I was considering a 20D when something made me think to look into a used 1D. I'm sorry for another silly post of the sort since a thread from a while back touched upon it: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AGah However, it was still a 10D vs. 1D question (some responses touched the 20D, though) and the person asking the question shoot sports. The overwhelming consensus of that thread, especially from people using both cameras, was that 1D was much superior. Yet, 20D is a better camera than 10D and I don?t shoot sports where fps and other speed factors are crucial. If I DO NOT print larger than 8 x 11, what will be the noticeable differences between the two cameras from a picture quality perspective? Also, I like B&W if it changes anything. The review of the 1D on dpreview talked about high ISO banding. How bad is it in practice and in what situations my images will be actually ruined by that? I know about multiple advantages of the 1D, but there are some disadvantages of the body for me as well to buy it without even thinking about anything else (size ? I can handle it if I need to but it?s a cone; still a higher price than even a new 20D). I would only want it if I get picture quality advantages to print up to 8 x 11. (I?m an amateur switching from EOS 3 to digital). Thanks very much in advance. Igor.