# is the 40D still a good one for 400$



## revo2seven (Mar 31, 2012)

just wondering if the 40D is still good for 400$ mark?


----------



## keithfullermusic (Mar 31, 2012)

I think so. They are being sold for at least $500 on Craigslist. I would rather have that than a rebel, and I think a lot of people would also, which is why they are sold for that price used.


----------



## revo2seven (Mar 31, 2012)

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


----------



## grant862 (Mar 31, 2012)

I just picked up one on ebay for 420 in Dec with 2500 clicks on it....when i was looking they were going from 400-450 with the $400 mark at around 10K-20K clicks


----------



## Gatorsv80 (Mar 31, 2012)

Why wait for the 7DII? Get the 7D now for what? $1100-1200 used? The new 7DII will most certainly be $1700-2000.
I've had the 7D for 2 years. I don't think there's anything I'd upgrade to the 7DII for. (Until, of course, they blow me away with specs - maybe 5DII ISO performance?) I did have a 40D at one point. Great camera for $400.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 31, 2012)

I think the 40D is _*THE*_ classic xxD camera.

Providing you are happy with 10mp then:

- good IQ
- iso fine to about iso800, athough best at 400 and under
- over 6fps
- AF is fine in good light - better than the 5DII

I have just replaced mine with a 7D after nearly 4 years. 

Here is a picture from my final set of images - my father's cat on 1st March 2012 using the 55-255


----------



## dirtcastle (Mar 31, 2012)

The 40D was my first "real" camera. It's a great bargain for the right photographer. In optimal conditions, it is a fantastic camera with great IQ. But for me, it's major drawback is the relatively poor ISO performance. After ISO600-800 or so the noise gets dirty, especially in color (B&W conversion can help sometimes). This camera needs fast glass to work in low light without a tripod. If you need low light performance, a fast prime is necessary.


----------



## recon photography (Mar 31, 2012)

you might be able to snag a used 5d mk1 for that price???


----------



## dturano (Mar 31, 2012)

I wouldn't pay that much, its to be honest a fair price for the 40d which is a great but dated camera, while dated still functioning. 

What cracks me up is like most people i was freaked when saw this, meanwhile the same lenses we use today produced the same great photos on great equipment. The only argument is that great "L" lens, some not all, predate digital cameras, and the lens are patiently waiting the cameras to come full circle and produce film images.

A 40d at $400 is not my issue, its just that for a few bucks more you can get a new camera, or used camera. for example, the rebel of the day IMHO outdoes the 40d, especially since this was an older crop camera but still a great camera, if it were not of rthe 50d and 7d many people would have loyally shot with it still. And of course the 60d

for example, i got a 5d mark III, I'm the type of person that will go in with the intention of buying something i researched but leave with the most expensive thing wasting time. , Which doesn't always work in my favor, just sometimes. But really manual settings, a 70-200mm II 2.8 or about any lens same quality and workability. MY OPINION - i take a shot in manual like i always do, so does shooter number 2, lest say anything, 5dmkII, 5dmkI, 7d, rebel etc.

"recon", where can i get a used 5dmk1 for $400? Im not being facetious, I'm curious, for $400 i would love to try out the old 5d. same thing for 1d.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 31, 2012)

recon photography said:


> you might be able to snag a used 5d mk1 for that price???



If it is cheap then there are good cheap EF-S lens - the obvious two are:

- 18-55 IS kit lens, much maligned but give a good picture
- 55-250 IS - the undiscovered nugget in the range


----------



## unruled (Mar 31, 2012)

I bought a 2nd hand 40d a few years ago, still use it and love it. It had 12k shots, haven't had issues. Its built very well, great ergonomics, liveview, great burst rate, good AF, great files. 

ISO performance is better than you might expect, relatively clean to 800, but I am not afraid to go to 1600/3200 on it especially since noise reduction in lightroom has gotten so good.

for me if i replace it, its gonna be fullframe. I wont replace it with another crop cam.


----------



## nikkito (Mar 31, 2012)

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.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 31, 2012)

revo2seven said:


> just wondering if the 40D is still good for 400$ mark?



Good for shooting what and with which lenses for which print sizes under what conditions? Other than that, it's impossible to tell if it's still good for *your* requirements.


----------



## unruled (Mar 31, 2012)

nikkito said:


> 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.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 31, 2012)

unruled said:


> nikkito said:
> 
> 
> > The image quality is not good. The colours are terrible.
> ...



