Simple Question from me.

[seungwoo_son]

Is my 20d too old now? I had it for over 3 years and used it alot. There is nothing wrong with the camera but I

feel like I have out dated camera with all these "new cameras". Reason for not buying new bodies was because I

spent money on the lenses which i think are more important than the body. I have 15mm fisheye, 17-40 L and 24-70

L. I just want people's opinion on this :)

[sattler123]

Is there anything you want to do that your camera won't allow you to? If the answer is "No" then your 20D is certainly not too old. We are all equipment junkies to a certain point, but we have to step back every so often and ask ourselves if we REALLY need a new camera or lens. I am as guilt as anyone - I lust for the new 5DMKII, but I will hold back - the truth is that my 5D does everything I ever wanted in a DSLR.

[vincent_peri]

I'm using Nikon F3 and F2A film bodies that range from 23 to 31 years old. They still make great photos.

[torin_olsen]

I just upgraded from a 20D to a 50D. Reasons: better high ISO noise performance, "silent" shooting

mode, and larger sensor for cropping. I do a lot of indoor performance photography so the step up was

easy.

 

As Juergen said, it's all in what you need the camera to do. If the 20D works, stick with it!

[christopher hartt dallas]

NO. Your 20D is not too old.

 

I have assistants that still use 20D's and get great results. And if you ever travel to Eastern Europe you will find that the 20D is 'state of the art' and some of these photographers produce images that I can only dream of.

 

Big company "marketing" will do its best to make us feel inadequate as photographers because we don't have the latest & greatest. "Good sense" is the "check" for this marketing fever. Keep your 20D. Master it. And if you have some extra funds, buy a great lens. The lens will improve your images more than the body.

[alan_green4]

i think you did the right thing investing in lenses. many do it the other way around -- they buy very

expensive bodies and put consumer lenses on them.

 

as long as the 20D keeps working and you like the images it will never be too old. with the lenses you

have you'll be in good shape when you do decide to get a new body.

[tibz]

This bugs me. It's the wrath of digital coming at us. The camera doesn't matter, it's just a box. I can take better pictures than many people with my cell phone. The camera does not make a difference. Go out and shoot pictures and stop worrying. 4x5s and film from 60 years ago will outshoot any digital camera made to date.

[tim_klimowicz]

I don't think it's fair to compare older film cameras to older digital cameras. The film they shoot have [mostly] gone

unchanged, and the newer film that has been developed can still be used. Older digital bodies still contain older digital

sensors, and the development of them over even the last half-decade has been enormous.

 

That said, unless you feel your 20D is holding you back for any reason (do you like shooting low light / high ISO most of

the time?), I wouldn't worry about it at all. I'm still shooting with the 30D, and the only thing that bothers me is the

relatively poor low-light capabilities. My camera is still affected by the noise banding issue in the lower range at and

above ISO 400, exasperated by going even higher to 800+, or by "pushing" a stop or 2 in post. Still, I find no strong

reason to upgrade.

 

If you have money to blow, then sure, pick up a new 5D MkII (any "upgrade" other than the new 5D probably wouldn't be

worth it, really, since your camera is still roughly on par with most everything else). Otherwise, hold out until you really

need one.

[dogbert]

Yes your camera is too old. Buy the 5D mark II tomorrow.

[kari v]

I feel that 10D is a bit old (no ef-s, slow) but 20D is still very nice and will be. Used ones are quite a bargain at the moment (unless shutter actuations are way up there).

[pjmeade]

When the shutter went on my 20D, I had the camera fixed and now it's back in service. I'm still very happy with the

results. So no, I don't think it's too old. Yes,it would be nice to have a self cleaning sensor, some element of weather

sealing and some of the other bells and whisles that the newer models have, but it's still an excellent model and

unless it's not doing something you want it to do, keep using it.

 

On the other hand, think about what you would do if your shutter failed. Three years old? It may be running out of

days.

[sbp]

You have some of the best lenses available, and the 20D is still a great body. Unless you feel somehow restricted by it's

capabilities (IQ, print size, etc.), why upgrade? A new lens might expand your capabilities more than an upgraded body.

And Canon shops can replace the shutter for about $250, if needed.

[robertbody]

When my camera reached 90,000 actuations after 2 years, I started thinking about the new model, then got it. If

you are not after something specific from a specific new camera, just wait for something bad to happen to yours,

then get the new one. Usually cameras like 20D have a life listed as 100,000 or 150,000 actuations but you might

get double or more out of it. Dead pixels could happen with time, or you might get damage on the body or plastic

or rubber could start look aged... if there is something you don't like about your camera, then it's time to switch.

<br><br>

My reasons were

<br>1) # of actuations,

<br>2) several dead pixels which I had to address in Photoshop

<br>3) rubber started to peel and from past camera I knew that would be a $30 or so investment to replace that

<br>4) new camera model had better ISO

<br>5) new camera model had significant reputation for better battery power, and I had gone through 4 batteries

in 4 days of shooting

<br><br>

That was my switch from Nikon D200 to D300 but the rules would be that for switching from any camera, there has

to be several factors to make it a good decision. The lenses can make such a difference to photos, so that is a

much more justified purchase.

[terry_smith2]

I still use a D30...

[jbauer]

The mindset of the original poster is EXACTLY the mindset that Canon and other companies try to create in their consumers. "Your camera is way old now buddy!" "You need the latest and greatest!". Well, that is all crapola from the word go.

