Canon 7D vs 40D - Discuss

[Brachytron]

Reading the many threads here and a few mag reviews of the 7D, my thoughts are that Canon have completely misjudged the market for 7D. Supposedly it was designed by 5000 photographers around the world, so why did they settle on this spec?. Here's my comparison between it and the 40D that I have made to help decide whether I should upgrade. Please rip my arguments apart as necessary.

Noise: It looks like the noise on the 7D is on a par with the 40D. So no gain in upgrading. Surely on a camera designed for high speed sports and wildlife shooting, high ISO performance is critical in achieving a faster shutter speed to freeze movement? I believe that Nikon have the right approach here with their reliance on low noise 12MP chips (FX or DX).

Pixels: Clearly 18MP offers more cropping advantage than 10MP, but I print up to A4 and a good quality ink-jet print at 180 dpi to 21x14in is perfectly possible with the 40D. With 18MP of resolution, critical sharpness appears to drop off unless very faster shutter speeds are used, which require high ISO, which leads to more noise which leads to lower definition and detail resolution. The chip also appears to need L glass to show any real quality.

AF: I can track birds and dragonflies in flight with the 40D so is the 7D really any better?

Frame rate: At 8fps, the 7D can records less then a 1.8 second RAW burst. At 6.5fps the 40D can record 2.3 seconds worth. Can you actually make use of the extra 1.5 frames per sec? Or is the extra duration more important? I go for the latter.

HD Movie mode: Not on 40D, but with the poor AF implementation is it really useful?

I am sure the 7D is a great camera, but for now I shall save my money for nice L glass (the forthcoming rumoured 200mm IS Macro or 100-400mm IS mkII). Thanks for reading this far.

 

[Blue Eagle]

I am sure the 7D is a great camera, but for now I shall save my money for nice L glass (the forthcoming rumoured 200mm IS Macro or 100-400mm IS mkII). Thanks for reading this far.

i've made my decision, thanks for reading, but your comments are pointless........

 

[Brachytron]

i've made my decision, thanks for reading, but your comments are pointless........

Sorry if it came across that way - not my intention. I would like to know if I am talking rubbish.

 

[Blue Eagle]

Sorry if it came across that way - not my intention. I would like to know if I am talking rubbish.

Fair enough......regarding noise, it is the about same because of the pixels, as you said. Personally i'd rather have the ISO capabilities but sports and wildlife togs love the cropping ability, and anyway canon has the 5Dmk2 for iso performance so maybe you should consider that if you value iso performance.

I think FPS is more important than duration, when you shoot a series of shots, it is to capture a moment that might not be there for very long, if it was there for 2+ seconds, then you may as well have focused normally and taken the one shot.

I can't really comment on the AF abilities, nor the video though.

 

[GyRob]

Sorry if it came across that way - not my intention. I would like to know if I am talking rubbish.

yes .
bigger buffer, better VF, fps, tracking speed control, more af points,micro ajustment And LOTS more but these bits got me intrested
Rob.

 

[adsayer]

we're talking 6.5 against 8 fps, which seems a slim difference but when you compare side by size it feels significantly faster - but do people really blast off 6, 7, 8 shots in one go? I don't think I ever have..
The shutter lag on the 40d is quiet prominent compared to the 7d which will affect the performance of the AF - less time for light transmitting to the AF sensors. Although in your experience you might find the 40D's AF is suitable enough, for another photographer in a different shooting scenario, it may struggle - which suggests that the 7d is not necessary for you .

 

[hashcake]

I am sure the 7D is a great camera, but for now I shall save my money for nice L glass.

I wouldn't see any point in owning a 7D without owning L Glass.
If people are prepared to pay the price of the 7D then it'd be pointless not to get the best out if it.
I like my 40D but the 7D's focus system appear to be a major improvement.
Perhaps this wii be a feature on the 60D as well.

 

[adsayer]

Why would someone choose a 7D over say a 1DmkII at half the price?

This is just a question rather than a 'WHY DID YOU BUY A 7D?!?!?!'

It's a similar story with the 5dmkII and the 1DsmkII.

 

[GyRob]

Why would someone choose a 7D over say a 1DmkII at half the price?

