is the 40D still a good one for 400$

[revo2seven]

just wondering if the 40D is still good for 400$ mark?

Good for shooting what and with which lenses for which print sizes under what conditions? Other than that, it's impossible to tell if it's still good for *your* requirements.

Nothing serious at the moment I miss having a descent camera since I sold my Olympus I can't afford the 5D MkII's 7D is still too much for me and beside this is the very first Canon I'll be using. Mostlike for now it will be people and lansdscape street photography until the 7D comes below 1K atleast have the 40D as a spare camera

[tomscott]

I am still shooting with a 40D looking now to get a 5D MKIII

Honestly canon hasn't brought out a much better camera yet. The 50D is the same camera with more pixels crushed into the sensor so higher ISO is even worse than the 40D tbh there isn't much difference apart from the 50D had a better screen slightly slower FPS probably now a better options specifically for the screen but the 15mp doesn't really make a difference.

For people who had a 40D the 50D wasn't worth upgrading to.

The 7D again too many pixels the quality at iso100 is probably better on the 40D but the 7D has better low light capabilities so 1600 is useable unlike 1600 on the 40D. Also has much much much better AF so worth having specifically for that and using a bit more noise reduction.

The 7D is a worthy upgrade from a 40D but for me didn't hit the spot in IQ no poin in spending £1500 on a camera that wasn't a big step up in IQ.

In all honesty the 40D is my all time fav camera produced by canon it hits the all right spots and now they have basically brought out the 5D MKIII its is basically a supercharged full frame 40D so I am very happy

Grab one you won't be disappointed! Apart from the screen and high ISO but back in the day these were amazing.

The 60D is a pointless camera imo it was a complete piss take to the XXD community and a huge backward step. If you want a new crop go 7D if not 50D is a better option but if that feels too pricy get the 40D shoot with it till it dies and it won't owe you any money at all.

Few Shots


Royal Opera House, London by tom_scott88, on Flickr


BMW Z4M Coupe by tom_scott88, on Flickr


M3 by tom_scott88, on Flickr


Conison Water Feb 2011 by tom_scott88, on Flickr

[Marsu42]

The 60D is a pointless camera imo it was a complete piss take to the XXD community and a huge backward step. If you want a new crop go 7d

... but at the same time, the 60d price tag is lower than the xxd used to be - so I got one and I'm happy with it since it's the cheapest usable body (lcd screen, back dial) with the current crop sensor. And I need the 18mp's crop capability and am happy with the added resolution for macro shots. Personally, the 7d premium wasn't worth it to me for the added features and since it doesn't run magic lantern.

[risc32]

the 40d is a good camera. I had one, and it was good. At the time it was the poor man's 1dmk3, with very good performance. Now it seems some consider it as some piece of junk that'll be to limiting to a real photographer. That's just silly talk from people who like to buy gear instead of use it. The Af, LCD, FPS, all around speed, build, live view, all are good. I would take it over the 50d, and probably over the 60d unless i needed video.

[birtembuk]

At the risk to be stoned to death by the elitist group, could I suggest you to look into the Rebel T3 (any stone yet...?). I know, I know, it's a bit cheap to talk Rebel here. Still, body only (if that's possible anyway) would be in your price range. In the digital age, 5 years is quite a lot. It won't be long until your 40D becomes grandpa. Consider also the sunk investment: in 2 years time, it's value will turn to dust while a recent rebel will still sell. DP technology has made great advances over the last few years. Today, all cameras are good. Besides, you get 2 more MP's and video ... Also, if you are to use it as a second camera besides your anticipated 7DII, you'd better carry something light, easy and inconspicuous. For street shots, Rebel's rock.     

[thepancakeman]

reason for asking is I found one for 420 body only, since I don't have a dslr as of the moment and Im waiting for the 7DMkII or the replacement don't want to miss photography =) I was debating between the 40D and 50D but 50D is way too pricey add a bit more I can get the 60D

I have a 40D and a 7D and a rebel.  In terms of feel and handling, they are each in their own league.  The 40D is a big step up from the rebel (less so than the newest ones) but a big step down from the 7D.  However, in terms of image quality I actually prefer the 40D to the 7D.  I find the 40D to be the better, sharper image.  The 7D has an advantage at higher ISOs, but still isn't great.  I think grabbing a cheap 40D to enjoy photography now while building your lens collection and waiting for the latest and greatest body sounds like a fine idea.

For reference, I am shooting with L glass and have shot tens of thousands of images with both (less with the rebel.)

[nicku]

just wondering if the 40D is still good for 400$ mark?

i still use a 40D camera. if 10MP are eough for you defenetly get the camera.

