There is a pretty big discussion on Photo.net about the 20D v. 30D. Most people are suggesting this is a disappointing upgrade, mostly because the 30D uses the same 8.2 MP sensor as the 20D. Many are suggesting this camera should have been called the 20D Mk II, rather than the 30D.

The logic behind this is that while the 30D is "better" than the 20D, it is not that much better to warrant a new product designation. Personally, I still use a 10D, so it doesn't make any difference to me, but what do you 20D users think? Is this a worthwhile upgrade to trade (slightly) up? Does the spot meter, larger LCD, etc. make a big enough difference to you to consider the 30D over your 20D?

Personally, my next camera will probably be a used 20D, since I imagine prices will fall with the release of the 30D.

I was wondering myself what the big dif was. I might buy the 20D if the price drops significantly because of the 30D, although the price is actually pretty decent even now.

I don't think that the 30D is different enough to demand, or even suggest, an upgrade. One thing I keep hearing about is the 100,000 cycle shutter durability. This is apparently pro-level. But it begs the question, what is the shutter cycle durability of the 20D? Not that I'm worried about ever taking 100,000 pictures, but this durability parameter is never listed on Canon's non-pro cameras. Anybody know?

Spot metering is nice, but Canon's evaluative and partial metering have never failed me, yet.

Bigger LCDs are nice, but does this adversely affect the battery life?

After all, photography is about images. The CMOS is the same. Everything else is secondary for me. Now if Canon introduces a full-frame camera with the 5D's sensor at the 30D price point, uh-oh.

To me, this is strange marketing by Canon. If they called the 30d a 20dn, like similar minor upgrades to the canon 1's, or elan7 to elan7n, everybody would be praising the change. Especially since it's price is the same; maybe even less. I don't know anyone who "upgraded" from a 1dII/1dsII to the "n" version.

But then again, they slightly modified the body. Yet againn, they did this with the 1's too and they're still called 1's...

A bigger lcd and spot metering? While nice, I wouldn't really consider these enough to upgrade. IMO, and someone will roast me for this, I never found on my camera's a significant difference over partial and spot metering. Plus with digital I can always review the histogram and fine tune. Now, I wonder if they improved the histogram readout's resolutions and incorporated this to the fullest on the larger lcd???

Mike

I own a 20D and was frankly disappointed with the 30D. The 20D viewfinder is adequate and frankly hard to see out of in low light-no improvement in the 30D. The number of focus points in the 20D are not enough for many action/bird shots so expect to drop some shots because the 20D hit the wrong part of the picture--no 30D improvement. No meg upgrade from the 20D which probably would of improved the viewfinder. The 20D is a good camera, they took baby steps with the 30D.

They should have called it the 20D Mark II or the 20D N. There are not enough changes to warrant a new series number. A few more focus points would have been nice, and a faster burst rate would have been very, very nice, but oh well.

I am happy about this upgrade only because I was about to buy a 20D for myself. I'm glad I held off on the purchase long enough to see this release. Yes, the 20D will be cheaper now if you can find it used, but I am extremely paranoid about used gear and rarely buy any. So I'm hoping they release the 30D body around $1100-1200.

The bigger LCD is a nice-to-have, but the spot metering will be very useful for me. I shoot a lot of formal events where the speaker is under a spotlight in a dark room.

That said, if I already owned a 20D, I would not upgrade. But since I was about to buy one anyway, I'm quite pleased with the circumstances.

If I read correctly it is the same size sensor but NOT the same sensor, it's improved from the 20D sensor. The processor is also "updated" as it has higher frame rate and consecutive frames in addition to the things you mentioned. If I were to buy a backup I'd get the 30D over the 20D.

JS

Luminous Landscape said it's the same sensor <shrug>
I like the idea of calling the 30D the 20DmkIIN so it doesn't get confused with the D30 ...

It hasn't got enought ot make me want to upgrade, but as a new purchase, the 30D over the 20D has enough advantages to make it worth it.
But with the 20D prices falling with the introduction, a second hand 20D might be better value.

Depends if you would use the new features.

Stephen, I too shoot with the 10D. I had decided a few months back to get the 5D as I did not think the 20D was that much of an improvement over the 10D (IMO, guys!). Then, I heard about the 30D coming out and so I waited. I'm disappointed (like many of you apparently) that the 30D wasn't more of an improvement over the 20D. It sounds like the major effect of the 30D was to make the 20D's less expensive.

So, looks like I'm still scheduled for the 5D. The cost jump for the 5D is just so extreme (again, IMO).

Stephen, I too shoot with the 10D. I had decided a few months back to get the 5D as I did not think the 20D was that much of an improvement over the 10D (IMO, guys!). Then, I heard about the 30D coming out and so I waited. I'm disappointed (like many of you apparently) that the 30D wasn't more of an improvement over the 20D. It sounds like the major effect of the 30D was to make the 20D's less expensive.

So, looks like I'm still scheduled for the 5D. The cost jump for the 5D is just so extreme (again, IMO).
I don't think you'll be disappointed with the 20D. I think it's a huge difference in performance over the 10D IMHO. I've had opportunity to test the 20D clinically at the office when our periodontist brought his in with him last week. I had the assistants using both the 10D against the 20D, and I even brought the 1D Mk II from our upstairs studio down to compare against the 20D (set ups were with 100mm f2.8 macro and MR-14EX ringlights). The 20D focused faster and got the shots we needed more consistently than the 10D, and even edged the 1D II, although the weight of the 1D might have something to do with it (we shoot one handed, with the other hand holding an arch mirror in the mouth). All the assistants wanted me to order the 20D as a replacement for our now aging and venerable 10D's, but that will wait until the prices of the 20D comes down just a bit (hopefully) with the intro of the 30D.

Don't get me wrong, Lionheart - I realize that technologically the 20D is quite a different animal than the 10D. Just, for me, I didn't think these differences justified spending a grand and a half (at the time). I'd rather buy lenses instead. Although I did like the start-up lag (specifically, the lack thereof) :o

For me, a lot has to do with feel and balance. I'm used to clunky/heavy metal equipment. As far as SLR's go, the relatively light 20D seemed out-of-balance with the heavier lenses I plan to use.