EOS 7D v EOS 40D

Paulbaker

Paulbaker

Suspended / Banned
Messages
246
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
I currently use an EOS 40D, which I am extremley happy with but am seriously considering upgrading to a 7D. has anyone experience of using both these cameras and if so is it a worthwhile upgrade.

Does image quality suffer with all those extra megapixels crammed on to the same sized sensor??
 
Last edited:
Hi Paul

I'm sure you've heard some of the "horror" stories about how noisy the 7D is and yes it can be but I've taken pictures at ISO6400 that are perfectly acceptable after a little PP ;)

As long as you make sure the pictures are exposed correctly everything's fine (but then that probably goes for most cameras)

I didn't have a 40D but I did make the jump from a 400D and the one things you will probably notice the most are the 100% view finder and the AF system which IMO is top notch!

It's a cracking piece of kit but the packed sensor will show up poor glass and/or poor technique.
 
I prefer the feel of the 40d, but this may be due to familiarity. They're about the same size and weight and again I prefer the look of the 40d. However.

The AF seems far superior on the 7d, although I've only properly used it once for a football game, and the images seem better to my eyes.
The 7d shoots at a faster rate which is very noticeable when shooting sports.
Not tried it at night games yet so can't comment on hi ISO performance.
I shoot mainly sport and I have found it a worthwhile upgrade.
 
What do you shoot Paul? Also what lenses do you have?
 
I shot with both a 40D and a 50D for a time, but it was so obvious that the 40D was being outgunned for reach by the 50D that I swapped the 40D for a second 50D.

One 50D body has now made way for a 7D and the increase in reach with the extra 3 million pixels over the 50D is apparent, but nowhere near as significant as the 5 million pixel increase from the 40D to the 50D. In virtually every other respect though, it's really a daft comparison - the 7D is completely redesigned from the ground up - the AF system in particular is outstanding and it's a whole lot more money, but a bargain at current prices. The 7D is hands down the best camera from Canon for yonks IMHO.

You need the best glass to make the most of the 7D though, so that may be a serious consideration for you.
 
Last edited:
Shabba, I enjoy photography as a hobby so I try to shoot as much as I can, I tend to use my 5D for portraits but use my 40D for most other stuff like architecture, urban and rural landscapes and a bit of wildlife.

I have a selection of lenses but favour my Sigma 24-70 f2.8 and 12-24 f4.5-5.6 on the 40D
 
I made this jump after realising that the high iso and af were not up to what I was doing with the 40d. The 7d has much less noise than the 40d and does go to higher iso's. The viewfinder and af completely destroy that of the 40d. If you are hitting the limits of your 40d a 7d makes perfect sense.
 
You may find the following useful:

5630405857_65f1ba3b1f_b.jpg
 
Ok I think for general use then yes the 7D would make a good next step....however IMO only if you can plan to upgrade your lenses to L level.

Can CT explain the comment about reach? I assuming you mean cropping? Surely using the correct lenses would avoid having to crop though? 'reach' etc - I thought they are the same crop factor the 40, 50 and 7D?
 
shabba said:
Can CT explain the comment about reach? I assuming you mean cropping? Surely using the correct lenses would avoid having to crop though? 'reach' etc - I thought they are the same crop factor the 40, 50 and 7D?
Click to expand...

Yep - they're all the same crop factor, but the reach advantage is to do with maximum image size and pixel count. Sorry mate - your comment about correct lenses would make any birder smile a little. Most of them use 500mm and 600mm lenses and any one of them will tell you that even with these specialised lenses, they still need to crop a lot of their images and quite drastically sometimes. Most people are surprised at how close you still need to get with lenses like these to fill the frame appreciably with small birds.

In a nutshell the things which count are the image size when viewed at 1:1 (as that's the largest size you can reproduce a bird without interpolation) and the pixel count/density. In each of these three cameras the maximim (1:1 ) file size has increased with each model, along with pixel count. The 7D now produces a massive file compared to the other two, in fact the physical file size off a RAW file converted to an 8 bit TIFF is 53mb which just exceeds image library minimum requirements straight out of the tin with no interpolation needed.

I did do a graphic representation in pictorial form of the differences between about half a dozen Canon cameras and it shows the reach advantage of the 7D is actually very significant indeed. I can't find the image at the moment, but I'll post it if I find it.

