# Advice on upgrading my Canon 40D



## godogs57 (May 18, 2010)

Got the itch to upgrade....love my 40D, but there are plenty of other Canon's that are better now. I was thinking about a 50D. I have a friend who is a pro photographer for several magazines who suggested that I focus my desires in the direction of a full size sensor, as opposed to merely looking to bump up my megapixels from 10.1 to whatever.

I consider myself a very serious amateur, not a pro, and will not be spending $3500-$5000.

I am considering a Canon 5D, which has a full size sensor...I think, but can't be sure. Can't afford a 5D, Mark II which is $$$$. 

Your thoughts on the 5D?


----------



## rip18 (May 18, 2010)

Both are good cameras.  I've shot recently with folks who used both.  Like with any camera body, there are drawbacks & benefits.  It just depends on how you want to use the camera & what "products" you want to produce at the end.

Check out the reviews at dpreview - particularly the conclusion section (you can jump to that section using the little drop down table in the white box near the top center of each page...).

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/

Best of luck.


----------



## godogs57 (May 18, 2010)

Wow....they kinda ripped the 50d pretty good, implying it was basically no better than the 40d, and in some areas, worse. 

Also noticed that the 5d had no built in flash, nor was it weather sealed, which might be a factor on a frosty morning on the deer stand.

Decisions decisions...


----------



## Slim Chance (May 18, 2010)

Whacha gonna do with the old 40D?
Been thinking about another body.


----------



## godogs57 (May 18, 2010)

I'll keep you in mind Slim.....if I get another, I will PM you. Looking to pull the trigger soon on this if I do.....sometime in the next couple of months. It's a beauty...no scratches, etc.


----------



## cornpile (May 18, 2010)

I have a 50d that I just upgraded to from a Rebel XT.It is a fine camera.Heres a pic I took with it.


----------



## Slim Chance (May 18, 2010)

Nice copperhead. Was he captive or did you find him?
Godogs57, just let me know.


----------



## cornpile (May 18, 2010)

Caught him crossing the road on the way home from work.Ten feet shot out the window.He had got up under a downed tree on the bank.He was a nice one.


----------



## rip18 (May 18, 2010)

A nice one in good light!  Nice out-the-window shot!!!


----------



## Browtine (May 18, 2010)

I have a 5D Mk II and personally it is extreme overkill for all but the largest print sizes. I shoot raw files and convert them using Adobe Camera Raw and end up with +/- 120mb files (each!!!) if I convert to uncompressed TIFF. The image quality is great, but I end up downsizing a lot and still having overkill for most print sizes. 

The original 5D (not Mk II) is an awesome camera! I actually like the out of camera image quality from it better than the Mk II from what I've downloaded and played with from the web. If you can find a nice used 5D body don't hesitate to snatch it up... if you simply have to have a higher resolution body. 

And the 40D is one heck of a camera. I still have mine for now. I find myself using it instead of the Mk II occasionally just so I don't have to mess with the huge files from the II. Before you make the jump to the higher resolution cameras put some thought into file handing and storage. 120mb files EAT UP some hard drive space!

Lastly, don't just assume that each year's model is necessarily an "upgrade" from last year's, or even the one from two years ago. In my opinion, anything beyond 10-12 megapixels is pure overkill unless you are printing HUGE, and with today's software and printing methods I'm not sure just how much real world advantage you'd actually see in big prints between them all. 

For what it's worth, knowing what I know now after dealing with the huge files of the Mk II needlessly I'd swap both my 40D and my Mk II for one Nikon D700. Full frame, 12mp, super image quality, great performance... I'm actually considering making that move. I "upgraded" from my 40D to a Mk II... and in reality it wasn't that much of an "upgrade", all things considered. Just think about this before you drop coin. 

I'd strongly suggest looking into better glass if you're itching to spend some loot. For most folks' uses, if they have anything from the basic Digital Rebel from Canon or any Nikon D series camera body, glass is where to "upgrade" for a true tangible difference in image quality. I sure wish I had put the money I spent on the MK II into glass for the 40D instead.


----------



## godogs57 (May 19, 2010)

Thanks for the advice everyone....much appreciated.


----------



## jbdial1515 (May 19, 2010)

Personally, I think that Browtine has given some valuable advice.  To quote him, "glass is where to "upgrade" for a true tangible difference in image quality."  I also find that even though I only have a 30D and often wich I had more, I am still consistently improving just with time and practice.  There is no doubt that my best investments have been better glass.  While I do not have the very best, I have purchased some nice lenses and believe this has truly made the biggest diffence for me.