 

The 20D has a wonderful feature set and great performance. Canon's annual incremental upgrades each year do not tempt me to dump my 20D. I buy Sigma lenses too - so take that Canon!

[sarah_fox]

Even my 10D is a perfectly capable camera, provided I'm in no hurry for it to write to the CF card, and provided the crop format is fine for what I'm doing. I bought a 5D, but it was the change in format that msotly drove my purchase. Otherwise the 10D is a very nice, VERY low noise camera. Your 20D is, of course, more advanced than the 10D.

[JDMvW]

Geoff (get a 5D mkII now) has my heart, but my mind tells me that my two 20Ds are still doing more than I need. Actually, there are some rational reasons for me to upgrade - improved viewfinder and the ability to get my shift lens to work as it should on a 24x36mm sensor. However, there are also rational reasons not to go right now- the combination of a daughter in college and the economy being two of them.

 

Unless there is something you really need in the new ones, the 20D will produce prints up to 13x19 inches witihout a struggle and some people go larger.

[john schroeder]

If you truly feel that buying a newer camera will make you a better photographer then spend the money on a class or seminar. The photographer makes the camera. If your camera is missing a feature that is holding back your creative ability then don't hesitate to upgrade.

[KenPapai]

YES it is old. Sept. 2007 my 10D was old so I bought a 40D. Oct. 2008 the 20D is now way yesterday's news and you "need" the 50D. The good glass investments pay off. 10D and 20D are like stone tools compared to 40D and 50D.

 

You'll be happy to upgrade. Just do it.

[Not Here]

I had a Nikon D50 which was fine for my use and needs, but wanting something that should have been better, I bought a D80. Now I have a newer body that burns the edges of the frame at long exposures... if what you have works for your photography, keep it!

 

"Striving to be better, oft we mar what's well." - William Shakespeare

[tdigi]

There is something to be said for upgrading the body. I went from a 300d to a 40D and the 2 separate dials made

exposure much quicker and easier and made learning that much easier. I would think its more worth upgrading if your

making a fairly decent jump. I would not go from a 40D to a 50D but I may upgrade to a 5D2.

 

However the other side of the coin is the money you can spend on a new body can be put to some more lenses. The

body is basically a computer and with technology moving so fast the new "computers" are always much better but not

always necessary.

 

All that being said I see many photographers still using 20D's. Its a fine camera so unless you need or want the full

frame I see little reason to upgrade.

[rich_evans]

It depends on what your looking to do - I think that's the theme of all the responses above. If it still works for you then there's no need to change. If you're thinking about future repairs and obsolescence of spare parts, then that's a consideration but most problems are either easy and relatively inexpensive or disastrous and only replacement will do ;-)

 

My working hardware includes an 'older' Nikon D70 which still takes great photos and can be used for most everyday things, but I won't use it at a wedding. --Rich

[jamespjones]

The jump from 20D to 5D MkII would be significant. The reality is that as the technologies progress they are opening up

new opportunities for use. If you find that you want to crop a lot, the higher resolution camera will serve you well. If you

want to shoot at higher ISO the higher resolution will do you well.

 

Saying that the camera doesn't matter isn't accurate. Because of the technology the camera can become a limitation.

Even if you are a snap shooter, the camera can be a limitation. The only question is if you want to spend the money to

reduce the limitations. If you have the money and you don't need a new tripod, lenses, or version of photoshop - go for

it. But, there are areas outside of the camera body that can have a significant impact on your photography. Lenses,

filters (ND's, Cokin system, etc), software (noiseware, noise ninja) - all of these can have an impact and they cost less

than a new body does. The question to ask yourself is - if I have $2500 to spend, what besides a camera body would I

benefit from? A trip to an exotic location; a workshop, 2,3,4 lenses, a hard drive backup, a new computer, Photoshop

CS4, etc, etc.

 

I understand your dilemma as I think all of us do. Because cameras have gone the way of the computer there will

always be something newer, faster, better. If you are finding that aren't able to achieve your goals because of the

camera then consider upgrading. But otherwise, there are better ways to spend the money that may impact your

photography more. I think a lot of people have an initial letdown when they make a new camera purchase unless the

camera is far and away better than their old one. I upgraded from a Digital Rebel to a Fuji S5 Pro (I shoot a lot of film,

but this was my foray into digital). The S5 doesn't necessarily take higher resolution or "sharper" images than the rebel,

but it kills the Rebel in terms of exposure latitude and for my post processing needs - less burned out highlights are

better. I just wish they would make a FF Fujifilm DSLR. Then I'll be in your boat (sort of).

 

James

[s_t14]

I'm looking to upgrade to a 50D because my 20D's autofocus has never been satisfying... backfocus, my L lens never

focuses right.... I want the 50D solely because it has lens profiles with micro focus adjustment.

 

However ... it looks like you have a bunch of 35 mm glass. Hmmm 5D/5D mark II would be an improvement in some ways

(low light performance) but not in others (it *is* heavier for example.) 50d? I dunno man.

[felipe]

I ask myself Juergen's question every time the latest camera is released and the answer is always "no." I can get nearly all the photos I want with my Rebel XT and three lenses. (And no, I don't need a dial in the back.) Not that I love everything about it (wouldn't mind better focusing under low light), but'll keep it until it breaks. (I admit sometimes I wish it'd break down so I can satisfy my lust for a newer/better camera, but thankfully it's still working!)