Think of it this way. I could take a shot of a bird filling the frame with the 40D and a shot of the same bird filling only half the frame with the 7D. Cropping the 7D shot by almost 50% would produce an image still of the same IQ as the 40D - with the same number of pixels actually constituting the image of the bird.

It doesn't end there though, before you fork out for a lens with more reach than your present longest, you really need to do your sums and see if you wouldn't gain more effective reach with the same lens and a higher density sensor such as that in the 7D.

Hope that helps?
 
Last edited:
Also the extra pixels show up camera shake to a greater extent along with demanding better lenses for the resolving power

Only my opinion, but wasn't convinced about the 15mp sensor they used in the 50D and prefer the 40D especially for landscapes, background detail seems less blotchy.

Like the sound of the 7D, my daughter has the 550D and that prduces some excellent results, 7D has the same sensor with improved af and loads of other good features .

If you have got the cash go for it, I would given the spare available funds
 
tijuana taxi said:
Also the extra pixels show up camera shake to a greater extent along with demanding better lenses for the resolving power
Click to expand...

This is only true is you pixel-peep or do drastic cropping. Take a full image from a high-density camera and an image from a low-density camera (with same sensor size) and display them at the same size. The effect of camera shake, lens imperfections and diffraction cannot possibly be worse on the high-density image than on the low-density image. It can, however, be better.
 
Not sure about the science, but this is a quote from a Canon Infobank article

Smaller pixels are more sensitive to camera shake, as a smaller movement will cause the image to move across more pixels
Click to expand...
 
tijuana taxi said:
Not sure about the science, but this is a quote from a Canon Infobank article
Click to expand...

But the pixels will be displayed smaller on the screen, compensating for that effect when viewed at the same size as a lower resolution file.
 
I upgraded from a 40d to a 7d and have never looked back !! Everything about it is better and the lcd is just fantastic !

I heard a lot of horror stories about high ISO but after some basic tweaks to my technique i can honestly say that high ISO on the 7D is NOT a problem
:)
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all your comments, I guess I'm still not convinced the upgrade is the right move, maybe the answer would be to borrow or hire a 7D and see what I get before commiting.
 
Hello, new to the forum and thought this was an ideal time to chip in.

I moved over to the 7D over a year ago and had read about the noise etc etc. I had been using a D300 and a D90 as a spare for a while and I was immediately drawn to the 7D by the hiQ RAW frame rate. I couldn't see anything coming soon of the same ilk from Nikon so I took the plunge.

I have to admit I'm a long shot away from being an average photographer but it's not hard to realise that if all other things were equal, the faster frame rate will give you a greater chance of getting that top shot.

I think there was too much hype being made about the 7D noise. As far as I can see, I admit it isn't as good as some of the APS-C Nikons I've used, and I notice more chromatic abberations too. Of course, in comparison with the 5D mk2, there's also more noise, but for a Canon APS-C body, the only way to get significantly better noise control is to go to a 5D Mk2. I've tried the 60D they are very close.

However, for my needs the 7D is spot on.

I recently purchased a D7000 to do a like for like comparison with pretty much the same set of lenses.

Sigma 8 - 16mm (Canon and Nikon mounts)
Tokina 11 - 16mm (Canon and Nikon mounts)
Sigma 50mm f1.4 (Canon and Nikon mounts)
Sigma 17 - 70mm f2.8 - f4.0 OS HSM (Canon and Nikon mounts)
Canon 24mm - 70mm f.2.8
Nikon 24mm - 70mm f2.8
Canon 70 - 200 f2.8 IS
Nikon 70 - 200 f2.8 VR
.....and some other lenses too.

If was wasn't for the sheer speed of the Canon, I wouldn't be in the process of selling the Nikon D7000.

If I was looking at the best all-rounder and speed wasn't no1 on my priority list, then I would have sold the 7D.

I won't go into all the finer details about the D7000 as it's slightly off topic, but in my view the 7D is well worth it. The ergonomics of the unit are probably the best that Canon have achieved in a long time too and it doesn't feel tiny in my hand.

I also see a lot of comments that say to get the best from a 7D you need L glass. I'd would personally disagree as it depends on what type of lens you're looking for and also what you're looking for in your pictures.

I have a large collection of L glass and Sigma equipment (I still have all my top end Nikon lenses too).

In my view, the best 50mm prime (for the money) is the Sigma 50mm f.14. The canon is way too soft and no where near as sharp in the centre or at the enge of the frame. And again, for most portraits the centre is most important to me.

