400d vs 40d

[jay_lang]

So who would upgrade from the 400d to the 40d? More rugged build, will fit

better in a bigger hand, same sensor but with digic III and improved noise

levels at higher ISO's(apparently), 6.5 fps and partial weather sealing.

 

What are peoples reasons for or against?

 

Personally I have pre-ordered a 40d mainly for the more rugged build quality. I

like the 400d and it has been a great introduction to the world of DSLR. The

40d is my next step as the 5D is out of my price range for now as a body. I

have been focusing on buying good quality lenses instead and have a few decent

ones now.

[PuppyDigs]

The much larger 40D viewfinder will be well appreciated by those with less gifted eyesight

and those that glory in the beauty of the scene. Might even make horizons easier to keep

level. The QCD is more handy for EC, FEC and M. Less functions buried in the menus. Top

deck LCD for low level tripod shooting. If the grip is like the 20D/30D, it will be more

comfy in a man's hand.

 

Plus, remember the days when attractive women were drawn to any guy with an APS Elf

around their neck? I predict the 40D will turn many a photogeek into a massive babe

magnet. Dangle that chunk 'o magnesium and you'll be in like flint...

[mohammed_abidally]

IMHO 400D vs 20D/30D/40D is a no contest.

 

Most important features are the shooting frame rate and the overall durability. Mega pixels is very cheap today - even tiny P&S's have 9mp! Difference in print size between a 8 and 10mp is very little (without uprezz 11.5" vs 12" on longer side).

[milton-chris]

For my use - mostly evening baseball and indoor amateur hockey, it is the higher ISO than XTi (which I have 2 of), the higher fps, the better noise handling, and more rugged body.

 

I was planning n getting a MkIII for Christmas, but won't now as this will, I'm thinking, give me enough of the things I find lacking in the XTi.

 

Until I've used the 40D for 6 months and find it slow.

[jim_larson1]

Well. . the improved image quality of the 40D is a *potential*, not a fact. The digic III chip could be there just to boost frame rate. The 14bit A/D convereter could be mere marketing hype. The truth will be known in a month or two.

 

One thing to keep in mind when reading this forum is that many people have the impression that the 30D produced better images than the XTi; but this has been neither proven nor disproven by anybody. I think I am the ONLY person on this forum that thinks "10mp is better than 8mp".

 

The bottom line is that the ONLY reason not to get a 40D is financial. It is more than double the cost of a XTi.

[geoffs1]

More FPS, bigger buffer, better AF. Hmmm......

 

I *was* planning to buy a 30D, anticipating the price would drop after the 40D was announced, but the incremental improvements have me rethinking that strategy.

[keith_lubow]

Mostly because the controls are more convenient and it's a bit heartier in construction. When using my friend's XTi my hand cramps up due not only to the small size, but also to the additional button pressing required. I imagine the noise will be cleaner as well on the 40D. I like the XTi a lot, especially considering the price, but if I was comparing the two and had the budget for the 40D, I'd go for it over the Rebel.

 

Keith

[images_in_light_north_west]

40D has an improved sensor, not the same sensor as the xti, improved focus, faster, better build, better functionality, better image ? we will see, live view, remote controle from PC, it is a long list, if your really interested go read the full specs, this should be a great camera judging by Canons track record.

[gdanmitchell]

I've long said that for most users the 400D was a better choice than the 20D/30D. It has a

slightly higher MP count, dust reduction, and other features that are equal to or

improvements over the 20D/30D models.

 

With the introduction of the 40D the balance will shift a bit. The 40D sensor/processor is

probably a bit better than that of the 400D, and the 40D now includes updates formerly

only found in the 400D such as the dust reduction system, etc.

 

The real question still is whether the "better" features of the more expensive camera will

actually make a difference in _your_ photography. If you need the higher burst rate of the

40D (some do, many don't) or if you are a particularly careful and skillful shooter and

printer you might notice a difference in some situations.

 

On the other hand, many people buying the more expensive body may not see any

difference in the photos they get. If you don't make large prints, if you don't shoot a lot of

very high speed action sports (or other equivalent subjects), etc. you may well see no

difference in the quality of your photographs between the two bodies.

