Upgrading - Questions

unrealshots

Hi Folks,

I'm finally biting the bullet, and upgrading from my EOS 50 35mm (yes, I know - about time too)...

I take a lot of photos of water ski racing (10,000 images per year, at least), and have been using a borrowed 350D for the past 12 months, but the family member I borrow it from is getting upset at the body not being available too often ....

I went into a store today, to look at the 450D, and got sidetracked into looking at the 40D, which is about $200 more, here in Australia...

What are peoples opinion on the 40D over the 450D? We're expecting our first kid soon, so will be using a PowerShot S1IS as our P&S, and want a decent digi-SLR to enable those quality kid shots with decent kit...

the existing lenses we have are:

Canon EF USM 28-105
Canon EF USM 100-300 (mostly used for ski photos)

both lenses produce great images with the 350D, but thinking about the 24-105 IS USM EF-S as the on-camera lens

your thoughts?

Cheers,

Andrew

ziggy53

The Canon 40D is a much better sports camera overall than the Canon 450D/XSi. Then again, if you got along with the 350D/XT then the 450D/XSi is still a pretty good camera.

The 40D has faster focus, and potentially more accurate focus with a fast aperture lens, more frames-per-second (twice the continuous frame rate) and much deeper shooting buffer.

All of that adds up to a much more responsive shooting experience. the 40D is a camera that just feels more "there for you".

I also believe that the low-light performance is better and that the body is much more durable on the 40D.

Then again, the difference in cost might be better put towards a wider lens. That 28-105mm may not seem so wide on a crop 1.6x sensor. The EF 24-105mm, f4L IS is a nice lens, but I still think of the EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS as a more appropriate standard zoom.

Scott_Quier

Not surprising - I have to agree with all that Ziggy has said (as if my voice will add anything to his opinion). The 20D/30D/40D cameras have it all over the 300D/350D/400D/450D, especially in responsiveness. If you try one, you'll wonder how you ever got along with the "lesser" cousins.

With a child on the way, the chances are good that you will want to work in lower light situations and in closer quarters than you have in the past. This is where the 17-55 will shine over the 24-105 or the 28-105. In addition, the 17-55 is faster than the 24-105 - this can be significant as using a flash on a newborn is pretty harsh treatment to those tender eyes.

If you have the room but need even faster glass, the EF 50 f/1.4 is a very good choice.

Terrence

I follow the great ones before me (Hi Scott!)

I'm a BIG fan of the 40D and am so glad I paid the extra money to get into that body. Over the 2 to 3 years you'll own this body (at a minimum) the extra $200 is well worth it and you won't regret it.

As for lenses, I would stay away from the 24-105...for now. I too take mostly kid pictures and find the 24-105 just isn't fast enough in the typically low available light settings I find myself. I'd much rather have the 17-55 or 24-70.

I own the 50/1.4 and LOVE, LOVE, LOVE it. Big thumbs up from me on that one.

Hopefully another happy owner of the 40D and 50/1.4 help settle your mind.

Robinivich

Honestly, if I'd felt the grip of an XXd a couple years ago when I got my xt, just from that I might've upgraded. I went 350D to 40D and am not looking back! Completely different class of camera, as it should be.

The only things that I believe the 450d has to reccomend it over the 40d is 12 megapixels (if that small jump is important to you) and contrast detect AF in live view. I've used live view a fair bit, mostly just playing around, but occasionally for a little macro. The odd time that I use the AF in live view, the passive focus of the camera (40D) is fast, and seems fine for accuracy. Either way, live view isn't something you'll be using for moving targets, so it's a moot point for myself.

Everything else the 40d does better, faster, and more comfortably

Finally though, it's usually reccomended to go glass first, then camera, which is what I did (I had 5 lenses before getting the 40D) so if budget is tight enough that this means a choice of lens vs camera, the rebel series are still a great value!

unrealshots

thanks for the feedback guys - I reckon I'll rethink my on-camera lens for now, and see what sort of $$'s the 17-55 is commanding down here in Australia, given the Aussie Peso is quite strong at the moment the lens should be relatively affordable!

I guess my other option if funds (read wife) don't permit, would be to get the 17-55 in the enthusiast kit, and upgrade at a later date...

