Why should one upgrade from a 400D to a 40D?

Hi,

 

I'm kind of lurking here, since I actually have a Nikon, but I'm doing some research for someone else so

please bear with me. She has a 400D with the 18-55 kit lens, a Sigma 10-20 and the Canon 50 f/1.8

prime. She's a very good photographer - the kind that's more about the composition and feel than the

technology.

 

Now, Amazon are selling the 40D for just over $1000 (body only). The spec of the 40D doesn't seem to be

quite such a paradigm shift from the 400D. I'm sure it's better, but I'd like to understand how much better.

 

Subjectively speaking, when do you think it's worth considering a trade-up from a 400D to a 40D? Or is

that too small a leap and she should look at the 5D (which'd be a bit different since it's full frame).

 

Thanks!

Martin

From the info you give, it doesn't seem that an "upgrade" is needed. Is your friend unhappy

with the 400D? Is there anything she needs it to do that the 400D won't do?

You friend would be better served by replacing the 18-55 lens than she would with buying a 40D

I also see no reason. As good as she may be, more shooting, new subjects may be called for rather than upgrading.

The 5D would make the 10-20 redundant as that's an EF-S lens and the 5D takes only EF lenses.

 

Personally I would go for the 5D at any time. I love it. I don't have one but it's what I'd get if I wanted to upgrade my entire kit.

 

The 40D is a ton better than the 400D. The only problem is that as the 400D is the smallest lightest camera in Canon's range, the lady concerned might prefer to keep on with the 400D.

The simple answer is that you only would want to "upgrade" if the specific feature differences

between to the cameras are relevant to your particular approach to photography. That may or

may not be the case when comparing the 400D and the 40D - it is completely relative to the

photographer in question.

 

That may sound like a "non-answer," but I really think it is the right answer. :-)

 

Dan

Mainly, she jealous of my Nikon D300 (but prefers Canons overall). :-)

 

So, what's the "logic" in Canon's lineup with the 400D (450D soon?) and the 40D and the

5D and the 1D?

 

In a way, I find the Nikon lineup easier to grasp - D40/D40x/D60 is entry-level, lacks

some important features and won't AF on older lenses; D80 is mid-level with all the

features but scaled down from the top-level cameras; D300 is "prosumer", bigger, heavier

and more advanced; D3 is full-frame and professional.

 

Martin

Let me phrase the question a bit differently, then ... what features makes *you* want to buy a

40D over a 400D (and hence spend more money and get a bigger/heavier body)? I'm only

interested in sampling subjective opinions, I realise there's no definitive answer here.

 

Martin

<blockquote><i>what features makes *you* want to buy a 40D over a 400D

</i></blockquote><p>

 

The only difference that really matters are the better ergonomics and the overall larger/sturdier built-quality. All other technical specs are secondary (a little better viewfinder, better autofocus, more fps, larger display, live view available). But then again, I would never waste money of the toyish Rebel and would be hard pressed if upgrading at this significant cost is worth it. Maybe change to a 30D or so for much less.

<p>

If money is not a big issue, I am sure your photographer friend will find the full-frame 5D much more enjoyable. A large and bright viewfinder makes focusing and composition much easier, and the full-frame advantage makes the images pop (the main thing is the smaller depth-of-field for selective focus work).

Your friend is better off using her money to replace the 18-55, totally agree with Rob Bernhard.

I upgraded from the XTI/400D to the 40D because of the better AF points, the quick dials on the back (one to set aperture, the other to specify AF point), and the supposedly less noise at higher ISO quality. I like to shoot portrait/fashion, where I **needed** this upgrade to get more keepers.

 

HTH

If you feel you need the larger camera body (for functional or appearance sake - and let's be honest about the latter... :-) the 40D provides

it. Yup, looks "more pro" for sure... ;-)

 

If you need faster burst mode for action sports or similar photography the 40D is faster. (But the 400D is plenty fast enough for virtually all

other users.)

 

If you think that a bit more protection of camera body opening is valuable then the 40D provides this. (In truth though, it is far short of a real

"sealed body")

 

If you believe that the interface on the 40D is significantly better, then get the 40D.

 

If you are looking for better image quality get the 400D and save your money for lenses. IQ is equal.

 

If you value portability and small size get the 400D.

 

If you can't articulate - in specific and objective terms related to your photography - how the 40D will substantially improve your

photography get the 400D.

 

Dan

I also agree with Rob Bernhard. However, once she has a good lens, there are plenty of reasons to upgrade to the 40D. Not the least of which are a larger battery and the big wheel on the back. You don't realize how useful it is until you go backwards from something else to a 400D. Having to press the button multiple times every time you want to switch ISO is a P.I.T.A.

obvious differences aside the 40d produces better images. i won't bother describing those differences. it's subtle but substantial. so much so that i cannot use my xti anymore -- the 40d is that much better

Alan, Can you post some comparison photos so we can see the difference?

Other 40D assets, compared to 400D:

 

- Bigger, brighter viewfinder.

 

- Easily interchanged focus screens.

 

- Spot metering.

 

- 6.5 frames per second.

