RailPictures.Net Forums

RailPictures.Net Forums (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/index.php)
-   Railroad Photography Forum (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Thoughts on Canon 40D? (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=13115)

jnohallman 11-17-2010 05:10 AM

Thoughts on Canon 40D?
 
So it looks like I might be able to pick up a used 40D from my local camera shop for $350 - and that's the price before trading or selling my Digital Rebel XT (anyone out there looking to upgrade from point and shoot?). This is a local store - not a chain - and I've dealt with them off an on for years. Bought my original Rebel XS (you know, the film one) from them back in the 90s. Anyway, I trust them, and trust that the camera is good - someone else is trading it in on an upgrade. So, I guess my question for those here is, is it a worthwhile upgrade, especially for the price? Any suggestions from 40D users here? I realize investing in L glass might be the preferred alternative, but I'm figuring I can get my cash outlay on the 40D down to about $200-$250, and I don't see that kind of deal coming on a 70-200 F4L anytime soon. Thanks for the feedback. And, if there is anyone interested in the Rebel XT (I can throw in a basic lens or two as well), please send me a message.

Jon

Freericks 11-17-2010 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jnohallman (Post 124713)
So it looks like I might be able to pick up a used 40D from my local camera shop for $350 - and that's the price before trading or selling my Digital Rebel XT (anyone out there looking to upgrade from point and shoot?). This is a local store - not a chain - and I've dealt with them off an on for years. Bought my original Rebel XS (you know, the film one) from them back in the 90s. Anyway, I trust them, and trust that the camera is good - someone else is trading it in on an upgrade. So, I guess my question for those here is, is it a worthwhile upgrade, especially for the price? Any suggestions from 40D users here? I realize investing in L glass might be the preferred alternative, but I'm figuring I can get my cash outlay on the 40D down to about $200-$250, and I don't see that kind of deal coming on a 70-200 F4L anytime soon. Thanks for the feedback. And, if there is anyone interested in the Rebel XT (I can throw in a basic lens or two as well), please send me a message.

Jon

DO IT! I went from a Rebel XT to a used 40D about six months ago. I LOVE THE DIFFERENCE. No clogged buffers. Deeper colors. Better focusing function. DO IT!

troy12n 11-17-2010 11:23 AM

It's my main camera, I love it. That price is below market value, so I would be wary, but if you trust them, go for it.

travsirocz 11-17-2010 02:58 PM

Why wouldn't do it? Do you have the phone number to the place?

Joe the Photog 11-17-2010 04:03 PM

Don't give uot the phone number! It's a trick!!! Seriously, that seems like a great deal. Be sure to kick the tires and check under the hood first, as I'm sure you would. But that sounds lke a deal too good to pass up.

'Course, I might would keep the Rebel at least for a little whil as a back up.

TAMR159 11-17-2010 04:03 PM

Go for it! Like others who've posted, I'm shooting with a 40D and love it.

khalucha 11-17-2010 10:18 PM

I went from the original rebel to a 40D and glad a made the change. After you get used to the controls you will see how much you were missing out on. A lot easier to use.

Freericks 11-17-2010 10:27 PM

Regarding the focus issue... I would estimate that on average my Rebel XT would miss about 1 out of 5 times (unless I zoomed all the way in and then zoomed back out while holding the focus down).

The 40D maybe misses 1 out of 10 or even less times. I feel much more confident with not needing to zoom in with it.

Does it still miss sometimes? Of course.. but it's missing at a rate that's less than I used to miss as a human being with manual focus.

troy12n 11-18-2010 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by khalucha (Post 124748)
I went from the original rebel to a 40D and glad a made the change. After you get used to the controls you will see how much you were missing out on. A lot easier to use.

I went from a Rebel XTi to the 40d, and I kept the XTi for a while as a backup, after about a month I used the XTi for the first time in a while and was kind of put off by how ghetto the interface was, I sold it when I got back from that trip. Just the wheel, joystick and LCD on top make it so much better/easier than that terrible menu system on the Rebels. I also have a 5d and it has a slightly older menu system, but still similar and no joystick and I find myself wishing it had the same menu system as the 40d sometimes, and the oddest feature ever, you have a separate knob setting for bulb. First time I used it in the dark that was fun to figure out...

trainboysd40 11-18-2010 12:53 AM

Sounds like a good deal - I have a few PCAs on here taken with my 40D.
[photoid=253837]

Joey Bowman 11-18-2010 01:59 AM

Nice find! $350? I wish I could get that lucky!

crazytiger 11-18-2010 02:12 AM

I think I'm going to go for a 50D, but I was wondering, how's the ISO performance, especially versus the 50D?

Joey Bowman 11-18-2010 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazytiger (Post 124779)
I think I'm going to go for a 50D, but I was wondering, how's the ISO performance, especially versus the 50D?

Can't give you a 40D vs 50D comparison, but I can do 30D vs 50D. In my opinion the Canon 30D handles 1600 and 3200 ISO just slightly noticeably better than the 50D. On the otherhand the 50D has 6400 and 12800, if you can look past the banding and insane amount of noise.

Just my experiences. I dont know how the 40D fits inbetween the two in terms of high ISO.

troy12n 11-18-2010 03:09 AM

I dont like using the 40d above 400, but I am pretty anal about noise. I found pretty early if I have to do sharpening and the exposure isnt perfect, shooting at 400, especially above really shows the noise.

