I’ve been mailed quite a few times asking me which camera I use and whether I’m happy with it. The answer is that I use a Canon 20D with a 100-400mm L lens and yes I am), and after owning it for fourteen months I thought it was about time I reviewed it…[NB - since I wrote this review I have changed cameras and now use a Canon 30D]

Before I start though, I want to stress that I don’t think of myself as a photographer in senso stricto: yes, I can use a camera but I’m much more of a birder with basic camera knowledge than a photographer who’s decided to photograph birds. I mention this simply because if you’ve ended up on this page looking for a technical review, I’m afraid you’re in the wrong place…if you’re wondering whether as an active birder who’d like to take decent photographs and might enjoy owning a 20D then I may be able to help…

Officially the multi-award winning Canon 20D digital slr is described as “featuring an all-new 8.2 MP CMOS sensor, a second-generation DIGIC II image processor, 5 fps performance for up to 23 consecutive frames, and a 0.2 second start-up time, the EOS 20D is designed to capture richly detailed, perfectly exposed images with speed formerly found only in cameras several times the price. Other features include a top shutter speed of 1/8,000 seconds, flash sync at 1/250, a new high-precision nine-point AF system, a built-in multicontroller for fast focusing point selection, and a refined magnesium alloy body for rugged, go-anywhere photography. Compatible with not only Canon’s new EF-S lenses but the entire EOS system of lenses and flashes, the EOS 20D is a professionally featured camera with a consumer price tag…”

It’s all those things of course, and a beautiful bit of kit with it. The Canon 20D is lightweight, fits into the hand easily, feels balanced, and above all produces remarkable images. I’ve been using mine for 14 months now, and I’ve been hooked on it from day one. I upgraded from the Canon 300D (perhaps the world’s first widely-bought affordable digital slr) when I felt I would probably be able to ’see a difference’ in the photos I took, and haven’t regretted it for a second. As well as a step up in image quality, the 20D is more robustly-built, has an almost instant “start-up”, and generally feels more of a “pro” camera than the smaller (and originally silver-bodied) 300D.

The little word “pro” there may be off-putting to potential purchasers, but I don’t think it need be. This camera is a remarkably complex piece of equipment (just think about the process of light hitting a tiny sensor, converting into a vast stream of numbers, and then outputting it as a photograph - truly amazing), but so is a lap-top. I’m sure many of us over the age of thirty well remember the scary moment we turned on our first computers and were absolutely convinced that we’d break them just by touching the keypad - but we got used to the layout, the functions, what we can and can’t do, and a camera like the 20D is no different. There are buttons and dials all over the exterior of the camera and, no, they’re not particularly intuitive - but their functions can easily be learned and the more you use them the easier it all becomes. I won’t even begin to go into what’s inside the camera because I don’t have a clue what a CMOS sensor is or how it does what it does (I don’t for a second think I need to). I do know that the 20D works well in most light conditions, the auto-white balance is excellent, there is very little “digital noise” even at 800iso, and those 8.2 megapixels capture a huge amount of detail…

Ah - megapixels. Most camera manufacturers shove the mega-pixel count at us as if they are the only important element of a camera’s ability to take pictures. It’s not the case in fact - the quality of the sensor is just as important and unless you’re likely to be producing poster-sized prints of your photographs you really don’t need more than 4 or 5 mps. There’s just way more detail being captured than most people will ever need.

However - and it’s a big however - one of the reasons I upgraded from the 300D was the higher pixel count: the reason being that many of the birds I photograph are a long, long way off. If I printed out the original image the bird would appear as a small dot somewhere in the center (hopefully) of the frame. What the extra detail gives is an option to zoom in and crop heavily and still produce a half-decent photo that “smaller” cameras simply don’t offer. Cameras loaded with less sensitive and well-designed sensors are mostly cheaper of course - but how many photographs might you lose?

