what next - an update question

[sami_lahtinen]

<p>I have the following lenses:</p>

<p>ef 35 f1.4 L<br>

100mm f2.8 IS L<br>

100-400 L</p>

<p>and a body 40D</p>

<p>I am pretty comfortable with the lens setup. I was wondering would the body update to 60 D or 7 D bring that much<br>

extra to picture quality that it is worthwhile? I am not keen on the video option.</p>

[phule]

<p>Where are you unhappy with the "picture quality" from the 40D?</p>

[nathangardner]

For enlargements and crops yes, but if you don't print large or crop heavily then probably not. Of course I'm not a big

MP buff though. I use an 8MP 1D II and am perfectly content. I did just have a 20x30 canvas made from it and it looks

great.

[JeffOwen]

<p>I moved from the 20D to the 40D and now more recently to the 60D. To be honest although the 60D has a much high spec I have not notice any significant improvement in image quality as I did going from the 20D to the 40D.<br>

Several aspects have improved like the flex LCD back and the video capability but aspects like different batteries and memory card made the change not seem worth the effort.<br>

I don't do pixel comparisons so the quality issue may be one I haven't fully examined yet. I would be interested in other replies to your question.</p>

[nathangardner]

I think upgrading for features that aid in your type of photography are more beneficial than MP upgrades. If you shoot

macro, the swiveling LCD of the 60D may be a worthy upgrade, or the frame rate and AF of the 7D for wildlife/sports. I

shoot a lot of wildlife and landscapes so the larger sensor and higher frame rate and better AF of the 1D was a double

punch for me. These features were well worth the MP sacrifice I made. Just remember there's more to cameras than

MP's.

[jim_j2]

<p>Sami,<br>

As you indicate that you're not necessarily keen on the Video option, have you considered the often overlooked 50D?<br>

I would expect there would be some bargains out there, especially if any new ones are still on the shelf anywhere.</p>

<p> </p>

[tdigi]

<p>If your not interested in video I would look into a 5D classic. your 35L and 100 will be awesome on full frame.<br>

I owned a 40D and now a 60D and 5D2. The 60D is probably a bit better with ISO but full frame will be a different experience with your current lens lineup.</p>

[pto189]

<p>I sold my 20D and bought the 7D for only one reason: The 20D has a tiny LCD that is almost useless in checking the pictures. (I'm wearing bi-focal glasses.) My simple rule for DSLR camera is to buy the newest model and use it until it breaks down or in the 20D's LCD case. For example, I'll keep my 5D mk2 and skip the mk3, mk4, mk5... until Canon introduces a new one that <strong>really</strong> makes sense to replace the 5D mk2. In your case, the 40D is good enough to make quality pictures.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>The 40D is still kind of a sweet spot in the price/value curve if you don't need video. If you are, as you say, "pretty comfortable" with your lenses, I doubt the genuine "need" to acquire more equipment (says the boy with a huge number of toys himself).</p>

<p>A new camera is always nice, of course, and sometimes new tools can lead to new things to do with them. It's just more honest to admit that you <em>want</em> something new, not that you <em>need</em> it. There's no shame in it. ;)</p>

<p>I myself want a EF 100-400 and a TS-E 17mm, but I don't need them.</p>