What to upgrade first, camera or lenses?

[mark_stephan2]

<p>I am currently using a 40D that I purchased used from KEH this past summer. I'm thinking about getting a camera that shoots video and the 60D body is reasonably priced at $699 at B&H.. I'd also like to upgrade my lenses and cannot afford to upgrade both. I use the 17-85 IS and 50 f/1.8 mkII lenses. If I go with a new lens I'd like to get the 17-40L or 70-200 f/4L (non IS) lens. With my tax return I have a budget of $800. I use my gear to take people and environmental landscapes.</p>

 

[SCL]

<p>What's wrong with your present gear, or are you just suffering a GAS (gear acquisition syndrome) attack?</p>

[stp]

<p>If video, which you currently lack, is an important function, then it seems that upgrading the body first should be given priority.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<blockquote>

<p>M.S., writes "I'm thinking about getting a camera that shoots video and the 60D body is reasonably priced at $699 at B&H."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>60D video is pretty darn good, stills are a level up from your 40D and the LCD is killer. AF is about the same as the 40D but you may miss having a real joystick. I have a 60D and the combo QCD/multi-controller is awkward and causes a lot of frustration trying to select AF points. Oddly, the 6D QCD/multi-controller looks the same as the 60D but somehow is a lot more responsive and accurate.</p>

<p>Sell the 40D and update the camera first. Honestly the 17-40 isn't much better than the 17-85 IS in terms of sharpness, albeit it controls the magenta fringing on strongly backlit subject--tree branches against sky--better and has less barreling at the wide end. I'd miss the extra reach and IS of the 17-85. Save up for a few months, sell the 17-85 and buy the 15-85 IS USM. It's sharper than both the 17-85 and 17-40 and a much more useful range for travel and walking around.</p>

[Mark Keefer]

<p>The 40D is a great camera (I still have mine as a second body, I also have a 7D) and if we were strictly talking photos, I would say go with lenses. If you really want to shoot video too then the 60D makes sense. The 17-40L is a nice lens, I have one and like the image quality. I would like to add the 70-200 L to my lens collection too, but I have no experience with it.</p>

<p>You have to decide how bad you want to do video. Keep in mind while the 60D and 7D in my case can do really nice video, video shoots need to be carefully set up to get pro video, tripod, setting up focus. Free handing video on a 7D with a zoom lens just doesn't work well. They aren't as easy to use as a camcorder that can quickly auto focus like a hand held camcorder with IS. But if you take care setting up, you can get some impressive results. Also focusing video on a LCD screen in bright sunlight can be brutal. I know, I have done some recently in snow on bright days. </p>

<p>My point is, consider what kind of video you are wanting to shoot, are you going for wedding, low light, cinematography, independent film stuff, a 60D might be a good start to play around with it. You will also want to consider a larger flat screen monitor to use tethered with the camera to make it easier to fine focus. I have seen people using smart pads to do this too. If you're just looking for a camcorder to shoot some quick video like your kids birthday party or even some quick news clip video at an environmental site, consider an inexpensive HD Camcorder like a Sony HD Handycam in the $300 ball park, free hand holding one of these with IS still gives you good stable video and the cameras are small and can be tucked in your pocket, you will have saved enough to still buy a used 17-40mm L for around $400 or less. This way you get a couple things on your wish list.</p>

<p>You'll enjoy any way you go. The photographer with the most toys when they die wins. lol.</p>

[denisbergeron]

<p>If you really want to upgrade your 40d for video, you should get the 70d with the dual-pixel <br>

With the 60d, you won't see any signifiant improvement, but then, maybe I'm the only one.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Yeah, what others have said: If you want to shoot video, you can't do it with a 40D. If video isn't really that important to you, and if you shoot with reasonably good light, the 70-200 might be useful on your 40D (still a good camera) to give you modest telephoto capabilities. The 17-40 would probably offer little benefit to you right now. However, there's no law that says you have to spend your entire tax refund on photographic equipment. You can always bank it for future acquisitions.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<blockquote>

<p>If you really want to upgrade your 40d for video, you should get the 70d with the dual-pixel. With the 60d, you won't see any signifiant improvement, but then, maybe I'm the only one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, the 40D can't shoot video unless you rewrite the FW with a really good hack. So 60D is significantly better...</p>

[Mark Keefer]

