Canon 30d vs 20d

[keith204]

My situation:
I'm needing 3200 ISO, whether it's grainy or not... I need it for cars going 120 mph at night with low lighting... I have an XT, with a 70-200 2.8 lens. 1600 just barely doesn't cut it. The two options I am considering are:

1. 20d refurbished, $700
2. 30d brand new, with 28-135 IS lens, $1,300

Now, I was already planning on purchasing the 28-135 lens (not for the track, but as an everyday walkaround lens). That would have cost me about $410. So, if I buy a $700 refurb, and this $410 28-135, I'm already at $1,110.

The main question: Should I:
A: Spend $1,110 on a refurbished 20D and a Canon 28-135 IS lens
B: Spend $1,300 on a brand new 30D and a Canon 28-135 IS lens

 

[Peanuts]

For $200, I would upgrade to the 30D. Both are fantastic cameras to say the least, and both will do the job sufficiently, however, I believe those extra features in the 300D are worth that price

 

[keith204]

For $200, I would upgrade to the 30D. Both are fantastic cameras to say the least, and both will do the job sufficiently, however, I believe those extra features in the 300D are worth that price

What extra features exist in the 30d?

 

[Peanuts]

I would pay the $200 just for spot metering.

http://www.digital-slr-guide.com/canon-30d-vs-20d.html

 

[Peanuts]

One other viewpoint is resale - obviously both depreciate pretty fast, however, I would imagine that being the only owner of a camera has better selling merits then being a second owner.

 

[Big Mike]

The 30D has a spot meter and a bigger screen. I believe the buffer is also better.

Here's a question though...if ISO 1600 isn't cutting it...will one stop more really get you what you want? I would suggest under exposing by one stop (faster shutter speed) and then bringing the image back up with software. It may accentuate the noise but you said that wasn't important. Essentially, it's like pushing film. It's free to try...that's much cheaper than a new camera.

 

[morydd]

I had this same debate about 6 months ago and went with the 20D, however I voted for the 30D, I think the $200 difference is worthwile for even the few differences between the two. If the price had been that close when I was buying, I would have gone with the 30D.

 

[keith204]

The 30D has a spot meter and a bigger screen. I believe the buffer is also better.

Here's a question though...if ISO 1600 isn't cutting it...will one stop more really get you what you want? I would suggest under exposing by one stop (faster shutter speed) and then bringing the image back up with software. It may accentuate the noise but you said that wasn't important. Essentially, it's like pushing film. It's free to try...that's much cheaper than a new camera.

I talked with a friend recently about my little dilemma. He suggested the same thing you did. I also realized that with the amount I'm getting paid for this (not much, mainly for fun) it's not worth it to get all kinds of special equipment just for this. I've decided to just take a whole buncha pictures, and get real good at panning. When the background is in a motion blur, and the car is completely in focus, it makes for a great picture.

and while it's still daylight I'll try to get most of my pictures then, since I can take ISO400 and f/5.6ish and get a great shutter.