 ... 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?


----------



## revo2seven (Mar 31, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> revo2seven said:
> 
> 
> > just wondering if the 40D is still good for 400$ mark?
> ...



Nothing serious at the moment I miss having a descent camera since I sold my Olympus I can't afford the 5D MkII's 7D is still too much for me and beside this is the very first Canon I'll be using. Mostlike for now it will be people and lansdscape street photography until the 7D comes below 1K atleast have the 40D as a spare camera


----------



## tomscott (Mar 31, 2012)

I am still shooting with a 40D looking now to get a 5D MKIII

Honestly canon hasn't brought out a much better camera yet. The 50D is the same camera with more pixels crushed into the sensor so higher ISO is even worse than the 40D tbh there isn't much difference apart from the 50D had a better screen slightly slower FPS probably now a better options specifically for the screen but the 15mp doesn't really make a difference.

For people who had a 40D the 50D wasn't worth upgrading to.

The 7D again too many pixels the quality at iso100 is probably better on the 40D but the 7D has better low light capabilities so 1600 is useable unlike 1600 on the 40D. Also has much much much better AF so worth having specifically for that and using a bit more noise reduction.

The 7D is a worthy upgrade from a 40D but for me didn't hit the spot in IQ no poin in spending £1500 on a camera that wasn't a big step up in IQ.

In all honesty the 40D is my all time fav camera produced by canon it hits the all right spots and now they have basically brought out the 5D MKIII its is basically a supercharged full frame 40D so I am very happy 

Grab one you won't be disappointed! Apart from the screen and high ISO but back in the day these were amazing.

The 60D is a pointless camera imo it was a complete piss take to the XXD community and a huge backward step. If you want a new crop go 7D if not 50D is a better option but if that feels too pricy get the 40D shoot with it till it dies and it won't owe you any money at all.

Few Shots




Royal Opera House, London by tom_scott88, on Flickr




BMW Z4M Coupe by tom_scott88, on Flickr




M3 by tom_scott88, on Flickr




Conison Water Feb 2011 by tom_scott88, on Flickr


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 31, 2012)

tomscott said:


> The 60D is a pointless camera imo it was a complete piss take to the XXD community and a huge backward step. If you want a new crop go 7d



... but at the same time, the 60d price tag is lower than the xxd used to be - so I got one and I'm happy with it since it's the cheapest usable body (lcd screen, back dial) with the current crop sensor. And I need the 18mp's crop capability and am happy with the added resolution for macro shots. Personally, the 7d premium wasn't worth it to me for the added features and since it doesn't run magic lantern.


----------



## risc32 (Mar 31, 2012)

the 40d is a good camera. I had one, and it was good. At the time it was the poor man's 1dmk3, with very good performance. Now it seems some consider it as some piece of junk that'll be to limiting to a real photographer. That's just silly talk from people who like to buy gear instead of use it. The Af, LCD, FPS, all around speed, build, live view, all are good. I would take it over the 50d, and probably over the 60d unless i needed video.


----------



## birtembuk (Mar 31, 2012)

At the risk to be stoned to death by the elitist group, could I suggest you to look into the Rebel T3 (any stone yet...?). I know, I know, it's a bit cheap to talk Rebel here. Still, body only (if that's possible anyway) would be in your price range. In the digital age, 5 years is quite a lot. It won't be long until your 40D becomes grandpa. Consider also the sunk investment: in 2 years time, it's value will turn to dust while a recent rebel will still sell. DP technology has made great advances over the last few years. Today, all cameras are good. Besides, you get 2 more MP's and video ... Also, if you are to use it as a second camera besides your anticipated 7DII, you'd better carry something light, easy and inconspicuous. For street shots, Rebel's rock.


----------



## thepancakeman (Mar 31, 2012)

revo2seven said:


> 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 (Mar 31, 2012)

revo2seven said:


> 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 (Mar 31, 2012)

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 (Mar 31, 2012)

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 (Mar 31, 2012)

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 (Mar 31, 2012)

IWLP said:


> 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. 



nicku said:


> 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 (Mar 31, 2012)

unruled said:


> nikkito said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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.



Marsu42 said:


> unruled said:
> 
> 
> > nikkito said:
> ...



