is the 40D still a good one for 400$

[katwil]

Well, please understand that what follows is only a surface-level comparison of the 40D vs. the 5D mk ii.  Using the mk ii’s image as the baseline, the 40D captures around 63% of that image due to the crop.  Given the quantity of pixels on each sensor, that’s 63% of the mk ii image with 48% of the pixels.  Never one to overemphasize pixels I compared the sensor area of the two cameras.  In that comparison, if my math is right the same 63% of the image is captured on 39% of the mk ii’s sensor area.  My evaluation criteria may be way off base, but those numbers tell me the cropped mk ii image should be better than the 40D image out of the camera.  If I’m looking at this incorrectly, I’ll be happy to learn something from this post.

[dirtcastle]

When I owned the 40D it felt like I could only crop about 10-20% into the shot before it would become grainy/soft.

But on the 5D3, usually I can crop a shot IN HALF and still have it be usable.

Well, that's my empirical take anyway.

[briansquibb]

I have a simpler look on the crop.

I compose the same whether ff or crop. Therefore a 40D has half the number of pixels on the subject than a 5DII

When printing the image the extra pixels on the image are effectively thrown away until you get to A3 size. That is why an A4 print from a 40D is pretty much the same as the same print from a 5D2 - providing you are within the good operating range of the 40D (ie iso400 or less)

[nicku]

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?

Yes, if you scale down the image to 10MP the iQ is same or little better.

In the end.... what is the point to have a 18MP camera if you must scale down the image to 10MP cu get the same IQ or slight better???

[Marsu42]

Yes, if you scale down the image to 10MP the iQ is same or little better.  In the end.... what is the point to have a 18MP camera if you must scale down the image to 10MP cu get the same IQ or slight better???

The most important thing (and contrary to popular rumor) is that newer sensors do *not* get worse, but just add a  megapixel reserve if needed. This is worth the 40d-60d difference to me.

[dirtcastle]

If you are the type of shooter who gets the perfect crop every time, then I guess a crop camera won't hold you back.

But speaking for myself, and most photographers...  the ability to make dramatic crops and not lose quality is a huge asset.

There's also the issue of focal length and primes. For example, what if you are shooting a wedding with a 35mm prime?... the ability to crop can be a huge asset. What if you are shooting a stage show with a 135mm prime?... cropping in post might give you an extra 60-100mm in focal length.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The 40D at ISO 1600 is not bad, here is a image from several years ago at 1600.  I preferred to stay at 800 or less, but with the newer editing software, ISO 1600 should be fine.
 
1:1 crop with my old 70-210mm  F/4
 

[Marsu42]

The 40D at ISO 1600 is not bad, here is a image from several years ago at 1600.  I preferred to stay at 800 or less, but with the newer editing software, ISO 1600 should be fine.

You can denoise anything, but of course sharpness goes down the drain. Having said that, your iso1600 sample doesn't look too bad - maybe it's just like a previous poster wrote and the newer 18mp sensor just offers added megapixels as a tradeoff for more noise, and 18mp scaled down to 10mp is equal. I'd like to know how the noise of newer sensors really compares to older ones - but no use posting live pictures for that, I'd have to be a real measurement.

[wickidwombat]

i would suggest spend a little more and go for a 5D classic over a 40D they must be down to around $700 ish now

[unruled]

The 40D at ISO 1600 is not bad, here is a image from several years ago at 1600.  I preferred to stay at 800 or less, but with the newer editing software, ISO 1600 should be fine.

You can denoise anything, but of course sharpness goes down the drain. Having said that, your iso1600 sample doesn't look too bad - maybe it's just like a previous poster wrote and the newer 18mp sensor just offers added megapixels as a tradeoff for more noise, and 18mp scaled down to 10mp is equal. I'd like to know how the noise of newer sensors really compares to older ones - but no use posting live pictures for that, I'd have to be a real measurement.

I think what mt spokane is suggesting is that improvements in LR NR make higher ISO's more usable (with less detail loss) as the algorithms improve. I concur, between LR 2 and 4, it feels as if Ive gained a stop of usable ISO on my 40d.

Here's a 100% crop of a dark (unlit) smoky temple, at 1600. Minimal NR applied in LR. Focus may not be spot on, but for a 100% crop I'd say its respectable. Taken with a tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non-vc).
Poor lighting (and in my experience) smoke usually brings out noise very strongly.

the 2nd shot (the eye) is 1600 ISO in a museum, on my canon 85mm 1.8. Not fantastically lit, but has some lighting at least. Also a 100% crop.

[tomscott]

The 40D still holds its own today! Like i previously said I still use mine although I am looking to upgrade it as I have reached it limitations after 5 years of shooting and its getting tired.

But have a look at this

http://www.a2bart.com/tech/allcamdknz.htm

A noise test of 9 cameras from 100-400 the 40D exceeds even the newest cameras (7D etc)

The 40D even up to 800, but over 800 it struggles. Banding is more of a problem at 3200, 1600 can be used with some NR. It has obvious limitations but there is no way I will ever sell mine!

The 7D has awful characteristics at 100-400 look at the banding! Everything about that camera is good apart from the sensor it should have been a max of 15 then I might have bought one.

The 40D was the pinical of the XXD range IMHO until the new 70D comes out then im sure that will be the new king.

For $400 dollars it is a bargain, thats like £250 here they are selling between £350 and £450.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The 40D at ISO 1600 is not bad, here is a image from several years ago at 1600.  I preferred to stay at 800 or less, but with the newer editing software, ISO 1600 should be fine.

You can denoise anything, but of course sharpness goes down the drain. Having said that, your iso1600 sample doesn't look too bad - maybe it's just like a previous poster wrote and the newer 18mp sensor just offers added megapixels as a tradeoff for more noise, and 18mp scaled down to 10mp is equal. I'd like to know how the noise of newer sensors really compares to older ones - but no use posting live pictures for that, I'd have to be a real measurement.

I think what mt spokane is suggesting is that improvements in LR NR make higher ISO's more usable (with less detail loss) as the algorithms improve. I concur, between LR 2 and 4, it feels as if Ive gained a stop of usable ISO on my 40d.

That was actually a out of Camera jpeg, so NR or other processing was not added in LR.  Back in 2007, I was not using RAW.  I did not have a ISO 1600 image taken with raw, so I showed the old jpeg.  If there had been a white area, I'm sure noise would have been visible, but the detail that remains is fairly good. 
 
The Lightroom Demosaic process has improved a huge amount since 2007, which was what I was referring to.  The NR is also much better, however, it does hurt sharpness while the new Demosaic Process increases sharpness and reduces noise.

[unruled]

what do you mean with the demosaic process Vs NR? do you mean the LR 2012 process vs earlier processes, or am i missing something?

[AJ]

The 40D is a good camera, and $400 is a pretty good price.  You're getting very good bang for the buck.

I wouldn't call the 40D the "pinnacle" of the xxD line.  However it's the camera where sensor technology became mature.  Earlier cameras had great leaps in technology between models, and later cameras have features that are perhaps beyond the point of diminishing returns.  Returns, but diminishing returns.  The 60D is a slightly better camera than the 40D.  But the 40D is vastly superior than the 30D.

[revo2seven]

Thank you for you inputs guys I finally got one  can't wait to get it to my hands and start learning the Canon side (first Canon DSLR) I'm saving a bit for the L lenses. Is the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 a good choice to start? can't afford the Canon version and been reading some review the lens looks promising and will not hurt your wallet. Anyone have experience of this lens? also looking to get the 50mm 1.8 the plastic fantastic. for now those are the lens that are on my budget until I invest on good glass. Any suggestion will be much appreciated..