This is just a question rather than a 'WHY DID YOU BUY A 7D?!?!?!'

It's a similar story with the 5dmkII and the 1DsmkII.

well i have a mk3 but still thought the 7d had plenty to offer over it so i bought one and it does mainly reach for birding.
Rob.

 

[andrewc]

Noise - on a par *despite* almost double the pixel density.

Not all sports require a very high shutter speed. Motorsport for example.

 

[Orville]

40D to 7D owner here, and I agree the step up is not massive. BUT, the 7D does improve on the 40D in every single area, and it offers several key additional features. Going from 10MP to 18MP will never offer 80% real detail gains, in the same way that jumping from my 6MP D60 to the 40D was not that much of a jump. As has been said, you need good glass to get the most out of a 7D, but that is not the 7D's fault.

I personally think the 7D is a great camera, but so was the 40D. Anyone expecting huge gains will be disappointed. What you actually get is a more polished evolution of an already good camera range.

AF is slightly quicker and more accurate, High ISO performance combined with higher resolution allows me an extra stop vs the 40D, micro focus adjustment is really useful, HD video is love it or leave it, 8fps looks nice on paper but I never once used the 6.5fps on the 40D, viewfinder is a big improvement, the LCD is much better but I would prefer to be able to zoom in further, remote flash control is nice for some, build is more solid than 40D, RAW's are huge but so are CF cards and HDD's, battery lasts for 500 clicks, nothing significantly better will be available in the same price range for 2 years or so.

 

[CT]

I think there's a reality check needed here comparing a 40D to a 7D in the first place.

These are shots taken side by side with the 50D and the 7D. The 50D was using the 300mm 2.8L and 2XTC (600mm) - the 7D was using the 500mmf4L and 1.4X TC (700mm). These shots were in absolutely dismal light at 1600 ISO

First the full frame shots...

Obviously the difference in size of the bird in the two above images is down to the 100mm advantage of the 7D and it's lens combo.

Now 100% crops from each image...

The bird in the 7D crop is appreciably bigger again due to the lens advantage already mentioned and the fact that it puts out a bigger 1:1 file than the 50D.

Look at the difference in noise between the two images. It may not appear to be much, but the 7D noise is finer and less noticeable, while the 50D noise is seriously impacting the feather detail of the bird in this full sized image. But look at the detail retained in the feathers of the bird in the 7D shot. Now this is with a 3 million increase in pixel density and still achieving this level of performance!

These are admittedly enormous crops from a tiny part of the image, and reduced to web size or even a reasonable print size, you'd struggle to see a difference between the two images. The fact remains though that the 7D image is retaining better detail and whichever way you want to look at it there's no avoiding the fact that it will print larger and you can crop tighter. The 40D doesn't even get to play in this game with 5 million pixels less than the 50D. :shrug:

The 40D is a great camera if you shoot landscapes street, weddings or any subject where you shoot largely full frame and don't crop. It even has crop advantages over many other cameras in the Canon range, but the 50D and the 7D with these enormous pixel counts have just moved the bar way higher.

These cameras are aimed mainly at sports and wildlife photographers - not everyone is going to see an advantage in them but those who do will see a huge advantage. It isn't some sort of con - Canon really do know where they're going with these cameras, and the numbers of people who seem to think they know better would be almost funny if it wasn't so bewildering.

 

[HoppyUK]

Excellent posts from Orville and CT above

Having now tested a 7D in a direct side by side comparison with my 40D (and initially making a right arse of myself by drawing conclusions from mis-processed images) I can confidently say the 7D is better than the 40D in every respect. One of the beauties of photography is that, when all the theorising and pontificating stops (and I'm quite good at both ) the final photo tells the true story.

Reading the many threads here and a few mag reviews of the 7D, my thoughts are that Canon have completely misjudged the market for 7D. Supposedly it was designed by 5000 photographers around the world, so why did they settle on this spec?. Here's my comparison between it and the 40D that I have made to help decide whether I should upgrade. Please rip my arguments apart as necessary.

