More body upgrade from 40d questions???

[mickeykelly]

Another upgrade question from a relative rookie after having recently bought a used 40d after many P&S cameras.
I'm enjoying using the 40d and currently have the following lenses.
EF-S 15-85, EF 50 f/1.8, EF 70-200 f/4 L USM, EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM, Kenko 1.4 Teleconverter
I primarily shoot travel, landscapes, birds and NO portraits, sports or video. I use a Sony NEX F-3 for video and family pics. I would like to be able to make prints up to 16 x 20 occasionally.

1. Should I keep the 40d and just get another lens or 2? (10-20 and better telephotos_)?
2. Trade or sell the 40d and get a 7D, 60d, or 70d? The importance of having lens microfocus adjustment is not clear to me at this point especially with the wider depth of field on crop frame cameras.
3. Keep the 40d and get a good used 5D or new 6D and get a 24-105L or similar lens?
4. Get rid of the 40d and just get a full frame? I'm concerned here about my need for expensive lens length with birds, etc.

Thanks in advance

 

[ATC]

Hope you find a suitable answer to your questions.

I am interested in similar advice as mickeykelly, and am not trying to highjack the post. I am also a relative rookie, and have had a 40D, used mostly with a newer model Tamron 18-270. I considered full frame for my next move, but have decided to stay with the crop frame.

My problem is the same as mickeykelly's #2 solution. 60D, 70D, 7D, or wait for 7DII.

 

[mickeykelly]

Not so much with Birds in Flight yet, but who knows. Based upon BIF, I guess the 5D would suffer from the same AF issues as the 40d if not worse. Aside from the BIF, is the 5D a significant upgrade @ $500 or would the money be better spent on a new 60d @ $600?
The 5D3 is out of the question. $$$. 6D is possible. I think I'm reading that the upgrade to another crop is probably not the best spent $$.?
I would also appreciate any help on the lens microfocus adjustment thing. Important or not?

Thanks again for your help.

 

[pj1974]

Hi mickeykelly,

As you mentioned you are a relative rookie with DSLRs, my advice would be for you to keep the 40D and practice more. The 40D isn't a bad camera at all... and you have some decent lenses. I'd suggest a bit of a shuffle with lenses (details below)

I have the Canon 15-85mm (my most used lens) - and it's great as a 1 lens solution - for both travel and landscape. I have the Canon 70-300mm L which pairs with it great for a 2 lens solution (if you want more zoom). It appears you also have the Canon 70-300mm nonL and the 70-200mm L non-IS. I would recommend that the 70-300mm L is a much better solution than those 2 telephone zoom lenses that you currently have. The 70-300mm L is sharper than both, has a great 4 stop IS system and true fast, accurate USM focusing. So it beats the best of both your telezoom lenses (as 1 lens!)

If you sell both your 2 telezooms, you might be somewhat out of pocket - but you'll have a better lens: an L lens that will last you a lifetime for any body. [Mine is very sharp at 300mm f/5.6] AND it's a much more practical / portable solution. (I believe you can use your Kenko converter on the 70-300mm L - which will focus in good light / high contrast, or at least it does on some bodies, maybe also the 40D). And it might work particularly well with the new dual pixel LiveView AF - which apparently can AF at smaller apertures, eg f/8 to f/11.

Another thought (after that) that I had is you might want to look at getting the Sigma 8-16mm UWA... which is the widest non-fish eye zoom lens currently available for Canon APS-C DSLRs. It would work so well complementing your 15-85mm. Getting to such extreme wide angles can be challenging, but also fun. Again, this lens is a great companion for travel. (PS.. I dislike the 50mm f/1.8 - but I did have 2 copies of that lens in the past).

The 70D would be a reasonable upgrade to your 40D, but practice and technique are more important than having the latest / greatest gear. Though definitely the 7D and 70D have advantages in handling, and some features, the 40D would probably not be your main limiting factor at this stage. The 70D will eventually come down to lower prices (I think Canon has been reasonable with the 70D price of $1,199 USD). You can already get good deals on the 7D, but if I were in your shoes I'd wait a while to upgrade your body.

