Considering 300D to 40D upgrade, but ...?

[greenlander]

I'm still using a 300D, and am considering an upgrade to the 40D. I've

heard/ready MANY good things about the 40D and am fairly excited to pick one

up. Partially motivated by my need to obsessively research major purchases,

and also by the possibly coming announcements of new gear from Canon on Jan

24, I continued my digging today during which I pulled up a side-by-side

comparrison of the 300D and 40D and was a bit surprised. There seem to be

fewer differences between the 300D and 40D, from a specification perspective,

than I expected.

 

From what I can tell, the 40D offers more pixels, a newer sensor, ISO 3200,

Kelvin WB, 9pt AF vs 7pt, more metering options, faster/more continuous

shooting, a better LCD, sRAW, and Live View.

 

Now, that's a significant list of improvements, and considerably desired

improvements. However, of the 50-60 or so specifications in the side-by-side

(dpreview), those are the only ones that differed. This came as a surprise as

I expected more.

 

My question, I suppose, is whether or not the upgrade I'm considering making

is potentially going to be a dissapointment, or if there are other, equally

important improvements in the 40D that don't show up on a spec sheet.

 

For the $1000+ I'd be spending on the 40D, I want to be wowed by the upgrade

from the 300D from a feature/usage perspective and notice, without question,

an improvement in IQ. If that's not likely to be the case, I might just sink

these $$ into a lens/lenses instead.

 

Any thoughts/advice are appreciated. Apologies in advance for posting yet

another X vs. Y thread. :)

[notraces]

You'll be wowed -- it's a great camera. I shot with the 5D for awhile and loved that camera - but went back to film for a few projects I was working -- then, I picked up the 40D (in anticipation of the new 5D II) -- I can tell you that the 40D feels better than the 5D - balance, weight, weather proofing -- and the image quality is almost as good. Of course, the 40D is a cropped sensor -- but still, I get wonderful images from it - I'm as happy with the 40D as I was with the 5D. I'll keep it once I pick up the new 5D - I like it that much.

 

I owned the 20D before the 5D - and the 40D is a VAST improvement over the 20D - large LCD is great -- but the viewfinder is what does it for me -- it's bright and BIG. I've not used Live View - I'm sure the new 5D will have it, too - so I'll get around to it eventually.

 

Is it worth the price? I think it is - without a doubt. I thought about the D300 - (I cut my teeth on Nikon hundreds of years ago - and so want to love Nikon - and do - but just their film cameras) -- but the 40D produces image quality that is just hard to beat. I have to say I just love working with it... Oh -- and I love all the customization I can do with it, to -- re-assigning AF buttons, etc...

 

Not sure if this helps much -- but maybe stop in to see one -- look through the viewfinder, etc... I think you'll be quite surprised --

[ahockley]

I made the 300D to 40D upgrade a couple months ago. It's a night and day better experience. Maybe the number of specific features isn't huge, but the changes are big. The AF system is MUCH better/faster. The noise levels at comparable ISO values are much improved. The faster shooting is nice for some applications. The LCD is almost twice the size of the 300D.

 

Do it. You won't be disappointed.

[jim_larson1]

Assuming you don't make a living from a camera, Ummm. . . . depends what you WANT.

 

At $1000, there is ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION WHATSOVER for a dSLR. Period. You must WANT one. Upgrading from a perfectly functional 300D (that's a 6mp camera right? The original dRebel?) is equally logical. (i.e.; the only reason to get one is because you WANT one).

 

Now. . as to why you WANT a 40D -> I don't think you are looking at this correctly.

 

First. . what is wrong with your current camera?

From an image quality perspective, your lenses and use of flash have more influence than the camera body.

 

In my mind, the primary differences between the 40D and dRebel are;

 

1) Better high ISO performance. (on the dRebel, ISO400 was the highest "clean" setting -> the newer bodies are "clean" at ISO800. The higher ISO's are generally "one stop" better than the dRebel/10D sensors).

