Canon 40D for beginner, after Sony A100

Messages
4
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
#1
Hello All
Just after a few comments on the aging Canon 40D, I am so close to ordering a good condition camera body only.

I bought an Sony A100 a few months after they were released, used it for a few years collected a couple of extra lenses and various equipment, eventually I found I wasn't using it so much due to having to carry lots of equipment and hastle of changing lenses, I made the mistake (I realise now) of selling it and buying a bridge camera (Fujifilm s6800).

I am constantly finding limitations with the bridge camera, holding back creativity and controllability. I'm getting frustrated at times.

I know the 40d is old and in low light isn't the best, but as my last DSLR experience was with a Sony A100, I'm wondering if I would be pleasantly surprised at the 40d, I have three Eos lenses that I have just been given hence the decision for an old body only Eos.

Looking for people's comments on how the two cameras compare.
 
Messages
20,178
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
#2
If the Canon lenses are nice ones then I'd agree with looking at a Canon DSLR but if they're a bit ho-hum and if you have some disposable income to spend then I'd be much more tempted by a mirrorless camera.

I have Panasonic Micro Four Thirds cameras and a FF Sony A7, all mirrorless, and there are also APS-C options from Sony and Fuji and others. I much prefer mirrorless to DSLR's but in the DSLR line how about a 5D?

I suppose a lot depends on what you want to take pictures of and in what situations, how nice your existing Canon lenses are and how much you're willing to spend... Anyway, I just thought I'd throw the idea of mirrorless at you and give you something else to think about...
 
Messages
855
Name
Alistair
Edit My Images
No
#3
I was kinda in your situation.
I owned a Sony A100, then upgraded to the A350 which had a tilting screen and liveview and 14mp instead of 10mp. I then sold it all (including various A-mount lenses) and moved to the Canon 60D.
The older Canon 40D is probably equivalent to the Sony A100, in that it is also 10mp, but the 40D is a mid-range camera, so it's a bit chunkier.
However it's getting old and it's liveview is rather primitive. The 40D isn't going to be great in low light and shadow recovery will be a struggle.
If you have the money, a Canon 60D would be a good upgrade although even that it getting old.

I would ask what lenses do you have both for Sony A-mount and the ones you've been given for Canon.
If the Canon lenses are quite average, then it still might be worth looking at another brand.
If you have some decent Sony A-mount lenses, then you could go for a Sony E-mount camera (such as the Sony A5000) and use an A-mount to E-mount lens adaptor.

When I changed from Sony to Canon, my two favourite lenses were:
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX - I sold this for about £150 and bought the Canon version for £180, now these can be found for around £100.
Minolta 50mm f1.8 RS - a beautiful 50mm. I sold this for around £60 and bought the Canon 50mm f1.8 for £75.

Moving to a Sony body would mean a smaller mirrorless camera, but it would mean having to buy a lens adaptor, but you could over time upgrade your lenses for newer E-mount versions.
Going for a Canon 40/50/60D body is going to be bigger and heavier.
MPB guide prices:
Canon 40D: £80-90
Canon 60D: £200ish
Sony A5000: £100-120
Sony A6000: £260+

You could look at an old full frame camera, but that's only worthwhile if you have full frame lenses, ie old Minolta A-mount lenses to mount on a Sony A7 (original) or full frame Canon EF lenses to put on a Canon 5D (original). So I'd forget about those for the moment.

Going to the 40D is going to be marginally better than the A100, but depending on what you want to photograph, what lenses you have and what your budget is this would be a key factor.
 
Messages
1,434
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
#5
I still have a 40d going strong around 15 years after I bought it. Low light wise I never struggled and it was rated as one of the best for a longtime. When Canon released the 50d many slammed this for low light situations against the 40d and only when the 60d landed was this seen to be marginally better.
Yes if you're budget stretches buy the best you can, but the 40d can still hold its own I'm sure and a low mileage one at a good price would be a steal. I've knocked out prints at 12x18 no problems.
I have now upgraded to a 5d mkiii but keep my 40d as backup as well as for using my crop sensor fish eye.
 
Messages
35
Edit My Images
Yes
#6
I often use my 40d which i bought in 2007. If I was after another knock around, I wouldn’t hesitate to buy one at the current market price.
 
Messages
921
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
#7
I've seen Canon 7d and nikon d7000 cameras go locally to me for not much over £200. If you an stretch to that then I'd recommend them. The 40d was a great camera but as others have mentioned, it's really old now and has a lot of missing features that are present in newer cameras.

How much are you looking at spending though?
 
OP
OP
P
Messages
4
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
#8
Thanks for all the great comments and advice, I still haven't taken the plunge, I have only set myself such a low priced option/ budget until I know what I want for sure, I had even been looking a couple of weeks ago at an old Panasonic LX5 which offer less limitations in certain situations than my bridge camera. I think the LX5 style (or newer versio) would only be good as a camera to have alongside an DSLR.
 
Messages
1,070
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
#9
I went from A200 to D90 to EM10 (keeping this as a walkaround) and I am now looking at getting a 2nd hand a200 as some of the nicest pictures I ever took were with the a200.

I have already picked up a well respected (on DYXUM) older model Sigma APO 70-300 for £30 and will be keeping my eye open for Minolta metal body lenses. I don't expect to spend more than £120 in total to replace most of my original a200 set up
 
OP
OP
P
Messages
4
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
#10
Just out of interest, the canon lenses I have are :
Canon ultrasonic ef 75-300 1:4-5.6 II
C-AF1 2x teleplus MC7
Canon EFS 18-55 1:3.5-5.6

Not sure how good they are but it'd be a start.
 
Messages
11,795
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
#11
Both lenses appear to be decent (from a quick scan of reviews) but neither are worth a great deal so you shouldn't feel tied to get a Canon camera if there's a better option for you in another make.
 
Messages
4,103
Name
matt
Edit My Images
Yes
#12
As new models appear so apparently older models which were good at the time seem to become somehow worse, but terrific photos have been taken with old cameras before the later models came out, how can that be? Truth be told the newer models offer more features, maybe better noise control, maybe faster startup times etc more megapixels (not always a good thing), the 40d was a good camera in its day, so if you can get a good example cheap I think it's worth a punt, I have a 50d and I think most amateurs would find it's still a fine camera, not a lot better than the 40 really. I bought it because I wanted new and it was the current model at the time. Don't get het up about equipment too much, my wife takes better pictures than me using the 50, whereas I use a 5d3, because she has a better eye than me.
 
Messages
20,178
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
#13
Thanks for all the great comments and advice, I still haven't taken the plunge, I have only set myself such a low priced option/ budget until I know what I want for sure, I had even been looking a couple of weeks ago at an old Panasonic LX5 which offer less limitations in certain situations than my bridge camera. I think the LX5 style (or newer versio) would only be good as a camera to have alongside an DSLR.
I've had a couple of LXx cameras including a LX5 and would describe them as thoroughly unremarkable by todays standards and you can probably get better image quality from a phone these days. I really wouldn't give them a second look. I suppose one good thing is that you can set them up manually with zone focus or hyperfocal settings and just point and shoot so they can capture fast action or let you snap away street style. The image quality is nothing special though.
 
OP
OP
P
Messages
4
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
#14
I've had a couple of LXx cameras including a LX5 and would describe them as thoroughly unremarkable by todays standards and you can probably get better image quality from a phone these days. I really wouldn't give them a second look. I suppose one good thing is that you can set them up manually with zone focus or hyperfocal settings and just point and shoot so they can capture fast action or let you snap away street style. The image quality is nothing special though.
It was the long shutter speeds that appealed to me. Love the controls too.
 
Top