EOS 20D - Decent Way to get into DSLR cheaply?

[Agentbolt]

I used to have a Canon T1i back in the day, but I ended up selling it because I never really used it. I learned the basics of DSLR photography, and the pictures came out fine, but it just didn't seem worth the 900 dollar investment I was making at the time considering my Canon point and shoot was still what I was mostly using.

Flash forward to today, and I kind of miss having a DSLR around to be able to screw with aperture and shutter settings and get that really nice low-light performance the T1i had. A friend of mine is getting rid of his old EOS 20D along with the 18-55 kit lens and a thrifty fifty 1.8 prime lens. I could grab it all for about 400 bucks. Alternatively, I could try to grab a used entry level shooter like the XS or the XSI, but honestly am I going to see a huge difference?

I don't care about live view or movie shooting, and as long it'll take the modern EF-S lenses (I do really like Canon and I'm used to their menu system, so I'd like to stick with the brand) I'm not aware of any fancy features I'd be missing out on.

Anyone care to chime in?

 

[Kelvrick]

I'm still on a 20d since other expenses just get in the way. The dual control wheels is something I refuse to give up to make the jump to something like the t3i and I can't afford something like the 7d or 60d. 400 seems kinda pricey for the camera (assuming battery?) and those two lenses though.

Off the top of my head, I'm thinking the 20d is worth 200-250 and each of those lenses is worth 50.

 

[cparker]

The screen on the 20d will be pretty small and not accurate. It will take great pictures, though. I think you might do better with a refurbished d40 at the same price. Here's a link:

http://www.adorama.com/INKD40KR.html...FYSK4AodjEFzzg

I have both the d40 and a close relative of the 20d, the rebel XT which shares the smaller, less accurate lcd of the 20d. Both take great pictures, but getting a factory refurbished model of the d40 will get you a camera with a superb, larger screen with way better color accuracy, a camera that's at least a generation more recent and that has an excellent kit lens. I think you would be much happier with that choice.

 

[cparker]

sorry, duplicate

 

[novasatori]

buy a cheaper/older/broken canon point and shoot and use it to buy a DSLR from the loyalty program

you can get a 50D + 28-135 IS kit lens for like $665
or body only for $562

the best post about it is here:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=948785

 

[996GT2]

20D is a fine camera to start on. The ergonomics and build quality are way ahead of the Rebel line. I had a 20D as a backup for some time and it worked great next to my 5D. ISO performance is good up to 800, and with some NR in PP 1600 is usable as well. The screen does kind of suck, but really you shouldn't be chimping after every shot anyway

 

[angry hampster]

20D is a great starter cam. If want a little bigger screen, check out the 30D. Same cam (more or less) with a bigger screen.

 

[ElFenix]

The screen on the 20d will be pretty small and not accurate. It will take great pictures, though. I think you might do better with a refurbished d40 at the same price. Here's a link:

http://www.adorama.com/INKD40KR.html...FYSK4AodjEFzzg

I have both the d40 and a close relative of the 20d, the rebel XT which shares the smaller, less accurate lcd of the 20d. Both take great pictures, but getting a factory refurbished model of the d40 will get you a camera with a superb, larger screen with way better color accuracy, a camera that's at least a generation more recent and that has an excellent kit lens. I think you would be much happier with that choice.

at first i thought you were talking about the viewfinder so your recommendation of a D40 really made me , then i realized you were talking about the screen on the back of the the camera

the 20D has a much bigger viewfinder and in an SLR that counts for a lot more than the review screen on the back.

 

[AkumaX]

400's a little much... shoot for $300

 

[foghorn67]

That sounds a wee steep. Not bad, but you can find better for that price.

 

[GTaudiophile]

As I former 20D and current 5DII owner, I would recommend saving a little more and buying a Canon 5D Classic and go straight to full-frame. And then say pair it with a decent, inexpensive lens like the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and Canon 85/1.8, each costing about $300 on the used market, respectively. The 5Dc sells for around $900 on the used market. So, about $1500 total. Steep, I know. But the performance delta between the 20D and 5Dc is HUGE!

 

[GTaudiophile]

BTW, I sold my 20D about 18 months ago in mint condition for about $250.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

This sounds like the perfect way to get back into the DSLR world. Don't listen to these other guys telling you to spend more on X body or whatever. If you take care of the 20D then you will easily be able to sell it for $200 a year from now and upgrade to a newer/better body, if you feel the need.

