Is my 40 D losing lustre or am I losing my touch??

jodieoliver

I have a Canon 40D that is about 3 years? I feel like in order to produce the exposure I'm looking for I have to keep the ISO really high almost ALL the time, even in good light. I also almost always have a wide open aperture and the meter up a notch or 2? Is my camera just getting old or do you think there is something that I can get fixed?? i thought maybe it was my lens but I got a new lens and its still the case?
Whats Up??:dunno

billythek

Yeah, I think it is time to get that new camera you have your eye on.

Ric Grupe

jodieoliver wrote: »

I have a Canon 40D that is about 3 years? I feel like in order to produce the exposure I'm looking for I have to keep the ISO really high almost ALL the time, even in good light. I also almost always have a wide open aperture and the meter up a notch or 2? Is my camera just getting old or do you think there is something that I can get fixed?? i thought maybe it was my lens but I got a new lens and its still the case?
Whats Up??

Sounds to me like you are trying to avoid blur due to camera shake. Image Stabilized lenses, good hand holding technique, and tri or monopod support are a few ways to alleviate that.

The 40D is a fine camera...so look elsewhere for the blame.

Read your manual and learn how to meter for a variety of conditions.

Ric Grupe

billythek wrote: »

Yeah, I think it is time to get that new camera you have your eye on.

thumb

jodieoliver

Honestly I don't think is due to camera shake?? This a new problem and I have a super steady hand. Refuse to use a tripod during photo shoots it's too limiting! Blur really isn't the problem either its exposure...Darkness?? Although....The lens im using is 24-70L and it does not have IS?? hmmm never really thought about that? Of course I do want the 5D heehee but i still want to keep the 40 as a second shooter!

ziggy53

Please provide some image examples with full EXIF.

chrisjohnson

jodieoliver wrote: »

I have a Canon 40D that is about 3 years? I feel like in order to produce the exposure I'm looking for I have to keep the ISO really high almost ALL the time, even in good light. I also almost always have a wide open aperture and the meter up a notch or 2? Is my camera just getting old or do you think there is something that I can get fixed?? i thought maybe it was my lens but I got a new lens and its still the case?
Whats Up??

My 40D is getting better and better - or is it just me? It tends to under-expose on automatic settings and it does a lot better on low ISOs. I try to stay at 400 or lower. Aperture needs to stay at or under f16.

I would not push the ISO to high levels as a general principle. The IS is great if sharpness is your thing and even with shaky hands I get away with 1/30 hand-held with an IS lens. High ISO works but results in a lack of detail and color resolutions - I would sooner put up with some shake, but then sharpness has never been my main concern.

Scott_Quier

jodieoliver wrote: »

I have a Canon 40D that is about 3 years? I feel like in order to produce the exposure I'm looking for I have to keep the ISO really high almost ALL the time, even in good light. I also almost always have a wide open aperture and the meter up a notch or 2? Is my camera just getting old or do you think there is something that I can get fixed?? i thought maybe it was my lens but I got a new lens and its still the case?
Whats Up??

We need a bit more information about what kinds of exposures you are attempting. Like Ziggy suggested, an image or two with intact EXIF will go a long way to better helping you.

kdog

goldenballs wrote: »

My 40D is getting better and better - or is it just me?

I've noticed the same thing. With good light, I can't tell the shots from my 40D from those taken with my 5DMKII.

pathfinder

The 40D is still a pretty darned good camera, isn't it, Joel?

kdog

pathfinder wrote: »

The 40D is still a pretty darned good camera, isn't it, Joel?

Yes, sir! And I think I'll be hanging on to it, despite sporting a new 7D as well. (Oh, and the AF on the 7D is everything you said it would be. )

studio1972

kdog wrote: »

I've noticed the same thing. With good light, I can't tell the shots from my 40D from those taken with my 5DMKII.

I used to have a 40d but sold it to get my 5D MkII. TBH in good light the images are identical (taking into account the crop sensor). I don't think there is anything magical about the 5D being full frame that makes the images look better in every situation. In low light however, the 5DII is much better, which is why I got it. I also have a 450D which I use as a spare and I could say the same for images from that, although the autofocus is not as accurate as the 40D of 5DII, so it's a bit hit and miss in some situations.

I recently bought an ex display 5D (Mk I) for £700 as a second camera and it's great. It is very similar to the Mk II ergonomically and of course I'm now used to having a full frame sensor. I would recommend one as a cheap upgrade to the 40D if the MkI is a bit too spendy as the 24-70 will be much more usable on it. It probably sits half way between the 40D and the MkII in terms of low light performance.

jhefti

I have a 50D and a 5DmII, and the low light quality of the 5D is nothing short of spectacular! Attached is a pic I took of a soccer game with the ISO set to 6400. I get great shots on my 50D as well, but they are only comparable to the 5DmII at low ISO; and even then are not as good.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1677779352319&set=a.1565478424866.2074182.1472555031

Blackwood

pathfinder wrote: »

The 40D is still a pretty darned good camera, isn't it, Joel?

Of all the shots I took in yellowstone, my favorite is from my 40D, not the borrowed 7D.