 20D?

I've sold enough photos lately that I can convince my wife that maybe I should be able to reward myself with an equipment purchase..



I get by on the cheap for avian, with "only" a Canon 400mm 5.6L, and a 20D that I actually won in a Canon photo contest. I haven't really bought any new equipment for several years.

I'm not likely to ever go to something on the high end of the Canon range for bodies, especially because I love the 1.6 crop factor by using bodies like my 20D.

Question...how much of a performance improvement could I expect going from a 20D to a 40D? I know the spec differences, but I'm talking in terms of actual field performance, particularly potential autofocus improvements in the 40D, noise at higher ISOs, metering, etc.

Any thoughts? Anybody directly compared performance of the two?

I have a 40D that I use for topsides (replaced the 20D) and also have a couple of 20Ds which I use for underwater photography.

If I had to guess, I'd say that the 40D has a little faster AF, and 6.5fps is an improvement. High ISO seems to be about the same - certainly no better. Metering is the same Canon metering - reliable once you know its few quirks (harsh sidelighting, especially).

For me, the purchase was worth it - the improvements are small but noticeable. I dont think there are too many shots I can take with the 40D which I cannot take with the 20D, but overall, the 40D has a crisper, more decisive feel to it when taking the images. Whether or not that is worth it to you, I dont know.

Keep in mind that these are merely my impressions based on extended use first with one, and then the other. I havent really tried or tested both of them together.

Regards,
Vandit

Terry, my wife got a 40D in February. It was a step up from a 10D. I know this is not the same as your 20D to 40D step up, but I can say the 40D is superb! The AF is not as fast as my 1DMK2, but it is fast. The camera feels solid and the controls are well placed. The large screen is more and more important for our aging eyes. Most importantly, if you have the high ISO low noise option turned on as a custom function the noise level is very low. The Digi3 processing and 14 bit color is producing great images.

So, all in all, I think the camera is well worth the upgrade. And, no, I don't work for Canon. My wife and I just like the camera a lot.

I also upgraded from the 10D to the 40D, where performance increases were significant.
The 20D->40D upgrade path seems to be more incremental. I would wait for the next iteration (50D?) if I were you.

I happened to upgrade from Canon 30D to 40D and find it much better especially in terms of getting the shot. You simply don't miss the shot - the camera is so responsive. As a matter of fact I'm planning to buy one more body soon.

All the best with your new camera.

I own both the 20 & 40D. I love 'em both, and I take both with me when I shoot. It's quicker to have two cameras set up for different subjects. The 40D is better at handling noise even with high ISOs and faster to focus and shooting fps. That being said, I find myself using the 20D for about 40% of my shots. I think the pictures right out of the raw files for the 40D are a little more vibrant and sharper, but after a few tweaks with the software I don't believe you can tell what image came from which camera. You can't go wrong with either one. Maybe you should wait for the new 5D and really treat yourself.

Take care,