[tgl]

Simple question. Is the extra money on the 20D really worth it compared to the 350D? I really need some compelling reasons to pay the extra £££'s.


Thanks.

Tgl

[Pezza]

There's a few spec differences between the two, which may or may not affect you depending on what you intend to shoot. Things that are important for me after using the 20d for the past 8 months or so are the control dial at the back which enables you to change settings very quickly, the fact that it autofocuses in really rather low light, and the incredible battery life.

Killer factor for me at the time of purchase tho' was that the 350d was far too small for my hands. And my hands are far from big! Tried it in the shop with the 24-70 F2.8L series lens on it, which is a heavy lens, and it felt unbelieveably insecure, like I was about to drop it all the time. 20D provides a much better grip and feels all-round very solid. I now use it with the 24-105 F4L lens, which is again reasonably heavy, and it's fantastic.

Useful linky here http://bobatkins.photo.net/photograp...xt_vs_20d.html

[senu]

Look Here and see what you think.

Handle both cameras and see which one you think youll not tire of easily . I was in exactly the same positon as you and bought the 350D + camera grip + extra battery and now going for some lenses.
The PQ is very similar. What you pay for ( apart from the Pose factor: My camera is bigger than yours: ) Is perhaps a percieved ruggedness, durability and a tangible responsiveness said to be better in the 20D.

With the benefit of hindsight ,I still feel happy that I did not buy the 20D( for the £400-500 difference then) because Im now looking at the 30D, 5D or even D200 Nikon as possible upgrade paths only 12- 14 months after!.
If the cost difference is less now you may be swayed

[tgl]

Originally Posted by Pezza

There's a few spec differences between the two, which may or may not affect you depending on what you intend to shoot. Things that are important for me after using the 20d for the past 8 months or so are the control dial at the back which enables you to change settings very quickly, the fact that it autofocuses in really rather low light, and the incredible battery life.

Killer factor for me at the time of purchase tho' was that the 350d was far too small for my hands. And my hands are far from big! Tried it in the shop with the 24-70 F2.8L series lens on it, which is a heavy lens, and it felt unbelieveably insecure, like I was about to drop it all the time. 20D provides a much better grip and feels all-round very solid. I now use it with the 24-105 F4L lens, which is again reasonably heavy, and it's fantastic.

Useful linky here http://bobatkins.photo.net/photograp...xt_vs_20d.html

Thanks for that. The grip and balance are very important to me. I used to have a Canon 35mm SLR that fealt just as you describe with heavy lenses, and I hated it. The only slight point putting me off is the weight. It could be just me, but I just think these new Digital SLR's aren't as solidly made compared to their film counterparts. I tried the 20D in the shop, and it just lacked the solid weight I am used to.

Hmmm...I guess the 20D may be the better bet short of forking out for a full frame sensored 5D

Thanks for your input!

tgl

[tgl]

Originally Posted by senu

Look Here and see what you think.

Handle both cameras and see which one you think youll not tire of easily . I was in exactly the same positon as you and bought the 350D + camera grip + extra battery and now going for some lenses.
The PQ is very similar. What you pay for ( apart from the Pose factor: My camera is bigger than yours: ) Is perhaps a percieved ruggedness, durability and a tangible responsiveness said to be better in the 20D.

With the benefit of hindsight ,I still feel happy that I did not buy the 20D( for the £400-500 difference then) because Im now looking at the 30D, 5D or even D200 Nikon as possible upgrade paths only 12- 14 months after!.
If the cost difference is less now you may be swayed

Great review link, senu! That was very helpful. As you say I think I need to go back to a shop and have a look at the 350D. To date I have only touched the 20D, but this morning I had a brainwave and thought to compare it with the 350D.

[Mark Grant]

I would also say you need to visit a shop and try the 350D.

Much smaller and lighter than people expect.

Both are great cameras for the new bargain prices.

350D with lens under £500, 20D £750 (body only) £799 with lens.

If you think a 20D is lightweight, you wont like the 350D.

You could always look for a 1D series if you like heavy


Mark.

[Pezza]

Also on the £££'s front, I would remember to budget for a better lens than the kit one with either body. The 18-55mm one really does feel quite 'Fisher Price', and while the images it produces are ok you'll reap dividends by getting something better. A £50 lens on a £500/£750 body is, to use a hifi analogy, like plugging a Goodmans DVD player into a Linn AV system!

But that's a whole new thread altogether

[senu]

Originally Posted by Pezza

..... A £50 lens on a £500/£750 body is, to use a hifi analogy, like plugging a Goodmans DVD player into a Linn AV system!

...

hmm.... or plugging an alba cd player into a Meridian Av system.. ( You s**b )
I totally agree.. . Canons L lens on the High-End ( Non SLR) Canon Power shot Pro one is a much better lens than the kit lens on either the 20D or 350D.
I found that even the 50mm USM lens from my film Canon was that much sharper.
The 18-55mm EFs is acceptable but in comparison ultimately underwhelming. That said with some skill one can get reasonable results from it whilst saving up (as Im now doing!)
Good second hand lenses can be got on e-bay.

[tgl]

Thanks everyone I'll let everyone know what I decide to buy in the end.

Regardless of the camera I go for, I don't think I will bother going with the kit option. I think I would prefer to buy a decent lense up front, because I think I will be disappointed if I spend an extra £100 for the kit/lense only to have to replace it soon after.

As ever - thanks for all your input!