I'll second a lot of the good wisdom from above:
1 - Spend the budget on the lenses, if at all possible, rather than the body. I would even go so far as to say that, for most applications, the 20D is serious overkill. An entry level body (think used Rebel digital, or Nikon's equivalent) might make a better start. Stretch the budget as much as possible to get the lenses, and cheap out on the body. After all, the body is just a box to hold the film while you're waiting for the opportune moment to let light through the glass.
2 - Avoid the cheap-o lenses like the plague. Don't waste your money on a "starter" lense. If you go Canon, the 50mm f/1.4 is an absolute winner every time -- sharp, fast, and dirt cheap, not to mention bullet-proof. I find that, in practice, the 50mm lense is my staple, and the wide angle is a close second. (I ignored this rule, BTW, in purchasing both the 75-300 IS/USM, a lense that turned out to be almost universally disappointing...)
I will add that I own a 20D, and I love it. For anyone who knows me, that's almost like a confession. You know, "Forgive me, Father Ansel, for I have sinned... I bought a digital camera.... and I enjoy using it..." I'm a big fan of large format (my "other camera" is a Horseman) and will probably never forsake the art of film-based B&W. That said, the 20D is a full-fledged professional body, and you'll probably never regret owning one. (shrug) I suppose the same could be said of the Nikon, but I don't own one, so I don't know.
Cheers, let us know what you decide.