A wise upgrade? 400D to 40D

  • Thread starter Thread starter inspiredbyphotos
  • Start date Start date
I

inspiredbyphotos

Guest
I am currently in limbo, i have put my 400D up for sale as i wanted to upgrade to the 40D mainly for the fps rate and the ergonomics of the camera. I currently have 17-85 IS lens and Tamron 28-300 as well as a 430EX speedlite, left over from my 400d. This was the main reason for choosing the 40D upgrade path. Though reading all the reviews and google searches i am not sure if i am making a wise upgrade, especially with the news of the K20D and gx20 coming next month at a similar price??? Is it worth me selling all and swaping for different brand, if so should i go to nikon? I could probably stretch to buying the D300 but then would run out of cash when i came to buying new lenses?? Any advice or recommendations would be gratefully received.
 
if you stick with canon you dont have to replace lots of your gear, are you happy with canon?
 
The 40D is a very nice camera and far better than the 400D imho, I suppose it depends on how much money you have invested in glass.
 
I'd say you were at a point where it doesnt mean you need to stick to Canon... the 40D is an excellent camera and no mistake, but if it was me if your current position I'd seriously consider the D300... (and yes, that's from a serious Canon man!)... I have been wowed every time from my friends D300 its simply a whole generation ahead of Canon in my humble opinion...
 
As a person who started with a 350D and then moved to a 30D and now to a 40D I can't recommend the 40D enough. You've mentioned that you could switch to a Nikon but would run out of money for lenses.. so I guess that rules that out.

You've already invested in the essentials of the Canon arsenal, why not just stick to the brand and upgrade the body. I haven't regretted that move and sticking with Canon has allowed me to put my money into better glass and accessories.
 
Thanks for your advice, i am still holding onto my lenses at present, which probably means that i will go for the canon 40d, but there are many rumours on the web of an update looming? Does anyone know anything about that, and does anyone have an opinion on the soon to be released Pentax and Samsung offerings? Though i have seen a few D300's for under £900 on ebay (from america) and that is very tempting...i too have heard nothing but raving for this camera, though when tested against the 40d didn't seem to be great value for money, as i can get a 40D for £590 off amazon (i am fortunate enough to work in germany and able to buy tax free)... so many choices and don't know what to do still...
 
I swapped from a 400D to a 40D quite recently
and I don't regret it for a minute
 
Its unlikely that there will be a 50D until the natural end of the model cycle. I'd guess that its under development right now and will take into account all current dSLRs on the market at the moment.

I'd avoid jumping ship for jumping ships sake, published specs are one thing, reality is another. The 40D is a fine camera and will serve you well. You're photos won't get better just by having a new body unless you really need a certain feature.
 
Again thanks all, Cobra could you tell me what you found better about the 40D...I think this is the obvious choice to make as i am use the the canon menu system and have been very impressed by my 400D, one of the main reasons for selling it though was the size of the camera, but also i seemed to run out of frames really quickly when shooting continous, and it always took ages for the camera to write to the card (even though it is a X133 card?? Is the 40D better in this area, or have you not noticed much difference?
Cheers
Marty
 
Hope you don't mind me adding my findings to that of Cobra when he replies.

Having owned both the 400D and 40D, writing speeds are very quick (using Sandisk Extreme III CF cards). Lockout on the 40D takes quite a bit longer to reach when shooting continuously as the main reason is the DIGIC III processor and higher buffer capabilities.

If you want the 40D for the higher FPS and buffer (for wildlife) then the 40D is a very good upgrade...
 
Not at all, i appreciate any input Martka. Do you still have a 40D or have you changed camera since?
 
I think it's mainly the buffer capabilities rather than the write speeds (although I feel write speeds are quicker in the 40D) which are vastly improved. For eg. the 400D will let you take IIRC 4 RAW files before you get the dreaded 'busy'. On the 40D, it will let you take 17 RAWS before you're locked out.

Yep, still have the 40D with grip. Very impressed with it, haven't looked back and certainly have no plans to change camera. Presumably you're also into wildlife and sports, so the 40D will be a lot better for this type of 'tography.

Ergonomics are better, build quality more rugged, being magnesium alloy instead of polycarbonate, has spot metering, a second LCD (with backlight) and the viewfinder is a lot brighter than the 400D. Max shutter speed is 1/8000 on the 40D, 1/4000 sec on the 400D, ISO range goes up or down by 1/3 of a stop increments, instead of a full stop with the 400D. AF is noticably quicker on the 40D and the red AF target points on the 40D are a lot more brighter and clearer to see. I also love the thumb wheel which you can simply rotate after half pressing the shutter button, to change the AF point - A lot quicker than the 400D.