 

2) Number of AF points is meaningless. AF sensitivity is not. The 40D has high precision sensors in a few spots -> if you have a F2.8 lens, you can take advantage of this. If you don't have F2.8 (or faster lenses -> STOP RIGHT NOW AND GET BETTER LENSES).

 

3) The dRebel and 10D are ETTL cameras. 40D is ETTL-II. BIG difference in how flash will behave. (not better, IMHO, just different).

 

4) Ergonomics. Ever pick up a 40D? Enough said. And yes. . . a big LCD is nice. :) So is the bigger, brighter, viewfinder.

 

5) 10mp is nice. But if you ain't shooting RAW, don't bother with a bigger sensor. If you are shooting RAW, then I suspect a 10mp sensor will be a nice upgrade. You will be able to crop images much better, without pixilation.

 

6) Shooting speed: I never even take advantage of my 10D's 3FPS shooting. . but the 40D is wicked fast frame-to-frame.

 

 

As for January 24th. . .I personally think Canon has a real issue in that the XTi lacks image stabilization, and the 18-55/IS kit lens has not really migrated out to the XTi kit. That puts Canon at a HUGE disadvanatage at the low end of the market. I suspect lack of Live View also is hurting XTi sales.

 

At the higher end, the 5D is very old, and REALLY due for an upgrade. Plus the Nikon D300 will REALLY put market pressure on this segment.

 

I would expect Jan 24 will bring a 5D replacement. Not a XTi replacement (wait for August) My humble expectations are a 5D-II with a 16mp FF sensor and a 40D body. Slap a now-obsolete 10 year old 1D-II AF system in that camera (First used on the 1 series film cameras, and now not used in the 1D-III) -> and you have a REAL winner (may even allow Canon to dream of maintaining a $3K price point) that can compete against a 300D.

 

On the low end: Expect a 10mp XTi replacement with live view and Digic III processor this summer. With a 18-55/IS kit lens at the current price point. I really doubt a 12mp sensor at this time.

[big kahuna1]

I pretty much agree with everyone else here, but I can't ever resist a chance to throw in my 2 cents worth.

This is a case of the small changes adding up to much more than they should. The biggest difference can not be described or shown on a lab test. You just have to hold it in your hand, take it out to dinner, go to a basketball game, and take 500 or 1000 images, then you too will know the difference in the 40D, and you will not regret parting with your $1300.

[brucecyr]

Well you left out one or two improvements that I would consider to be important if I were making such a decision:

 

1. Pentaprism vs. pentamirror viewfinder makes for a much brighter view.

 

2. More convenient controls, both functionally and ergonomically

 

3. Interchangeable viewfinders, including one for manual focus.

 

4. Higher, more usable ISO range (you did mention ISO 3200 but apparently neglected the better IQ due to less noise aspect)

 

Whether these advantages are sufficient to motivate spending money to upgrade is a subjective issue. If you don't have a burning problem with any aspect of your 300D's use, then I don't see the logic of upgrading now -- there will be better, cheaper choices down the road when possibly your 300D will have died from shutter malfunction or whatever. In the meantime, you can sit on your $1150-$1300 wad of dough and watch it increase from interest, or you can spend it on something that's more important to you.

 

Don't forget the 300D's next instantiation, say the 450D?, should be coming out this spring, and it may have enough advantages at lower cost to make a better case for upgrading.

[brucecyr]

What it boils down to is this: If you have to talk yourself into upgrading, then something fishy is going on. Wait for a authentic wave of pure impulse!

 

In the meantime, try more of whatever feels good to take you mind off of the issue :-)

[djphoto]

Would you consider moving from a Yugo to a BMW a worthwhile upgrade?

[PuppyDigs]

I find the larger and brighter viewfinder to be among the most significant improvements over

earlier models, especially the Rebel series. For me it's basically the difference between seeing

and not seeing...

[brucecyr]

"Would you consider moving from a Yugo to a BMW a worthwhile upgrade?"

 

300D:40D::Accord:Accura

 

When you get past all the advertising hyperbole, the hardware all comes out of the same foundry.