Scott_Quier

SwishPhotos wrote:

I guess my other option if funds (read wife) don't permit, would be to get the 17-55 in the enthusiast kit, and upgrade at a later date...

To the best of my knowledge, there is only one Canon 17-55. Were you thinking, instead, of either EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS or the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM?

Either of these are good starter lenses but I fear you will quickly become dis-satisfied. It might make more sense to save a bit longer and get what you want/need. Better to buy once, and buy right.

claudermilk

Agreed. Skip the 18-55 since you already have some lenses. You will eventually end up shelving that one anyway, so save the money for better glass later.

unrealshots

Thanks again folks - reckon I'll put away the moolah for the F2.4 then...

The management may take convincing - according to her, she has a "very good little Sony camera, that takes great photos" - read: 4 mp point and shoot that my old PowerShot S1IS runs rings around ...

davev

So you like the 40D over the 450D, and your thinking about getting a lens that's almost has the same coverage as a lens you have.

Here's my thoughts.
You went out to look at the 2 cameras, which one felt better in your hands?
Either way, that's the camera you should buy. If it's the 450D, (I just bought one) get the battery grip for it and the camera will feel a little better balanced than without it.

I like the info being all on one screen, always on, and very easy to read.
If you had 50 year old eyes, you would understand this more.
With the info on the back, when I use my tripod, for me, it's much easier to check my settings. I screw up less often this way.

The biggest con of the 450D, no 1/3 stop iso's, (500, 640, 1250) I miss these from my 30D.

I have read how great the Canon 17-50is lenses is, but for the same $1000 (US) you can buy a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and a Canon 70-200 f4 (non i.s.) lens.

I have the Tamron lens, it's very good, I once owned the 70-200 f4 lens, and I still ask myself why did I sell that lens.

Just a couple more things to confuse you more.:D

evoryware

davev wrote:

I like the info being all on one screen, always on, and very easy to read.
If you had 50 year old eyes, you would understand this more.
With the info on the back, when I use my tripod, for me, it's much easier to check my settings. I screw up less often this way.

quoting myself from another thread:

evoryware wrote:

All the info from the top screen you can get on the main lcd on the 40D by pushing the info button.

davev

evoryware wrote:

quoting myself from another thread:

But with the SXi, it's always there. I can't forget to press a button to see it.

For you, you may not like it, I absolutely love this feature.
And now with the 4 different color schemes, it's even better than the XTi's.

i_worship_the_King

As to the settings lit up on the back of the body, I despise it with a passion. I'm not sure what it is about it, but it just seems annoying to be blasted with light when you're trying to shoot long exposure night shots.

I much prefer the little pin light on the 1"x 1.5" lcd on the top.

Just my 2c interjected.

(Although I'm a Nikon fan at heart, the xxD series run circles around the xxxD's that I've seen. Again, just another drop in the bucket.)

claudermilk

I guess I'm not alone then. I hate the bodies using the rear LCD to display all that info in giant type. I guess I'm biased originally coming from film SLRs where the top LCD was the only place for the info--I just prefer it there.

It is probably obvious that there is a reason the xxD bodies are more expensive than the xxxD andthe xD are more expensive than anything else. The fewer digits in the name, the better the build, the better the features, & the more control you have. Sure is nice of Canon to give us the choices, eh?

unrealshots

thanks again guys for the opinions... I reckon I'll keep with my current lenses for now, and upgrade if I reach their limits...

Cheers,

Andrew

claudermilk

That way you will know what to look for that meets your needs--and you'll spend your money wisely, and only once.

jersmith

Andrew, I have been having the same dilema as over the 40D vs. the 450D. Since much of my photography is sports related i am leaning towards the 40D and the faster lenses. Have you made a decision yet?

Jerry

unrealshots

jersmith wrote:

Andrew, I have been having the same dilema as over the 40D vs. the 450D. Since much of my photography is sports related i am leaning towards the 40D and the faster lenses. Have you made a decision yet?

Jerry

G'Day Jerry,

at this stage, I'm just waiting for the $$'s to come together, and I'm going to get a 40D... If for no other reason than it is ever so much better in the hand than the 450D, and the balance with my current lenses is a LOT better than the 450D...

Cheers,

Andrew