 

If you fit into this latter category it could be more effective to get the excellent 400D and

spend the savings on better/additional accessories that will affect your photography:

tripod, filters, bags, lenses, etc.

 

Always try to keep in mind that the question is not "what is the best camera?" It is "which

camera is best for the kind of photography that I do?"

 

Dan

[digitmstr]

I'd take the 14 bit A/D conversion anytime...not to mention ALL the other features of the 40D. But, ultimately it's a decision that must be based on what YOU need the most.

[yakim_peled1]

>> I predict the 40D will turn many a photogeek into a massive babe magnet. Dangle that chunk 'o magnesium and you'll be in like flint...

 

 

My next camera for sure...... :-)

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[david_amberson1]

I have an XTi and if the noise control is similar to the MarkIII and the new AF system is indeed better. Then thats all it will take and I will own one at that point. Until I bought a grip, the XTi was very hard to shoot with a 70-200 2.8L IS. The grip is so tiny. The 30D felt much better in my hands but at the time, the 400D was just a better buy. If there isn't much difference from 400D to 40D(noise) then I will swallow and get the MarkIII.

 

I can say this as well. That new Nikon D300 looks very attractive. With a grip, it shoots 8 fps at 12mp at $1799. Hmmm! This is good. It will be interesting to see the answer from Canon since they have now been "one uped". I love competition. Its great for the consumer. Canons been kind of coasting waiting on Nikon. Come on Sony! Help us drop the prices and get better equipment for our money.

[bulletsalvador]

realistically, do you think the the build quiality and 100,000 actuation estimation worth the price (almost double the xti)...

[stillbound]

to bullet...yes

that is almost a silly question...almost. I work in a very reputable camera store and the number one complaint about the xti is the "feel" compared to d80 and even the d40...

The new sesnor "should" destroy the nikon entry levels and with the improved body...yea for canon

[frank g.]

I own the Rebel xti and I still feel the 40d is a better value at twice the price. 3in monitor, the ability to shoot at 3200 as opposed to 1600, 14 bit will give smother gradations, fits better in my hand, pc sync (which is important if you want to fire the camera with pocket wizards) live preview and a host of new features. I would have gotten this instead of the rebel xti as I waited for the replacement for my 1d mk II. Even with this said the xti is a good camera with great image quality.

[alexdi]

I still think the XTi is a bargain camera. The reasons to buy the 20D/30D/40D remain framerate, buffer, and grip. The AF won't be that much better on the 40D, and noise control looks to be almost identical to the 20D/30D.

 

I hate the XTi grip, so the 40D is where it's at. But it does cost about twice as much, and it surely isn't twice the camera. Actually, if you're not constantly shooting something that requires a deep buffer, I doubt your results would change much at all.

 

DI

[matt_sylvester]

I've moved from the 400 to the 40D for a reason that nobody has mentioned yet. I often use a tripod and spend a bit of time carefully setting up shots. I also use a macro lens frequently. I like the idea of being able to review the image and composition carefully via the 40D's LCD. It's easier for me to adjust the tripod while viewing the image on the LCD rather than using the viewfinder as you would have to do with the 400D. I also like the idea of being able to zoom in and really examine the focus of fine details.

[shikaz]

there is another reason i really hate in 400D even prefer the 350D over it, the screen which they have removed in the 400d ! cause in sun light conditions i feel like i cannot use or see the info on the lcd

[ttempest]

<p>I know this is an old thread, but the question still remains. I am the happy owner of the 400D but due to my usage need to look at the next step along the path to full frame.</p>

<p>Now that more than a year has passed on this thread, some new insights should be available.</p>

<p>The logical step is the 50D or a good second hand 5D M1, but my budget is very tight which makes the 40D a valid consideration.</p>

<p>My usage is: low light event and street work usually at night, portraiture, product photography and recently food & beverage. Looking at some of the F&B starlets and their work they happily proclaim their love affair with their 20D's.</p>

<p>I don't know if I'm hitting a genuine limitation with my existing equipment or just unneccissarily dissatisfied. Either way, I need some input from heads better than mine.</p>

[jim_larson1]

<p>I own a 40D and frequently use a XTi. In terms of image quality, the lens have a far bigger impact. I would not upgrade from a XTi to a 40D for image quality reasons. The XTi is better than the 20D, IMHO</p>