Canon 40D :/

iAbooDziAbooDz Registered Users Posts: 5 Beginner grinner
edited September 5, 2011 in Cameras
Hi guys ..
I currently have a Canon 550D with the 18-55 lens.
Wondering if its worth upgrading ( dunno its an upgrade actually ) to a Canon 40D body with a battery grip.

The reason for this is to get other lenses, the 18-55 is not helping me much :/ so i'm taking the 75-300 with the 40D and a better flash.

Help please :)
«1

Comments

  • Brett1000Brett1000 Registered Users Posts: 819 Major grins
    edited September 1, 2011
    iAbooDz wrote: »
    Hi guys ..
    I currently have a Canon 550D with the 18-55 lens.
    Wondering if its worth upgrading ( dunno its an upgrade actually ) to a Canon 40D body with a battery grip.

    The reason for this is to get other lenses, the 18-55 is not helping me much :/ so i'm taking the 75-300 with the 40D and a better flash.
    Help please :)

    The 550D is newer and has better image resolution, improved ISO performance, video, etc. The 40D has a higher FPS rate but it's been discontinued for some years and getting a low mileage copy may be problematic.
    So why get an older model for "new lenses" ??? (the 18-55IS receives good ratings)
  • iAbooDziAbooDz Registered Users Posts: 5 Beginner grinner
    edited September 1, 2011
    Hi Brett and thanks for you reply ..

    I now it has a better ISO, MPs, Screen, Video, etc ..
    I'm just confused and i don't know if i should wait more to get lenses or sell the 550D and get lenses and battery grip ..

    The 18-55 is good i'm not saying that it's not .. But i need a longer range lens thats why it's not helping me >.<
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,078 moderator
    edited September 1, 2011
    Glass first, then light(s), then body.

    What types of photography?
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • Brett1000Brett1000 Registered Users Posts: 819 Major grins
    edited September 1, 2011
    iAbooDz wrote: »
    Hi Brett and thanks for you reply ..

    I now it has a better ISO, MPs, Screen, Video, etc ..
    I'm just confused and i don't know if i should wait more to get lenses or sell the 550D and get lenses and battery grip ..

    The 18-55 is good i'm not saying that it's not .. But i need a longer range lens thats why it's not helping me >.<

    OK, if you need a longer focal length then look at the Canon 55-250IS, 70-200, 100-400, etc.
    Still not sure what the 40D has to do with getting new lens
  • Bend The LightBend The Light Registered Users Posts: 1,887 Major grins
    edited September 1, 2011
    You can use the EF lenses on the crop body. Is that the issue? You can use the 75-300 on the 550.
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited September 1, 2011
    I would get the 40D over the 550D in a heartbeat, but it sounds like you need lenses more. Stick with your 550D for now, it's a fine camera. The 75-300 lens you mention will give you longer range, but there are much better options for getting the longer range. The 55-250 is an excellent choice if you're on a budget, as is the 100-300 USM (the 55-250 has IS, the 100-300 does not).

    If you're willing to spend a bit more, the Canon 70-200 options are excellent. Yes, there are five 70-200's, and they cost anywhere from $500 to $2500. The Canon 100-400 will give you even more zoom, but it's close to $1500.

    I agree with Ziggy, lenses and lighting are more important than body. You've got a fine body, now you need fine lenses and lighting thumb.gif
  • paddler4paddler4 Registered Users Posts: 976 Major grins
    edited September 1, 2011
    The 75-300 is generally not considered a good lens. And any lens the 40D can take, your camera can take. Buying a different camera body to get new glass is a waste of money. If you want more range and don't want to spend a lot of money, buy the 55-250. The newer 18-55, BTW, which I assume is the one you have, gets pretty good reviews, so you might want to get some advice about why it is giving you disappointing results before you start buying more equipment.

    Some people need a battery grip because of the volume of shots they take, and some people prefer the ergonomics. For many other people, they are a complete waste. A rebel or xxD can take a LOT of images with a single battery, and carrying a second spare battery is both cheaper and lighter than a grip. Don't buy a battery grip unless it will help you. (I shoot with a 50D and always carry a spare battery but have rarely had to use it.)
    http://dkoretz.smugmug.com/
  • BendrBendr Registered Users Posts: 665 Major grins
    edited September 1, 2011
    I was once in a somewhat similar boat, although I was coming from a rebel xt(350d I think) the 40d had just come out that very week. I asked the same question on this very forum, should I keep my rebel xt, and buy a 24-105 lens, or buy a brand new 40d and rent a 24-105, and a 100-400.