Joey Bowman 11-18-2010 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 124793)
I dont like using the 40d above 400, but I am pretty anal about noise. I found pretty early if I have to do sharpening and the exposure isnt perfect, shooting at 400, especially above really shows the noise.

I wish life never threw moments that required anything above 100!

Im still waiting for a super clean 6400 ISO.

troy12n 11-18-2010 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey Bowman (Post 124797)
I wish life never threw moments that required anything above 100!

Im still waiting for a super clean 6400 ISO.

A pretty good percentage of my shots are 100. Which means lots of sharpening a lot of time becuase I am pushing the envelope when it comes to shutter speed and moving objects.

Suposedly the 1d mark 4 has ridiculous high ISO capabilities. But it's $6400.

I could buy one of those, or make 5 month's mortgage payments, lol.

jnohallman 11-18-2010 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazytiger (Post 124779)
I think I'm going to go for a 50D, but I was wondering, how's the ISO performance, especially versus the 50D?

I think the best resource for info is DPreview. Their review of the 50D includes some comparison photos with the 40D as well as other competitors. I'll post the link, but here is the specifically relevant info you're looking for from the review. Note that the 40D only offers up to 3200 ISO, whereas the 50D extends up to 12800.

"■High ISO performance worse than 40D
■Reduced dynamic range in the shadow areas compared to EOS 40D
■Per-pixel detail not as good as on good 10 or 12 megapixel cameras
■High-end lenses required to get the most out of the camera
■Poor white balance performance under artificial light
■Flash must be up for AF assist lamp (although AF is good even in low light)
■Live view not as accurate as on 40D (framing very slightly off-center, in contrast detect AF mode not possible to magnify right out to the extreme corners)"


For the full 50D review, see here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/

Of course, you might want to take a look at the review for the 40D as well. After reading up on both, I kind of came to the conclusion that the 50D probably wasn't worth the extra expense over the 40D. To me it seems like the next logical step after the 40D, if you want to stick with a crop sensor, is to go to the 7D. Of course, I really want a 5D Mk II so I can actually make use of the wide end of wide angle lenses, but that's not in the budget.

Jon

troy12n 11-18-2010 03:18 AM

It does have micro adjust though...

JRMDC 11-18-2010 03:29 AM

The DPReview review of the 50D lead to a great deal of debate as to the noise issue. My personal read of it all was that the 50D may or may not have more noise at the pixel level. But if you are doing 100% pixel peeping, you are not looking at the same image in both cases because the 50D has more pixels. So an apples to apples comparison must involve some sort of processing of both images so that they are in the same size, such as by resizing down the 50D image.

My conclusion from reading it all, on DPR and elsewhere (didn't I link to the photo.net review of the 50D in these forums some time ago?) was that the 50D comes out ahead, that the gain in resolution (due to more MP) more than compensates for any gain in noise at the pixel level, meaning that the apparent noise in comparable images is lower for the 50D.

I might add that I had concluded this well, well before the circumstances that led to my recent purchase of the 50D. :) So not trying to justify my decision ex-post.

Jon, you are missing out on a great camera! :) :)

PS: one might make a decision one way, toward the 40D, given the price differential between 40D and 50D at the time the latter came out, which was substantial. Now, of course, the price differential is much, much narrower in $$ terms and the same person might go the other way.

PS2: It has been my impression that every canon ever made is lousy at AWB under artificial light. I was not aware that the 40D was in any way better, could be wrong.

PS3 (getting carried away! :) ): It is my impression from my reading that the high-end lens notion is also flawed, and in particular is flawed because of the misguided emphasis on per-pixel quality while ignoring the increase in the number of pixels. In particular, it is simply false, not to mention silly, that the 50D would under perform the 40D when using lower-end lenses. That was not said above, but it is implies or it has that strong connotation. It is more accurate to say that the 50D, because of its greater number of pixels, will more readily reveal lens flaws when viewing images at the pixel level, simply because each pixel captures a smaller part of the total image. It is simply a magnification issue.

Moral of the story: evaluate cameras by their images, not by their individual pixels! Put differently, adjust for pixel count! Don't compare 100% crops side by side if the pixel density is not the same!

jnohallman 11-18-2010 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC (Post 124808)
Jon, you are missing out on a great camera! :) :)

If you mean I'm missing out on the 50D, perhaps. But I haven't seen one available for $350. Mind you, the 40D isn't officially available to me yet because the owner of the camera shop is waiting for the guy with the 40D to officially trade it in on his new camera. I'm waiting on a phone call to hear that the deal is done. I'm not saying the 50D isn't great, just that in my circumstances, it doesn't seem worth the extra couple hundred bucks.


Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC (Post 124808)
PS2: It has been my impression that every canon ever made is lousy at AWB under artificial light. I was not aware that the 40D was in any way better, could be wrong.

As far as AWB, you're absolutely right that Canons suck in artificial light. Isn't that why we all shoot RAW? :lol:

Jon

JRMDC 11-18-2010 03:54 AM

Sorry, didn't properly keep track of all the info in the thread and who said what and who owned what. Enjoy your 40D, should you get it. :)

travsirocz 11-18-2010 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazytiger (Post 124779)
I think I'm going to go for a 50D, but I was wondering, how's the ISO performance, especially versus the 50D?

In my research the 40d and 50d are neck in neck in iso performance with a few saying the 40d was better. Also, the last I checked the 50d is cheaper than the 40d new.


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.