Canon 40D/50D/60D

W

Whiters

Messages
169
Name
Ross
Edit My Images
Yes
I currently own a 450D and own some decent lenses for my landscape work, a Sigma 10-20, Sigma 17-70 OS and a Tamron 17-50. Will be buying the new Tamron 70-300mm F4-5.6 SP Di VC USD soon too (mainly for action shots of our new dog).

However I am now looking at upgrading my camera for an improvement in image quality for my landscape shots.

It seems prices are as follows: 40D approx £400 S/H on ebay; 50D approx £550 S/H on ebay; 60D £789 brand new at Warehouse Express.

What I want to know is whether each step up in price is justified by an increase in image quality?

Thanks in advance.
 
I have just upgraded from a 450d to the 60d, still learning my way around it at the minute. Personally it is a big step up for me, what i have noticed is that jpegs straight from the camera look to have better colour and clarity. I have also noticed that it performs better in poor lighting. I only upgraded because the wife wanted to buy me another camera, dont know anything about the 40 and 50d but the 60d is a cracking piece of equipment.
 
Unless you're specifically after the larger body size and better build quality of the xxD series, I can't see the 40D being much of an upgrade from the 450D tbh, which leaves the 50D or 60D.

Of those two, for landscape work, I'd say the 50D would be more than adequate and I doubt the advantages of the 60D would really be relevant.
 
My first upgrade was to the 50D rather than the 40D and I was very pleased with it.
From what I have been told there is not much difference from the 50d & 60D in term of image quality. However I have not had any experience of it.
 
Thanks for the replies so far chaps. At the moment I'm feeling the 50D offers best value-for-money but I'm edging towards the 60D due to the security of having a warranty.
 
What about the new button lay-out of the 60D? How have users got on with that?
 
There's going to be a difference in quality jumping from 450 to 60 but you might need L glass to get the best out of the camera. I jumped into DSLR with a 40D and its an amazing cam, didn't like the feel of the xxx range and the button layout on the back is no where as good as the xx range. The 40/50 D's feel like a mans camera whereas the 550D to me didn't, which was the current xxx series that I tried.

Go to Dpreview and compare the ones you fancy.
 
Yeah, I might consider a 17-40 f/4L which is reasonably affordable. Some people say that the L series are wasted on crop sensors though? Opinions differ I guess.

I'm either going to go budget and pay £400 for a secondhand 40D or go the whole hog and go in for a new 60D.

£550 is a bit much for me to pay for a secondhand camera (50D) with no guarantee/3 month guarantee, and I think if I was going to pay that I may as well find another £240 for a brand new camera (60D) with a guarantee.

Thinking aloud here, but I could get a 40D and the 17-40 for the combined price of a 60D if I were to sell my Tamron 17-50....
 
How about adding a secondhand 5D classic into the mix for a full-frame option? around £700-800 from LCE or other dealers, it also fits into the wide price bracket you've given.
 
Yes, that is another option that I have been considering. My head is spinning!

Still the problem there though of paying good money for a second hand camera with only 3 month guarantee (which I think is the case with LCE?). If something goes wrong after that I can't afford to replace it and am back to the 450D.

Still worth thinking about for the image quality though.
 
MPB give you 6 months warranty :thumbs:

Are you in Tyne and Wear area ? Chas Eagles has a nice 50D for sale with 6 month warranty for £499
 
Whiters said:
Yeah, I might consider a 17-40 f/4L which is reasonably affordable. Some people say that the L series are wasted on crop sensors though? Opinions differ I guess.
Click to expand...

Bull s***, I say. My 70-200mm f4 L is lurvely on the 400D. Can't wait to stick it on my 7D when I get my mitts on it!

I've had the privilege of trying a few L lenses on the 400D, including: 35mm f1.4L, 70-200 f2.8L, 24-70 f2.8L, 50mm f1.2L, 85mm f1.2L... and 300mm f4L IS

The results from each have left me dribbling slightly, even with knackered AF on the 85mm f1.2L!
 
Know this is going to get me a verbal kicking, but here goes anyway

I would go for the 40D, the lower mp sensor seems to produce more distinct detail in things like leaves on mid range and distant trees/bushes etc. Compared like for like shots with those from the 15mp camera and there was definitely a difference, the higher mp seemed to be more colour than detail

As I said prepared to get shot at here, but can only relate my own findings
 
Last edited:
I remembered today why I'm not going full frame - I can't afford it! Ok, so I can get a
2nd hand 5D for about £700 but then I would have to buy a range of L lenses to justify it. Which I just can't afford to do. And I can't be bothered with the hassle of changing all my lenses now either.

I actually like the selection of lenses I have, although possible a 17-40L would be an affordable upgrade on the Tamron 17-50 or the Sigma 17-70, so it's just a case of which xxD that I go for, or if I stick with the 450D for now.

Scotty Pro, I'm actually in Cornwall now so couldn't be further away from that dealer unfortunately! I think there's one in a local shop though so will go and have a look.

Interesting to see people recommending the 40D, I noticed a few of the shots in the 'Landscape Photographer of the Year' book were taken with a 40D.

Will keep thinking on it for now. Cheers for the advice guys.
 
The 40D is a nice camera..

But how about a real out of left field idea.. a s/h film camera for landscape work? 35mm is well within budget, even a medium format kit could come in cheaper than the s/h 50D for a body and a couple of lenses. With scanned negatives and a hybrid workflow it's not really any harder than digital.
 
I would go 40d as a start and don't even think about the 17-40 on a crop. The 10-22 UWA is just as good. The 50d is good, but not significantly different to the 40d to warrant the extra and it dosnt handle low light as well as the 40d due to it's tiny cramped pixels.

The 60d is a joke, what were Canon thinking:lol: how long before that flappy thing on the back falls off:clap:
 
I went from a 450D to a 40D and then a 50D.
In hindsight I would have stuck with the 40D and used the rest of the money for a lens upgrade.
I agree with Lost gear with regard to the 17-40, is a better choice for a cropped body.
Don't forget the 1.6 x rule, a 17-40 will give you 27-64mm on a cropped sensor.
In my opinion, when it comes to L lenses, the 24-105L and 70-200L are good choices for cropped sensor bodies
 
Whiters said:
Thinking aloud here, but I could get a 40D and the 17-40 for the combined price of a 60D if I were to sell my Tamron 17-50....
Click to expand...

Madness, IMVHO. I tried the 17-40 against the Tamron and IMVHO there was no contest, even without considering that the Tamron is f2.8 and has an extra 10mm reach I bought the Tamron.
 
I am thinknig about an upgrade from my 400D as well... I can't help thinkng that the 60D is not really worth it...

I am on the prowl for a good s/h 50D :)
 
Thanks for all the help chaps, it's interesting to guage all the different opinions re crop sensors v full frame; to L-lens or not to to L-lens on crop sensors etc.

I think my final decision is to buy a second-hand 40D for £400 and see how I get on with the lenses I own before spending any money on gear. Have just invested in the Lee filter system too so it's probably time for me to reign in my spending a little!
 
the 40d is an excellent camera. probably the best value for money you can get camera wise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top