Quote Originally Posted by Asylum Steve
I understand your point, but I suppose it all depends on your needs. And, of course, I've based my thinking on the premise that the 1D MK II is still a bit of a luxury item, and for most shooters out of reach finacially...

Truth is, the 20D looks to be much better in some rather important ways for a pro or seriour amateur. IMO, quantum leaps are not neccessary to want to upgrade.

The 10D is very much a "prosumer" DLSR, and in many ways a compromise for a pro shooter (compared to the top EOS film cameras). With the introduction of the 20D, yeah it's still a compromise, but bridges the gap a bit more.

Increased resolution, increased FPS continuous shooting, much quicker start-up time, better focusing, and overall better electronics and controls are just some of the features that make this new model appealing.

But yes, if these are not things that will make a noticable difference in your digital workflow, then simply getting this camera because it's the newest model makes no sense...
Good points, Steve. I was just being a spoiler last night. I realize the majority of folks, including myself wouldn't buy the 1D MkII just for the performance leap- the price doesn't justify the difference between the 1D and the 10D/20D for most folks. If not for the fact that I purchased the camera for use everyday at work, I couldn't afford to get my hands on this camera if I had to purchase this as a personal camera with after tax dollars instead of pre-tax dollars. We have two 10D's at work, which are great cameras, but the AF can be very frustrating at times. The 1D MKII has been a huge leap forward from the 10D's in terms of AF, making my work simpler and more efficient, definitely worth the extra dollars from a clinical standpoint, both for myself and the patients (they're not gagging with an intra-oral mirror in their mouths longer than needed, and I'm not holding a heavy camera longer than needed.)