Canon 20D vs Nikon D40x

[bluewaker]

I was just taking a look at the two cameras (since both were 450-500 used) and I found it a hard decision to make, despite the fact that the 20D was older, less portable, had a smaller sensor, smaller LCD and less resolution. I've heard quite alot about the build quality of older cameras, etc etc, and the 20D can take 5FPS shooting, a 1/8000 second shutter speed shot (though I probably won't need it.)

I have no idea about the actuations on the D40x, but the 20D has had 7-8k, supposedly. I assume you guys would say that the D40x is better, hands down, but I'd like to hear some comments.

[edgedamage]

Best thing you can do, look at as many reviews as you can find for both cameras. Go to stores and hold them/play around with them. Find out which one has good prices on used lenses. Also what do you shoot?

[mebiuspower]

20D is a higher end camera although it's older. You can't compare them both based on price since D40x is a 2007 budget D-SLR.

[ryan_lau100]

I have a 20D. WAY better build than the D40x. Not sure about the sensors since I am more familiar with Canon but I can tell you I love my 20D. Just a reminder there is no real way of telling the actuation count on nonpro bodies so you are taking a gamble. I recently bought an XTi and found it a lot harder to use because of how small it is. So basically when it comes down to it just take the one that feels better in your hands IMO.

[KorruptioN]

7-8K if true, is pretty low. 20D, easily. But it still has no spot meter! wtf Canon!

[bluewaker]

So despite the d40x's better features, I see that the consensus is still in the 20D's favour. Well, I hear that you can see actuation count on XTi's, so is there any possible way of finding a 20D's acutation count?

[robbiex1]

Like a previous poster mentioned, comparing these cameras to each other is like comparing a used BMW with a new corolla.

The D40x is a newer camera with newer technology; however, it is a budget entry-level DSLR that lacks some pro features and is definitely not built like a pro-body.

The 20D is Canon's older prosumer body. It's better built than the D40x but also uses older technology (which isn't to say that can't give you good, if not great results). From what short experience i've had with this camera (I'm a nikon guy), it's a good camera that should give you good results.

Read up on both and also take into account that you're buying into a photo system (lenses/flashes, etc. ) on top of just the camera body. It's difficult (and expensive!) to switch from canon to nikon or vice versa later.

[d0hboy]

The D40x is a newer camera with newer technology; however, it is a budget entry-level DSLR that lacks some pro features and is definitely not built like a pro-body.

The 20D is Canon's older prosumer body. It's better built than the D40x but also uses older technology (which isn't to say that can't give you good, if not great results). From what short experience i've had with this camera (I'm a nikon guy), it's a good camera that should give you good results.
I had the same decision to make in the used arena, and I'll quote you the prices I found between Craigslist (http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/), Fredmiranda (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/10), PoTN (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=14), and Nikonians (http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=137) classifieds around the time of my decision (a few weeks ago):
Canon 20d ($450 used)
Canon 30d ($650 used)
Canon XTi ($500 used)
Nikon D50/D70 ($450 used)
Nikon D40 ($400 used)
Nikon D40x ($600 used)
Nikon D80 ($700 used)

My intended usage was for indoor sports and shallow Depth of Field, things I couldn't accomplish with a point and shoot (regardless of sensor size). This meant fast aperture glass, quick auto focus, and high fps.

I targetted a 85mm f1.8 for "right now" and a 70-200mm f2.8 lens for "far in the future". Looking at the average price for the classifieds, I ended up with the Canon 20d for price, ruggedness, slightly lower price of lenses, slightly higher local (craigslist) availability of lenses, high-iso sensitivity, and the high FPS. I could have gone with the XTi but at the same price, I went with the next-model-tier up instead. A Nikon D40/x wouldn't have given me the 85mm f1.8 autofocusing ability.

That said, D40x gives you a lot, and if you wanted to match it to an AF-S lens like the 18-200mm VR, you're set in a lot of ways. Might be good to know what type of shooting you intend to do.