Who's getting the 40D?

[mjs1973]

With the long awaited (at least for me) announcement of the 40D, I am ready to make the plunge and upgrade from my original DRebel. My biggest reasons for wanting to upgrade are higher ISO performance, a larger buffer, and faster burst rate. There are a host of other upgrades but those are the biggest.

As much as I would like to, I'm not going to preorder the 40D. I'm going to wait till I see some reviews, and test images before I fully commit. I also want to wait and see if there are an issues with the first shipment.

So who else is planning on getting the 40D? Are you going to preorder or wait, and what are your reasons for upgrading?

[flowremix]

i told myself, if i do decide to 'upgrade' it would only be to a full frame sensor from my 20D. I can't keep up with all the bodies. Some reasons i wouldn't like the 40D, in my own opinion is the live viewing, i feel as if it takes away the feeling of shotting, but at the same time i can imagine how it can be useful like shotting those low/high shots. I do like the self-cleaning sensor function. I am jealous of all the people who do have the 40d.

[mjs1973]

The live view doesn't mean much to me. It might come in handy for some things, but I don't see me using it for much. About the only thing I can see me using it for is for low angle shooting, when I don't want to lay on the ground.

I took a hard look at the 5D when it came out because I thought I wanted a FF body. After a good long look at what I like to shoot, I realized that the 1.6x bodies are a better fit for me. I even bought a digital only wide angle lens this summer. A year ago, I would have never thought I would do that!

[wburychka]

I pre-ordered the 40D. Then I realized that it was actually Canon's answer to the Nikon D200, announced in November 2005. Nikon just announced the D300 with 12+MP and AF fine tuning/storage for up to 20 lenses. Canon is a full generation behind Nikon.

I cancelled my order. If the 40Dn--or whatever it is called--is more current, or the 40D drops to around $799, I may give it another look, but I'm not ready to drop $1,300 on 2005 technology.

[Photo-John]

Some reasons i wouldn't like the 40D, in my own opinion is the live viewing, i feel as if it takes away the feeling of shotting, but at the same time i can imagine how it can be useful like shotting those low/high shots.

You don't have to use the live view feature, you know. It's only there for if and when you want it. I expect most people will use it rarely, if ever.

[Photo-John]

Then I realized that it was actually Canon's answer to the Nikon D200, announced in November 2005.

The EOS 40D is a step up from the Digital Rebel XTi. If you have to compare it to a Nikon body - and you don't - it would better be compared to the D80.

Canon is a full generation behind Nikon.

I don't think you are looking at the two camera lines quite right. Although many pros use Canon's 20D, 30D, etc. bodies, they are really designed more for serious amateurs. They're a step up from the Digital Rebel cameras. I don't think Canon actually has a line of digital SLR bodies that is comparable to the D200 and upcoming D300. The have the 40D and then it jupms up to the full pro 1D Series cameras. If the D200 or D300 suits your needs better, that's great. But I think you're misrepresenting Canon and the D40 if you compare it to the D80 to and say it's 2005 technology. That's just not accurate.

[flowremix]

Does the 40D have a "commander" mode like the Nikons which works with the 580ex II? I'm kinda confused with it.

[masdog]

I was going to preorder the 40D, then I realized that I should probably wait until February when I get my taxes filed.

[Loupey]

Not me. Skimming through the spec's I don't see major improvements over the 30D that I would use. Plus, I just upgraded from my tired 10D last December

It seems to me that the 40D could be a worthwhile upgrade for people using the XT or 10D - or at least utilize the price drops on the 30D. But for current 20D and 30D users, I'm not sure there is enough return on investment. JMO.

[Photo-John]

It seems to me that the 40D could be a worthwhile upgrade for people using the XT or 10D - or at least utilize the price drops on the 30D. But for current 20D and 30D users, I'm not sure there is enough return on investment. JMO.

If you shoot sports, I think it looks good. Here's why:

• better high ISO performance (probably)
  
• new auto focus module
  
• 6.5 frames-per-second - may not seem like a big change from 5 fps, but believe me, it is.
  
• sensor cleaning - if you shoot in a dusty environment like I do, this is huge

That's all I can remember. But those alone make it worth the upgrade - if you're shooting sports. If not, then the 30D might be fine. Although I would still rather have an XTi than the 30D.

[poker]

Not me either.

IMO

If you already have an 8MP based Canon DSLR, you shouldn't need to move up to a 40D. I love the sensor on my 30D which is in the Rebel XT and 20D as well.

If you started with the Rebel XT and found that you need higher FPS, then upgrade.

If you have an 8MP based Canon DSLR and are considering spending over a grand on the new 40D BUT do not have a single Canon L lens in your bag.......shame on you!

I'll be getting a couple more Canon L lenses before I even consider upgrading my DSLR body. By then, the Canon ???50D??? will be out

I do wish I had the self cleaning sensor though.....

[Alison]

If you shoot sports, I think it looks good. Here's why:

• better high ISO performance (probably)

Probably?! That was one of my reasons for getting one. Would be awesome for natural light portraits. If it's only a probably you are giving me doubts John.

That's all I can remember. But those alone make it worth the upgrade - if you're shooting sports. If not, then the 30D might be fine. Although I would still rather have an XTi than the 30D.

Surely the 40D would be better than a 350D? And one more thing that puzzles me, why do you prefer the XTi to a 30D or even a 5D?

[poker]

Surely the 40D would be better than a 350D? And one more thing that puzzles me, why do you prefer the XTi to a 30D or even a 5D?

I'm not speaking for John but here is my opinion on this.

The XTi has a great price with lots of good technology. Larger LCD, 10MP, and self cleaning sensor. The 5D cost a lot but is the cheapest way to enter the full sensor market.