<p>Actually several years ago I found some free software that would allow you to record video off your 40D tethered to your computer. The computer recorded the video via the USB cable. Obviously no audio, so you would have to use something else to grab audio like a ZOOM H4N. It was software made by a Russian programer. I ran it under Windows XP or Vista, been a while since I played with it. I never had any problems with the software as far as Virus or Malware, at least nothing any of my antivirus spyware software could detect. It captured full screen, so you would have to use other software to crop it to wide format. <br>

The software was on another computer I had, since I got the 7D I really didn't play with it anymore. If you search recording video on 40D you may find it or another version. Use at your own risk. I also saw an old post up on the web that someone claimed to have a firmware hack that allowed video recording with no tethered cable. <a href="http://holgr.com/blog/2009/01/video-with-eos-40d/">LINK</a> This is an old post from 2009. I never tried a firmware hack, but I did run the software and recorded on the computer. It was fun to play with. If you try it, do it at your own risk though.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>Sold my 40D in 2008 when I bought a 5D2. But I did read about the hack a few years back. Didn't sound too convenient for actual use but proved that Canon may have tinkered with video on the 40D/50D but decided not to implement it.</p>

[james_de_h]

<p>I personally do not like using an SLR for video but I am in a minority so better shut up. If it were me in your shoes, I would keep all you have and consider a dedicated digicam instead.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I haven't heard of a reliable FW hack that allows you to shoot video on the 40D. The 50D has a stable ML version available allowing video, but not (as far as I know) the 40D (perhaps because the 40D has a digic3 instead of the Digic4).</p>

<p>I would third the idea of a dedicated digital camcorder. Even many professional videographers prefer sticking with these instead of trying to shoot decent video on a DSLR. That said, if you want a combined unit a 60D (or one of the rebels) is going to give you the best bang for your buck. You'll need an image stabilized lens, and getting a newer one is better than using the older 17-85 (though better than a non-IS lens) because the IS system is smoother in newer implementations.</p>

<p>Are you planning on selling the 40D (and perhaps the 17-85) to augment your budget?</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Although I agree with the others that if you want to shoot video, you'll need to replace your 40D, I'd like to make a lens recommendation (for a future purchase).</p>

<p>I'd get the 70-200/4 L IS over the non-IS. Since I almost exclusively handhold my lenses, I wouldn't consider getting a telephoto lens without IS, which has more effect on longer than on shorter lenses.</p>

<p>Furthermore, I do similar shooting to you - informal environmental/closer range portraiture and landscapes - and find my 70-200 to be indispensable, and often the only lens I use when I'm shooting outdoors.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>I agree with mark Pierlot. Image stabilization might be outside your budget, but if you are a handheld photographer (which most of us are) and can at all afford it, this technology can make even more difference to the quality of your photos than the optical quality of the lens, unless you resign yourself to shooting only at very high shutter speeds. This is mostly true of telephoto lenses, but also wider angle lenses. Even if you're a sports photographer and typically use higher shutter speeds, "Mode 2" IS is extremely useful for stabilizing vertically while panning. So if you can afford it, it's definitely worth having.</p>

[neill_farmer2]

<p>HD video cameras are much cheaper than new DSLRs these days. Why not pick up a dedicated video camera for video and keep your 40D. With the money saved you can buy a new lens.<br>

To get the same focus functionality as a camcorder you need to get a 70D with STM lenses.</p>

[rohin2k]

<p>Mark,<br>

If you have to have Video there are still some old dslr models that can do video such as T3i which is available for around $500 (new) and you could also consider buying a used one (including T2i) to save some more money. That will give you some extra cash for any lens upgrade you desire.<br>

A true lens upgrade for 40D or any crop sensor in the general purpose range would be the likes of 17-55 f/2.8 IS. The color, contrast and sharpness of that lens are in a different league. The 2.8 aperture would give you additional low-light capabilities and better picture quality overall. I haven't used 17-40 L or the likes of tamron 17-50 VC or even sigma equivalent so wouldn't be able to comment on those but definitely worth exploring.<br>

If I were you, I'd invest in lenses first. But again if Video shooting is a must have - I'd buy the 70d that just came out. That puppy has some serious video capabilities that you'd value in the years to come. <br>

60d has some features lacking eg: the AF micro adjustment feature that is present 70d. If you like that feature in your camera (40d), you're going to miss it in 60d/T3i, etc. <br>

Just my 2 cents! YMMV :)<br>

-Rohin</p>