From EOS 350d to 30d or 40d

[TheVDM]

Hello, Im sure this has been covered before, but I would like to know an answer going by my specific requirements.

I currently use an EOS 350d for my digital body, the things I dont like about it are as follows.

Its too small for my hands (Both the 30D and 40D solve this one)
Image quality can be a bit grainy
Contrast isnt what it could be
Focusing could be quicker

Would the 30D solve all of these, or would it need to be the 40D

Bare in mind that I work in a photo lab, so im not paid a massive ammount of money, therefor the £300 price difference between a 30D on ebay and a 40D in the shops is a big difference for me!!

Would the 30D make a noticable difference in the ammount of grain when shot at higher ISO's or with longer shutters, is the grass really greener on the other side or does it need to be a 40D, and does the 30D focus that tiny bit faster... With the 30D, would the £300 saved go to much better use put towards the savings for an L series lens (we all know the answer to that last one)

All the best
Jym

 

[FetchMeMyTools]

As you said this has been asked before, but im one of these people who deostn mind it being asked (though there is a search button which woudl help).
I can comment on the 30D as i havent used one, but i do have the 40D and love it. If price is an option for you then it would make sense to get the cheaper, just dont regret it in a few months when you have enough cash to get a 40D.
Its always good to stretch then it saves in the long run.

I woudl suggest trying them boh first (jessops ??) and see which one you prefer.

 

[TheVDM]

I've had a play around with the 40D in Jessops, but unfortunatly they don't stock the 30D any more... Which is a pain!

 

[Canon Bob]

The 40D will be very similar to your 350D due to the increased pixel count. The 30D has a slightly improved noise signature to your 350D. From looking at the lenses in your kit bag then I'd strongly suggest the cheaper option and putting the saving towards better lenses.

Bob

 

[seriousrikk]

The 40D will be very similar to your 350D due to the increased pixel count. The 30D has a slightly improved noise signature to your 350D. From looking at the lenses in your kit bag then I'd strongly suggest the cheaper option and putting the saving towards better lenses.

Bob

Not sure I agree with this.
The 40D has far superior processing to the 350D and as a result the noise is much better. The 350D uses the same technology as the 20D and the 40D wipes the floor with that one.

 

[BRASH]

Kinda agree with that

 

[cosmix3]

Must say, went from the 350D to 40D myself last year, the differance is big, is much better to handle, the noise handling is alot better, I offten shoot Wolfs at 1600 ISO with no major issues.

Also feels better balanced than the 350 with bigger lens on,

One thing I would say is that if you upgrade then you will most likly end up wanting to upgrade your glass, I did mostly to L Glass so bear that in mind.

 

[Canon Bob]

.... The 350D uses the same technology as the 20D and the 40D wipes the floor with that one.

Can you provide some data or a link that shows this?....I'd be interested to see the comparison.

Sensor read noise and signal-noise ratio for the 20D/30D sensors are both marginally better than the 40D. The fact that pixel size has decreased in the 40D marks this as progress. The 50D can also be considered as a progression as it's s-n ratio is only marginally worse than the 40D despite the far higher density.

Bob

 

[purpleclouds]

I went from a 300D -> 400D -> 30D, essentially back an era...although up a level, and the 30D was by far the best of the lot. So much so, it is still backup to my 1D (until I can afford to upgrade )

 

[PerfectSpeed]

I went from a 350D to a 30D.

Quality wise, not too much difference, but the handling of the 30D changed the way I took photos.

The friend I bought my second 30D back-up from, still can't justify the sale of this for the 40D, his work is just as great now as it was then.

30D, good glass and lots of shooting will be enough to get you some great stuff.

 

[TheVDM]

Many thanks to all for your replies.

I think my best bet would be to aim for the 30D and have the extra money for a 70-200 f4 L lens (as I feel my 28-135 f4-5.6 IS lens isnt too bad for its range, but can be replaced at a later date)

And if I happen to get the extra £300, go for the 40D

All the best
Jym

 

[Uneducated_Rick]

Invest in glass and sell some of the things you have. Your tamron is totaly redundant because of your 28-135. One of your 300mm zooms can go too, there's only a 5mm difference on the wide end, and you have that covered by your 28-135.

Sell them off, take the money you were planning on buying the body with and get better lenses, maybe think about a prime or two

 

[foodpoison]

Perhaps a grip for your 350d?

The image quality between all 3 cameras is minimal.

