Canon EOS 400D vs. EOS 40D

[iBookG4user]

Right now I am using a Canon EOS 400D and I am finding the urge to upgrade to the 40D. The reasons are because of the following:

The new autofocus of the 40D, I am finding that with my current camera the camera focuses on the background a lot in action shots and thus the subject is blurry.

The 400D has less than stellar ISO performance at ISO 800 and above, and that is quite limiting because I find that I am in lower light situations a lot. I've heard that the 40D has outstanding ISO performance and that even at 1600 it is not that bad.

I would find the 6.5 FPS a lot handier for the wildlife photos I take because even at 3 FPS I sometimes miss a shot.

The EOS 400D isn't really that comfortable to hold for me and the 40D looks like it will feel better in my hands and it is better built.

Any insight would be greatly appreciated, thanks in advance!

 

[RevToTheRedline]

I've yet to understand why people need to make such little upgrades in photography like this, it is the same way on Nikon forums, people buying D80's to replace their perfectly working D70.. Spend the money on glass it's more important, the 400D is a fine camera. In my opinion the 40D is not that much of an upgrade over the 400D to make it worth while to buy it over more useful lenses.

A worth while upgrade would be going to the 5D or 1Ds Mark 3.

 

[Westside guy]

Isn't it rumored that a 40D replacement is in the works, and may be announced around PMA?

 

[miloblithe]

I don't think the 40D would have that much better high ISO performance. Better chroma noise reduction. ISO 3200. But still, not that much better. The 400D is supposed to be pretty good on that front, as far as sub $1000 cameras go. 6.5 FPS (even if it's only 6.0 according to reviews) is a step up from 3.0, no doubt. And the ergonomics are improved, and lots of other little improvements.

That said, if there's room to upgrade your lenses, I agree with Rev that would be the best place to start. I mean, I have a 400D, and I'd trade it for a 40D in a heartbeat. I understand where you're coming from. But you might do better getting something like a 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens now and upgrading your camera body to the 50D when it comes out in 2 years.

 

[Grimace]

I think a jump to the 40D would be actually very useful, if it is in your price range. Wait until PMA is done, as you may be interested in seeing the 450D and a possible update to the 5D.

The ergonomics, build quality, etc. of the 40D are vastly superior to the 400D so I think it is a wise investment.

(I started off with an XT, then 30D, now 5D, and potentially jumping to a 1Ds!)

 

[miloblithe]

Isn't it rumored that a 40D replacement is in the works, and may be announced around PMA?

No, the 40D came out fall 2007. The 400D and 5D are the Canon cameras most due to be replaced.

 

[zdobson]

The 400D has less than stellar ISO performance at ISO 800 and above, and that is quite limiting because I find that I am in lower light situations a lot. I've heard that the 40D has outstanding ISO performance and that even at 1600 it is not that bad.

Dpreview has sample galleries, which are a huge help in comparing different cameras. I just used them to determine that I am perfectly happy sticking with my 20D's for a little longer. Personally, I would wait a little longer and get a 5D (or its replacement whenever it comes). IMO, the differences between the 40 and the 400 aren't enough to spend the money.

 

[ziwi]

Personally, I would wait a little longer and get a 5D (or its replacement whenever it comes). IMO, the differences between the 40 and the 400 aren't enough to spend the money.

Totally agree - the difference is better put into lenses anyway.

 

[iBookG4user]

Dpreview has sample galleries, which are a huge help in comparing different cameras. I just used them to determine that I am perfectly happy sticking with my 20D's for a little longer. Personally, I would wait a little longer and get a 5D (or its replacement whenever it comes). IMO, the differences between the 40 and the 400 aren't enough to spend the money.

I see where you're coming from and after some thought, I agree. I'll wait until PMA is over to make any decisions, but now I am definitely leaning towards a 5D or the sucessor. The sucessor will undoubtedly lead to a price drop in second hand 5D's and will probably put it in my price range. Or if the sucessor is cheap enough, I might just get that, thank you for the advice .

 

[Westside guy]

Is all the glass you've got full-frame compatible? If not you'll obviously have to factor that into the cost.

 

[deadkenny]

I would agree to the others and recommend you to buy better lenses than you have. I don't know which ones you are using but you should go for the high quality ones - the ones that are far more expensive than your camera

If you do mostly animal shots (you said something about blurry action shots) or sports or pictures like that, than you want something like the EF 70-200mm 1:2.8L IS USM which has an IS over three exposure leves or the EF 70-200mm 1:4L IS USM which is cheaper but less fast concerning light. It's IS has a range of four exposure leves though.

Better lenses will make a huge impact on the quality of your photos. They will most likely even get sharper for many cheap lenses (especially the 28-80mm plastic lense that comes with the EOS400D Kit) have the reputation to not focus very good.

 

[iBookG4user]

Is all the glass you've got full-frame compatible? If not you'll obviously have to factor that into the cost.

Yes, all of my current lenses are full-frame compatible. (Sans the mediocre kit lens, but I'll be selling the 400D to fund the next camera purchase. A friend is looking to buy a dSLR anyway, so it is partially to help them out.)

I would agree to the others and recommend you to buy better lenses than you have. I don't know which ones you are using but you should go for the high quality ones - the ones that are far more expensive than your camera

If you do mostly animal shots (you said something about blurry action shots) or sports or pictures like that, than you want something like the EF 70-200mm 1:2.8L IS USM which has an IS over three exposure leves or the EF 70-200mm 1:4L IS USM which is cheaper but less fast concerning light. It's IS has a range of four exposure leves though.

Better lenses will make a huge impact on the quality of your photos. They will most likely even get sharper for many cheap lenses (especially the 28-80mm plastic lense that comes with the EOS400D Kit) have the reputation to not focus very good.

I actually have the 70-200 F/4, and the blurriness is because of the autofocus, not the shutter speed I use. And right now I'm going to be getting a Tamron 28-75 pretty soon (I may get the Canon 24-70, but the Tamron will do fine for now) and after that I'll have very good to excellent glass throughout the zoom range that I normally use. So, while getting new lenses is nice, I would really like to get a camera is nice and comfortable to use.

 

[GavinTing]

Personally, I don't see any problems with the ISO 1600 photos I took on my recent trip to spain. Looking at the photo on my macbook, it seems fine, unless you have to zoom to 100%. Printing it on an A4 sheet of paper looks okay to me too, but of course, if you want a 40D, go for it!

I'm just an amateur and the 400D is fine for me =D