Please make it as descriptive as possible

Well, the 40d is bigger and heavier to start with (especially with the battery grip attached) but this does mean the LCD screen is 3" compared with the 1.8" on the 20d. Some of the general features are nicely updated although must admit that the image quality is pretty similar between the two. A very hard one to call Paul - personally, I'd stick with the 20D unless you had the cash to spend.

Canon Eos 20D Digital SLR [8.2Mp up to 5fps] - Body Only

What the Crowd Thinks Compare Prices

Added: 1 year ago 2 0

This is useful This is not useful

To be honest with you Paul it really depends on what your level is as a photographer. If you are a seasoned amateur who takes photos often, through to a semi-professional (doing some paid work as an adjunct to your career) then I would definitely say that the extra resolution, better focusing and metering and the speed bump were all easily worth the money, and if you shop around I think that you'll be quite surprised how cheaply it can be had already. If on the other hand you are just a "fair weather" 'tog (there's nothing wrong with being so, I'm just making the distinction), then the 20D can be had for some great prices and you will find it to be an excellent bit of kit. Even then, knowing how much happier I am with my 30D than I was with the 20D I borrowed before I took the plunge, I would say that if you can afford the 40D and you don't think that the features are beyond your requirements I think you will be pleased with the 40D as a camera, for longer than you might be if you buy a 20D. Hope that answers your question :-) All the best, Oli

Added: 1 year ago 3 0

This is useful This is not useful