Granted, the 30d and 40d function in a much nicer way than the 350d, and they both autofocus a lot better than the 350d, but the grip will fix the problem with it being too small for your hands. It did for me, at least.

I personally don't think it's worth upgrading.
I managed to get the 40d brand new for £390, and managed to sell my 350d for £400.
So I effectively upgraded for free.
Is the grass greener on the other side?
Yes, yes it is. The grass is very green. But if I had to pay for the upgrade it wouldn't have been so.

 

[seriousrikk]

Can you provide some data or a link that shows this?....I'd be interested to see the comparison.

Sensor read noise and signal-noise ratio for the 20D/30D sensors are both marginally better than the 40D. The fact that pixel size has decreased in the 40D marks this as progress. The 50D can also be considered as a progression as it's s-n ratio is only marginally worse than the 40D despite the far higher density.

Bob

A link, no. I tend to base my comments on real world experience.

I did upgrade from 20D to 40D and the noise handling at ISO 1600 on the 40D is much better than my 20D was. I'll see if I have a couple of similar shots in my library that show this although I've not used the 40D nearly as much as I used the 20D yet.

 

[TheVDM]

Invest in glass and sell some of the things you have. Your tamron is totaly redundant because of your 28-135. One of your 300mm zooms can go too, there's only a 5mm difference on the wide end, and you have that covered by your 28-135.

Sell them off, take the money you were planning on buying the body with and get better lenses, maybe think about a prime or two

In all honesty the Tamron and the Sigma lenses both sit collecting dust as both the canon brand lenses out-perform by a long shot, so I might get some photo's ready and set up an ebay listing for them in a bit!

Perhaps a grip for your 350d?

The image quality between all 3 cameras is minimal.

And perhaps thats where the money could go, into something that wouldnt collect dust.

All the best
Jym

 

[Canon Bob]

The 40D will be very similar to your 350D due to the increased pixel count. The 30D has a slightly improved noise signature to your 350D.
Bob

Not sure I agree with this.
The 40D has far superior processing to the 350D and as a result the noise is much better. The 350D uses the same technology as the 20D and the 40D wipes the floor with that one.

Kinda agree with that

Must say, went from the 350D to 40D myself last year, the differance is big, is much better to handle, the noise handling is alot better.....

A link, no. I tend to base my comments on real world experience.

I did upgrade from 20D to 40D and the noise handling at ISO 1600 on the 40D is much better than my 20D was.

I've set up a three way comparison on the DXO labs website. Check out the Iso sensitivity and signal noise ratio.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en...0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Canon/(brand3)/Canon

Looking firstly at the Iso sensitivity....
You'll see that the 350D takes the lead at Iso 200 and maintains it up to its upper limit at 1600. You'll also see that the 30D marginally leads the 40D throughout the range.

Next, the signal to noise ratio....
The 350D sits between the 40D (worst) and 30D best through the range.

Dynamic range.....
The 40D leads here until getting above Iso 300 then the 30D takes over with the 350D and 40D being pretty equal.

Tonal range....
All pretty much the same but again, the 40D comes out as the lowest of the three (too close to be of any real issue).

Finally, colour sensitivity....
Again, the 40D marginally lags behind the other two.

All this leads to the question.....
What are you folks seeing in your images that suggests to you that the 40D is superior. I can only assume it is the body's JPG processing but I would have thought that you're RAW shooters in the main. All the measurements are quite close and possibly too close for normal apprasial to separate, but it is certain that the 40D shouldn't be wooing people with its RAW output.
I'm not anti-40D in any way...I've got one (along with a 30D, 50D, 5D2 and 1D3)...I've also had a 300D, several 350D's and a 400D. Moving from an xxxD to an xxD certainly has its advantages in build quality, ergonomics, features etc but RAW output has remained very similar with bodies of the same generation. The triumph in all of this is that the various parameters above have remained very stable whilst the pixel density has risen considerably.

Bob

 

[JeffT]

I went from a 350D to a 40D and am very glad I did.

Cannot comment on the above though as I changed glass at the same time as changing camera's which means I have no like for like shots to compare but the 40D has produced some cracking shots (maybe it’s just me) but again this is also (at least partly) going to be down to having better glass.

One thing I will say though is the 40D does feel a hell of a lot more substantial in your hands and just makes the 350D feel like a toy camera!

 

[TheVDM]

I went from a 350D to a 40D and am very glad I did.

