Upgrading 40d

[zg08]

It's time to upgrade my 40d. I can't decide what to get: 60d, wait for 70d to come out, mk3, mk2, 7d?

I dont mind the crop. Im also not earning money with photography, so not sure if marks are really justifiable. Perhaps getting a 60d is better?

Any thoughts?

I mostly shoot with 10_20sigma and 70_200 2.8l

[nonac]

It depends on how much you want to spend.  I just went from a 40d to a 5d Mark III and I am extremely happy about that move.  I thought about a 7d for a while and I'm glad I went with the Mark III.  WOW, that's all I can say.

[fugu82]

+1 on nonac's comments; I also moved from the 40D to the 5D3. Yeah, for $3500 you get an extreme bunch of Wow. However, if you don't need the low light capabilities, beefed-up focus, etc., and might miss the crop factor, you may want to think about the 7D. Spend the $$ you save on some glass.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

It's time to upgrade my 40d. I can't decide what to get: 60d, wait for 70d to come out, mk3, mk2, 7d?

I dont mind the crop. Im also not earning money with photography, so not sure if marks are really justifiable. Perhaps getting a 60d is better?

Any thoughts?

I mostly shoot with 10_20sigma and 70_200 2.8l

Is your 40D dying, or are you looking for a specific capability?  The newer XXD bodies have a few more features, but really are not that much a 40D.
I'd wait and see what a 70D brings, or define where you need improvement and that will lead you toward the right product.  The 7D is the best crop and its three years old.
The 60D is lacking the ability to fine tune your autofocus, so I'd be inclined to pass it up, because you will not get the benefit of higher pixel counts with your 70-200mm f/2.8L.  As you get higher pixel count sensors, a slight amount of error in autofocus keeps you from getting more resolution and is a waste of money. The fine tuning does make a visible difference for many lenses.  Occasionally, one is a perfect match, but thats the exception.

[zg08]

Hi,

my 40D is dying...probably from overuse. Sometimes I'm having issues with metering and sometimes the system won't switch to "preview mode" properly (I don't know if it's a software glitch or a hardware issue).


There is no one thing that I can pinpoint that I miss. Shooting better in low light would definitely be great and having 61 focusing points is a definite asset, but the price tag on those 5D-3 is quite hefty. I can afford it, but the question is - do I really need it? Since I'm not shooting professionally, will it really be justified it for me?


Nonac - I've read your review after I have posted this topic, which made me add more weight towards the 5D-3 decision. You've actually wrote about some things that I find very important, so thank you for sharing.

Fugu82 - thanks for the info, it's always nice to hear from people that have actually experienced both cameras in person, as opposed to comparing specs on paper.

Mt Spokane - that's a good point. and on one hand you are right - what's the point of having a great lense where the camera can't pull 100% out of it? on the other hand - getting a less expensive body and another piece of glass (24-70L for instance) is also a good option......so many things to choose from.When you say "fine tuning", what do you mean? Are you referring to post editing or are you talking about having to adjust AF manually (i.e. switch to MF and fine tune it)?

[Random Orbits]

Hi,

my 40D is dying...probably from overuse. Sometimes I'm having issues with metering and sometimes the system won't switch to "preview mode" properly (I don't know if it's a software glitch or a hardware issue).


There is no one thing that I can pinpoint that I miss. Shooting better in low light would definitely be great and having 61 focusing points is a definite asset, but the price tag on those 5D-3 is quite hefty. I can afford it, but the question is - do I really need it? Since I'm not shooting professionally, will it really be justified it for me?


Nonac - I've read your review after I have posted this topic, which made me add more weight towards the 5D-3 decision. You've actually wrote about some things that I find very important, so thank you for sharing.

Fugu82 - thanks for the info, it's always nice to hear from people that have actually experienced both cameras in person, as opposed to comparing specs on paper.

Mt Spokane - that's a good point. and on one hand you are right - what's the point of having a great lense where the camera can't pull 100% out of it? on the other hand - getting a less expensive body and another piece of glass (24-70L for instance) is also a good option......so many things to choose from.When you say "fine tuning", what do you mean? Are you referring to post editing or are you talking about having to adjust AF manually (i.e. switch to MF and fine tune it)?

7D won't do that much better in low light than 40D if you shoot RAW.  I had a 20D and I was shocked that the noise performance at ISO 1600 was about the same as the 7D.  The 7D is a great camera if you have to choose something now and want improved AF.  I played around with Rebels and the lack of the control wheels in the back would annoy me until I got used to it.

Also agree with Mt Spokane.  If you use f/2.8 lenses or faster, the body really should have microfocus-adjustments.  That's one reason why I would not consider a Rebel or 60D.  The amount of adjustment that the feature affords can result in a large difference in resolution.

FF is a lot more expensive.  UWA lenses cost more on FF and you will need longer lenses on the other end.  However, fast primes shine on FF and the shallow DOF can not be duplicated on APS-C.

[GuyF]

Also had a 40D (actually sold it today!) and wanted to go FF for quite some time purely for the reduced depth of field with sub-f2.8 portraits and the increase in image quality with larger pixels/sensor.

Looked at the 1D X spec when it was first announced and thought that's the only camera I'll ever need then along came the 5D3. Yes it is a bit overpriced at present but I got the 5D3 and don't regret it. It is such a large leap ahead of the 40D in every way. I'm not a professional but I could afford it and you only live once - might as well enjoy your hobby!

I've used a 7D and seen many shots from it but was not impressed by the image quality - seemed rather inconsistent with far too many rather soft images. I'm sure many will disagree with me but I think they've tried to squeeze too many pixels onto that size of sensor (cue uproar from defenders of the 7D).

I think the question comes down to "do you need the abilities of a FF camera or the added reach of an ASP-C?".

Hope that helps,

Guy.

[zg08]

speaking of crop factors. I was always under the impression that it sort of made the lense "more telefoto". But recently someone told me that that's not true, it simply captures less of the picture, so it looks bigger. but one can achieve the same result on a FF by doing a simple crop in editing software.

So I looked into that, and that looks correct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor

crop factor is simply an automatic crop by the camera, so loosing it is not really loosing the telefoto ability of the lense, it's just adding an extra step in postediting.


I wonder if I was the only one thinking that crop added "physical" zoom, where, in fact, it does not.

So having said that, seems that the "crop" argument is not a good one.

[Videoshooter]

You can crop in post, but you'll lose a lot of your resolution.

You can crop APS-C photos in post as well, for even tighter framing, so regardless of post-cropping the APS-C sensor still has major advantages for telephoto shots.

Perhaps the one exception is the Nikon D800 with 36mp. Assuming you're using good glass, you can crop 36mp a long way, to the point where it is equivelant to an ~18mp APS-C sensor.