Jump to content

10D... should I upgrade to 40D


jonathan_bautista

Recommended Posts

i've been going back and forth between upgrading or staying put with my 10D.

it's pretty obvious that the 40D is so much better than my 10D from what i've

read. i even heard from people that there is a big difference between my 10d

vs 20D/30D. but really, should i jump the gun and get a 40D? will i be

missing a lot if i stick with my 10d? i'm a hobbyist who mainly do portrait,

family pix and sceneries when i get the chance. i love the images i get from

my 10d now, no complaints but it can be better. i just wonder if i'd really

notice the difference when I upgrade. is it worth the extra money? i have

weather the 20d and 30d storm. but for some reason, something is telling me

to not resist the urge on this one.

 

i wonder... for people who may be on the same boat as I am... what is the main

reason on why you would upgrade to 40D (other than having the latest)?

 

i would appreciate any insight you can give me as it will surely help me in

deciding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jonathan

 

I upgraded from a 300D to a 400D and haven't regretted it one bit. I was going to sell the 300D but kept it as a backup body and I'm glad I did that also. The IQ at similar print sizes using the same lenses is pretty well the same. The 400D advantages (for me) are: extra resolution without a noise penalty (handy for cropping), faster and more responsive (faster frame rate, much bigger buffer, faster write time to CF cards), large LCD display, better AF system and so on. I would suspect that the 10D vs 40D comparison would come up similarly. From what I've read of both cameras I would say get the 40D and enjoy the experience, perhaps keeping the 10D as a second body. I often use my 300D and 400D together, with different lenses on each. But I find a significant difference in the handling of the 2 cameras and am able to take shots with the 400D that I would not have been able to get with the 300D. I guess it all depends on what you shoot!

 

Of course, all this discussion depends on your wallet and whether or not you have good quality lenses to start with. Perhaps you could go to a store and try one out to see how the 40D goes.

 

Cheers, Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in the same boat, have a 10D have built up my inventory of good lenses. Now debating upgrading to 40D or wait until 5D MKII?.

 

The key thing you mentioned is you love the images you get from you 10d and no complaints. Just because a new camera came out does not make yours suddenly obsolete. But it is a darn nice camera. For me I am interested in price point of the new 5D whenever it arrives, as it will add a new tool in my bag allowing me to expand technically to what I want to achieve through full frame and allow me to utilize my wide angle lenses more.

 

I think the main questions you need to ask are:

 

1. Do I NEED more megapixels, do I print large or crop images significantly?

 

2. Do I do alot of low light shooting and would benefit from the Digic III processor

 

3. Do I need better and faster autofocus?

4. Do I need the 6.5fps?

 

If the answers are yes... get it. If they are wants and not needs... go out and buy some better lenses.

 

As mentioned I have a 10D, to be honest if the new 5D is too expensive I will buy a 40D to have as a main body and use my 10D as a second body, it is a significant upgrade at a great price. The main reasons for me to upgrade are #1 better noise and highlight priority, #2 faster autofocus, #3 more megapixels.

 

I bought my 10D for $2000 CDN at the time and now the 40D is $1400 here in Canada. If you have put the images through your 10D it does not owe you anything.

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't believe everything you read. Many people on this forum are specifications-crazy. In the digital world where everything is obsoleted regularly, one's camera will always be out of date, There are probably new 40D owners out there already wanting the new Sony Alpha A700 or the Canon 5D's replacement. The 10D takes superb pictures.

 

In the words of the estimable moderator of this forum Bob Atkins (when speaking of upgrading from a 300D to a 40D):

"It will be a nicer camera to use, better AF, better image quality, faster response etc. There won't be a sudden "night and day" improvement in your image quality though, espcially in prints up to, say, 8x10.

So if you can afford it, buy it. If you have to live on bread and water for 3 months to afford it, I'd go for beer and pizza and keep the 300D! "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt there are many people who, on their death-bed are heard to say, "I wish I had $1299 dollars more in the bank"

 

Order the camera tonight. You deserve it!

 

Does that help you decide?

 

BTW I have a 10D but I'm waiting for the 5D upgrade since I want FF. If did not want FF, I'd get the 40D.