PS. 40D have better IQ at base ISO than 7D when viewed at 100%

[revo2seven]

the Megapixel is not much of a concern to me IQ is far better and if Im not printing large pictures the 10 megapixel will be just fine. coming from a olympus e520 (same megapixel count) I can live with that I was not happy with the IQ of it that's why sold it and looking at Canon range of DSLR's

[unruled]

Ive made prints up to 75x50 and 40x60cm and they looked great from the 40d 10MP.

also regarding the value of the 40d, I bought one 2nd hand 3.5 years ago for ~420 euro, including mem card and 2 batteries. I still see them selling around 400-450 euro's now.

[IWLP]

I guess I'm going to go against what others have said, but oh, well.

I've shot with a 40D for the past 4+ years. I've also shot with a 60D alongside the 40D for the last year with the same lenses.

I prefer the 60D. I find the images have more dynamic range, and the expanded ISO capability helps me in what I do. I actually think I get sharper images from my 60D as long as I and the autofocus do our jobs. I've had AF issues with my 40D from the beginning, but it really is a nice, solid camera.

For $400, you're still getting a good rig. My 40D has made some great images over its lifetime and if you found a clean sample, I think it would do you well.

$.02

[Marsu42]

I prefer the 60D.

Afaik the theory "older low mp sensors are better than newer ones" has been proven wrong time and time again - but "bigger pixels are better than smaller ones" is so intuitive that it's hard to believe otherwise... but sensor development does bring other improvements apart from megapixel count.

PS. 40D have better IQ at base ISO than 7D when viewed at 100%

Interesting fact: Are you saying that a 18mp picture scaled down to 10mp is worse than a native 10mp shot from a 40d ... where did you get it from? About what iq are you talking about: noise (hardly because of downscaling), banding or dynamic range?

[nikkito]

No no no. I have one, and it's really a pain to use. The screen sucks, you cannot check if the images are in proper focus or not and If you like to play with depth of field this is is important.
The image quality is not good. The colours are terrible.

wtf? either you have a dud or need to get your eyes checked. IQ depends on the lens far moreso than the body, and the screen is good. It may not be as highres as current screens are on DSLR's, but I can check focus on it without issues. Thats why you can zoom in.

I know what I'm talking about. I'm a professional photographer, so maybe YOU should have your eyes checked. After all I'm giving my opinion, you don't have to agree with me.

The image quality is not good. The colours are terrible.

wtf?

:-) ... iq other than iso noise & low dynamic resolution is really dependent on the lens, so up to iso 400 the 40d should do fine afaik. The colors do degenerate at higher iso speeds - but "colours are terrible" sounds like my grandma after shooting her garden with a 80s fuji quicksnap - there is something like postprocessing, you know?

I know what post process is since I earn my living taking pictures. Do you too? Or maybe does your grandma? Besides, you kind of contradict yourself, if you need to post process your photos TOO much that is because the IQ is not good enough.

And to make it clear, the 40D is a good camera but old, i would prefer to pay a bit more and get a more versatile one like a 60D or a T3i. And like i said before, this is my opinion. You don't have to like it.


Kids.... 

[Marsu42]

Or maybe does your grandma? Besides, you kind of contradict yourself, if you need to post process your photos TOO much that is because the IQ is not good enough.

My grandma certainly didn't know pp, that's why she was out to get candy pictures no matter what. I do know some pp and therefore think that some iq degradation like color or CAs are/is fixable while other like issues sharpness are not - so it's not a matter of iq vs pp but a matter of *which* iq problems a body or lens generates.

And like i said before, this is my opinion. You don't have to like it.

Sorry if it sounded like I was flaming you, that certainly wasn't my intention. I absolutely would like to hear other people's opinions and respect them, otherwise I wouldn't post in forum. But after due consideration, you might be inclined to accept that the statement "The colours are terrible" without further specification does sound a bit awkward ... Pa :-p

[nikkito]

no problem 
well, when i write using my ipad i do not write much. ha! it's kind of annoying, you know...

What i might have written is that maybe i was unconsciously comparing the 40D with my actual 5D.
I've also seen pics taken with a 60D (a girl whom I was teaching photography has it) and i find them to be better than those from the 40D.


It always depend...
i started with a 400D, it was super.
Then i changed to a 40D and i loved it.
Same happened with the 5D Mk II when i bought it.

and sorry if my comment about the 40D was somehow offensive. i did not want to offend any user of this camera, that was not my intention.

[unruled]

thats fair enough. It reminds me of a review I was reading a while ago about high-end stereo systems. While you are in the store with a low quality set up, next to a high quality one, you clearly can tell the difference. But once its in your home, and you lose that direct frame of reference... it becomes hard to tell. I think camera gear is  prone to the same effect.