Upgrade from 40D to 7D

Greg49 · January 6, 2011

Hello. I am forced to replace all of my camera gear due to a break-in back in December (right before Christmas, nice) and I wanted to hear some feedback on jumping from a Canon 40D to a 7D. I loved my 40D as it was my first DSLR. I mainly shoot with models outside, inside family shots and occasionally serve as a second shooter for weddings. My main concern with the 40D was the ISO range. It seemed that whenever I went above 800, that's when noise would start to be an issue. I'm hoping with all of the advancements of the 7D that this will not be an issue. Anyway, do you think jumping to a 7D and skipping the 50 and 60D's is a bad idea and not worth the additional money? Thanks for any and all of your feedback.

kdog · January 7, 2011

Frankly, it sounds like you'd be happier with a 5DMKII. It's considerably cleaner at higher ISOs. I consider the 7D as more of an action camera. It's fast, but noisier than the 5DMKII.

Greg49 · January 7, 2011

Thank you kdog. A little steep in price for me right now though.

chrisjohnson · January 7, 2011

Bad luck about the burglary.

I never heard anyone say bad things about 7D - everybody seems enthusiastic.

However, if money is tight I would simply replace the 40D with a second-hand one. As a 40D owner myself I see no reason to change. The ISO is a limitation perhaps but mostly I am shooting between 100 and 400. Further than that I am now very comfortable with the 40D and know its limits. None of the newer xxD cameras or 7D offer significantly better image quality, so why change? Better use the insurance money to review your lenses maybe?

Greg49 · January 7, 2011

Good point goldenballs. Believe me, that was going to be my next thread. I am looking at purchasing the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 USM IS, but 8 of 10 reviews say they have dust problems. I don't want to drop $1,000 and have to worry about a dusty lens. I am also considering the Canon 24-70L, but no IS and only a f/4. I need the extra stops as I'm not the steadiest of hands.

kdog · January 7, 2011

Greg49 wrote: »

I am also considering the Canon 24-70L, but no IS and only a f/4.

No, the 24-70L is F2.8. Maybe you're thinking of the 24-105L that's F4.

Greg49 · January 7, 2011

You are correct kdog, thank you. I've been researching too many lenses in the past 24 hours.

mercphoto · January 7, 2011

goldenballs wrote: »

I never heard anyone say bad things about 7D - everybody seems enthusiastic.

I've heard people complain about the colors, in particular the reds. I rented a 7D once and noticed the same thing. The 40D I love, the 7D was a bit over the map with the reds. Otherwise a great camera.

I would second the opinion that a 5D is what you want, not a 7D. Get a used one if money is tight. It really is the tool for what you are doing.

chrisjohnson · January 7, 2011

Greg49 wrote: »

Good point goldenballs. Believe me, that was going to be my next thread. I am looking at purchasing the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 USM IS, but 8 of 10 reviews say they have dust problems. I don't want to drop $1,000 and have to worry about a dusty lens. I am also considering the Canon 24-70L, but no IS and only a f/4. I need the extra stops as I'm not the steadiest of hands.

I think the EF-S 17-55 is a better buy. The IS is important as is the extra flexibility on the wide end and it costs less than the 24-70L with f2.8. Image quality seems to be similar and good on both. The 24-70L has better weatherproofing and is more robust, but it weighs more too.

Dust is something reviewers like to talk about on the 17-55 but I never had any problems with mine and never heard that it affects image quality even from people who complain. Apparently it is quite easy to remove yourself should it ever happen to you - even explained with a Youtube video

divamum · January 7, 2011

There's no doubt that the 5dII is Canon's high ISO champ, but the 7d is no slouch. I regularly use mine at iso 2000 - as long as the photo is well exposed when it is taken, you get an entirely useable shot. I have also shot with an xsi and a 50d - the 7d is far superior to either of those as far as noise above iso 800. The 7d does result in visible noise when you pixel peep, but the noise pattern is is also very easy to "clean" - with the excellent built-in NR in LR3 I can get an entirely useable shot at that kind of ISO.

ISO 2500 (in horrible lighting conditions - this shot makes it look much brighter than it was!)

The pixel density means much larger files than the 40d BUT it also means tremendous croppability - depending on your intended use this may or may not be something beneficial. I find it very helpful in low light situations since it means I can use a shorter lens and thus lower shutter speed (cropping in afterwards). YMMV.

The AF speed and "bells and whistles" of the 7d are well-documented; if they're something you can use, they are very welcome additions to a camera. The AF speed and configurability is extraordinary; in particular, I find the extra focus points extremely helpful.

The 40d remains an excellent camera, but if you're in a position to upgrade to the 7d you will likely be quite happy with it!

ETA: in theory a full frame 5dII would be the "ideal" camera for my shooting - mostly people, theater/concert shoots that need high ISO etc etc. But it was WAY outside my budget. I was impressed by the feel/handling of the 7d as well as the built-in flash commander and I decided to give it a try based on those points (I bought it as a refurb from Adorama last spring at a very favorable price). Even though I'm not a sports shooter and thus don't take advantage of its frame speed etc etc, I still found it a significant upgrade from the 50d. While the high fps and AF speed make it attractive to sports shooters, it's probably Canon's best "all-round" camera - it copes with pretty much everything you throw at it.

My next camera will almost certainly be full-frame, but I have zero regrets with the 7d - very, very happy with it despite using it for things which aren't allegedly it's "strength".

kdog · January 7, 2011

goldenballs wrote: »

Dust is something reviewers like to talk about on the 17-55 but I never had any problems with mine and never heard that it affects image quality even from people who complain.