The only arguement for the 30D over the XTi is the faster fps, long lasting shutter, and durable body. Although, people say their XTi is durable enough. Depends how you take care of it.

I know John has menitoned that he appreciates the lightweight body of the XTi. The camera suits him for his type of photography and being on the go for MTBR related stuff.

I use to believe that 5fps was highly useful for sports and wildlife. After getting to know the sports and wildlife shooters here, the say 3.5fps is good as well.

I don't like using 5fps on my 30D. When shooting wildlife or sports.....I just get frames that look a like. 3.5fps give a variety of shots.....it all depends of course.

[poker]

Probably?! That was one of my reasons for getting one. Would be awesome for natural light portraits. If it's only a probably you are giving me doubts John.

That's a good point. I didn't like the Canon 6MP sensor due to poor ISO performance. Too much noise at 400 for me. If the new 40D can claim to have a lower noise at higher ISO then that should be a selling point as well.

Is this ever rated in camera specs? Is there a numeric value for this?

[masdog]

I don't like using 5fps on my 30D. When shooting wildlife or sports.....I just get frames that look a like. 3.5fps give a variety of shots.....it all depends of course.

It really comes down to knowing your subject and anticipating. Some will tell you that they need the high fps rating to make sure they get that shot, others will work on timing so they can press the trigger at the right moment to capture the peak action. It all depends on style.

Is this ever rated in camera specs? Is there a numeric value for this?

Yeah...in the form of very pretty color charts. Ooh...colors.

[mjs1973]

Here is a link to a review of the 40D. I haven't had time to read it yet, but hopefully soon.

http://rolandlim.wordpress.com/2007/...os-40d-review/

Here is a link to a comparison shot between the 40D and 20D at ISO 1600.

http://rolandlim.wordpress.com/2007/...00-comparison/

[Music Man5]

I have my 40D on order and I have found a buyer for my XTi.

Why?
The brighter/larger viewfinder
The higher FPS
30% faster autofocus
hopefully the camera balance when using a long lens will be better


Probably other reasons but these are the main ones.

[PhotoRookie]

Here is a link to a comparison shot between the 40D and 20D at ISO 1600.

http://rolandlim.wordpress.com/2007/...00-comparison/[/QUOTE]

Is it my eyes or does the 20D crop look cleaner at high ISO

[SmartWombat]

INikon just announced the D300 with 12+MP and AF fine tuning/storage for up to 20 lenses. Canon is a full generation behind Nikon.

Actually Canon announced the 1DmkIII with AF fine tuning/storage for lenses before Nikon announced the D300. But does it matter?

It's good to see the two manufacturers competing head to head with similar cameras.
Until now I've thought Nikon was following a different path, and in many ways lagging behind Canon.
Now I think things are much closer, and the choice between them is much harder in terms of features.

[mjs1973]

Is it my eyes or does the 20D crop look cleaner at high ISO

The 40D image looks cleaner to me. Especially where the red apple meets the yellow lemon and in the shadowy areas. Of course low resolution images on a monitor isn't a good way to compare.

[Franglais]

Here is a link to a comparison shot between the 40D and 20D at ISO 1600.

[url]http://rolandlim.wordpress.com/2007/08/29/canon-40d-vs-20d-iso-1600-comparison/[/url

Is it my eyes or does the 20D crop look cleaner at high ISO

I looked at this last night at home and again this morning at work and there is no doubt for me - the 40D image (upper) looks better. It's sharper and the colours are cleaner. Can't see any difference in the noise.

And no I'm not getting a 40D. Just keeping myself informed

[PhotoRookie]

Look at the side by side 100% crops of the Teddy Bear, 40D on the right clearly have more noise. Look were the hat meets the bears head.

[Franglais]

Look at the side by side 100% crops of the Teddy Bear, 40D on the right clearly have more noise. Look were the hat meets the bears head.

What teddy bear? The samples I've been looking at are of fruit.

[Basco]

hello,ive been reading about the 40d/30d/20d and the FF 5d...i have recently got my 30d and wow what a camera it is.well,first thing first is the talk that we all hear about wich camera is the better, the 30d/20d or the 400d,for me the answer is not quit simple. both models have goods and bads to them. we all know the build quality of the 30d/20d,the faster frame rate, the wb compensation,spot meter and many more ... while we have on the other hands the 10mp,sensor cleaning,newer upgraded menu,compact body(though not good to me) plus many more.
So who wants to get one of those bodies have to consider mainly in what field he's going to use his camera, for what kind of work, if its going to be an amteur work and an all around camera wich someone can take with anywhere, then its obvious that the 400d is the better choice here, its compact,lighweight,stylish and easy to use, so its like a big point-and-shoot,and if he’s going to mainly build on a better system for making some money with some good 'L' series lenses,i guess the 30d will be a better choice for its qualities,feels.
One thing left is the full frame bodies like the 5d wich have now a lower and lower price drop,it has different feels than both 30d and 400d (for its full frame sensor)its the 2nd ranking in its class EOS class line after the 1D series, so its all the choice we get now or we have to wait for a 5d replacement maybe in Feb. 2008....

[Alison]

No comparison's at high ISO's between the 40 and 350 at the moment, my daughter wouldn't stand still long enough lol.
Here's a quick snap I took of her in my kitchen this morning using the 40D with the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS lens.
Window light only, ISO 400, f/2.8, SS 1/125
My focal length was 70mm and I was across the other side of the room! No sharpening in the eyes at all, no sharpening for web and no noiseware filter applied. I have, however, rotated and cropped it.
Just from this shot, I can tell ISO 400 is far better on the 40D than on the 350D.
I had to shoot in jpeg too because Adobe doesn't support the raw files from the 40D yet :cryin:



The full res file is here
http://gallery.photographyreview.com...size=big&cat=2