----------



## Bubba_1122 (May 19, 2010)

Gotta agree with Browtine on the glass also. It makes a lot of difference. 

Have spent the past couple of years buying, selling and trading glass, and finally have my lens kit about where I want it (will actually be shucking some lenses before too long as I see what gets used and what gathers dust).  

Also, I've been shooting a 40D for the past couple of years, and now shooting a 1D Mark IIn (I shoot a fair amount of sports - which requires speed - and this thing delivers speed (this past weekend at NCAA softball tourney - felt like if I just *thought* about squishing the button, the camera would fire off 4 or 5 pics)). 

The 1D Mk IIn is a 1.3 crop. I've also given up some megapixels, but feel like my picture quality is significantly better than on the 40D.  

Negative of the 1D series is the camera's heavy - feels like holding a concrete block (shot the 1DIIn with a 100-400 IS L handheld (over 2000 pics)) for the better part of 6 hours Sunday afternoon - could hardly lift my left arm at the end of the tournament).

Bottom line is I have no problem shooting the 5 year old Mark IIn as opposed to the brand new Mark IV. I'm not a pro, and the Mark IIn does everything I need it to do for a fourth of the cost of the Mark IV. 

In your shoes, I'd go for for the 5D. I imagine it'll serve your needs well, and if not, the worse case scenario is after shooting it a while, you can sell it on one of the photography sites and get most or all of your money back out of it.


----------



## Browtine (May 19, 2010)

Bubba_1122 said:


> Gotta agree with Browtine on the glass also. It makes a lot of difference.
> 
> Have spent the past couple of years buying, selling and trading glass, and finally have my lens kit about where I want it (will actually be shucking some lenses before too long as I see what gets used and what gathers dust).
> 
> ...



I was torn between the 1D MK III and the 5D Mk II when I was buying my last camera. I soooo wish I had gone the Mk III route now. If only I hadn't convinced myself that I just had to have full frame... and higher "resolution". What I "needed" was far different from what I "wanted", which is so often the case with me... 

If I don't end up selling my kit and going with the D700 I may end up trying to trade for a used Mk III. I owned one of the original 1D bodies and LOVED it despite the weight. The performance of that thing made the weight worth while for me as I was shooting mostly drag racing action shots at the time. 

I soooo miss my old 1D!!! At one point I had it, a 10D and three of the big "L" lenses. I sold it all to get a motorcycle after I sort of stopped going to races due to my work schedule. The best money I've spent on photography equipment since that time was when I recently bought a Canon 24-70 2.8L lens. Even the best camera bodies don't truly shine in image quality until you put some top shelf glass on them.


----------



## Bubba_1122 (May 19, 2010)

Browtine said:


> The best money I've spent on photography equipment since that time was when I recently bought a Canon 24-70 2.8L lens.



That lens was part of my upgrade project. 

It's a good un.


----------



## godogs57 (May 19, 2010)

How important is the fact that the 5D is not "environmentally sealed"? If its raining I am not going to be toting it to the deer stand or elk woods anyway. Opinions?


----------



## Browtine (May 19, 2010)

godogs57 said:


> How important is the fact that the 5D is not "environmentally sealed"? If its raining I am not going to be toting it to the deer stand or elk woods anyway. Opinions?



I've had several digital bodies now and only one was "weather sealed" (My original 1D). I've never had a camera fail shooting in damp/wet conditions. However, I at least shielded them from direct rain/water hitting it by shooting under an umbrella or other shelter. I've always worried more about dust than moisture really.


----------



## rip18 (May 19, 2010)

Be careful with the Mk III, Browtine.  I know a couple of professionals that went back to Nikon over the lack of focusing in their Mk III bodies.  Some Mk III bodies are great, and some were apparently REALLY bad - one wouldn't even focus on a bride coming down the aisle - after having been back to Canon 2 times!

I agree that good glass is important, but with a caveat that when jumping from a consumer level camera to one of the recent pro level bodies (Nikon or Canon), you can sometimes be better off buying a body over a new lens.  Case in point: my jump from a D70 to a D3.  The higher megapixel, full frame sensor and the quality of the higher ISO performance was MUCH better than buying a good lens (though I don't know what lens I'd have bought...).   The high ISO performance of today's pro-level sensors allows you to shoot an f/5.6 lens in light conditions that you couldn't shoot an f/2.8 lens in 5 years ago...  Albeit, the f/2.8 lens will focus faster & let you have less problems from background distractions...