On the minus side, the only two things I don't like is that the shutter clunk is louder on the 40D and also would like to have seen a specific mirror lock up button, instead of the direct print which is probably all but redundantly used on a camera of a semi-pro level...

Vastly superior camera IMHO. Hope this helps.
 
inspiredbyphotos said:
Again thanks all, Cobra could you tell me what you found better about the 40D...I think this is the obvious choice to make as i am use the the canon menu system and have been very impressed by my 400D, one of the main reasons for selling it though was the size of the camera, but also i seemed to run out of frames really quickly when shooting continous, and it always took ages for the camera to write to the card (even though it is a X133 card?? Is the 40D better in this area, or have you not noticed much difference?
Cheers
Marty
Click to expand...

Build quality, fits better in the hand. I find the 6.5 frames /sec useful, better image quality / colour reproduction from the new processor. are all plus's for me.
I always use extreme III cards and never had a "writing issue" with the 400D though.
It might be worth reading through this if you haven't already

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=49783

one slight downside the "controls" are a little differant and will take a bit of getting used to from the 400D ( well I think so)
HTH



markta said:
Hope you don't mind me adding my findings to that of Cobra when he replies.

Having owned both the 400D and 40D, writing speeds are very quick (using Sandisk Extreme III CF cards). Lockout on the 40D takes quite a bit longer to reach when shooting continuously as the main reason is the DIGIC III processor and higher buffer capabilities.

If you want the 40D for the higher FPS and buffer (for wildlife) then the 40D is a very good upgrade...
Click to expand...

Agreed :thumbs:
 
I went from the 350D to the 30D... so a similar jump.

Don't get me wrong, I love my 30D, I am really happy with it and it does well... the 40D would do even more, but I only got my 30D just before the 40D came out... so I decided to skip a generation and will upgrade to the 50D

However I still say the D300 is streets ahead... its better than Canon's offering as much as the 40D is better than the 400D... seriously it really does kick some butt.
 
Thanks for the input, has given me a lot to think about. I think for the money i can get a 40d for and still keep my lenses/flash etc i would be wise to go for the 40d, I would like a D300 but i would end up back with just a kit lens again and have to start from scratch. I think i will go for the 40D. However i am still interested to see how the pentax/samsung fair against the 40d/d300, so will just hang on a week or so for the first proper tests to come out, though i think they are only 3fps and one of the main reasons for swapping is the faster frame rate...
Thanks for all you input guys was very helpful
 
I don't think any of the others can touch Canon or Nikon to be honest... even if the body has some clever sh*t, the glass will never be close to Canon or Nikon and ultimately that is where the real skill is. The Sigmas etc are absolutely never as good (or at least their "best" is not as good)- assuming they even make a lens to fit pentax/samsung.
 
I think you are right there desantnik, i had read the the lenses were not too hot - thats one reason i haven't looked at Sony's offerings as i was told that there lenses were not very good in comparision...though there are new lenses developed for the pentax/samsung and i would like to see a review before i sink this years budget into a new camera, i think it would have to be something special however to temp me away.
 
desantnik said:
The Sigmas etc are absolutely never as good (or at least their "best" is not as good)-
Click to expand...

Thats a lie.
I know Sigma have quality control issues, but some of their lenses are absolutely fantastic.
The shots I got with my 70-300 APO are sharp and crisp and colourful and completely in focus and I was really surprised considering it cost a mere 100 notes.

I work in Jessops, and while a lot of people hate Jessops, thats not the point here. I have tried every single one of the sigma lenses we stock, compared to the nikon/canon equivalents. They're fantastic.
One example was the Sigma 24-70 compared to the Canon 24-70.
While the Canon had build quality and weatherproofing and aesthetics that is leagues ahead of the sigma, the picture quality was no different whatsoever. I changed lenses while on a tripod, and they were both extremely sharp, and I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Now, considering that the Sigma is a third of the price of the Canon, I think that is really impressive.
 
Its very difficult to compare like with like, but in my chosen field nothing with an EF fit gets close to the Canon 70-200 or 300 primes... yes they are more expensive but they are better. Its like saying a Fiat Panda is better than a Ferrari just because it costs less...
 
Although it may be a touch of thread drift, I have to agree with the poster sticking up for Sigma.

There is NO difference in image quality between a sharp copy of the Sigma 24/70 and its Canon alternative, I have done this one to death in the past. Problem is, with the Sigmas I have found such a variety of quality - when they are good, they are great, but there's plenty of models with issues out there.

One slightly worrying thing was the 24/70 I ended up with (Sigma EX) with my last setup was beautifully sharp, then one day (after no noticeable damage...although I suppose there is that chance), it just 'got soft'. Make of that what you will.

When you factor in the price difference, it's well worth the time finding (and possibly rejecting a few along the way) 'the one'.

Cheers,
James
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top