[KenPapai]

I've always said the 40D makes the 10D look like a bronze age tool; that makes the 300D look stone age in similar comparison. The 40D is a SIGNIFICANT upgrade over the 20D/30D. It is a super easy decision to make. (and yes I agree, it is like going from a 2003 Yugo to a 2007 BMW 325i)

[ron31664876659]

I just purchased a 40D as my first DSLR up to that point I only shot film and refused to own a digital camera; until the evlotion of the digital in the medium price range got to the point of being better then film. Well you can find all my film gear on e-bay--- so far it is the best move I have ever made.

Go to the local camera store and put this beauty in your hands and then make the choise to buy.

[jim_larson1]

Well. .. .I find the Yugo comparisons falling a bit flat since those cars are not sold in this country.

 

BUT. . the Yugo - BMW analogy fails for several other reasons. First, the Yugo and BMW's are built entirely differently. They are not built with the same components or even the same *class* of components.

 

The XTi and 40D are basically in the same class; they are using very similar components and you can expect similar operational lives out of the equipment.

 

In this regard, it is very much more like a comparision of Accord / Acura. The engine and "under the skin" components are basically the same. Oh, the Accord is made assembled in the US and the Acuras are made in Japan (I think); but don't let anyone kid you -> these cars are very much similar under the skin. And when you do compare the Acura, you need to think "RL", not "TL" for the 40D. Remember there is a substantial "size" difference between these cameras.

 

Now, in terms of "AGE" the dRebel is a bit old. So we are comparing a 2003 Accord to a 2008 RL. Yes, the RL has a bunch new fancy stuff, which the '03 accord lacks. Many of those things (Nav systems, side curtain airbags) are now in the '08 Accord ----> but the bottom line is that both the '03 and '08's are reliable, 4 door cars that get you from "point A" to "Point B" in much the same way.

 

So a nice shiney new dSLR is nice. . . .the 40D is definately a nice camera. . . just a question of what you want and what you are willing to pay for.

[zackojones]

I upgraded not too long ago from a Rebel XT to a 40D because I shoot sports primarily and the 6.5 FPS helps me to get shots I know I was missing with my Rebel XT. What "problems" are you having with the current camera that you hope to solve with a 40D? If you can answer that question then upgrade, otherwise upgrade lenses.

 

Regarding the Jan 24 announcements I'm betting Canon will announce upgrades to 5D and Rebel XT series.

[kellyphillips]

Hi Chad,

I just moved from the 350D (XT) to the 40D. I wanted the 40D for months. Nothing was wrong with my XT, but I WANTED the 40D bad. Now that I have it, here is my 2 cents. The 40D is bigger, faster, better. It feels better in my hand. The 6.5 FPS is worth every penny. The LCD kind of sucks. It's much larger, but the picture looks fuzzy and just low quality on the 40D LCD. (please note that I don't use the live view (yet) I'm talking about the playback image.) I like the ISO 3200 and find myself using it ALOT. I like the menus better. The extra wheel for settings makes a huge difference. Now to image quality. If you only shoot in JPG, you probably won't notice a stunning difference. (again I'm comparing 40D to XT 8MP, I've never shot with a 300D) I didn't expect a breath taking difference in IQ, but I have to admit that I was a little disapointed in comparing JPG to JPG from 40D to XT. I mostly shoot RAW. THere is a difference there. I did my own test with various ISOs in RAW and JPG, with and without noise reduction. THe 40D and XT are about the same on noise in JPG. The 40D leaps way ahead in RAW. And even farther ahead with noise reduction on. I noticed that shooting outdoors, the 40D images seem to have more pop to them. Bottom line, the 40D is a great camera. I don't regret buying it. I'm not rich, so I really had to save for the 40D. My XT is a good camera. When all is said and done, I paid $1300 for 6.5FPS, ISO 3200, and better IQ. THe only problem now is that I don't want to pick up my XT anymore. It feels like a toy to me now.