Cannot comment on the above though as I changed glass at the same time as changing camera's which means I have no like for like shots to compare but the 40D has produced some cracking shots (maybe it’s just me) but again this is also (at least partly) going to be down to having better glass.

One thing I will say though is the 40D does feel a hell of a lot more substantial in your hands and just makes the 350D feel like a toy camera!

I think thats part of the problem for me, I have handled a 30D and a 40D (all be it a while back now) and ever since my 350D feels like a toy

 

[Rodintee]

I recently added a 30D body as an upgrade to my old 10D.

The 2 greatest genuine upgrades are the wake up time/write performance and the high iso usability. In many ways the 10D is still a great camera and the images from both in ideal circumstances are equally good, but then things are not always ideal.

I can't really see any reason to upgrade from the 30D until 1Dmark2's are down at mark1 prices S/H, can't wait for that

Love the 30D, so far can't fault it, if you feel the ergonomics are worth it, make the upgrade but I don't really think you'll see a significant performance change.

Russ

 

[MJ Stebbings]

Get a second hand 40d!
These go for around £450 and compared to the handling of the 350d, the 40d really doesnt fail to impress.
ISO sensitivity control, custom settings, the fact it has live view and sensor cleaning are all added bonuses. And everything with the exception of the ISO control are features not on the 30d but ARE on the 40d.

Get a used 40d, the price difference between them second hand is worth it

Mike

 

[LCPete]

I've set up a three way comparison on the DXO labs website. Check out the Iso sensitivity and signal noise ratio.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en...0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Canon/(brand3)/Canon

Looking firstly at the Iso sensitivity....
You'll see that the 350D takes the lead at Iso 200 and maintains it up to its upper limit at 1600. You'll also see that the 30D marginally leads the 40D throughout the range.

Next, the signal to noise ratio....
The 350D sits between the 40D (worst) and 30D best through the range.

Dynamic range.....
The 40D leads here until getting above Iso 300 then the 30D takes over with the 350D and 40D being pretty equal.

Tonal range....
All pretty much the same but again, the 40D comes out as the lowest of the three (too close to be of any real issue).

Finally, colour sensitivity....
Again, the 40D marginally lags behind the other two.

All this leads to the question.....
What are you folks seeing in your images that suggests to you that the 40D is superior. I can only assume it is the body's JPG processing but I would have thought that you're RAW shooters in the main. All the measurements are quite close and possibly too close for normal apprasial to separate, but it is certain that the 40D shouldn't be wooing people with its RAW output.
I'm not anti-40D in any way...I've got one (along with a 30D, 50D, 5D2 and 1D3)...I've also had a 300D, several 350D's and a 400D. Moving from an xxxD to an xxD certainly has its advantages in build quality, ergonomics, features etc but RAW output has remained very similar with bodies of the same generation. The triumph in all of this is that the various parameters above have remained very stable whilst the pixel density has risen considerably.

Bob

Thanks for posting that Bob thats really interesting and thought provoking you are saying that basically on IQ alone there's little difference between them
I went from a 350D to a 40D . I did keep the 350d however.
I do still use the 350 and believe that at lower ISO I cant tell any difference in IQ between the 2
I do believe that the 40D is better once you get to ISO 800 and above but I've never done a direct comparison maybee I should try
Pete

 

[Canon Bob]

Thanks for posting that Bob thats really interesting and thought provoking you are saying that basically on IQ alone there's little difference between them
I went from a 350D to a 40D . I did keep the 350d however.
I do still use the 350 and believe that at lower ISO I cant tell any difference in IQ between the 2
I do believe that the 40D is better once you get to ISO 800 and above but I've never done a direct comparison maybee I should try
Pete

Pete,

What you're describing is the opposite to what would be expected. The 40D's higher pixel density isn't disadvantaging it at the lower Iso's and technology improvements give it the edge upto Iso300. Any improvement that you're seeing is simply down to in-camera post processing.

In terms of their base output, Nikon's CCD's perform worse than Canon's CMOS sensors. You'd be pushed to see this by looking at the output files and Nikon's noise performance looks close/equal/better (I'm avoiding arguments here). This cleanup is achieved by clipping the dynamic range so that the bottom end noise (and data) is thrown away. Canon's approach to noise resulting from increased pixel density is essentially the same.
The marketing guys want pixels...you can't expect the majority of folk to update a body without giving them extra pixels. The result is that the technological advances are aimed at adding pixels whilst keeping noise and DR at similar levels. The alternative would be to increase DR, reduce noise but no increase in pixel count.
I guess we're entering the age where serious togs are happy with their pixel count and will start looking for noise and DR improvements and there'll hopefully be a shift in strategy to give better quality output without cramming more onto the sensor.

