Canon 40D has landed...!

CanonFan

I've been shooting mostly with my 5DM2 but needed a good crop body for wildlife and more speed. After reviewing and shopping , I decided to nab a used 40D w/grip . Got it today and am looking forward to having fun with this good Canon. I've heard the 40D was a great body. Let the games begin ! :-)

ziggy53

I truly love my Canon 40D, and it goes almost everywhere I go (including earlier tonight, when I wasn't sure what to bring for an impromptu shoot. Simple documentary.)

My only concern is that the LCD is not very high resolution, leading some to believe that images are not sharp, when, in fact, the images are perfectly sharp. Lesson: don't trust the LCD for sharpness determination and don't show clients the LCD.

AF can suffer in low-light. A flash with focus assist light helps tremendously for social situations.

jmphotocraft

Was a 50D out of the question? Because the 40D isn't giving you significantly more reach than your 5DII. 40D is a nice cam though.

Brett1000

CanonFan wrote: »

I've been shooting mostly with my 5DM2 but needed a good crop body for wildlife and more speed. After reviewing and shopping , I decided to nab a used 40D w/grip . Got it today and am looking forward to having fun with this good Canon. I've heard the 40D was a great body. Let the games begin ! :-)

The 40D is pretty old but still pretty good if you don't need video or megapixels

chrisjohnson

I wish you luck with your 40D. When I bought mine I believed it was a "sweet spot" camera and I still think so - although the 5D3 will take things to the next level. Like any other body, with the 40D you need to figure out how to get the best, and not everything is in the manual. There are some things the Mk3 does a lot better, especially low-light, HDR, and sheer image quality.

I don't know why you think 40D is good for wild life. Here the key thing imo is the lens and a stable platform (tripod). When you rely on autofocus to get things sharp you don't understand dof, your lens, and your camera body. Wouldn't it be nice to have an automatic setting but I don't think 40D delivers this. In fact the first thing to do with a 40D is to move into the manual settings - I never got a good shot on auto.

I always wondered about people enthusing about 7D for the focus and the micro-adjust. Personally I think cameras are still analogue devices and when you want your subject areas sharp you better allow for depth of field and then you do not need to micro-adjust. Strictly an amateur view you understand.

Kinkajou

I've been using mine since 2008 and it continues to rock. The only thing I'd like to change is the high ISO quality - it's very grainy, other than that it's a wonderful, sturdy body and does a fantastic job in a variety of situations for a 4-year old camera

I haven't had the LCD issues that were described above.

pathfinder

too much negativity here - I loved the 40D when it came out, it was head and shoulders better than the 10D. That said, I still have some pretty decent images I grabbed with a 10D. I once offered a prize for folks who could determine which images I shot with a P&S, a crop sensor or a full frame sensor body in my galleries without looking at the exif data. I got no takers.

Now, the 40D is not the equal of the 7D, nor the 1DMk4, but it provided me with lots of great fun. The 50D was felt to have higher noise levels than the 40D, but did offer slightly faster AF.

This is one of my favorite wildlife shots captured with only about 1/3 of the sensor of my 40D at ISO 800 in 2008. You can tell what a terrible image it is here

Clearly the 40D is too slow to shoot action shots.

And a 40D is clearly no good for portraits either

I still use my 40D, and my 50D, even though I now own more capable camera bodies. Lenses, not camera bodies are where it is at anyway.

I have always felt that the proper use of the tools one has, is far more important than owning a better tool without the skill to really access it......

Used 40Ds are a true bargain.

jmphotocraft

pathfinder wrote: »

too much negativity here

It was a great camera, and I would probably recommend it over a new Rebel, but he said he got it to compliment his 5D2 for wildlife and other things. The wildlife thing makes no sense to me because the 5D2 provides almost the same pixel density. So he could just crop to an APS-C size after the fact, and still have 8.2mp left.

On the plus side the 40D was a huge improvement over the 30D, especially in AF and ISO.

Here's 1250:

ziggy53

jmphotocraft wrote: »

... The wildlife thing makes no sense to me because the 5D2 provides almost the same pixel density. So he could just crop to an APS-C size after the fact, and still have 8.2mp left. ...

The Canon 40D has 9 cross-type AF sensors, which I have found to work much better with most of my lenses than the single center AF point of the 5D MKII. The distribution of AF points is also reasonably good on the 40D, when you need to use the outer points.

On my first serious round of tests with the 40D I tracked a gull (AI-Servo, 70-200mm, f2.8L plus 1.4x Canon telextender) with 10 continuous images, and 8 of the 10 were in focus. I could never equal that using the 5D MKII, with the center AF point and hidden "helper" points, although it was not horrible. (I think I achieved around 6 of 10, although I had hoped for better because, as you say, I could have had a considerable cropping advantage with the 5D MKII and I figured that initial acquisition would have been easier with effectively a wider AOV on the 5D MKII, making it easier to find the target.)

Inexplicably I have had an easier time with Single-Shot focus acquisition using the 5D MKII and the Sigma "Bigma, as opposed to the 40D plus Bigma. I have no explanation for it but I have repeated the test on several occasions.

In short, and per my own tests, I prefer the 40D over the 5D MKII for telephoto and wildlife, with the notable exception of using the Bigma, where I prefer using the 5D MKII. (Life can never be simple.)

puzzledpaul

Well, being forced to use my 40D since my 1Dm3 died a few wks ago (awaiting spares) I can appreciate just how difficult life is with such a piece of gear

Many things I miss - but lack of AF points allowing horizontal translation is a major issue for me at low pov.

5 Pix on this page with 'mg' filenames taken with 40D since 'lights out' with the 1D
http://www.flickr.com/photos/puzzledpaul/

40D still a great piece of kit and excellent value too.

Fancy new gear wouldn't make me a better 'tog overnight and evidence seems to show it's the same elsewhere too - imo.

pp

pathfinder

I can see what you mean by low pov. Very nice shots, even with that inferior 40D.

BigAl

jmphotocraft wrote: »

It was a great camera, and I would probably recommend it over a new Rebel, but he said he got it to compliment his 5D2 for wildlife and other things. The wildlife thing makes no sense to me because the 5D2 provides almost the same pixel density. So he could just crop to an APS-C size after the fact, and still have 8.2mp left.

Cropping isn't the only issue. 7fps on the 40d vs 4fps on the 5d2 when shooting in burst mode is a major issue for me.

@Ziggy - no problems with the Bigma on my 40d

squirl033

i've been using a 40D for wildlife ever since i got mine new in 2007. with a good lens, it is more than sharp enough for wildlife photos, though at "only" 10Mp, it does leave a bit to be desired when you have to crop. the AF seems to work well enough, and it's fast enough to capture most any action. it doesn't have the high-ISO performance of the newer bodies, but under about ISO1250, it's quite acceptable. stick a 400mm lens on it and you have a very serviceable rig for wildlife. i've been toying with the idea of upgrading to a 7D, but i've heard some horror stories about it, and in any case, i'll be upgrading my 5D before i worry about replacing the 40D.

here are a few shots taken with the 40D...