biomed Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 Just wanted people's feedback as to whether the 40D has enough to justify being about $500 more than a new 30D (as per B&H prices). I shoot mostly landscapes and macro. Thanks. MM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnson_d. Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 Yes. Then again, I'm not you so your answer may be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 If I had the choice, I'd even choose the 20D for still less money used if I had to go with a pre-40D. The brighter viewfinder, dust reduction, interchangeable screens all justify spending more for the 40D IMHO. The 30D is a superb camera, but it is not a major upgrade like the 40D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeret_slack Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 I just got the 40d and the 3 inch screen is worth that much to me.. and the 6.5 fps is awesome to... the clients love to see pictures you have taken of them and the 3inch screen is better for them to see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_osullivan Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 I don't think so. Bells and whistles to me. I have a 30D and checked out the 40D so I'd have a 2nd/bacup. Decided on another 30D. I don't like the new menues layout. When I have to some day replace both my 30D's I'll haver to get the 45D or whatever is around. But for now I see no huge advantage in 40D just convenciences that I don't need. You can buy a decent lens or flash or fiber tripod with $500. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 Easily yes; for $400 delta you get 2 more MP, 3" LCD, 14-bit raw, better AF, and DIGIC III just for starters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 And beyond the starters. . .eh. 20D *new* is probably not an option (can you find any?); but the choices between 30D, 40D, XTi or XSi are rather interesting. First, if you actually "add to cart", the B&H price on the 40D is $1149 (consistent with other retailers); so the actually price premium on the 40D is only $350; not $500. Second, the XTi which has a newer sensor than the 30D is $280 cheaper than 30D blowout price. The XSi, which has a newer sensor the 40D (with the same DIGIC III and 14bit raw) will probably be at the same price level as the 30D. . . maybe less. So in terms of image quality -> these cameras (ranging from 8mp to 12mp) probably have a notable range. I suspect the biggest impact (for landscape) will be improved shadow enabled by the Digic III and 14bit RAW. That may be worth something that may make you shy away from the 30D and XTi. Going from 8 to 10mp is not much. Going from 10 to 12mp is not much. But going from 8 to 12mp. . .now we are starting to talk about more resolution. Third: A primary difference between the Rebels and the X0D's will be shot-to-shot speed. Which is not a factor in landscape or Macro shooting. Fourth: Somebody remind me again what is improved in the 40D AF? (I forget). Personally, I suspect that we have long reached diminishing returns in AF performance of the lower end Canons. How many people use something *other* than the central AF point for the majority of shooting? How many people actually use F2.8 lenses that can take advantage of high precision mode? I personally have a bunch of fastish primes. . but all my zooms are at best F4.0. Fifth: And last we have the nebulous "form factor". Some like the X0D heft. Others like the more compact rebels. That is a personal thing. I would suggest you look long and hard at the Rebels. For my money, I would get the 40D -> But my main hobby is boating, where $500 is practically nothing :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_green4 Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 first rate glass is more important. as far as IQ goes there's very little difference between 30d and 40d. at this point you might be better off waiting for the 50d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victor_kunkel2 Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 The answer seems to be subjective to me. If you handle it and like it, then yes it is worth it. True, the 40D is a nice camera and I love mine. But I also love my OM-1. It's about the finished piece of art that we, as photographers, create vs. the gadget lover that many of us are as well. Me? I am both but in a discerning way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_myers Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 Not to me. I bought a second 30D instead, just shortly after the 40D was first introduced. The 40D has some really nice features and is a decent upgrade, but since I use my cameras for work I really cannot go out on a limb with a new model that's not proven itself thoroughly yet. This was the biggest factor in my decision. Today I would be comfortable buying a 40D, but am still not in any real rush to swap out my 30Ds for a pair of 40Ds. To me the improvements in viewfinder, AF, 14bit and a few other features are the most attractive on the 40D. But there are still some areas where it falls short of my "ideal" crop sensor camera. For example, I really don't want an anemic built-in flash, would much rather see a 1.6X camera that has an even better viewfinder and better weather sealing, both of which leaving out the flash might help accomplish. I also don't need a print button, would like to have a mirror lockup button. And I'd prefer 12MP. I'd like to have a higher resolution, articulated LCD. Could care less about dust removal tech. I'm not sure I'd use Live View, but it might come in handy. Oh, and I'd really like to have dual CF slots, with the ability to configure file storage various ways, including RAW to one, JPEGs to the other. Probably could think of more if I spent some time at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_barbu1 Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 If the question was 20D to 30D, when the 30D first came out, I would say no. However, the 40D is a bigger improvement to the 30D than the 30D was to the 20D. I say yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinsouthern Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 The 40D is a whole new generation - it's got more in common with the 1D3 than it does with the 30D. Worth $500 more? Easily yes, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimstrutz Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 I think the 40D is worth the price too, but others value their money more and their cameras less, so it is an individual choice. The 40D's AF is considerably better than the 20D/30D. The cross type side sensors are better, as is the double cross of the center, and it is faster to lock on and/or track moving targets. It may not be 1D2 fast, but it is definitely better than before. I also find more use for live view than I thought I would. And the viewfinder & LCD improvements are nice. I don't need 6.5 fps, so I turn it down to 3 fps, which I couldn't do with the 20D. I prefer the menu layout of the 40D better, especially with the "My Menu" feature and C1-C3 options. Also, the highlight tone priority is useful to me. It's just a little better in a lot of ways. Easily worth $500 extra to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 I think Johnson summed it up nicely. Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_lubow Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 Yes. Then again, I'm not you so your answer may be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_lubow Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 No. Then again, I'm not you so your answer may be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_lubow Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 It depends on what you want to spend, how you shoot, and how you judge your images. If you're a bad photographer, the camera won't matter all that much, and if you're a good photographer, the camera won't matter all that much. It all comes down to the conveniences and features that you want while shooting. I would still buy two 10Ds and some lenses before buying a 40D, as I think that would give me a better arsenal to make the pix that I want to make than a 40D alone. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 Someone, "as far as IQ goes there's very little difference between 30d and 40d. " How can you possibly say this when in another post you make some crazy slam at the XTi IQ? The 30D and the XTi are essentially exactly equal when it comes to IQ. How can you not know this yet pretend you know anything? LOL! 40D's IQ, logically, should be a slight improvement over the 30D, and certainly most noticeable in larger prints. Extra MPs are always nice to have when printing larger than 100 sqr. inches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
images_in_light_north_west Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 I went 30D to 40D, big improvement ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn nk Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 Seems to me that those with the 40D think it's worth the money; those with the 20/30D are less inclined to agree. Perhaps this isn't surprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_barbu1 Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 I have (though recently sold) the 20D. The 40D is worth the money. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfaromeo Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 If I wanted to upgrade I would go with 5D from 30D, this as a real improvement, not with 40D, but this is just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_lubow Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 "Seems to me that those with the 40D think it's worth the money; those with the 20/30D are less inclined to agree." I am someone who does not own a 40D, but has used one for approx. 1,500 pix. I can't see why anyone would pay $1,000 more than a 10D for one of them, or $500 more than a 30D, unless they really needed the extra print size. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimstrutz Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 The prime reason I changed from a 20D to a 40D was improved AF. For me, that alone was worth the cost. The 10D I had before didn't make the cut at all for what I do. It had nothing to do with larger image size or other features. But now that I have it, all those other niceties are much appreciated. It just comes down to requirements for specific shooting styles and personal decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_lubow Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Interesting. Maybe I don't notice the AF as much because I am always (100% of the time if not on MF) on one shot, center AF point. Are you talking about servo mode, Jim? Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now