 

Go for it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

these are very good points john. to be honest, i do believe that the new features are more of a nice to have rather than needs. the largest i printed my images are 10 x 12 (3 from the past 4 years). like you, i paid $2K from my 10d when it first came out. in fairness, it never let me down. no dust and no problems so far. i do have myself several L lenses, so it's really on whether this new body will get be better photos. i always tell myself that the next camera i'd get into is a full frame. but this one is just too good to pass. but then again, i will surely have to really think if it's worth the jump. i'm sure i'll have be so satisfied once i have it, but i'm just afraid that the IQ for the type of shooting i do will not jump out on me when i do upgrade. nothing compared to when you first move from p&s to dslr or from a 28-90 f4.5-5.6 to 28-70 f2.8 lens. maybe i'm mistaken. maybe images will be night and day from 10d to 40d.

 

i have to do a lot of thinkin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I doubt there are many people who, on their death-bed are heard to say, "I wish I had $1299 dollars more in the bank" "

 

No, but I do know people who say that when the Xmas holiday bills start showing up in January. I certainly said that after a pile of expected and unexpected expenses in early August.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

I face the same decision. First, I think the 5D-II is out of the question for me. That camera is simply not in the same price category as the 40D. Unless the Nikon 300D really, really puts a crimp on Canon's market share, the 5D-II is going to be double (or more) than the 40D.

 

The 40D appears (based on the Bob Atkins review, which is the only real review I have seen to date) to have similar noise performance to the 20D. To me, the 10D ISO800 is too noisy to be useful except for extreme shots. But the 20D ISO800 looks like the 10D ISO400 -> which is a very, very useful feature.

 

As for AF performance. . . .I am a bit confused. I know the center AF sensor was high precision (nice if you have F2.8 lenses) -> is that still the case in the 40D or are all the sensors HP? Just going to standard precision cross type does not impress me. Otherwise. . I am not excited.

 

I think for my money. . .I will wait until the price drops a bit on the 40D. Something in me says I don't want to pay double for the 40D relative to the XTi when the image quality difference is probably indistinguishable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the image quality is significantly better with the 40D. No question about that. Can a lesser camera take nearly as good an image? Sure. Particularly in nice bright light. I have some very nice 8x10's taken with an old 2 megapixel camera. One doesn't pay the money for a 40D in order to take easy, bright sunshine images. . It's all the minor and some major improvments that make it worthwhile or ...not. The sensitive sensor is only on the center. For most folks, the DigicIII processor with better low light noise is a big deal. Live preview will be seen as great for others. Some will be happy to have the dust removal feature. The increase in mp will be a big deal for some and meaningless to others. Overall the camera is a substantial improvement over the 10D, no question about that. I ordered one today and will order a new 5D when it comes out. At that point I'll nearly retire my MKII for everything other than very fast sports shooting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been using a 20D for a couple years. I bought a 10D for a backup at weddings. After using it for a while I did not like the 10D. It was a decent enough camera, but there were too many niggling little things that kept annoying me. Slow operation, poor AF and high digital noise being the major ones. The 20D was way better to use. Image quality was only a little better. Still, I sold the 10D and bought another used 20D to take it's place. I was much happier.

 

I just bought a 40D. There is more difference between the 20D and 40D than there is between the 10D and 20D. It is a significant upgrade in so many ways. Image quality is only a little better. Still, I'm glad I did it and I don't want to go back.

 

If money is tight, sell the 10D for $400 and buy a 20D for $500. For $100 the 20D is a much better camera. The difference between the 20D to 30D is nothing to write home about, but the other two upgrades are worth their price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what makes you think you could get 400 for a 10D? The 30 is going new for 9 and change now...you'd be lucky to get 200 for the 10 now. The 30D will only get you around 500 used. and unless the 20 was kept in it's box and never used it's an OLD camera that is probably close to having the shutters go...

Save your pennies and buy the 40D - for me it's the first time that canon has really hit it on the head with the xxd series...just enough of the better cameras is finally dripping down to make it worth the money and it feels excellent...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"what makes you think you could get 400 for a 10D?"

 

Checking completed auctions at ebay for the last week: Most 10D's were closing in the $350-450 range. 20D's were closing between $500-600. Used 30D's between $700-800. A few were either above or below those figures, but most were right in there. Should be able to make an exchange for $100, or $150 tops.

 

But I agree, the 40D is worth the price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-- "i love the images i get from my 10d now, no complaints but it can be better."