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 (Mar 31, 2012)

nikkito said:


> 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.



nikkito said:


> 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 (Mar 31, 2012)

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 (Mar 31, 2012)

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 (Mar 31, 2012)

nikkito said:


> 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 (Mar 31, 2012)

unruled said:


> 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 (Mar 31, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> nikkito said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 31, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> 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 (Mar 31, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > 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
> ...



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 (Mar 31, 2012)

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 (Mar 31, 2012)

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 (Apr 1, 2012)

katwil said:


> 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 (Apr 1, 2012)

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 (Apr 1, 2012)

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).


----------



## katwil (Apr 1, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> 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.



Yes, you are absolutely correct. In the course of shooting a weeklong vacation or a half dozen spring training baseball games I’ll usually get about 1,000 images. I simply don’t have enough time to devote to a lot of post-process activities. Cropping down a few dozen images from FF would probably make sense. I prefer to get the image I want from the camera rather than through post-production.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 1, 2012)

40D is still one of my most beloved cameras. I won't sell mine any time soon.

- good ergonomics
- easy to use, especially if it's your first DSLR
- good image quality with that "certain something" feel that later crop bodies didn't provide for me
- good noise characteristics from base to 800 iso and can even use 1600 and 3200 if IQ isn't as big an issue.
- your best $ value these days if you find a clean one and don't need video or more MP

I just printed a 36x24" shot for a customer that I took with the 40D and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, handheld, 200 ISO. At normal viewing distance (5ft) it still looks impressive.

grab a few extra batteries and some decent CF cards and you'll have a ball with it and some of the decent kit-glass you can pick up 2nd-hand for cheap these days.

40D seems to have a strong AA filter on it so expect to have add a little sharpening to some images to get the most from it.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 1, 2012)

I am curretnly using a 7D and before that I had the 40D - it was good back then, but had its shortcomings, especially the really pedestrian AF system. 

If I was looking for a used DSLR in that price range, I would try to get a used Nikon D300 for just a little more - say around 500. It is a way better camera in really every respect. IQ, AF, metering, speed, responsivenss, sealing .. everything one or even two 2 notches above the 40D and 50D. Get a Nikon 18-105 with it and you have the best and most versatile low budget kit available today. Or if you prefer primes, try the cheap but excellent 35/1.8.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 1, 2012)

I still keep my 40D in the back of my camera bag as an emergency backup body! Its a great little camera!


----------



## unruled (Apr 1, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> katwil said:
> 
> 
> > 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).
> ...



Aside from the approach of getting things right in camera, I wonder which of the two methods would provide higher IQ (at low ISO anyway). I somehow imagine that cropping in the file would yield a less sharp image, but I've never tried. Could anyone shed light on this?


----------



## katwil (Apr 2, 2012)

Well, please understand that what follows is only a surface-level comparison of the 40D vs. the 5D mk ii. Using the mk ii’s image as the baseline, the 40D captures around 63% of that image due to the crop. Given the quantity of pixels on each sensor, that’s 63% of the mk ii image with 48% of the pixels. Never one to overemphasize pixels I compared the sensor area of the two cameras. In that comparison, if my math is right the same 63% of the image is captured on 39% of the mk ii’s sensor area. My evaluation criteria may be way off base, but those numbers tell me the cropped mk ii image should be better than the 40D image out of the camera. If I’m looking at this incorrectly, I’ll be happy to learn something from this post.


----------



## dirtcastle (Apr 2, 2012)

When I owned the 40D it felt like I could only crop about 10-20% into the shot before it would become grainy/soft.

But on the 5D3, usually I can crop a shot IN HALF and still have it be usable.

Well, that's my empirical take anyway.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 2, 2012)

I have a simpler look on the crop.

I compose the same whether ff or crop. Therefore a 40D has half the number of pixels on the subject than a 5DII

When printing the image the extra pixels on the image are effectively thrown away until you get to A3 size. That is why an A4 print from a 40D is pretty much the same as the same print from a 5D2 - providing you are within the good operating range of the 40D (ie iso400 or less)


----------



## nicku (Apr 2, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> IWLP said:
> 
> 
> > I prefer the 60D.
> ...




Yes, if you scale down the image to 10MP the iQ is same or little better. 

In the end.... what is the point to have a 18MP camera if you must scale down the image to 10MP cu get the same IQ or slight better???


