Counting down my five favorite Canon digital cameras ever. Coming in at #2…..

[justaCanonuser]

Thanks, yes it was bad. I still remember it. I switched to 5DMkII 24-105 kit and gave up 2 lenses I didn't want (Sigma 400 APO and Canon 28-70 2.8L) as a part exchange to cut the price of the kit. They saved me 900 euros (2950 -> 2050). Then I got the 70-200 4 L IS.

I have the EF 70-200 4 L IS, too, as a light small travel zoom. It is a pretty nice lens, feels really good in the hand and is much sharper than the old non-IS version. A friend, a pro photographer btw, tested it and sold her non-IS version to get the IS because she was impressed by the leap in optical quality.

 

[justaCanonuser]

I had five 40d's over several years. The feature most used was live view where I could finally tether the camera to my PC and get focus, lighting, and composition of my product photos done in one shot rather than a time consuming shoot and check method. ... All of the cameras had a limited time that they could be tethered in live view mode, perhaps to sensor heating, they would lose synch after 30 or 40 minutes and give a garbled image. Letting them sit for a few minutes and restarting them worked to allow me another similar period.

Interesting to read. I sometimes used my PCs and notebooks for shooting, and I always loved Canon's easy to use software. But I never shot so many images this way that the sensor started to heat or so.

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi Etienne.
I also have the 40D, I was also not in love with it until I acquired another 17-85mm lens (got a 20D and faulty lens for £50 and fixed the lens, total cost £99) once I put that lens on the 40D I realised that the problem with the camera had been a soft lens all along, I still use my 40D as my workshop camera, I also use it for timelapse to save hammering the shutter on my other bodies. My nephew uses the 20D.

Cheers, Graham.

I owned this camera as well, but was never in love with it. I moved to the 5D2 from the 40D, and never looked back.

 

[justaCanonuser]

I now own too many lenses to list here.

PJ

Me too, including some of Canon's rangefinder lenses from the 1950s/60s. But the list of Canon lenses I love mostly is short:

EF 85mm F1/1.2 L USM II
EF 100mm F/2.8 L IS USM Macro
EF 70-200mm F/2.8 L IS USM II: perfect workhorse, if I need a lens that nails focus always and everywhere
EF 500mm F/4.5 L USM: a 25 yrs old battered lens that still works perfectly, it is like a body part for me, I know exactly how it behaves. Maybe it'll live longer than me, like Churchill's famous parrot

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi Folks.
My photographic journey:-
300D, still have it, still works, the grip rubber coating went all gooey so I peeled, scraped, picked, rubbed it all off, much nicer to hold now!
40D, still have it, still in regular use for workshop and timelapse.
7D, guess what, yep still have it!
20D, too cheap at £50 to miss for the workshop before the 7DII bumped everything down 1!
7DII, main camera for wildlife.
5D, first foray in to FF, used it for a while and sold it for what I paid when I replaced it with a,
1DsIII, in the local camera shop for irresistible money.
Hmm, I may have issues, I don’t seem to want to let these cameras go!
Actually it got to the point where the monetary value of these older bodies was so low it just made sense to hold on to them.

Cheers, Graham.

 

[Etienne]

Hi Etienne.
I also have the 40D, I was also not in love with it until I acquired another 17-85mm lens (got a 20D and faulty lens for £50 and fixed the lens, total cost £99) once I put that lens on the 40D I realised that the problem with the camera had been a soft lens all along, I still use my 40D as my workshop camera, I also use it for timelapse to save hammering the shutter on my other bodies. My nephew uses the 20D.

Cheers, Graham.

I used the 17-55 f/2.8 IS and a Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 on my 40D, both of which did a good job, but the 5D2 with L lenses was so much better, although focus and frame rates were faster on the 40D. But the 5D2 opened a whole new world of filmmaking!
Cheers!

 

[justaCanonuser]

I used the 17-55 f/2.8 IS

The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS was in fact the worst lens I ever had from Canon. A real dust pump and mediocre optical quality (lot of CA).

 

[Etienne]

The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS was in fact the worst lens I ever had from Canon. A real dust pump and mediocre optical quality (lot of CA).

It was considered the best standard zoom for Canon crop at the time. A bit of a harsh bokeh but sharp and contrasty.
4/5 stars from Photozone (now called Optical Limits), and they reported that CAs were well-controlled, "lateral CAs are unusually moderate." So, your experience is not typical.

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi Etienne.
I guess yours wasn’t a lens issue then, my first inkling that the camera was better than I realised was when I borrowed a 17-55 f/2.8 for a few minutes and shot 3 test shots of limited value for a proper test (cars in a car park), but still they showed me what might be there.
For sure my lenses were the issue for me, especially the Cosina 100-300 f/5.6-6.3 (I think) which had done ok (ish) on film.

Cheers, Graham.

I used the 17-55 f/2.8 IS and a Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 on my 40D, both of which did a good job, but the 5D2 with L lenses was so much better, although focus and frame rates were faster on the 40D. But the 5D2 opened a whole new world of filmmaking!
Cheers!

 

[justaCanonuser]

It was considered the best standard zoom for Canon crop at the time. A bit of a harsh bokeh but sharp and contrasty.
4/5 stars from Photozone (now called Optical Limits), and they reported that CAs were well-controlled, "lateral CAs are unusually moderate." So, your experience is not typical.