    Everyone basically gave me the same advice, glass before body, glass will make a bigger difference in your pictures them a new camera body, etc. I pretty much ignored all the advice, bought a 40d, and rented the two lenses for 3 weeks.

    I'll tell you, I love my 40d, it does a great job, and I didn't regret my decision, although the only good glass I had was the 10-22, and the 100 macro, since then, I have bought a 24-105, and a 70-200 to cover my glass needs. And while I don't regret my decisions, I'd like to explore the economics of my decision.

    I paid $1400 for my 40d, it is probably worth about $300-$400 now. if I upgrade my body again, I lose all of that depreciation. The beauty of glass, is they don't depreciate much, especially if you buy better glass used.(i sold a used lens a while ago for about $50 less than I paid) if I had bought the 24-105, I would have still paid about $1000, but that $1400
    That I spent on a 40d could easily get me a much better camera today, even a 7d if i'm willing to go refurbished.

    Anyways, You already have a camera that is newer, and in alot of ways better than a 40d, and even if it weren't, I would definitely consider taking the money for a 40d , and putting it towards a better lens.

    Good luck with your decision!
    Ben
    http://bendr.smugmug.com
  • 0scar990scar99 Registered Users Posts: 71 Big grins
    edited September 1, 2011
    I have a 550.. I think I'd want to understand why I wasn't getting the images I wanted out of that before moving to another body. What feature will you get from the 40 that is going to transform your images?

    Glass is always a good way to go but if I wasn't happy with my current combo and it was a decent set- up then maybe a couple of hundred on lessons might help??
  • iAbooDziAbooDz Registered Users Posts: 5 Beginner grinner
    edited September 1, 2011
    Thank you all for your generous replies .. :)

    About the lenses and how its connected to the 40D ..
    When i sell my 550D and buyy the 40D i will still have like 260$ to spend ..

    I guess i'll stick with the 550D and find a way to get money to get the 55-250 lens ..
    I found a Canon 100-400mm lens that costs 520$ which is good !
  • 0scar990scar99 Registered Users Posts: 71 Big grins
    edited September 1, 2011
    On the battery grip some people find them useful if you have bigger hands. In terms of battery life unless you have long shoots away from power you may not need one. I've had over 500 shots on one battery and it was going strong. I have my options set to power-off pretty quickly to save power.
    Hope that helps.
    AA
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited September 1, 2011
    iAbooDz wrote: »
    Thank you all for your generous replies .. :)

    About the lenses and how its connected to the 40D ..
    When i sell my 550D and buyy the 40D i will still have like 260$ to spend ..

    I guess i'll stick with the 550D and find a way to get money to get the 55-250 lens ..
    I found a Canon 100-400mm lens that costs 520$ which is good !

    I hope that's not from an online Brooklyn-based store that just opened last week :). Oh, and if you decide to pass on the lens, I know someone who's looking for one mwink.gif
  • Brett1000Brett1000 Registered Users Posts: 819 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2011
    iAbooDz wrote: »
    Thank you all for your generous replies .. :)


    I guess i'll stick with the 550D and find a way to get money to get the 55-250 lens ..
    I found a Canon 100-400mm lens that costs 520$ which is good !

    yes, that makes the most sense
    Even if you could find an old 40D that still works it would be a downgrade in terms of image resolution, ISO performance (and of course video).
  • codruscodrus Registered Users Posts: 71 Big grins
    edited September 2, 2011
    0scar99 wrote: »
    On the battery grip some people find them useful if you have bigger hands. In terms of battery life unless you have long shoots away from power you may not need one. I've had over 500 shots on one battery and it was going strong. I have my options set to power-off pretty quickly to save power.
    Hope that helps.
    AA

    I have a battery grip on my 50D pretty much all the time -- the biggest reason is that I tend to shoot in portrait mode a lot, and having the extra set of buttons is a big win.

    The 350D is ancient, even an old 40D is a huge upgrade over it in terms of things like rear LCD quality, startup speed, image display snappiness, etc. I've never used a 550D, but I suspect it's probably at least as good as the 40D in that regard.

    Another lens to consider for more reach is the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8.