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 2, 2012)

nicku said:


> Yes, if you scale down the image to 10MP the iQ is same or little better. In the end.... what is the point to have a 18MP camera if you must scale down the image to 10MP cu get the same IQ or slight better???



The most important thing (and contrary to popular rumor) is that newer sensors do *not* get worse, but just add a megapixel reserve if needed. This is worth the 40d-60d difference to me.


----------



## dirtcastle (Apr 5, 2012)

If you are the type of shooter who gets the perfect crop every time, then I guess a crop camera won't hold you back. 

But speaking for myself, and most photographers... the ability to make dramatic crops and not lose quality is a huge asset.

There's also the issue of focal length and primes. For example, what if you are shooting a wedding with a 35mm prime?... the ability to crop can be a huge asset. What if you are shooting a stage show with a 135mm prime?... cropping in post might give you an extra 60-100mm in focal length.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 5, 2012)

The 40D at ISO 1600 is not bad, here is a image from several years ago at 1600. I preferred to stay at 800 or less, but with the newer editing software, ISO 1600 should be fine.

1:1 crop with my old 70-210mm F/4


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 5, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The 40D at ISO 1600 is not bad, here is a image from several years ago at 1600. I preferred to stay at 800 or less, but with the newer editing software, ISO 1600 should be fine.



You can denoise anything, but of course sharpness goes down the drain. Having said that, your iso1600 sample doesn't look too bad - maybe it's just like a previous poster wrote and the newer 18mp sensor just offers added megapixels as a tradeoff for more noise, and 18mp scaled down to 10mp is equal. I'd like to know how the noise of newer sensors really compares to older ones - but no use posting live pictures for that, I'd have to be a real measurement.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 5, 2012)

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


----------



## unruled (Apr 5, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > The 40D at ISO 1600 is not bad, here is a image from several years ago at 1600. I preferred to stay at 800 or less, but with the newer editing software, ISO 1600 should be fine.
> ...



I think what mt spokane is suggesting is that improvements in LR NR make higher ISO's more usable (with less detail loss) as the algorithms improve. I concur, between LR 2 and 4, it feels as if Ive gained a stop of usable ISO on my 40d.

Here's a 100% crop of a dark (unlit) smoky temple, at 1600. Minimal NR applied in LR. Focus may not be spot on, but for a 100% crop I'd say its respectable. Taken with a tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non-vc).
Poor lighting (and in my experience) smoke usually brings out noise very strongly.

the 2nd shot (the eye) is 1600 ISO in a museum, on my canon 85mm 1.8. Not fantastically lit, but has some lighting at least. Also a 100% crop.


----------



## tomscott (Apr 5, 2012)

The 40D still holds its own today! Like i previously said I still use mine although I am looking to upgrade it as I have reached it limitations after 5 years of shooting and its getting tired.

But have a look at this

http://www.a2bart.com/tech/allcamdknz.htm

A noise test of 9 cameras from 100-400 the 40D exceeds even the newest cameras (7D etc)

The 40D even up to 800, but over 800 it struggles. Banding is more of a problem at 3200, 1600 can be used with some NR. It has obvious limitations but there is no way I will ever sell mine!

The 7D has awful characteristics at 100-400 look at the banding! Everything about that camera is good apart from the sensor it should have been a max of 15 then I might have bought one.

The 40D was the pinical of the XXD range IMHO until the new 70D comes out then im sure that will be the new king.

For $400 dollars it is a bargain, thats like £250 here they are selling between £350 and £450.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 5, 2012)

unruled said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...


 
That was actually a out of Camera jpeg, so NR or other processing was not added in LR. Back in 2007, I was not using RAW. I did not have a ISO 1600 image taken with raw, so I showed the old jpeg. If there had been a white area, I'm sure noise would have been visible, but the detail that remains is fairly good. 

The Lightroom Demosaic process has improved a huge amount since 2007, which was what I was referring to. The NR is also much better, however, it does hurt sharpness while the new Demosaic Process increases sharpness and reduces noise.


----------



## unruled (Apr 5, 2012)

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?


----------



## AJ (Apr 5, 2012)

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.


----------



## revo2seven (Apr 5, 2012)

Thank you for you inputs guys I finally got one ;D 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..


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 5, 2012)

revo2seven said:


> Thank you for you inputs guys I finally got one ;D 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 (Apr 5, 2012)

_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 (Apr 5, 2012)

AJ said:


> _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 (Apr 5, 2012)

AJ said:


> 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 (Apr 5, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> 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 (Apr 5, 2012)

revo2seven said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > _Is the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 a good choice to start?_
> ...



