Simple Question from me.

[felipe]

Just another quick comment: you have no tele lenses. Adding one of those would improve your arsenal more than replacing the body.

[james_auchinleck]

Vincent,

 

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

 

How is a comment like this ever useful?!

 

Can I assume that you are using new film stocks rather than those produced 23 to 31 years ago? In the early days of film advances

came thick and fast and photographers chose the best they could afford - so how is updating a camera because of an outdated sensor

and processing unit any different?

 

To the original poster: If you are after cleaner files at high ISOs and a few other new features such as updated autofocus and higher

FPS then it may be worth upgrading. Hand on to your 20D though as it will always be a good backup camera should you drop the new

one.

 

Hope this helps.

[rfp]

I would hold onto the 20D unless you were thinking about going FF. As has been said above the photographer makes the

shot not the camera. I have seen plenty of shots taken on a 300D that have beaten those taken on the latest cameras, in my opinion. As

long as your enjoying what your doing and happy with the results it doesn't really matter. If you're

shooting professionally then it is probably a different matter.

 

If there is a specific function in one of the later models that you are really needing/wanting then I cannot see a massive

need to change. I think FF might be a big temptation to change as it would bring something new to the lenses you

already possess and they would be compatible. There are likely to be a few original 5D's knocking around fairly cheap

once the new model arrives. That might be a nice option for an upgrade and you'll end up with something better than the

50D and maybe even cheaper!?!

[arjun_mehra]

Is your camera too "old"? I use an Exakta, so, probably, I'd think your 20D's indeed not yet near dust. There's no such thing as a camera's being too old. Think about it: if the pictures you were taking with it two years ago were great, how is the quality (as affected by your camera) suddenly inferior now that newer models have been released? Technology will always progress, but that doesn't mean that what was fine yesterday is inadequate today. If your camera lacks some feature you wish it had, that some newer model does, perhaps considering upgrading is worth-while; if the only thing in your head is, "This camera's fine, but, surely, a newer one will be better...though, I don't know how," then you're not even thinking of your 20D as a tool with which to capture images — you're just comparing it, and, ridiculously, feeling somewhat sad.

[chrisjb]

Yesterday I went whale watching, my current workhorse is 40d, I did not want to get it wet so took an old 20d. I still works well (bout 70k) my only hassle is reading the tiny font on that small LCD, plus I`m use to doing settings now on the rear LCD of the 40d. I almost took an OM2n or T90 but the 20d was so convenient and still a good camera to use :) oh yeah, got a lil sea spray on it but never missed a beat, just cleaning now...

[steve_eichorn]

The camera companies want you to feel that you are not a good photographer unless you buy/upgrade as each new model comes out. "Shoot like the pros with the new xxmkll!" And people buy into that, otherwise sales would be the pits right? I just bought a 40D, an upgrade from the XT I have. Only because it has the features that I didn't have with the XT. I was going to buy a 30D, but decided to put it off, and when the 40D came out, I didn't hesitate to get it.Truthfully If I had lots of $$, I wonder how restrained I would be about getting the new-est and greatest. My whole point of all this is the person pressing the shutter release is what makes the photo. I recently posted a question about a Tamron lens that I thought wasn't very sharp. It wasn't the lens, it was the operator! Another lesson learned. I would examine very carefully what my needs are regarding a new body and go from there. You could also pray about it too!

Steve

[dariusz_konkiewicz]

20D - short dynamic range, shouldn't be any problem since every digi has got one + awful lcd.

So yeah, it's time for upgrade to film.

[JDMvW]

IMHO the lcd is an annoyance to me much of the time. I had an XTi that had a larger lcd, and it was merely more annoying. Maybe, only maybe, the lcds on the newest cameras might actually be useful, but I can see enough on the 20D's screen to tell if I have the shot, and I have it turned off by default.

 

Apparently, where ever Dariusz is from there is a severe shortage of pixels and of upper-case letters ;)

[zigzag]

Having used my 30D since it was first released I would not hesitate in getting the 5D (or money permitting the newer 5D MkII). The primary reasons for me would be viewfinder size and noise performance. Having used the 5D I cannot believe the difference in the viewfinder. I'd like better high ISO performance as well. But, I don't have good glass yet so the body will have to wait: as you say, lenses first and then body. My 30D does the job and will have to soldier on for a while.

[steve m smith]

<I>Three years old? It may be running out of days.</I><BR><BR>

That is sad. I have cameras older than me (40+) with perfect shutters. To accept that a product is useless after three years is exactly what the manufacturers want you to think to persuade you to go out and get their next shiny new product.

[Landrum Kelly]

I still shoot my Olympus E-20 (five megapixels, announced in 2001, bought early 2002), and I have a lot of its photos on Photo.net, along with some from the Kodak 14n and even older film cameras:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=665824

 

I also have the Canon 5D as well as the Canon 1Ds II, which I bought new on eBay for about half price when the 1Ds III came out.