Noise: It looks like the noise on the 7D is on a par with the 40D. So no gain in upgrading. Surely on a camera designed for high speed sports and wildlife shooting, high ISO performance is critical in achieving a faster shutter speed to freeze movement? I believe that Nikon have the right approach here with their reliance on low noise 12MP chips (FX or DX).

Noise is lower on the 7D. Subjectively I would put it at well over a stop, maybe more.

Pixels: Clearly 18MP offers more cropping advantage than 10MP, but I print up to A4 and a good quality ink-jet print at 180 dpi to 21x14in is perfectly possible with the 40D. With 18MP of resolution, critical sharpness appears to drop off unless very faster shutter speeds are used, which require high ISO, which leads to more noise which leads to lower definition and detail resolution. The chip also appears to need L glass to show any real quality.

You won't see any difference at A4; that is not the camera's fault. If you want to enlarge bigger, or crop a smaller area, of course you will be testing the limits of sharpness in every area, including appropriate shutter speeds. That is a magnification problem and has nothing to do with the camera or format; if that is the framing you need, you will need the same high shutter speed to get it shake-free regardless.

Your point about the 7D needing very good lenses is valid. It takes a sharper lens to get the same resolution out of crop format camera compared, for example, to full frame. 1.6x sharper in fact. That's a format problem, not a 7D problem. The same principle applies further to the smaller 4/3rds format, and to compacts too which have even higher pixel density if you wish to extract the same resolution.

I also tested a 5DII alongside the 7D and the increased quality there was much greater than the 15% extra pixel count suggests, but then those 5DII's pixels are more than twice the size.

AF: I can track birds and dragonflies in flight with the 40D so is the 7D really any better?

Without a doubt. The only question is how much better.

Frame rate: At 8fps, the 7D can records less then a 1.8 second RAW burst. At 6.5fps the 40D can record 2.3 seconds worth. Can you actually make use of the extra 1.5 frames per sec? Or is the extra duration more important? I go for the latter.

HD Movie mode: Not on 40D, but with the poor AF implementation is it really useful?

Don't get your points here :shrug:

I am sure the 7D is a great camera, but for now I shall save my money for nice L glass (the forthcoming rumoured 200mm IS Macro or 100-400mm IS mkII). Thanks for reading this far.

You will need a 7D to see the benefit of those improved new lenses

 

[dinners]

You will need a 7D to see the benefit of those improved new lenses

Eek. 7D and 40D aside..... I'm after better glass and have a 40D. Will I not benefit from it ?

 

[HoppyUK]

Eek. 7D and 40D aside..... I'm after better glass and have a 40D. Will I not benefit from it ?

That raises a whole new optical debate

But if you are looking for resolution, in the centre of the frame, that isn't where better lenses show most benefit. And if they do, once the lens has maxxed out the sensor, that's your lot pretty much.

However... Resolution and image contrast go hand in hand. If you fit a better lens, with more resolution potential, it will also have higher contrast at lower resolutions (check out Canon's MTF graphs). This is what is happening with the 5DII vs the 7D with roughly similar pixel counts. Because the 5DII has a much bigger sensor you are getting the same number of pixels at much lower lens resolution, so contrast is higher and the image looks sharper and cleaner. The lens isn't working so hard and the whole game is elevated.

That's mainly a bigger format driven thing and although the same principle applies when using the same size sensor, when you use a better lens, generally speaking you will not see much upside on central sharpness at mid range f/numbers. Almost all modern lenses are pretty good in this respect. The benefits will be towards the edges, and at lower f/numbers - you'll see big benefits there. The more expensive lens will also probably have lower f/numbers overall as well, have less distrotion and vignetting, resistance to flare, better build etc.

 

[Brachytron]

Wow, lots to think about. It certainly seems that the noise is better than I expected, and opinions on the improved viewfinder seem significant - this is quite important as the imahe in the 40D viewfinder suggests that the image is larger in the frane than itactually is and my macro shots often need a crop to get the intended image size.

So, my next question to myself is, how to afford a 7D AND that nice new L lens??:bang:

 

[Diego Garcia]

The big difference is the fact that the 7D focuses well. Sadly, the 40D does not.