Then you haven't been paying attention. http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=180754&highlight=17-55+dust

After reading Eoren's thread, I started noticing precisely the same kind of little flared spots on my own pictures in back-lit scenes. My lens had a lot of dust inside so I pulled the lens apart and cleaned it. Voila, no more spots in my pictures.

Apparently it is quite easy to remove yourself should it ever happen to you - even explained with a Youtube video

True, it is easy to do, although a little unnerving at the same time to pull apart a $1000 lens.

Greg49 · January 7, 2011

Thank you divamum. Excellent information to base my decision on and I love that photo. Sorry if I did not see it listed, but what lens were you using with that photo?

I'm not sure that I will be taking apart a lens of that value; or any lens for that matter. I'm pretty good with keeping my gear clean and stowed after use. I haven't had too many shoots where it was incredibly dusty, so hopefully I will be ok.

I really appreciate all of the feedback.

divamum · January 7, 2011

That was taken with the 135L at f2.2.

Elaine · January 7, 2011

I've had a 40D for three years and in October I got a 7D. I've been doing quite a bit of sports shooting (swimming and baseball) and the 7D has been great for that. I've enjoyed being able to use higher ISO levels than I could on the 40D, and I agree with Diva...a decent exposure and some noise reduction makes a very usable pic.

I also have the 17-55 2.8 lens and it has been a workhorse for me. I've never paid much attention to the complaints of dust and I've never had anything to complain about myself. I am getting ready to send in my flash and my old 40D for repairs, so I may go ahead and send along the lens for a cleaning, just because I've had it for over three years.

Here's a shot taken with the 17-55 at ISO 2000.

mercphoto · January 7, 2011

I have to admit, if I had to replace my 40D it would be with a 7D. But I do motorsports. If I did portraits and such don't think I'd go 7D, unless $$$ ruled.

studio1972 · January 7, 2011

I've said this before, but consider a 5d Mk1, it's a significant step up on the 40d especially as it makes all those L lenses so much more usable.

Costanzo · January 7, 2011

Up grade from 40D to 7D
Hi Greg49, I have been shooting with the 40D for a few years now. I have two as a matter of fact, and think it is a great body for what I do(weddings, events, and some seniors, and models outside), but is no match for the 7D, which I upgraded to as my primary body, about 6 months ago. I still have both 40Ds, and I set them up with either the 24-70 2.8L, or my 17-55 2.8 IS, and the other body with the 70-200 2.8L IS, and I am all set for any wedding. I am impressed with the ISO capabilities, and the fast focusing, for weddings, and events. The 7D is now primary, and 40D is on other shoulder, with the third as reserve. Shot a High School Basketball game a week ago, just to try out the 8 fps, and the ISO, and it did a great job. My goal is to have a 5D MK II by April, and make it and the 7D as primary, and one 40D as reserve. I really have not hade any problem with dust on my 17-55 2.8, really like this lens for the IS, wish the 24-70 2.8L had IS. Hope you had good insurance, and are taken care of properly.

cmkultradome · January 7, 2011

Just last week I upgraded from the 40D to the 7D and couldn't be happier. However, I am primarily shooting my kids sports (hockey, gymnastics, & wrestling) all indoor, poorly lit venues, with no flash. I was extremely impressed with the high ISO performance & awesome fast focusing. Since I don't own a video camera, it is nice to have the video feature as well. I never really considered a 5D because of cost & I also like the crop factor on the 7D for sports. Best of luck in your decision and sorry to hear about the burglary.

Stephanie

Greg49 · January 16, 2011

Thank you everyone. After much research and reading everyone's posts and suggestions, I decided to go with the 7D. It's on order and I should have it in about five to ten days. I was going to settle for the 50D, but after checking several online stores, I either saw discontinued or used models; and with the insurance company, used is not an option. So once I receive the 7D and had some time to play, I will post a few shots. Thanks again everyone.

ThatCanonGuy · January 16, 2011

The 7D sounds OK, but for what you do, I'd go with the 5D2. OR maybe the 5D. And some good lenses. The lenses are more important. A good low-light combo would be 7D/5D2 and (depending on what you shoot) 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, and/or 100/2. Honestly I'd go for the 5D1 if you can't afford the 5D2; the Mark I is FF and, while not that good in low light, delivers really good IQ. It's less than the 7D. But, I don't know how low your light is.

canoesailor · January 18, 2011

Greg49 wrote: »

Hello. I am forced to replace all of my camera gear due to a break-in back in December (right before Christmas, nice) and I wanted to hear some feedback on jumping from a Canon 40D to a 7D. I loved my 40D as it was my first DSLR. I mainly shoot with models outside, inside family shots and occasionally serve as a second shooter for weddings. My main concern with the 40D was the ISO range. It seemed that whenever I went above 800, that's when noise would start to be an issue. I'm hoping with all of the advancements of the 7D that this will not be an issue. Anyway, do you think jumping to a 7D and skipping the 50 and 60D's is a bad idea and not worth the additional money? Thanks for any and all of your feedback.

Have a look at the other thread on a similar subject "50d - 7d", it will give you a lot of the answers you need.

rpcrowe · January 18, 2011

Let us know...

Greg49 wrote: »

Thank you everyone. After much research and reading everyone's posts and suggestions, I decided to go with the 7D. It's on order and I should have it in about five to ten days. I was going to settle for the 50D, but after checking several online stores, I either saw discontinued or used models; and with the insurance company, used is not an option. So once I receive the 7D and had some time to play, I will post a few shots. Thanks again everyone.

I shoot with a 30D and a 40D with a 10D in reserve. I am intending to use the 10D (which has some problems) to trade into the Canon Loyalty Program and get a 7D. Then the 7D would be primary and 40D secondary with the 30D in reserve.

Upgrade from 40D to 7D

Comments