----------



## Browtine (May 19, 2010)

rip18 said:


> Be careful with the Mk III, Browtine.  I know a couple of professionals that went back to Nikon over the lack of focusing in their Mk III bodies.  Some Mk III bodies are great, and some were apparently REALLY bad - one wouldn't even focus on a bride coming down the aisle - after having been back to Canon 2 times!



Yep, I've read about the focus issues. From what I can gather though, it's mostly only an issue in AI Servo focus trying to track a moving subject under fairly specific conditions. I never use AI Servo for moving subjects. I've always pre-set focus and shot when the subject reached point of focus. 

I've never read a single complaint on single point, one shot focus. Could be I just haven't run across the complaints though. I'm curious as to whether any of your friends with "1" bodies had any complaints outside Servo mode?


----------



## godogs57 (May 19, 2010)

Well, I had my 40D fail on an elk hunt this year and I was scratching my head over it for awhile. I posted my question in this forum back in October after a frosty morning shut my camera DOWN. The experts on here surmised that condensation on the inside caused it to go into a shut down mode. Later on...no problems. I tend to agree with their conclusion, although it was maddening to watch a Nikon buddy snap away and another buddy with a digital camera manufactured sometime before the Kennedy assassination snapping away as well!

I really would like the 5d if it will give me a little bit more than what I am getting from my 40D, but I want to make sure the investment will be worth it.


----------



## Uncle Grinch (May 19, 2010)

May I suggest the 5D (original model), which can be had for $1300+ and depending on which lens you have, you may want to upgrade to one or more of the "L" grade lens.

Try KEH in Atlanta (www.keh.com) for some very good used deals. I picked up a EX+ 5D last year with box and papers for $1400. 

Adorama and B&H are other companies you can look for used cameras. I have used them with good success.

I still have my 10D, but use my 5D most of the time. Think about your goals and what type of photography you want to do and center your needs on a lens that fits it.

Have some overlap in your lens... I have the 24-105 f4L, 70-200 f4L and the 100-400 f4.5-5.6L. These have served my needs for some time now.


----------



## rip18 (May 19, 2010)

Browtine said:


> Yep, I've read about the focus issues. From what I can gather though, it's mostly only an issue in AI Servo focus trying to track a moving subject under fairly specific conditions. I never use AI Servo for moving subjects. I've always pre-set focus and shot when the subject reached point of focus.
> 
> I've never read a single complaint on single point, one shot focus. Could be I just haven't run across the complaints though. I'm curious as to whether any of your friends with "1" bodies had any complaints outside Servo mode?



I can't recall any complaints outside of Servo mode; mostly with bird-in-flight and bride walking down the aisle - now a pro body that expensive SHOULD be able to focus on a bride walking down the aisle.  There were also problems with getting it to focus quickly (or focus at all) on birds that had just flown in to a perch.


----------



## Browtine (May 19, 2010)

rip18 said:


> I can't recall any complaints outside of Servo mode; mostly with bird-in-flight and bride walking down the aisle - now a pro body that expensive SHOULD be able to focus on a bride walking down the aisle.  There were also problems with getting it to focus quickly (or focus at all) on birds that had just flown in to a perch.



Interesting. And I agree... first complaint I've heard of from a wedding shooter. Almost all of the complaints I've read involved extremely bright sunlight and AI Servo. I wonder if the sensor was simply over a low contrast area (large area of white dress or such) in the event of this problem. 

I'm honestly leaning more toward going Nikon at this point anyway though. I just hate that both my speedlites and all my glass is Canon.


----------



## noggin nocker (May 19, 2010)

Rip18 has a good point about camera bodies. I agree that good glass is better and I have tried to get the best lenses that I can afford, but I can tell you that when I changed from a D80 to a D300s, the difference was night and day.  Not mentioning the easier functionality of the D300s, the focusing and picture quality is much better.  I can only imagine between the difference that a D700 or D3s would be.  I would think that the differences would be comparable as well for the Canon line.


