is the 40D still a good one for 400$

[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

 

[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.

 

[briansquibb]

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 difference between a professional photographer and an amateur is that the professional gets paid. There is not a direct relationship between professional and capability

 

[nikkito]

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.

totally! that's why they say once you try L lenses you're spoiled

 

[nikkito]

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 difference between a professional photographer and an amateur is that the professional gets paid. There is not a direct relationship between professional and capability

 

[Marsu42]

The difference between a professional photographer and an amateur is that the professional gets paid. There is not a direct relationship between professional and capability

I'm not a pro (yet), but I'd tend to disagree: Imho a pro needs *another* capability as an amateur - e.g. the ability to shoot with more time constraints and less room for try and error which necessitate more knowledge of one's gear vs. getting the newest, shiniest models. Thus, a pro opinion of the 40d and other bodies or lenses might very well be different, and for good reason.

 

[briansquibb]

The difference between a professional photographer and an amateur is that the professional gets paid. There is not a direct relationship between professional and capability

I'm not a pro (yet), but I'd tend to disagree: Imho a pro needs *another* capability as an amateur - e.g. the ability to shoot with more time constraints and less room for try and error which necessitate more knowledge of one's gear vs. getting the newest, shiniest models. Thus, a pro opinion of the 40d and other bodies or lenses might very well be different, and for good reason.

Or it might not - being a pro does not guarantee the best photos. The top amateurs are probably significantly better than jobbing, trailer trash wedding togs

 

[nikkito]

First of all, I'm not better than anyone, my "I'm a professional photographer" sentence was in response of someone telling me that I should have my eyes checked.

Brian, you are right that being professional does not always mean having talent or being good.

Marsu42, I totally agree with you. Working under pressure was the most difficult thing for me when I started working for this newspaper in Switzerland. I was used to take pictures with lots of time, with people who wanted to pose for the camera and with no assignments from no one other than myself.

 

[katwil]

I have to agree with what Brian said earlier in this thread. IMHO the 40D is the highpoint of the xxD line, before Canon jumped into the megapixel war and added in non-still photography features. I still get a good amount of use from mine. I use it when I want extra reach from my lens kit and for some daytime shots (sort of like a reverse vampire, it only gets out when the sun is up). The 40D has limitations with respect to lighting/ ISO, but employed in the right conditions the 40D is an excellent value at $400.

 

[dirtcastle]

I use it when I want extra reach from my lens kit and for some daytime shots (sort of like a reverse vampire, it only gets out when the sun is up).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a 40D doesn't give "extra reach" compared with a 5D2. With the same lens, a cropped 5D shot will get the same (or better) effective resolution). In fact, doesn't the 5D2 have a greater "reach" than the 40D because it has twice the sensor resolution?

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks.

 

[expatinasia]

I would say if US$ 400 is your absolute max in terms of budget then the 40D is fine. Personally I would look at buying something better, 5D mark II or 7D (probably the latter - as price won't be so high) as you are likely to want more and more out of your camera as time goes on.

It will depend on what you want to use it for but those two cameras above give you much more room and time to grow, plus they do video so you save having to buy something there too perhaps.

Whenever it comes to technology I was try to buy as recent as possible (not always the most recent - think RAM etc) as the benefits last that little longer.

 

[smithy]

I've owned the 40D since it was released in 2007, and while it does have its limitations (poor ISO performance at 800 and higher), I really love it. Its strengths are build quality, frame rate, and image quality at ISO100-200.

Build quality: alloy frame, some weather sealing - although when shooting in the rain a couple of times I've had some of the controls cease up on me. (Canon has never suggested that it could be used in such weather). It's always come back to life after a bit of drying, and the whole camera still looks like new after five years.

Frame rate: 6.3fps is a nice frame rate for the types of photos I like to take: triathlon events, kids running around, wildlife... the AI servo mode suffers a little bit because of the camera's weak AF system though (but I'm comparing it with my lovely 1V, which isn't really fair).

Image quality: at ISO100-200 this camera produces really nice clean images that can be blown up reasonably large.

It is still my main digital camera, and it's only now with the release of the 5D MkIII that I've seriously considered replacing it. I almost bought a 5D mkI last year (to use for 'wider' angled shots), but it felt so *old* next to my 40D that I spent my money on a new 10-22mm EF-S lens instead (which was the same price as a used 5D).