The 7D is as Nikon as a Canon camera can be - it is a nice bit of kit for sure and in my eyes, has better tonal separation than the 5D Mark II due to the crop sensor.

 

[buckas]

I think there's a reality check needed here comparing a 40D to a 7D in the first place.

These are shots taken side by side with the 50D and the 7D. The 50D was using the 300mm 2.8L and 2XTC (600mm) - the 7D was using the 500mmf4L and 1.4X TC (700mm). These shots were in absolutely dismal light at 1600 ISO

First the full frame shots...

Obviously the difference in size of the bird in the two above images is down to the 100mm advantage of the 7D and it's lens combo.

Now 100% crops from each image...

The bird in the 7D crop is appreciably bigger again due to the lens advantage already mentioned and the fact that it puts out a bigger 1:1 file than the 50D.

Look at the difference in noise between the two images. It may not appear to be much, but the 7D noise is finer and less noticeable, while the 50D noise is seriously impacting the feather detail of the bird in this full sized image. But look at the detail retained in the feathers of the bird in the 50D shot. Now this is with a 3 million increase in pixel density and still achieving this level of performance!

These are admittedly enormous crops from a tiny part of the image, and reduced to web size or even a reasonable print size, you'd struggle to see a difference between the two images. The fact remains though that the 7D image is retaining better detail and whichever way you want to look at it there's no avoiding the fact that it will print larger and you can crop tighter. The 40D doesn't even get to play in this game with 5 million pixels less than the 50D. :shrug:

The 40D is a great camera if you shoot landscapes street, weddings or any subject where you shoot largely full frame and don't crop. It even has crop advantages over many other cameras in the Canon range, but the 50D and the 7D with these enormous pixel counts have just moved the bar way higher.

These cameras are aimed mainly at sports and wildlife photographers - not everyone is going to see an advantage in them but those who do will see a huge advantage. It isn't some sort of con - Canon really do know where they're going with these cameras, and the numbers of people who seem to think they know better would be almost funny if it wasn't so bewildering.

so much more detail in the feathers

 

[patrickeaton]

Eek. 7D and 40D aside..... I'm after better glass and have a 40D. Will I not benefit from it ?

Properly used the L glass will be well worth having on your 40D. Whilst I did not start producing superb photographs overnight I certainly believed I could see a significant improvement in the image quality from my 10D back when I bought my first L series lens. I now use a variety of L lenses on a 30D and I am pleased with the results. Having said all that I am summoning up the courage to buy myself a 7D.

 

[buckas]

personally preference is always top notch glass then body 2nd - it's no good having a 7D and shooting through vaseline

 

[Vertigo1]

Well I have a 40D and a friend of mine has recently upgraded from a 450D to a 7D. Whilst I think it's an excellent camera, I don't think it's worth what they're currently asking for it. If it eventually ducks under £1k then I'd think about it.

What I really want is a 60D with a 12mp sensor but the noise processing abilities of the 7D, enabling the use of very high ISO. Is there any chance that, now we have the 18mp 7D, the 60D might return to a 12mp sensor?

 

[DizMatt]

was quite surprised by this thread but interesting reading
I agree with the need for quality glass on the 7D considering it's capabilities.
I'm of the 40D ilk of minor crops and less noise at higher ISO's
I'm hoping the 60D is of that family and not pushing for MP that it can't sustain.

I can't afford either L glass nor 7D presently but would go for L/better glass on my 40D before purchasing a 7D

 

[CT]

Eek. 7D and 40D aside..... I'm after better glass and have a 40D. Will I not benefit from it ?

Of course you'll benefit. If by 'better' you mean longer then you'll gain more reach regardless of the sensor size, but just how much reach you gain will be proportional to sensor size and pixel density.

If you mean just better quality glass, swapping a mediocre 50mm (for example) for a quality 50mm then you'll still see the gains. Better lenses are sharper, give better image contrast, improved colour saturation, resistance to flare etc. Money spent on good glass is never wasted and that quality glass will retain it's value while the value of your body will drop like a brick.

If you currently own a 40D though, and say a quality 300mm or 400mm lens and it's reach you're looking for, then it's a sobering thought that you'd probably gain more reach by spending around 1400 quid or less on a 7D body than you would by forking out over £5K for a 500mm f4L.