Bob

 

[TheVDM]

Hello,

Just to let you know, in a slightly drunken state last night I purchased a 30D off the web. I was kind of expecting to wake up and regret it, but as of yet, no regrets.

I feel that even a second hand 40D would be out of my price range as the extra money could go towards a new lens, and the only difference between the 30D & 40D that I feel I would miss would be the sensor cleaning. But I have heard that it isnt allways that great (only if you have a few specs), and from experience I have had no problem cleaning the sensor on my 350D (which I first learnt after changing lenses on the beach on a slightly windy day, when i didnt have £50 spare for canon to do it)

I will let you know if I regret the spontanious buying in a few days to a week

All the best

Jym

 

[Canon Bob]

Jym,

I'm sure you won't regret it, it's a fine body and the build quality alone will woo you. As far as sensor cleaning goes, I haven't really noticed any difference in frequency of cleans between bodies with and bodies without the auto clean.

Bob

 

[TheVDM]

Jym,

I'm sure you won't regret it, it's a fine body and the build quality alone will woo you. As far as sensor cleaning goes, I haven't really noticed any difference in frequency of cleans between bodies with and bodies without the auto clean.

Bob

And even then, I work in a photo lab which has very dust free areas and compressed air (special anti static stuff for use with camera sensors), which seems to do a good trick at blasting it out

 

[TheVDM]

Well, I have unpacked the 30D body about an hour ago, and put my 28-135 IS on it for a quick play in the garden. Nothin worth showing as its just a quick play, but I can definatly feel the difference and I don't feel one bit dissapointed especially on build quality.

As for noise, this body definatly produces less noise than the 350D even at ISO-1600 its not that bad.

Jym

 

[Puz]

Well, I have unpacked the 30D body about an hour ago, and put my 28-135 IS on it for a quick play in the garden. Nothin worth showing as its just a quick play, but I can definatly feel the difference and I don't feel one bit dissapointed especially on build quality.

As for noise, this body definatly produces less noise than the 350D even at ISO-1600 its not that bad.

Jym

Welcome to the 30D. I went from a 300D (a plastic toy now tbh !) to a 30D and also use a 28-135IS also. The build quality and the noise levels are worth the up/downgrade as far as I'm concerned

 

[TheVDM]

Welcome to the 30D. I went from a 300D (a plastic toy now tbh !) to a 30D and also use a 28-135IS also. The build quality and the noise levels are worth the up/downgrade as far as I'm concerned

I'm not rich, and I'm not a pro. But I'm definatly happy with owning those two items (30D and the 28-135 IS). And your right, the 350D feels like a toy now!

 

[Jamesemt]

Can I ask how much you paid for the 30D? I'm in exactly the same position...

 

[TheVDM]

I paid £350 for mine, I know you can get them for about £300 on ebay but I decided to go for this one as it had a low shutter count (about 2,000) and only had light use.

As for selling the 350D, I am not sure how much money it will make me back as there is still 5 days left on the auction (although I am expecting £150-200) - Link

After just a day of use I am quite happy to say that there is a massive difference in image quality & contrast between the 350 and the 30D (Despite what others say)

I have a feeling I will be keeping this one for a good few years!

Good luck with the search
Jym

Edit: The 30D I got for £350 was a body only kit

 

[Uneducated_Rick]

I paid £350 for mine, I know you can get them for about £300 on ebay but I decided to go for this one as it had a low shutter count (about 2,000) and only had light use.

As for selling the 350D, I am not sure how much money it will make me back as there is still 5 days left on the auction (although I am expecting £150-200) - Link

After just a day of use I am quite happy to say that there is a massive difference in image quality & contrast between the 350 and the 30D (Despite what others say)

I have a feeling I will be keeping this one for a good few years!

Good luck with the search
Jym

Edit: The 30D I got for £350 was a body only kit

I got my 30D & grip for £320 about a month ago - because the battery compartment door was missing (do just use the grip all the time) - was a studio backup so the body was in perfect condition, very low use.

Contemplated selling my 350D & grip but the money I'dget for it would be next to nothing so I might as well keep hold of it and use it as a second body when I'm out and about