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 (Apr 6, 2012)

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 (Apr 6, 2012)

unruled said:


> 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 (Apr 6, 2012)

3kramd5 said:


> 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 (Apr 6, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > 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).
> ...



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 (Apr 6, 2012)

3kramd5 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



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


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 6, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



Can see more iso - bigger crop as well?


----------



## wockawocka (Apr 6, 2012)

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 (Apr 6, 2012)

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 (Apr 6, 2012)

3kramd5 said:


> 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.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 6, 2012)

elflord said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > 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).
> ...



Does to me as well .... however with the 5DII at iso100 and the 85 1.8 taking the same image I would not bet on the 40D being best, for a start with at f/2.5 the background would have been creamy instead of rough grained


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 6, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



Substantially higher. 40D @ 100ISO, 5D2 @ 1600. Both at f/2.5. 1600 wasn't necessary, though, just playing with the camera. 5D2 was 1/500; I generally aim for 1/125-1/250 when shooting my boy, and not so wide that the tip of his nose goes OOF.

Again I was picking a 5D2 image to try and match DOF to eliminate it as a giveaway. Something like this makes it more obvious (400ISO, f/2.8 )








Also, I'm driving the 5D2 the same way I drive the 40D (manual exp, generally half a stop left of center in the exposure meter - don't want to deal with ETTR). Perhaps with time I'll pick up a better way to get more out of the 5D2. Either way, I think that the 40D is still a viable camera. It has its weaknesses (ISO gets silly in a hurry), but can deliver.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 7, 2012)

3kramd5 said:


> Also, I'm driving the 5D2 the same way I drive the 40D (manual exp, generally half a stop left of center in the exposure meter - don't want to deal with ETTR). Perhaps with time I'll pick up a better way to get more out of the 5D2. Either way, I think that the 40D is still a viable camera. It has its weaknesses (ISO gets silly in a hurry), but can deliver.



from my time with 40D and 5D2 i found they also meter similarly. I'd partial meter on that cute little face and set for +1/3 to +2/3 EV to max your exp accuracy.

i also found the newer bodies with the color AE sensors tend to be *much* better at WB and exposure; can usually leave them set to AWB and 0 EVE comp when shooting fast in changing light and most other situations too. Sure wish the 5D2 had that color metering on it sometimes; could mean less tweaking on post.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 9, 2012)

Thanks for the tips. Is there any difference between using EV comp and simply metering slightly left or right? 

I'm assuming it merely shifts what the meter displays and doesn't adjust shutter/aperture or ISO.


----------



## BobSanderson (Apr 11, 2012)

There is a lot of love for this camera because it is a great design with a balanced set of features. I have traveled extensively and just love the images I brought home.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Apr 11, 2012)

3kramd5 said:


> Thanks for the tips. Is there any difference between using EV comp and simply metering slightly left or right?
> 
> I'm assuming it merely shifts what the meter displays and doesn't adjust shutter/aperture or ISO.



What do you mean by metering slightly left or right? Are you talking about manual or AV/TV mode?

Say you are in AV mode, ISO is set at 100 and aperture f/4.0 and you are using 0 EV compensation. The camera meters the scene at 1/500th of a second.

Now, if you want to overexpose the scene by +2/3 stops you dial in +2/3 EV compensation, then the camera will give you a shutter speed 2/3rd stop slower than 1/500 i.e. 1/320th sec.

If you were in TV mode (ISO=100) and shutter speed 1/500th sec then for exactly the same scene the camera will give you f/4.0 aperture. If you again dial in +2/3 EV comp, then the camera will choose f/3.2 which is 2/3 stops larger aperture than f/4.0.

However, if you are in Manual mode, then you cannot dial in EV compensation. Take the above scene again. ISO=100, you choose aperture f/4.0, shutter speed 1/500th sec. Since that was exposure level chosen at either AV or TV mode with 0 EV compensation, therefore, the meter indicator will be in blinking at the middle of the scale. You want to overexpose the scene by +2/3 stops, then you need to either go for f/3.2 (you are on manual mode) or 1/320th sec (or 1/3rd stop larger aperture and 1/3 stop slower shutter speed or any such combination)

Bottom line is in AV/TV mode you can dial in the Exposure Compensation and camera changes the shutter speed/aperture; in Manual mode to get a higher exposure you need to choose the shutter speed or aperture or both yourself.