 

I don't think that any one of them is obsolete, even though better cameras are now being produced. I printed some remarkably good prints from E-20 files on 13x19 paper. I dropped it once and bent the lens barrel so that the UV filter cannot be removed. It still works about four years after that incident. Although it had a built-in lens, it was quite sophisticated, although it was noisy at low light and long exposures.

 

I do not look at old digital cameras as being cheap and therefore disposable. Even though newer things come along, the older ones are remarkably durable--and useful.

 

--Lannie

[brad_farwell]

I still shoot with my 30D (same sensor as the 20D) and it's the same camera it was when i got it several years ago (a nice camera, that has fabulous image quality at ISO 100).

 

I'm seriously considering the 5dmkII because of a project I'm interested in that would need high-iso shootin'. I'm a conceptual artist, not a magazine shooter*, so I don't really make enough money directly off the camera to justify it that direction (though if it could replace my hassy, I'd be happy to stop paying for film). But, the camera will allow me to do a project I wouldn't be able to shoot otherwise, and I think that the new high-ISO abilities are, for the first time, allowing digital to not simply replace film but to move photography in a different direction, so that's exciting.

 

I agree that "canon wants us to buy new stuff when our old stuff still works just fine!;" your camera's abilities haven't changed since you got it. But I think it's also important to look at your equipment and ask if the new equipment out there would allow you to make significantly better work. I don't need high fps or lightening-fast AF, but I am used to the high-res of MF and LF film, so the bigger sensor is a marked improvement, and the high ISO performance is a paradigm shift. These features will allow me to do work i couldn't otherwise. In my case, I think those advantages outweigh the price (and I can sell the 30D to a friend for a couple hundred bucks).

 

*not a diss at magazine shooters, just a clarification of what I use my cameras for- I'm shooting a hundred frames over a couple days/weeks, not a couple hours... Obviously there are magazine shooters who are also established fine artists.

[brad_farwell]

And folks, not to get all anti-crochety, but old film cameras are different from old digital cameras. ;)

 

An old film camera body doesn't affect image quality- I can and do shoot provia 400x in my 500c/m, while my 30D can only shoot on the sensor it was built with. If my 500c/m could only shoot 1970's film (or if my crown graphic could only use 1950's film), I would never have purchased it.

 

So yes, the image quality probably isn't any *worse* than it was when you bought it, but new digital camera bodies can represent a real improvement in image quality, something which was not typically true of film camera bodies. For this reason, the whole "my 20-y.o. camera is still going strong, if you upgrade you're a sucker" argument is not really valid. imho.

[seungwoo_son]

wow so many answers for my simple Q. Thanks guys for your opinions! helped alot.

[arjun_mehra]

Brad, I agree, that, in one sense, replacing a digital camera is more like buying new, rather than old, film, more than it is like replacing a whole classic S.L.R. That said, it's true, too, that the (digital) camera that took great pictures yesterday doesn't take worse ones today. Upgrading because you know you'll be able to do things (that you wish to do) with a new body that you couldn't with an old is understandable, but buying a new digital camera simply because one exists, and you've had yours for a few years now, doesn't amount to much sense.

[anson_ko]

3 years old camera is ok but the cropped sensor is not. If you want to take full advantage of your fisheye 15mm. You need to get a FF camera like 5D or the new 5D2. I have 20D and 5D, huge difference on wide angle lenses like 15mm fish and/or 16-35mm lenses.

[steve santikarn]

one good reason to upgrade is for the self-cleaning sensors in the new generation of Canon DSLRs

[pauloak]

Hi Seungwoo,

 

I have the 10D and the 5D and some of the best L lenses Canon makes. I would not upgrade either of the bodies at this

point, because I think (at this point in the technology curve) the lens is where it is at. Now when the Canon 5D III comes

out, you might have to ask me again, as I might have all the lenses I need and want a 50 megapixel camera.

 

My sister's husband has a 20D and much more money than me and he has not upgraded.

 

You have gotten a lot of good advice from all the posts above. I think think you now probably know what to do. Good

luck with your decision.

 

Shantih,

Paul

[hawkman]

simple answer to your question is no.

[knobby6]

It depends what you want to shoot. If you want to shoot in low light and you want to shoot fast flying birds, then you are most definitely limited with your camera. If you have the money and you shoot a lot, its a no brainer, upgrade.

[dave_holland]

This summer I upgraded my 20D to a 5D. It was good timing, as the 5D was selling at a discount and I wanted the full frame capabilities. But I'm not so happy with autofocus or frame rate on the 5D, so I still use my 20D for sports. Even the 5DMKII has those problems. So, waiting for the newest release wouldn't have solved that. I'm still very happy with my 20D, especially using it with Noise Ninja for grain. A great camera.

 

Dave

[digimage]

<p>IF you just take a picture for your kids your coworker 2OD that enough . untill now I'm still use 10D and very happy . you can use 400mm 2.8 even 600mm to 20D no problem . the only reason you upgrade your camera because your 20D not make you happy which one you expect then they can not make it .</p>