    --Ian
    http://codrus.smugmug.com
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited September 4, 2011
    My standard vote for anyone not planning to acquire a full-frame camera any time soon is the Sigma 50-150 2.8. It is honestly one of the crown jewels for crop sensor photographers. Sure, you could also get a 70-200 2.8 or something, and some "big picture" types would scoff at the idea of getting a crop-sensor lens in this day and age. I say forget them; the Sigma 50-150 paid my bills for quite a few years and I have no complaints. I still use it today on many wedding jobs, even though I also have full-frame now. Sure, 50-150 is not as "long" as the likes of a 70-300 type lens, but unless you're shooting wildlife or stadium sports, 150mm is more than enough for general candid photography on a crop sensor.

    Hands down, I would rather have a 550D and a Sigma 50-150, than a 40D and a 75-300. Both the 40D and the 75-300 are "semi-ancient", and I can't say that they would be the best long-term investment...

    Get yourself a Sigma 50-150 2.8 now / soon, and then save up for a 60D or 7D next. As a hobbyist with your current gear, that would absolutely be my upgrade path.

    =Matt=
    “My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited September 4, 2011
    Matthew Saville wrote: »
    Hands down, I would rather have a 550D and a Sigma 50-150, than a 40D and a 75-300. Both the 40D and the 75-300 are "semi-ancient", and I can't say that they would be the best long-term investment...=Matt=

    What is "semi-ancient" about the 40D?

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • roletterolette Registered Users Posts: 223 Major grins
    edited September 4, 2011
    NeilL wrote: »
    What is "semi-ancient" about the 40D?

    High ISO performance mostly. The rest is still a very nice camera, but there have been LARGE jumps in ability to shoot in low light since the 40D came out.

    Jay
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited September 4, 2011
    rolette wrote: »
    High ISO performance mostly. The rest is still a very nice camera, but there have been LARGE jumps in ability to shoot in low light since the 40D came out.

    Jay

    Hardware, or in-camera software-firmware?

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • roletterolette Registered Users Posts: 223 Major grins
    edited September 4, 2011
    NeilL wrote: »
    Hardware, or in-camera software-firmware?
    Better sensor technology primarily. I only shoot RAW, so not looking at what sort of processing is happening on JPG images.

    The 40D is "ok" at 1600 for sports. I'd rather shoot at ISO 8000 on my 1D4 than at 1600 on my 40D.

    Jay
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,078 moderator
    edited September 4, 2011
    NeilL wrote: »
    Hardware, or in-camera software-firmware?

    Neil

    The noise signature is quite a bit different between the Canon 40D and the 7D, for instance. The reason is probably multifold:

    Improved imager SNR (Signal/Nose Ratio).
    Improved LNA (Low Noise Amplifier).
    Improved image processor and processing algorithms, before RAW. (For one the shadows seem to be masked and single-pixel aberrations appear to assumed to be noise, and they are normalized with surrounding pixels.)

    Imager technology for the 7D/60D/550D is considerably improved over previous imagers.

    Starting with the DIGIC 4 image processor shadows are treated much differently than DIGIC III and previous Canon image processors, presumably to reduce noise and improve DR figures.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited September 4, 2011
    NeilL wrote: »
    What is "semi-ancient" about the 40D?

    Neil
    "Semi-ancient" is my subtle way of implying that, as usual, a 40D could certainly deliver great images but if it were my money I'd rather save for something newer.

    Neil, I know you probably think of me as the type who incessantly upgrades to the newest gear for no significant reason, but in reality I'm quite the champion of used, older generation gear. I haven't bought a new DSLR body since 2004; all four of the camera bodies that I've purchased since my first Nikon D70 have been used, as money was always an important factor. In fact I paid less for my used D700 than for my almost-new D300!

    So, I'm not just disqualifying the 40D with no reason other than gear lust. I just firmly believe that a photographer would be happier with a 550D and a sweet lens now, and a 60D or 7D upgrade later. Instead of a 40D now with a lesser lens.

    Compared to the 40D, the newer cameras have more conveniences like AF calibration adjustments and other things. (Once again, it's not really the image quality or megapixels that I care about. It's the menu system upgrades, the form and function and customizability, that I prefer in the newer cameras.

    =Matt=
    “My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited September 4, 2011
    rolette wrote: »
    Better sensor technology primarily. Jay

    Compared to which bodies?