 

- More advanced auto focus system.

 

- Live view.

 

- Improved menus.

 

- 14 bit images.

 

- ISO in Viewfinder (?does 400D lack this?).

 

- General ergonomics make for faster operation, for most people.

 

- Wi-Fi capable.

 

- More aggressive/effective high ISO noise control?

 

- Better environmental sealing.

 

- More durable shutter mechanism.

 

Possible negatives of 40D, compared to 400D:

 

Larger, heavier, more expensive.

Unless you need more fps or manually focus a 500 mm or bigger tele, I don't see any reason. I have both cameras (Well, I have to say that I gave the 400D to my sister). But with the 40D I bought the 18-55 IS(It was not in the kit) and it is worth it.

ar

 

sorry, i don't have any comparison shots. i don't use the xti anymore and don't have time to do a series of identical shots with both cameras.

 

 

ag

I chose to upgrade my backup camera from a 400D to a 40D. Key factors for me were:

 

1) 400D has a viewfinder that is inadequate for manual focusing (at least for me).

2) 400D has single control wheel system that didn't work well for me, and lead to me involuntarily changing ISO when my nose bumped rear buttons (having a second control wheel was the most important reason for me to change).

3) High frame rate of 40D appealed to me for some nature photography (much less important than the first two).

 

Only real downside to 40D vs. 400D (besides the cost) is the relatively small size of the 400D is very nice.

 

If none of the above features grab your friend by the throat and shout "buy me!" I suspect she'll do better with a 5D or (best of all) with no upgrade at all.

 

I assume she's aware that the 450D will be on the street in a few months?

Suggestions: wait for the 450d (xsi)and buy a good telezoom as wel in stead of the standard zoom. In addition to her equipment the 70-300 IS is very sharp and seems to fit in the budget, otherwise a f4 70-200 is a great choice.

Many of the advantages of the 40d are also available in the 450d. 40d provides better handling, but in my experience a batterygrip (on my 400d) improves handling a lot.

pretty much options available :-)

cheers and good luck.

The logic of the Canon line up:

 

Entry Level: dRebel of various flavors. Generally, it appears that the last two models are kept in production. The 350D and 400D are currently in production. The 400D supposedly replaced the 350D. I suspect in three monthes, the 450D and 400D will be what you see in the stores.

 

Sucker level: The 40D. Same imaging system as the entry level, but a few more "features" for a 50% price premium. Most important is the shot-to-shot shooting speed. Actual image performance "superiority" shifts between the drebel and the "X0D"; depending upon release date. 10 monthes ago, I would say the 10mp 400D was superior to the 8mp 30D. Then the 40D was released with a modified 10mp sensor; but more importantly the digic III and 14bit A/D. That probably makes a notable difference for noise reduction for in camera jpegs.

 

Now, the 450D, aka XSI, is released. A new 12mp sensor, with the digic III and 14bit A/D. I suspect that the image quality will be a nudge superior to the 40D. . but going from 10mp to 12mp is not really much to write home about

 

The quasi-pro level: Put a pro-grade sensor (literally, a full frame version of the 1D-II sensor) in a 30D body. . .charge a fortune. . . and don't update the product for three years. In terms of raw image quality: This is the winner. A really big sensor. That's what its about. The only problem is that the "feature set" is getting a bit dated. It was actually released before the now out-of-production 30D. This camera is *so* 2006. Which is why everyone was expecting it to be updated this year. . .

 

Pro-Grade: 1D-III. A more advanced sensor than what is in the 5D, but in a 1.3 crop format. This camera has full weather sealing. . and more importantly two processor chips. The point of the two chips is to give you a HUGE shot-to-shot shooting speed. Almost video speed (well. . .not quite. . .)

 

Silly Pro-Grade: 1D-IIIS (or whatever). Top end. $7K. 'nough said.

You do have an original take on things, don't you, Jim.

Alan wrote: "obvious differences aside the 40d produces better images. i won't bother describing

those differences. it's subtle but substantial. so much so that i cannot use my xti anymore -- the

40d is that much better"

 

Never seen any evidence of that at all, at least not in terms of resolution, noise, color.

 

The history is that the companion Rebel and XXD cameras have shared pretty much the same

sensors and have produced essentially indistinguishable (but still distinguished! :-) image quality:

300D and 10D; 350D and 20D/30D, 400D and 40D, 450D and uh, uh... I'm not coming up with

anything...

 

There are differences between the cameras, but image quality is not among them.

 

Dan

dan

 

maybe i'm seeing things, then.

 

 

ag

"She's a very good photographer - the kind that's more about the composition and feel than the technology."

<p>Interesting description... I'd not really jump at the 40D then. Not enough to up her game if 'moving up' from a 400D. Granted the 40D has a slightly brighter viewfinder and a few more features, but unless she really needs 6.5fps and a 3-inch screen, I'd invest in lenses rather than a new body.

<p>I've read good reviews about the 18-55 II having better optics (and of course image-stabilisation) Maybe she should get that and retain the other lenses in her kit. Lenses have a FAR greater influence on image quality than do bodies...