Hope this helps.

Paul

 

[Aglet]

40d is a great older camera, I still use mine for various types of shooting.
60d is a wee bit better in that the extra resolution can come in handy for landscapes and I like the flip screen for close-up work sometimes. It's also got better hi ISO performance than the 40d; you could use 3200 if you needed to.
7d gets you an improved AF system and faster frame rate but can have limitations in image quality compared to the previous two for landscape shots. (many 7d's have rather noisy shadow areas if you do any significant shadow push in post)

You've got some good glass already, and I agree with pj1974's lens recommendations and advice.

Canon's 10-22 is a good UWA crop zoom lens (I had one, liked it) and so is Sigma's 10-20mm variable aperture one (I have it and like it too) for less money.

I'd keep using your 40d and develop your skills while waiting to see how the new 70d performs and maybe even wait until next year to see how the 7d2 will perform.

So, this is essentially what I'm doing too; I sold my 7d and my 5d2 while they had good resale value and and kept my 40d and a 60d while I wait to see if the newest bodies will actually be significant and worthwhile upgrades.
I'd really like an improved version of the 7d with better image quality, reduced raw file noise and maybe even an AF system with more AF points like the 5d3.
The 6D with 24-105mm kit is tempting, and quite good, but I've moved to the competition to better meet my full frame requirements.

 

[nda]

"3. Keep the 40d and get a good used 5D or new 6D and get a 24-105L or similar lens?"

I have a 40d, 5d2, 6d, 1ds3 and 1d4 the 6d is my fav, just get it if you can afford the lens get that as well
If you don't like them, you can always sell them, there will always be buyers

 

[paul13walnut5]

Get a used Sigma Bigma. The previous non OS version (make sure it's the DG version) should be fairly cheap and is optically good across most of its range.

You have a good body. You want more reach... you don't need another body, you need another lens. THe 50-500 Sigma will also AF, wheras your 70-200 and 70-300 may struggle once teleconverted.

 

[rs]

You have a good body. You want more reach... you don't need another body, you need another lens. THe 50-500 Sigma will also AF, wheras your 70-200 and 70-300 may struggle once teleconverted.

I agree - the 40D is a great camera (I still use mine), and quality reach seems to be your main shortcoming. But I'd recommend staying away from the Sigma 50-500. A non stabilised small aperture telephoto lens can be a bit of a handful. I guess you'll be using it for much more than just birds in flight? (BIF shots can only easily be pulled off with the new mode 3 IS)

I'd recommend pj1974's advice, sell up your two tele zooms, and get a 70-300L. As far as I know, the Sigma 50-500 is meant to be a short 500, so the difference in framing isn't as much as you'd expect between the two.

Even though the 70-300L isn't designed to work with TC's (it will at a pinch), the superior optics of the 70-300L should give you better quality if you crop to get the same narrow angle of view:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=374&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1

This comparison isn't a 100% match of what you could do as the 70-300 is on an 18MP crop (not a crop of a 10MP crop as I'm recommending), and the 50-500 is on FF (not an uncropped crop ???), but the crop factor is roughly equal to what you could do in post. The 300 is cropped to a field of view of 480mm here, and it looks sharper than the 500 (in reality, just a 450-470mm) natively.

 

[paul13walnut5]

You have a good body. You want more reach... you don't need another body, you need another lens. THe 50-500 Sigma will also AF, wheras your 70-200 and 70-300 may struggle once teleconverted.

I agree - the 40D is a great camera (I still use mine), and quality reach seems to be your main shortcoming. But I'd recommend staying away from the Sigma 50-500. A non stabilised small aperture telephoto lens can be a bit of a handful. I guess you'll be using it for much more than just birds in flight? (BIF shots can only easily be pulled off with the new mode 3 IS)

You are right, it is a handful. I wouldn't recommend for use without a monopod or tripod. I'm from a video background so camera support is taken as read, I forget that still shooters aren't cut from the same cloth.

