Which of the 2?

S

samems

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,005
Edit My Images
No
If you had to decide on one camera between these 2 which would you choose and why?

Canon 500D
Canon 40D

Reason i am asking is that they are both within my very tight budget. I already own a Nifty Fifty to pair with either.

I will only be after the 'body' but i am stumped as to which would give me the better results after doing a lot more learning as i am new to all things photography. I do have a G3 at the moment which i have decided to sell when i get the chance. I much prefer a DSLR myself.

I have handled them both at different times and like both!

If anyone can give me some advice on the 2 shortlisted above then that would be very helpful in getting me to decide which to buy.

As for what subjects i would be shooting, that would be mostly my kids and holiday stuff. I know the 50mm is stuck at that focal length but i will 'branch out' when i get to know the camera better.
 
Last edited:
I will go with 40D.

Semi pro, top LCD to tell you what settings you are on.
Great controls with dial and wheel.

Solid built.
 
40D all day long. Solidly made, much better handling (controls), more fps, 1/8000 shutter speed, for the money they are now a no brainer imho!

Good luck with whatever you choose :)
 
Waw, thanks guys. Quick replies and looks like you think the 40D is the better of the 2 then.

Trying to find one for the right price, good condition and low actuations next then!
 
And another one!
Not used the 500D but my 40D is a dream to use. :cool:
 
500D, better ISO range, better noise control in images at higher ISO, ultra light weight yet still robust, good rear screen
 
While the 40D is a better built body with better ergonomics and controls, the 500D is a newer design with better screen and newer technology such as sensor, megapixel size, ISO capability and HD video too. It's smaller, lighter and has direction buttons and is more menu based. It really depends on what you think is best for you, but personally I prefer the 2 dialled bodies as they are easier for me when in manual.
 
I had a 500d, then got a 50d which is much nicer and easier to use, though I kept the 500d for quite a while as it's so nice and light and small. Image quality was the same but in use the 50d was faster. Why not get a 50d, quite a lot of improvements over the 40d (screen, 15mp newer,etc) and not much more expensive anymore.
 
Guys, to add to the mix, today i have been offered a D90 with a 50mm 1.8 on it for £500. I already have a Canon 50mm 1.8 but obviously no body for it yet! Was contemplating the 500D or the 40D as per the opening post. Now this Nikon has been thrown in the mix i am confused to say the least!

Thanks for any pointers as to where i go from here?
 
Personally I'd sell the G3 first and put the money towards either a 50 or 60D

you won't go wrong with a 40D (they ought to be about 300 notes) but it makes sense to buy a newer xxD if possible
 
Thanks. I do prefer a Canon i guess having held one or 2. Not sure about a 40D now as it is quite old and any that are bought are going to be a fair few years old since new.

50D is an option i guess as that is not 'as' old. Only thing i have noticed with them though is how heavy they are compared to the xxxD models! 500D feels so light compared to the xxD range! The 500D felt the best to me. It has the same sensor as the 50D? So i guess the IQ should be the same, just the handling will be different?
 
So, if i wanted better pictures i would be better off going for an xxD model then.
 
Last edited:
The Greek said:
Better pictures are down to you and not the camera.
Click to expand...

Some would argue otherwise in a dim lit indoor venue :)

It is to a degree but the camera has to allow you to have potentially good shots in the first place.

a capable photographer would get 2 very different images from a 10D and a 50D and i'm quite sure although it would be the same photographer, the better images would cone from the newer technology.

CRT monitors display a fine image and you can't say it would be "bad", but a LCD does it better!
 
Phil Young said:
Some would argue otherwise in a dim lit indoor venue :)

It is to a degree but the camera has to allow you to have potentially good shots in the first place.

a capable photographer would get 2 very different images from a 10D and a 50D and i'm quite sure although it would be the same photographer, the better images would cone from the newer technology.

CRT monitors display a fine image and you can't say it would be "bad", but a LCD does it better!
Click to expand...

I hear what your saying and don't disagree, but in this case and no disrespect to the OP, a £5000 camera will not make them any better at photoghapy than a £300 40d.
 
Ah but in my price range there are several that might help me that tad bit more!
 
So given the choice, you guys would plump for a 40D over a 500D any day of the week?
 
Either will give great results, particularly if you're pretty new to DSLR.

I would certainly recommend the 40d, I bought one a year or so ago and love it. It does all I want it to, produces great photos with a 50mm 1.8mm and is a great starting point to DSLR shooting.

Technology wise it's got plenty going for it, build wise it's all good. Get a good low mileage one and there's little to be disappointed about IMHO :)
 
not really - its only two itterations from new. Anyway if it works and gets good pictures who cares.

I've spent the last 8 years using a 20D and have only just upgraded (to a 40D in fact).

As i said before if you can afford a 50D get that as its an itteration newer ( I'd rather have a 50 than a 60 in fact as the 60 seems to have been built down to price) but an xxD is usually better than a broadly comparable xxxD
 
Think i have now decided to look for a 50D guys. Looks to suit my needs and i like how the xxd range feels. Just got to find a good one 2nd hand now!
 
Just to confuse matters have you considered a second hand 5D?

The image quality is outstanding, the ISO range although poor still produces great images, you'd get a rubbish screen and no fancy features but IQ wise its pretty much on par with the mk II.

Its a full frame, which is why the IQ is so high.

One last word though it would be a steep learning curve and you;d need to do a bit of research to choose the right one (look for lowish actuations and for general wear and tear), also any future lenses would have to be EF (not EF-S) so in the longer run that would be a bit more expensive. Oh and no built in flash.

lol, sounds like I'm trying to talk you out of it!!
 
Well, i said 50D is what i wanted but been offered a 40D for under £300 with approx 19k actuations. Looks to be in minty condition.

Would it be a good choice? Knowing that i take quite a few pics indoors of the kids and holiday stuff would i miss a 50D or would the 40D suffice?
 
how much under 300 ? - £300 is actually pretty ballpark for a 40D , i bought one rercently for £320 with low acts that came with 4 x 4GB CF cards, a grip, several batteries and a lowe pro rucksack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top