 

I think you should explain this more ... if the "it can be better" bit is really due to limitations of the camera, then you should upgrade. If the limit is "behind the camera" an upgrade is still nice to have, but will not improve your images. If the money is burning a hole into your pocket ... upgrade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have mine on order at Adorama. I bypassed the 20d & 30d, but I am going for the 40D because I like to shoot sports. For gymnastics (indoor/no-flash), I am pushing H(3200) at 1/125 with a 50/1.4 and 85/1.8. I am lucky if 4%-5% of my shots are good. The NR software helps, but I am also limited by the 10D buffer ... I am constantly waiting for the camera to catch up.

 

For baseball and soccer, the 10D was fine in the bright outdoors until we started playing games at dusk. I will push to 800ISO, but anything higher is really noisy. The 6.5 fps would have helped me tonight to see if one of our boys really was out at 3rd. I got the shot just before and just after our boy slid into 3rd. (I thought he was safe.)

 

If it weren't for gymnastics and dusk games, I would have probably stick with my 10Ds and gotten the 70-200 2.8 instead. I'll wait for when my son starts playing baseball at night for that. I am not sure I am ready to bring out the heavy, huge white "cannon" at little league and U12 soccer yet. As it stands, I'm already known as the camera lady with the "tiny" little black 75-300.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

 

If I were you I would NOT upgrade. I have a 10D and there is no question that the 40D (or even the 20D) is better. But that is not the real question, the real question is if you are really unhappy with your 10D and from what I hear you are not.

 

I have a 10D myself but I could buy a 40D or 5D. But why would I?

There is always going to be a newer/better/faster model in times of digital. The day you buy something it is outdated. So rather then looking left or right I only look at my camera and as long as I like the images I am getting I will keep it.

I will only get a newer model when the 10D breaks or I really feel it is not enough for my needs anymore.

 

Until then, when I have some money spare, I will rather buy a good prime lense, they at least last for ever and might actually improve my pictures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is going to help anybody else but I am prepared to take risks with my 10D. Dropping, salt spray, unstable tripod falling over, etc. If I get a 40D will it stay at home most of the time while I continue to have fun with the old 10D? For me, good photos involve risk. Perhaps a bargain priced 30D might be better.

 

Maybe ERNIE will help me decide. (nb. Ernie, a UK government investment which pays random interest varying between 0 and 1,000,000 GBP)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am upgrading also from a 10D. I canceled the 1DsM2 pre-order I had and now ordered the 40D.

<p>

Why the 40D from a 10D?<p>

- faster internals (10D is slow!)<br>

- MUCH better auto focus (10D is crap)<br>

- 10MP (10D only 6MP) and I print 19x13 inches routinely<br>

- Body is larger than the 20D/30D (same body size as 10D? good!)<br>

- 3-inch LCD (10D is tiny and obsolete)<br>

- Much Better sensor noise at ISO 400 and up (10D becomes crappy at 800)<br>

- Likely more efficient with battery than the 10D due to more advanced, power saving circuitry<br>

- 14-bit RAW (10D is only 12-bit)<br>

- cheaper (I paid $1500 for my 10D in 2003!)<br>

- more high precision auto focus points (10D just had one)<p>

 

The 10D will now make an excellent backup.<p>

 

Had Canon announced the 5D Mk2 then I would have bought one of those now if its price were below $3K. But since Canon is dragging their feet I need a new body NOW. I will not pay more than $4K for the 1D3 because it is still a crop sensor but will pay the relatively cheap price for the 1.6 40D sensor since its IQ and handling will *blow away* my 10D's.

<p>

Finally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use a 10D, as well as film cameras, and I will probably pick up a 40D, but after it's been out a while. No pressing need, happy with my 8x10 and 11x14 print quality, but would like faster operation, focus, and fps - spoiled by EOS3/PBE2. I'm on the "backwards technology" plan - I purchased my 10d new from B&H in Jan. 2006 for $799.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I've had my 10D for nearly 4 years. For the past year I've used the 10D and a 30D together a lot. Now I plan to get a 40D (actually two) fairly soon. The cameras are part of my work, so I can more easily justify the upgrade. Also, I have a fairly extensive selection of lenses and accessories, am not lacking anything major there. (Well, I can think of one lens I need to consider getting soon, and I could update some flashes.... But I'll probably always need "just one more thing"!)

 

You ask about a 10D to 40D upgrade. But, let me do head-to-head comparison of what I've got and what I know very well from extensive use, side-by-side: 10D and 30D.