 

[JPAZ]

I agree with most of what's been said. Don't replace your 40d until it is limiting you. I made some pretty decent shots with my APS-C and only upgraded when the sensor noise started to bug the heck out of me.

AFMA can be a useful feature. It gives you the ability to "fine tune" your camera's autofocus for the nuances of each particular lens. It will sharpen those autofocus-through-the-viewfinder images where the lens calibration with the camera is a bit off. But, if I were you, I would absolutely get a 70-300L and lose the non-IS70-200 and the non-L 70-300. Also, if you ever want wider than 15, I would also look at the 10-20. The 10-20 + 15-85 + 70-300L should cover all your glass needs for now.

The 40d was a great camera. Stick with it until it can't do what you are asking of it. By then, the 7dii or the 70d or whatever comes later will be available at the right price.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

You seem to be set just fine for now. Canon will likely be coming out with the new dual pixel sensors, and the new 100-400L might be right around the corner. Bank your funds and wait to see. There is no hurry.

As for AFMA, even the dual pixel sensors are not inherently accurate, since they are phase detect. Anytime you buy a new body, there is a good chance that the AF of your lenses will perform better if fine tuned. As you get more pixels in a sensor, you can see the mismatch in AF better.

 

[mickeykelly]

Thanks to all of you who responded. Guess I'll be shopping for a new lens. Hmmmm... 70-300L or wait for the new 100-400L?

Mike

 

[Random Orbits]

Thanks to all of you who responded. Guess I'll be shopping for a new lens. Hmmmm... 70-300L or wait for the new 100-400L?

Mike

Try out the lenses in a store if you can. The 100-400L is almost as heavy as the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. The 70-300L is much more compact and significantly lighter. I'd opt for the 70-300L but if you want the lens primarily at the long end, then the 100-400 may be the better option.

 

[bholliman]

Thanks to all of you who responded. Guess I'll be shopping for a new lens. Hmmmm... 70-300L or wait for the new 100-400L?

Try out the lenses in a store if you can. The 100-400L is almost as heavy as the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. The 70-300L is much more compact and significantly lighter. I'd opt for the 70-300L but if you want the lens primarily at the long end, then the 100-400 may be the better option.

I've used both the current 100-400L and 70-300L extensively and definitely prefer the 70-300. 70-300L Image quality is better and its much lighter and more compact - a great travel lens. We will have to wait and see about the 100-400L II, I imagine it will be excellent - but expensive.

 

[Aglet]

100-400 is a decent lens, certainly worked well on a 7D but a little less effective on my 40D.
60D works OK with it but falls between 40 and 7 in performance and accuracy from my experience with those combos.
I'd certainly consider the new 70-300L tho, it just wasn't around when i bought the 100-400mm.

 

[pj1974]

As to the choice between 100-400mm (current or a vII) OR getting the 70-300mm L, it really depends on how much of your shooting is going to really require 400mm. Obviously with most birds, the more mm the better - so it seems that a 100-400mm would be better.

BUT one must always consider the other factors, eg the 100-400mm L lens IS significantly heavier and bigger, and it makes a huge difference to me in that I can keep my 70-300mm L in my Lowepro shoulder bag with my 7D and 15-85mm attached (or the 70-300mm L attached to my 7D and the 15-85mm next to it).

If I owned a 100-400mm L, I wouldn't be taking that as often on my walks, drives, travels, etc, just because it's much longer and heavier. And I expect a vII of the 100-400mm L would be quite a bit more expensive (at least $2500 my guess). So having 300mm 'on tap' is better than 85mm!

So many 70-300mm L users love its portability and extremely good IQ. But it's really up to you what you'll want. I still think my earlier advice of getting rid of your 70-200mm f/4 nonIS and the 70-300mm nonL and replacing it with the 70-300mm L is a good strategy for you.

Then later down the track consider the Sigma 8-16mm if you really like ultrawide.

Regards

Paul