----------



## unadog (Apr 11, 2012)

Didn't read the whole thread. Sorry if this is a repeat.

The 40D has been selling for about $375 recently at Fred Miranda.

I just bought a T3i for video. I will be selling a very clean 40D, with about 8,000 shots on it. Probably "Excellent +" - always had LCD covers on, etc.

I expect to get about the $375 for it, or a bit less.

Not shopping it here - too busy with taxes to sell it this week. Just FYI.

Good luck! Nice camera.

Michael


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 11, 2012)

RAKAMRAK said:


> However, if you are in Manual mode, then you cannot dial in EV compensation. Take the above scene again. ISO=100, you choose aperture f/4.0, shutter speed 1/500th sec. Since that was exposure level chosen at either AV or TV mode with 0 EV compensation, therefore, the meter indicator will be in blinking at the middle of the scale. You want to overexpose the scene by +2/3 stops, then you need to either go for f/3.2 (you are on manual mode) or 1/320th sec (or 1/3rd stop larger aperture and 1/3 stop slower shutter speed or any such combination)
> 
> Bottom line is in AV/TV mode you can dial in the Exposure Compensation and camera changes the shutter speed/aperture; in Manual mode to get a higher exposure you need to choose the shutter speed or aperture or both yourself.



Yes, I shoot M and was thinking that maybe Exposure Compensation would shift what the light meter displays.

thanks for the info


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Apr 11, 2012)

3kramd5 said:


> RAKAMRAK said:
> 
> 
> > However, if you are in Manual mode, then you cannot dial in EV compensation. Take the above scene again. ISO=100, you choose aperture f/4.0, shutter speed 1/500th sec. Since that was exposure level chosen at either AV or TV mode with 0 EV compensation, therefore, the meter indicator will be in blinking at the middle of the scale. You want to overexpose the scene by +2/3 stops, then you need to either go for f/3.2 (you are on manual mode) or 1/320th sec (or 1/3rd stop larger aperture and 1/3 stop slower shutter speed or any such combination)
> ...



No, in the M mode there is no way to use Exposure Compensation (EC), this feature does not remain active (as far as I know) anymore in M. Using EC in AV/TV is basically letting the "Camera Computer" do "something" automatically, but in M as the name suggests everything is Manual and so this "auto" feature is deactivated.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 12, 2012)

RAKAMRAK said:


> No, in the M mode there is no way to use Exposure Compensation (EC), this feature does not remain active (as far as I know) anymore in M. Using EC in AV/TV is basically letting the "Camera Computer" do "something" automatically, but in M as the name suggests everything is Manual and so this "auto" feature is deactivated.



Some body has the ability to hold shutter speed and aperture manually set and the exposure computer can then adjust ISO to make the shot if ISO is in an auto mode. I don't know what body that is tho, or even if it's one of Canon's but I read about it a while back and thot it'd be an useful feature in some circumstances. I don't know if or how EV comp would be done then, likely the +/- button simultaneous with a control wheel or arrow key in a way different from the usual M settings.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 12, 2012)

Aglet said:


> RAKAMRAK said:
> 
> 
> > No, in the M mode there is no way to use Exposure Compensation (EC), this feature does not remain active (as far as I know) anymore in M. Using EC in AV/TV is basically letting the "Camera Computer" do "something" automatically, but in M as the name suggests everything is Manual and so this "auto" feature is deactivated.
> ...



That was the series 1 feature setting AV to work like M:

- enable safety shift (iso speed) C.Fn 1 - 8
- set shutter speed range C.fn 1 - 12 ( set the minimum shutter speed )

In the field:

- set the Av value
- set the base iso value (can be L so then it acts as auto iso)
- set exp comp as needed (yes we get exp comp and auto iso this way)

I have photographed karts so I set the minimum Tv to 1/500, Av at f/4 and iso100 which was about the critical point. ISO went up and down as expected, Tv went above 500 when the cloud lifted

So there you are - how to get auto iso with iso and Av limits set.

This applies to the Series 1 only


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Apr 12, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> This applies to the Series 1 only



I have never even seen a series 1 camera, so had no idea about this feature. I was only talking about EOS 40D. But good to know. Thanks for sharing the info.


----------