 

There is a noticeable image quality difference between 10D and 30D, especially when you do any cropping or if you enlarge to 11x14 or larger.

 

There's a big difference in functions, too. 30D can file images as both RAW and JPEG, simultaneously. The 10D can't. This is important for me, but may or may not be for you. The 30D handles larger files slightly faster than the 10D handles it's image files, and has a little bit larger buffer. 30D has a higher frame rate, although I rarely use it.

 

The 30D also "boots up" initially or "wakes up" from sleep mode a whole lot faster than the 10D! That can be (and has been) the difference between getting the shot or not when I've needed the camera on a moment's notice.

 

30D auto focusing is noticeably improved over the 10D. The larger LCD screen makes using the 30D much easier. The points in the viewfinder at least seem more precise.

 

Also, spot metering in the 30D is a great feature. And, the 30D is much gentler on batteries than the 10D. I'd estimate I get 30% more shots with the 30D, on the same batts.

 

All that said, the 40D is a nice step up from the 30D, so would be a very significant step up coming from a 10D. The 30D was a 33% increase in image resolution from the 10D. The 40D offers about another 25% increase compared to the 30D, not as big a leap. But 40D is approx. 66% increase over 10D, which you will clearly see in most of your photos. Further enhancements to image quality and handling via Digic III will be incremental and minor compared to the 30D, but more likely pretty obvious when compared to 10D. The even more user-friendly LCD screen of the 40D will be dramatic, compared to the 10D's.

 

For me early reports of the 40D's AF capabilities are very encouraging. Speed and accuracy improvements there over the 30D are important to me. The 30D isn't bad at all in this respect, but it sounds like the 40D is better. I also like the ISO display in the viewfinder, and the ability to swap focus screens for something that might work better for me.

 

Now, I usually tend to skip a generation with technology: computers, software, cameras, etc. In fact, sometimes more than a single generation. Hey, I'm running Windows 2000 still. My car is a 1997 Land Rover. I started using Photoshop 4.0, later upgraded to 6.0, then 7.0 and now CS2 (effectively v 9.0). I had to upgrade from 6.0 to 7.0 because it was required for something else I was using. (And it looks like I may have to go to CS3/10.0 when I get the 40D, BTW. I'm not sure support for the camera will be offered for CS2/ACR/Bridge users).

 

However, in the case of the 40D it looks like I will make an exception to my every-other-generation tack. I think that as a package it brings a lot to the table and has a number of features and enhancements that will be very useful to me.

 

I'd also note that 40D will cost me something like 60% of what the 10D cost me new. I will almost get two 40D for the cost of the one 10D four years ago. When I do get 40Ds, the 30D will stick around and serve as a backup.

 

I'll probably keep the 10D, too, possibly have it converted to an infrared camera or simply keep it as a secondary backup and loaner. It's a nice, quiet operating camera with lot's of capability and is fun to use.

 

I like that 10D, 30D and 40D (and 20D) all use the same batteries and media. They share some other accessories I use a lot, as well.

 

There is a full frame camera like the 5D or it's successor in my future. Actually, I've gotten used to the 1.6X crop cameras for most purposes, and probably wouldn't look toward full frame except for occasional need for wider angles, scenic/landscapes, big enlargements and some portraiture, all of which the 5D excels at. Maybe the 40Ds will make it easier to "get by" without full frame for a while longer. (Besides, I have 35mm film cameras, if a real urgent need arises.)

 

In the end, only you can say if the 40D makes sense for you. The 10D is quite capable and may do all you'll ever need. For me, there a number of very were compelling reasons to get into the 30D, and I'm glad I did. Now there are even more reasons that a couple 40Ds are in my not-too-distant future. But, my situation and your situation (or anyone else's) are bound to be very different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I loved the 10D and I was unhappy when the shutter finally collapsed. I upgraded to the 30D at that time. I skipped the 5D and finally decided to go crazy and get the 1D MK III.

 

That was a month ago. If I had the option now I think I would have gotten the 40D. For the money I doubt there is a better value on the market. It has all of the features the 1D has that matter except for environmental sealing. $3k for ES?

 

Get the 40D. Your 10D won't last forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would wager mucho dinero that the 1D3 has better sensor noise characteristics than the packed sensor of the 40D and that the 1D3's autofocus is markedly superior to the 40D. Also a 1.3 sensor is definitely advantageous over a 1.6 for people not so interested in the long end of their lenses.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...