[greenlander]

Thanks to all so far for your responses.

 

From what I'm hearing, it's starting to sound more like a sensible purchase for me.

 

As to my shooting habits, I shoot exclusively RAW, using two main lenses - the 10-22 EF-S and the 50mm f1.8. My only other lens is the fairly useless 18-55 kit lens that came with the 300D, which only finds itself on my body once every few months at best.

 

The areas in which I know I'll be pleased w/the 40D are feel (my 300D has always felt cheap and awkward to me), shooting speed, and high ISO performance. Until recently, I didn't really care much about the latter two - but as I have a new 8 month old daughter - I've been shooting indoors ALOT lately, where before I almost never did. As I absolutely loathe the use of flash when shooting people, I'm using high ISO alot and find ISO 800 on the 300D to be less than thrilling, and ISO 1600 practically worthless.

 

I guess my main question marks w/ the 40D surrounded IQ differences vs the 300D outside of high ISO, AF performance (300D isn't great imho), and general overall usability.

 

From what I'm hearing thus far, sounds like there may be a considerable improvement on all fronts.

 

I'm eager to hear anymore folks have to offer on those fronts, as well as anything else I've not thought of.

[greenlander]

Oh, on the 40D worry points (not that it affects the images the 40D turns out), I have to admit that I am really unimpressed with the LCD.

 

Nice and big, but the resolution really stinks.

[brucecyr]

"and yes I agree, it is like going from a 2003 Yugo to a 2007 BMW 325i"

 

Odd point of view -- in the US the 325i is the 400XTi of the BMer world, a cheapie designed to lure the honkers in hopes that a percentage will upgrade to a real BMer :-)

 

It almost sounds like Canon is pushing its 40D over everything else at the moment. Bet the pushers will sing a different song come spring.

[alexdi]

I did that upgrade a few months ago. This is my experience:

 

- Everything is faster. Picture writing, reviewing, formatting, and so on. Major differences. Continuous 6+ FPS is excellent for both sports and circumstances that benefit from backup shots.

 

- AF is significantly better, which is really why I bought the camera. Faster to acquire, useful side focus points, and massively better tracking. I'm seeing 75%+ hit rate with AI Servo shooting ice hockey with USM primes.

 

- The RAW files are twice the size with the 40D and slower to process. Shooting 4-6GB at a single event takes little effort, so expect to budget more for hard disk storage. No big deal, really, given that 500 GB drives cost less than $100.

 

- Noise is better by about a stop. I won't hesitate to use ISO 1600 with the 40D, whereas anything above 800 on the Rebel was a stretch. There's a bit of banding in the ISO 3200 range if you underexpose, though. Something to keep in mind if you regularly push-process.

 

- The shooting buffer is enormous. Plenty for RAW, and practically impossible to fill in JPEG with a fast card.

 

The rest of the camera is more or less like a D30/D60/10D/20D/30D. Good build, highly usable. There aren't any real whiz-bang features. If your shooting falls within the limitations of the 300D (primarily AF and continuous shooting), the upgrade won't be a revelation.

 

If I had to nitpick, I want the 1D's AF and a less grainy rear screen, and the price should be $1000 even. Also, the 300D has a somewhat deeper grip which is actually a bit more comfortable. Otherwise, I wouldn't change a thing. It's a great camera. By all means, buy one.

 

One more thing: The 28-135 kit lens is surprisingly good. My plan was to resell it, but it's proven competent over the entire aperture range and IS is very helpful. It adds $200 to the kit price. If you don't like it, they sell regularly on the big auction site for $300.

 

DI

[alan_green4]

the major difference is IQ. not in terms of resolution because the pixel count is the same, but in color, contrast, and noise control. the 40d produces luminous images -- the rebel cannot.

 

as far as brass tacks -- the 40d has much lower noise above iso 400. that and the other (often discussed) performance differences make the 40d the better instrument. (even if you don't think there's any difference in luminosity).

[john clark]

Alan, I'm curious about this 'luminous image' thing - do you have an example you can post?