Yes but it was true. I had an early copy, and later I learned that Canon had some quality issues with the early production. I guess that some of the lenses weren't well centered. I had contact with Bryan Carnathan from "the digital picture" back then, and he was astonished about the images I sent him showing the weaknesses of my copy. In fact, it was the one and only case I had trouble with a Canon lens.

 

[TAF]

I agree completely with the folks who say the 50D was a disappointment. My first real DSLR was a Xt; I loved that camera. My avatar photo was the first photo I ever took with it. I shot many thousands (10K+) of images with it. Then I 'upgraded' to a 50D. That was the worst camera I have ever used, period. The photos were flat, lifeless, and just didn't look good. It almost put an end to my photography; only good old fashioned film kept the dream alive. But I got lucky. I had a small financial windfall, and traded the 50D in on a 5D3. And once again I was in love with digital photography.

I'm anxiously look forward to the R5. But I won't be parting with the 5D3; I won't take that chance again. If the R5 works as well as it should, the 5D3 will go off for a full spectrum conversion. That looks like a fun area to explore.

 

[slclick]

I agree completely with the folks who say the 50D was a disappointment. My first real DSLR was a Xt; I loved that camera. My avatar photo was the first photo I ever took with it. I shot many thousands (10K+) of images with it. Then I 'upgraded' to a 50D. That was the worst camera I have ever used, period. The photos were flat, lifeless, and just didn't look good. It almost put an end to my photography; only good old fashioned film kept the dream alive. But I got lucky. I had a small financial windfall, and traded the 50D in on a 5D3. And once again I was in love with digital photography.

I'm anxiously look forward to the R5. But I won't be parting with the 5D3; I won't take that chance again. If the R5 works as well as it should, the 5D3 will go off for a full spectrum conversion. That looks like a fun area to explore.

It's funny that folks are saying this about the 50D since historically it was very common to say the 50D was the last of the great xxD bodies and it went backwards with the 60D. Scratching my head here. But like anything, it's always a case of YMMV and/or lens choices.

 

[FramerMCB]

Ah... my beloved 40D! Alas it does not work anymore - gets the ERROR 99 message everytime I press the Shutter button to take a picture. The mirror flips up and then nothing - just locks and the ERROR 99 pops on the LCD. You have to turn it off then on to get the mirror back down.

I just loved the files that camera produced - it was my first Digital Canon. My first Canon was the EOS 630, then an Elan IIe with battery grip. Now I have a 7D and an 80D. Love the .jpegs coming from the 80D. I always shot raw with my 40D and the 7D. But recently started shooting .jpeg with my 80D and am quite pleased. Still wish my 40D worked though...

 

[picperfect]

The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS was in fact the worst lens I ever had from Canon. A real dust pump and mediocre optical quality (lot of CA).

interesting. 17-55 was my favorite and by far most-used APS-C lens. had EF 28-135 before, then Tamron 17-50 / 2.8 (non IS) until i got the 17-55 IS - the upgrade was very noticable and never regretted it, especially IS was extremely helpful. no issues with IQ or dust with my copy.

actually the 17-55 kept me in Canonland when i was extremely tempted to go from 40D to Nikon D300. But Nikon 17-55 was an old formula clunker, without IS, twice as expensive as Canon, built like a tank, but weight like a tank too.

so i waited until Canon finally came with 7D and kept using my workhorse 17-55.

 

[Ozarker]

It was considered the best standard zoom for Canon crop at the time. A bit of a harsh bokeh but sharp and contrasty.
4/5 stars from Photozone (now called Optical Limits), and they reported that CAs were well-controlled, "lateral CAs are unusually moderate." So, your experience is not typical.

Or the review from Optical Limits isn't typical.

 

[Etienne]

Yes but it was true. I had an early copy, and later I learned that Canon had some quality issues with the early production. I guess that some of the lenses weren't well centered. I had contact with Bryan Carnathan from "the digital picture" back then, and he was astonished about the images I sent him showing the weaknesses of my copy. In fact, it was the one and only case I had trouble with a Canon lens.

There's always the chance of getting a dud.
If the build quality was better, and if it had zoom dampening and better bokeh I probably wouldn't have sold it. I never really enjoyed using it to be honest, partly because of its cheap feel and the nervous bokeh, but then again, I'm not really terribly interested in standard zooms. I made do with the 16-35 f/2.8L mk II, 70-200 f/2.8L IS mk II, and a few primes on my 5DII and III cameras. Those two zooms and the 50 f/1.4 were often all I carried, and they usually did everything I needed. I guess I was never that impressed with the early Canon crop cameras. Canon's new crop sensors are not bad.

 

[swblackwood]

Wasn‘t this also the first Canon DSLR to have LV shooting?

 

[justaCanonuser]

There's always the chance of getting a dud.
If the build quality was better, and if it had zoom dampening and better bokeh I probably wouldn't have sold it. I never really enjoyed using it to be honest, partly because of its cheap feel and the nervous bokeh...

That's another reason why I never liked it much. In fact, I have/had a LOT of Canon lenses, but this one was the only real failure, at least for me.

 

[Michael Clark]

You are definitely not Tony Northrop I am with you, it was really hard for me to decide this year whether I should use Canon's trade-in discount to get me a 5D VI. I did it, but it was really hard for me to hand out my beloved, battered sort of war-horse 5D III. With more than 150.00 actuations it still worked nicely.

Where can I buy this 5D Mark VI you keep mentioning? I'm still stuck two generations back with the 5D Mark IV, which is the best camera I've ever owned.