The classic Canon 24 - 70mm f2.8 is also no good to me as it's a heavy lens and without image stabilisation, I have to stop down/increase shutter speed etc. but the images I get are bettered by my Sigma 17 - 70mm OS HSM and even the slightly less sharp Canon 24 - 105mm L glass is better for me than the 24mm - 70mm L.

I have to admit though, the 70- 200mm L Mk2 is an excellent lens.

So my advice to anyone would be to try a lens out before you buy. You can even rent them for a weekend for a cheap price.

I also recommend checking out sites like www.lenstip.com as the author makes it easy for anyone to see/understand the difference between lenses

Anyroad, if it's within your budget, then the 7D would be a perfect upgrade.
 
Hi Paul,

I had the 40d before moving to the 7d, I am no expert not even a good amatuer but the difference was significant. It is a far superior camera which made a vast difference to my photography. I am still rubbish but I am taking a far higher standard of rubbish now. It is the first time I have owned a camera for a year and not lusted after anoteh rone
 
I went from the 30D to the 7D and whilst I'm now waiting for the 5D mark 3 I will still keep the 7D. Been very impressed with it, feels very solid and I've been really pleased with the IQ. Big jump in file sizes though so had to bump up the specs on my main iMac!
 
I'm not even going to go and try a 7D as my wallet couldn't do with more of the precious being stripped away.

Might have a play when I go look for a telephoto lens :D
 
Paulbaker said:
Does image quality suffer with all those extra megapixels crammed on to the same sized sensor??
Click to expand...
The extra MP's gives you a better IQ not worst.
I loved the 40D and still have one but since getting the 7D it is relegated to a rarely used back-up. Certainly for bird or wildlife photography the 7D is better than the 40D in every respect IMO. The extra mp's are akin to an extra tc !!!
 
I also upgraded from 40D to 7D and it was definitely a worthwhile upgrade.
 
Roy C said:
The extra MP's gives you a better IQ not worst.
Click to expand...
Not if you're struggling for light (i.e. pushing ISO & shutter).
 
arad85 said:
Not if you're struggling for light (i.e. pushing ISO & shutter).
Click to expand...

Are you trying to say that the 40D produces better images at high ISO than the 7D? Because I, and many others, would disagree.

Note that I said better images, not pixels.
 
hollis_f said:
Are you trying to say that the 40D produces better images at high ISO than the 7D? Because I, and many others, would disagree.

Note that I said better images, not pixels.
Click to expand...
And the caveat in the last line is right ;)
 
arad85 said:
Not if you're struggling for light (i.e. pushing ISO & shutter).
Click to expand...
Most of my experience is with a telephoto lens and in low light I still find the 7D better, If I am shooting with my tripod and Gimbal then you can shoot at ridiculously low shutter speeds of course but when hand holding in poor light I just use the 7D's auto ISO in Av mode, it gives you a very comfortable shutter speed (focal length * crop factor) which with my 420mm set-up is 1/640 or 1/800 sec. Given that the 7D high ISO noise is better than the 40D it is another plus for the 7D as far as I am concerned. Having said that, if the light is very bad I do not bother shooting anyway - good(ish) light is what it is all about as far as I am concerned.
I have not found any situation where the 7D IQ is not better than the 40D.
 
Last edited:
Roy C said:
I have not found any situation where the 7D IQ is not better than the 40D.
Click to expand...
Actually, having thought about it, it appears the gapless microlens implementation in the 7D sensor boosts the signal to noise ratio better than you would expect based purely on pixel size. Sounds like you're right (not had any experience with the 40D directly, just extrapolating).
 
Interesting topic.

I wanted to upgrade to a 50D from 40D, but held off knowing I would want to upgrade again. So when i do upgrade, 7D is where I will go.

Funny how nobody ever talks about the 60D as an upgrade isn't it. ;)
 
I suppose that is because the 60d is almost a step down from the usual x0d line up.
 
jontwhale said:
I suppose that is because the 60d is almost a step down from the usual x0d line up.
Click to expand...

That's a highly dubious view... Most complaints seem to revolve around the fact that the loss of a magnesium chassis immediately reduces the size of the owners manhood and the lack of MA makes it completely unusable anyway.
 
i am also looking to upgrade to a 7D, i have a 450D just now,anyone know who is doing the 7D at a good price?
 
Just got my 7d today from Jessops 1179 quid,

it was the interest free credit that did it for me:lol::lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top