The 40D was a quantum leap over the 20D and 30D and it's an excellent camera, I saw a huge leap in IQ when I got the 40D - it's just being left well behind now for those whom reach is the important factor by cameras like the 50D and 7D.

 

[grumpybadger]

I think there's a reality check needed here comparing a 40D to a 7D in the first place.

These are shots taken side by side with the 50D and the 7D. The 50D was using the 300mm 2.8L and 2XTC (600mm) - the 7D was using the 500mmf4L and 1.4X TC (700mm). These shots were in absolutely dismal light at 1600 ISO

..

Obviously the difference in size of the bird in the two above images is down to the 100mm advantage of the 7D and it's lens combo.

Now 100% crops from each image...

..

The bird in the 7D crop is appreciably bigger again due to the lens advantage already mentioned and the fact that it puts out a bigger 1:1 file than the 50D.

Look at the difference in noise between the two images. It may not appear to be much, but the 7D noise is finer and less noticeable, while the 50D noise is seriously impacting the feather detail of the bird in this full sized image. But look at the detail retained in the feathers of the bird in the 7D shot. Now this is with a 3 million increase in pixel density and still achieving this level of performance!

These are admittedly enormous crops from a tiny part of the image, and reduced to web size or even a reasonable print size, you'd struggle to see a difference between the two images. The fact remains though that the 7D image is retaining better detail and whichever way you want to look at it there's no avoiding the fact that it will print larger and you can crop tighter. The 40D doesn't even get to play in this game with 5 million pixels less than the 50D. :shrug:

The 40D is a great camera if you shoot landscapes street, weddings or any subject where you shoot largely full frame and don't crop. It even has crop advantages over many other cameras in the Canon range, but the 50D and the 7D with these enormous pixel counts have just moved the bar way higher.

These cameras are aimed mainly at sports and wildlife photographers - not everyone is going to see an advantage in them but those who do will see a huge advantage. It isn't some sort of con - Canon really do know where they're going with these cameras, and the numbers of people who seem to think they know better would be almost funny if it wasn't so bewildering.

Good study Cedric. I can't help wondering how it would look if the lenses were swapped. I was never that impressed with the 300 and 2x. Not saying your conclusions are wrong but it would be interesting to see how critical good glass is on these results!

 

[CT]

Good study Cedric. I can't help wondering how it would look if the lenses were swapped. I was never that impressed with the 300 and 2x. Not saying your conclusions are wrong but it would be interesting to see how critical good glass is on these results!

That's fair comment actually Paul, I might actually try that if I get out tomorrow, but lens testing isn't isn't usually my main priority when I'm in Kingfisher mode.

 

[SIB]

Great pics of the birds, really highlights the difference. I've been pondering the two for a while, i'm just not sure i can justify the difference in cost for what i use the photos for but that's a personal thing obviously

 

[kluen]

This may be content for a seperate thread but, I've read some references in here to the 60D, what time frame is this expected in?

I'm currently in the 40D camp, have recently got my 1st "L" and the next upgrade is likely to be a body therefore torn between 5DmkII / 7D.

I understand the "different tools for different jobs" argument that usually arises however both could easily apply them selves to my shooting needs.

My only concern with a 5D2 is that i'd lose length in my lenses which I have gotten used to with the 1.6x crop.

I primarily need to upgrade for low light performance, which is why the 5D2 is the obvious choice.

Then theres the "newer, sparklier" argument lol....

Then theres that bloody Lumix GF1 too....

Will see what the January sales bring I guess.

 

[CT]

This may be content for a seperate thread but, I've read some references in here to the 60D, what time frame is this expected in?

Well it's only rumour, so place what value on it you like, but it's thought the 60D will appear about the first or second quarter of next year.

Again whatever you guess about it's configuration is likely to be wrong, but it may get an increase to 18mp and video would seem highly likely. :shrug:

 

[Balb0wa]

coming down in price all the time the 7d £1299 at jessops now

http://www.jessops.com/online.store...ops.com/online.store/products/76536/Show.html