Which brings us to the price of the 20D. With the recent arrival of the Canon 30D (an evolution of the 20D rather than a completely new camera), the 20D has in fact never been more affordable (hence the timing of this review). Most camera stores are offering heavy discounts and if you’ve been thinking of jumping into the “prosumer” camera market now would be a great time to do so. Even with discounts the Canon 20D is still going to cost about 700GBP in the UK or 1100USD in the US. That’s serious money of course - but make no mistake, this is a serious camera for taking seriously good photographs and is well worth the outlay. When you think about it they’re no more expensive than a top pair of binoculars though which - let’s face it - do nothing more than magnify what you’re looking at (though they do it remarkably well and are far better for your eyes than cheap glass!). When you consider the technology and the results you get, I’m happy it’s money well spent.

Like all the Canon digital slrs you can buy the 20D as “body only” (ie without a lens of any sort) or bundled with a lens. The 20D is usually sold with the “kit lens” - a specially-designed Super Wide Angle EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM Autofocus Lens (that WON’T backward fit non-digital Canon cameras incidentally). Bought separately this lens would cost around 100GBP/150USD: it’s not therefore a top-of-the-range piece of glass, but it’s perfectly good for landscape or general photographs, is very lightweight but well-made, and perfectly adequate as a starter lens. It won’t get you close-ups of birds of course, but it’s worth owning and will almost certainly be compatible with newer camera models as and when Canon produces them. (Your next step could be embarking on a never-ending series of expensive lenses - but if you’re the sort of person who can stop after one or two beers, there’s no reason you’ll become addicted and end up selling your house!)
So are there any things about the 20D I don’t like?

Very little in fact, though one issue I am not happy with is Canon’s decision to re-design the shutter mechanism in such a way that it has a much louder “click” than the very quiet 300D. I think this may be in response to users complaining on various camera forums that the 300D didn’t somehow “sound” professional, which is ridiculously vain of them. Whatever the reason the shutter is now loud enough to be heard by birds if you’re close to them in quiet surroundings and - surprising as it may sound - I’ve had quite a few good shots ruined as the subject hurtles up in a flurry of blurred wings. I’m sure if you’re out to impress the general public how professional your camera “sounds” you’ll not worry about such esoteric things as spooking birds, but for people like us it is a touch irritating (as if to prove the point the newly-released - and more expensive - 30d has a much softer shutter-action by the way).

There is also a general issue about longevity that’s perhaps worth looking at. Digital cameras contain some very delicate electronics which can and do develop faults and models get replaced with better ones with montonous regularity, but I’ve used my 20D for fourteen months, taken tens of thousands of photos, manhandled it on and off planes every week, used it in every condition that it’s sensible to use it in - and it’s only now that it’s developed a problem (which I’m assured can be easily repaired). I’m impressed to be honest. Users of older non-digital EOS cameras will probably scoff that they’re still using their mechanical cameras twenty years after they bought them - but when you factor in how much harder these cameras are to use properly, the cost of film, of development, the wait for photographs to come back etc etc they’re welcome to them. Once you’ve bought a digital camera, one compact flash card, and a spare battery (the one supplied with the camera has a very low charge capacity compared with commercially-available “clones”) you’re up and running: take as many photos as you want, view them on the spot, delete or save them it’s up to you…it’s really good fun!

So is a loud shutter (and a certain amount of in-built obsolescence) enough to put me off what is a fantastic camera? No way - I’ve missed a few shots, but I’ve gained hundreds more that at first glance I thought would be useless.

So has owning a 20D transformed me into a better photographer then? I’ve said to many people over the last year that it’s the camera that takes the great photographs, not me: yes, I have to get into the right place and point the camera at the right bird, but that’s far more about being a very experienced birder than a good photographer. In the field I probably only touch a fraction of the real capabilities of this camera - I keep the camera on the “P” programme and generally only alter the ISO and shutter speed - but then I have no idea what my computer is really capable of. Both pieces of equipment do what I want them to do, and I’m happy with trying things out and getting better over time: as far as I’m concerned I don’t need to know everything about them (let alone how they work) to justify owning them. And if that sounds like you and you’re wondering whether you can justify buying a 20D I’d say “Go for it” and enjoy getting quality photographs you probably never thought you’d be “good enough” to take…