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited September 4, 2011
    ziggy53 wrote: »
    The noise signature is quite a bit different between the Canon 40D and the 7D, for instance. The reason is probably multifold:

    Improved imager SNR (Signal/Nose Ratio).
    Improved LNA (Low Noise Amplifier).
    Improved image processor and processing algorithms, before RAW. (For one the shadows seem to be masked and single-pixel aberrations appear to assumed to be noise, and they are normalized with surrounding pixels.)

    Imager technology for the 7D/60D/550D is considerably improved over previous imagers.

    Starting with the DIGIC 4 image processor shadows are treated much differently than DIGIC III and previous Canon image processors, presumably to reduce noise and improve DR figures.

    How much of the differences is hardware, and how much firm-software? Comparing which bodies?

    Would enjoy reading any tech references for all of above.

    Thanks.

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited September 4, 2011
    Matthew Saville wrote: »
    (Once again, it's not really the image quality or megapixels that I care about. It's the menu system upgrades, the form and function and customizability, that I prefer in the newer cameras.=Matt=

    Well that's clearly your personal comfort, but maybe not mine (since I am a little familiar with the 40D) or somebody else's.

    I think let's keep the frame of reference a bit tighter. What makes the 40D semi-archaic? Is it hardware or firm-software?

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • roletterolette Registered Users Posts: 223 Major grins
    edited September 4, 2011
    NeilL wrote: »
    Compared to which bodies?

    I had the 7D and the T2i in mind when I wrote that. I'm not convinced that there was any real net gain in the 50D sensor (vs 40D), although there were other improvements in the 50D that were nice.

    Jay
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited September 4, 2011
    rolette wrote: »
    I had the 7D and the T2i in mind when I wrote that. I'm not convinced that there was any real net gain in the 50D sensor (vs 40D), although there were other improvements in the 50D that were nice.

    Jay

    Specifically what differences were critical to your product?

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,078 moderator
    edited September 5, 2011
    NeilL wrote: »
    How much of the differences is hardware, and how much firm-software? Comparing which bodies?

    Would enjoy reading any tech references for all of above.

    Thanks.

    Neil

    Start your research here:

    http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited September 5, 2011
    ziggy53 wrote: »
    Start your research here:

    http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/

    Appreciate that Ziggy thank you. thumb.gif

    If I am reading these analyses correctly, the 40D is in the thick of things, with on average the 5D2 better than most, and a couple of Nikons and the latest 1D bodies consistently above the pack. It seems to me that the 40D gets better marks on average than the 7D and the 50D (the 60D is not included, but can be expected to be similar to the 7D?).

    The analyses of course cannot be understood as the full story. In interpreting the results it would have to be known at what point differences in measures become statistically significant. Then the visibility of those differences in images under normal viewing conditions would have to be considered.

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,078 moderator
    edited September 5, 2011
    Correlate the findings from Clarkvision with the raw data of the RAW* files analysis from DXOMark and DPReview, allow for sample variation (each of these sites is assumed to only test a single camera) and then compare images from DPReview and Imaging-Resource tests.

    Once you digest all of these sources of information you should have a clearer understanding of basic differences between the imaging systems of these cameras.

    *(It is for these situations why I prefer the fully capitalized "RAW" spelling to denote the file type.)
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited September 5, 2011
    ziggy53 wrote: »
    Correlate the findings from Clarkvision with the raw data of the RAW* files analysis from DXOMark and DPReview, allow for sample variation (each of these sites is assumed to only test a single camera) and then compare images from DPReview and Imaging-Resource tests.

    Once you digest all of these sources of information you should have a clearer understanding of basic differences between the imaging systems of these cameras.

    *(It is for these situations why I prefer the fully capitalized "RAW" spelling to denote the file type.)

    Yep you are correct Ziggy.

    I hadn't seen the Clarkvision data, but I have done the rest, DxO Mark and a lot of reviews, and of course I have the images from my copy of the 40D. Putting it all together, the 40D is a little more limited than some later bodies. Whether that makes a critical difference to images depends on many non-body factors. All in all, to my mind, the 40D does not warrant the description "semi-archaic", nor do I think it is irresponsible to use it for professional work. Those judgements do not seem to me to be supported by the sources we have looked at.

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Sign In or Register to comment.