The 20D's weak point is definitely the screen on the back. In almost every other regard it is roughly the equal of the 30D, 40D, and 5D (sensor notwithstanding, of course -- although it is pretty much the equal of the 30D in that regard). In handling, it is a great partner to my 5D. I don't have to do anything special to transition between them: every control is in the exact same place. Nice magnesium alloy body, dual control wheels, real pentaprism viewfinder, 5 FPS, 9-point autofocus (much better than the earlier 10D) and immediate startup (again, much better than the 10D which took a second or two to "wake up" and start shooting). The screen sucks (small and inaccurate colors, as previously mentioned), but that's about all that's really lacking. I would gladly trade mine for a 30D or 40D, but there's nothing that has me pulling my hair out when using it (unlike the 10D, which I had for a while alongside my 5D).

But suffice it to say the step up from a Rebel body (any Rebel body) (or a low-end Nikon like the D40, D3100 etc.) is huge -- sensor and processing (i.e., video) aside. Especially since you want to get all photographery with it. In Manual mode, the small wheel beside the shutter changes shutter speed, and the big wheel on the back changes aperture. ISO is changed by pushing a button on top and then rotating the big wheel on the back. Easy peasy, especially compared with Rebel bodies (which only have one wheel, and then you have to hunt and peck for buttons to make the other changes).

As for pricing, I'd say this is about in line, maybe a bit expensive; I would maybe talk him down to $350 as others have mentioned. If the 18-55 is not the IS version (I'll assume it's not, since the IS version wasn't around when the 20D came out), then it's really not worth much at all (and you should look at buying the IS version ASAP, around $100). The Thrifty Fifty is worth around $75-$100 depending on condition. Would I pay $400 for a 20D+18-55 non-IS+50/1.8 on Craigslist? No. (I paid $425 for my current 20D, Canon battery grip BG-E2 (worth around $75-100) and a Sigma 24-60/2.8. I sold the Sigma for $200 and was in to the 20D and grip for $225... and this was over a year ago, before the 60D came out.) Would I buy it from a friend for that much, if I wanted a starter DSLR? Maybe. But I'd probably try to talk him down a bit. Sorta depends on the friend, personal considerations, whether he can afford it vs. whether I could afford it, etc. Craigslist, I'd go $300 or even lowball at $250. A friend that I want to price fairly, $350. Or see if you can get just the body and the 50mm for $300 (he can keep the non-IS 18-55) and pick up an 18-55 IS on eBay.

 

[Agentbolt]

Thanks all! Sorry, I should've mentioned, the 18-55 is the IS version, if I recall the 18-55 kit lenses before then were horrible so I wouldn't have even wanted it.. The price seemed pretty decent to me, if we're talking 200 for the body, 100 for the 50, and 100 for the kit lens. It's a friend selling it so I don't want to violently lowball hm, if 400 bucks is fair I'll just pay that. If someone knows where I can find a used 50 or IS Kit lens for 75 bucks by all means point me in that direction, those lenses are like the sole things in the whole of capitalism that seem not to depreciate at all.

My main concern was the by going with the 20D I'd be missing out on some vital, can't-miss feature in modern DSLRs. Like I knew the 10D couldn't use EF-S lenses, something like that. If it's got a terrible screen on the back that's not a huge deal, without liveview the rear viewscreen isn't that big of a deal.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Ok, if the 18-55 is the IS version, then $100 is reasonable for that lens and $400 is reasonable overall.

You're right, lenses tend not to depreciate much, but there are always variations and the chances for deals, especially on used lenses being sold by individuals. If you just need money and want to dump a (functioning, undamaged) 50/1.8 on a photography forum, you can list it for $75 and have it sold within the hour. Pricing it at $85 or $95 might get a few takers while at $100 or more it will probably sit there for a while (Buy It Now on eBay runs about $105 for a new-in-box version.) It's about the same with the 18-55 IS, maybe a little higher ($115-$125 for brand-new Buy It Now -- usually not in box since these are mostly kit lenses that people dump when they buy the DSLR kit since they already have other lenses). So, if you are patient and you scout for deals, you can pick these lenses up for around 20-25% cheaper than they're probably worth. And once in a blue moon you come across a really desperate or ignorant seller and you can steal stuff for 25%-50% of its market value. This is just a function of the marketplace. I know what I'm willing to pay, and I know what some lenses have sold for, but that doesn't mean that every price is a fair reflection of the value of the lens.

But overall, I'd say yes. $200 for the body and $200 for the lenses is pretty reasonable (although the $200 for the lenses might be split more like $90/$110 than $100/$100).

20D -- only thing missing is video and a decent rear screen. If you don't mind those things, it's a great camera (and there's a reason why I haven't tried to move up to a 30D or 40D in the ~1.5 years that I've had the 20D -- the 20D is simply good enough).