is the 40D still a good one for 400$

[Marsu42]

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..

While the 50/1.8 is cheap (in every way) and you're on a budget, you might want to get the f2.8 zoom first and then decide if you really need a f1.8 one that duplicates your zoom range and is not very sharp wide open... it might open up more photographic possibilities to get an ultrawide or a macro (the 100mm non-L is excellent and rather cheap when bought used) as your second lens.

[AJ]

Is the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 a good choice to start?

Yes!  It's my most used lens.  It's tack sharp, handles well, and just a very nice lens overall.

[revo2seven]

Is the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 a good choice to start?

Yes!  It's my most used lens.  It's tack sharp, handles well, and just a very nice lens overall.

awesome this lens is around my budget 389CDN awesome. Thank you for input

[katwil]

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.

+1

[sjp010]

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

I agree with this suggestion.  If I hadn't bought a 5Dc a few months ago for $850, I'd definitely be a buyer right now at $700-ish.  As a 40D user before the 5Dc, I can attest that the 5Dc has noticeably superior image quality.  5Dc does have some downsides in the comparison (inferior LCD, fewer fps, older interface), but the proof is in the pudding: my 40D has been mostly collecting dust since I got the 5Dc.  I only use it when I need more focal length, which is rare.

[unruled]

Is the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 a good choice to start?

Yes!  It's my most used lens.  It's tack sharp, handles well, and just a very nice lens overall.

awesome this lens is around my budget 389CDN awesome. Thank you for input

yep, I love that lens, it lived on my 40d for many years. the non-vc version is sharper btw, worth keeping in mind.

[3kramd5]

Love my 40D, have used the hell out of it since 2007. I would possibly say the step from 350D to 40D was more significant than the step from 40D to 5D2 (which I only made last week after canceling pre-orders on the "3" and D800).

One of these is a 40D. One is a 5D2. Both are the EF50mm f/1.4. Without pixel peeping (or EXIF cheating), I would be hard pressed to tell which was which.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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?

 
Its the process of converting a raw image to a viewable image.  Different software does the job with varying efficiencies and accuracy.  DXO Aperture Lightroom and ACR are common raw converters.  NR is applied to the converted image at a later point.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosaic

[briansquibb]

Love my 40D, have used the hell out of it since 2007. I would possibly say the step from 350D to 40D was more significant than the step from 40D to 5D2 (which I only made last week after canceling pre-orders on the "3" and D800).

One of these is a 40D. One is a 5D2. Both are the EF50mm f/1.4. Without pixel peeping (or EXIF cheating), I would be hard pressed to tell which was which.

I would say the first is the 5DII

[3kramd5]

Love my 40D, have used the hell out of it since 2007. I would possibly say the step from 350D to 40D was more significant than the step from 40D to 5D2 (which I only made last week after canceling pre-orders on the "3" and D800).

One of these is a 40D. One is a 5D2. Both are the EF50mm f/1.4. Without pixel peeping (or EXIF cheating), I would be hard pressed to tell which was which.

I would say the first is the 5DII

Nope.

I had to find a couple frames where the shallower DOF of the 5D2 with closer framing didn't give it away

5D2 facilitates higher sensitivities which is great for around the house, and framing on the larger format is certainly nicer for people, but otherwise at internet res and in print the IQ is pretty similar.

 (40D image = 100ISO, 5D2 image = 1600ISO; I dread going over 400 with the 40D if there are any deep shadows in the exposure)

[briansquibb]

Love my 40D, have used the hell out of it since 2007. I would possibly say the step from 350D to 40D was more significant than the step from 40D to 5D2 (which I only made last week after canceling pre-orders on the "3" and D800).

One of these is a 40D. One is a 5D2. Both are the EF50mm f/1.4. Without pixel peeping (or EXIF cheating), I would be hard pressed to tell which was which.

I would say the first is the 5DII

Nope.

Would be interested to know how you got more bg grain with the 5D2 then - bigger crop, higher iso??

[briansquibb]

Love my 40D, have used the hell out of it since 2007. I would possibly say the step from 350D to 40D was more significant than the step from 40D to 5D2 (which I only made last week after canceling pre-orders on the "3" and D800).

One of these is a 40D. One is a 5D2. Both are the EF50mm f/1.4. Without pixel peeping (or EXIF cheating), I would be hard pressed to tell which was which.

I would say the first is the 5DII

Nope.

Would be interested to know how you got more bg grain with the 5D2 then - bigger crop, higher iso??

Can see more iso - bigger crop as well?

[wockawocka]

First one is the 5D2.

The 40D is an awesome camera and it still is. One of the last cameras before Canon went down the road of squeezing too many pixels on a sensor.

[Illumin]

The first picture is 40D and the second 5dII. The face in the second picture looks a bit distorted (I think that's the right word).
50mm is a bit too short for a portrait lense on a 5DII and you can see it in the second picture.

Just my $0.02 on this comparison.

[elflord]

Love my 40D, have used the hell out of it since 2007. I would possibly say the step from 350D to 40D was more significant than the step from 40D to 5D2 (which I only made last week after canceling pre-orders on the "3" and D800).

One of these is a 40D. One is a 5D2. Both are the EF50mm f/1.4. Without pixel peeping (or EXIF cheating), I would be hard pressed to tell which was which.

Can pick them because the first one looks like a tighter shot, the second one looks wider and has a little perspective distortion, but that's just due to fov of the lens. To me, the 40D shot comes across as a better picture over all.