----------



## Browtine (May 19, 2010)

noggin nocker said:


> Rip18 has a good point about camera bodies. I agree that good glass is better and I have tried to get the best lenses that I can afford, but I can tell you that when I changed from a D80 to a D300s, the difference was night and day.  Not mentioning the easier functionality of the D300s, the focusing and picture quality is much better.  I can only imagine between the difference that a D700 or D3s would be.  I would think that the differences would be comparable as well for the Canon line.



Oh yeah, there are differences, but my point was that unless someone knows what they are doing with a camera, the difference may be little to none compared to learning photography or even better glass, although to a lesser extent. If someone can't properly expose an image, the best bodies and autofocus can't magically make better photos than the cheaper bodies. Even with no more knowledge the better glass will at least make an improvement in sharpness and contrast, and sometimes color to some degree.


----------



## rip18 (May 19, 2010)

Browtine said:


> Oh yeah, there are differences, but my point was that unless someone knows what they are doing with a camera, the difference may be little to none compared to learning photography or even better glass, although to a lesser extent. If someone can't properly expose an image, the best bodies and autofocus can't magically make better photos than the cheaper bodies. Even with no more knowledge the better glass will at least make an improvement in sharpness and contrast, and sometimes color to some degree.



Agreed - and the cutting edge bodies will make a TREMENDOUS difference in printable sharpness/contrast in low light with their LOW ISO capability, even with "kit" lenses.  These cameras (while pricey) allow hand-held shots in low light that are printable for family pix - think dance recitals, school plays, evening ball games, etc.  We can get shots now, that we only dreamed about a few short years ago.  When those cutting edge bodies are teamed with good glass, a tripod, and good technique, the results are even more impressive.

Sorry to get so far off topic, godogs57.  The basic message throughout this thread stays the same for a semi-serious photographer: 1) buy the best glass you can and 2) buy the best body you can.  When you can't buy 'em both, buy the glass...


----------



## Browtine (May 20, 2010)

rip18 said:


> Agreed - and the cutting edge bodies will make a TREMENDOUS difference in printable sharpness/contrast in low light with their LOW ISO capability, even with "kit" lenses.  These cameras (while pricey) allow hand-held shots in low light that are printable for family pix - think dance recitals, school plays, evening ball games, etc.  We can get shots now, that we only dreamed about a few short years ago.  When those cutting edge bodies are teamed with good glass, a tripod, and good technique, the results are even more impressive.
> 
> Sorry to get so far off topic, godogs57.  The basic message throughout this thread stays the same for a semi-serious photographer: 1) buy the best glass you can and 2) buy the best body you can.  When you can't buy 'em both, buy the glass...



Absolutely... and I second the apology for the thread 'jacking.


----------



## godogs57 (May 20, 2010)

Apologies not accepted....not necessary. I'm just sitting here soaking all this in. Great comments, great points! Thanks.


----------



## ALAQUAIL (May 21, 2010)

if you find something wrong with your canon :wink wink:, call canon and ask them about the canon customer loyalty program. They offer you cameras at discounted rates (basically a trade in program.) Not sure if you would be better just to sell it outright or not.

I had one that everytime i download images ... random pictures would "block" out & discolor.... to the point that i take like 10 times more pictures than i need ... just to have 1 usable image.

Will start a post regarding it shortly.


----------



## craigsexton (May 21, 2010)

lots of good conversations on here. Being one that has owned serveral 1Dmkxx bodies, 5D bodies, 20D, 30D and 40D bodies here's my advice.

*Don't get hung up on full frame
*Don't get hung up on mega pixels
*Think hard and long about "what am I even photographing"
*write down the pros and cons of each
*analysize it to death

with all this said I've been in the same place you are and have made the wrong decisions. At one point I just had to have the full frame. The 5D is an awesome camera but then again so is the 20D. They all just have different limiatations.

I'm going to assume you shoot more wildlife than other things. This is where I'm at now myself. I chose to stay with the 1D series. I have a 1DmkII. You should be ablel to sell your 40D and put about $300 with it to buy a good used mkII body. It's sealed so you don't have to worry about the condensation issue. However I still wouldn't shoot in the pouring rain. Besides,unless your shooting L glass with the same seals your body will be fine but your lens will get water in it!

Like Browtine stated, get a body you like and invest in glass. Honestly, your 40D is very sufficient.

I do love the 1d series though  Good luck. And if you're close to the metro Atlanta area I'd be more than happy to have you over and we could go down to the local park for some shooting (camera's that is...they always frown on bringing guns) 

Craig


----------

