Canon 40D still worth buying?

Messages
23
Edit My Images
No
My last cameras were a Canon 70D and Fuji X100 but due to circumstances I no longer have them. Before that I had a 40D & a 350D.

I don't much fancy buying a 350 again and always thought the 40 was quite a capable camera, however, time has passed and tech moves quickly. For a limited budget is it still a good purchase or are there any other options?

Probably will be used mainly for landscapes when out walking and family pictures, maybe even just with a 50mm to get me started if that helps with suggestions!
 
OP
R
Messages
23
Edit My Images
No
Thanks, I've just remembered it used the old compact flash cards but other than that, I did really like it! I'll have to see what's about. New it would be dangerous joining this forum before I even had a camera again!
 
Messages
128
Edit My Images
Yes
Is 10mp not a little low for landscape photography? What sort of budget you looking at?
 
Messages
5,278
Name
Dale.
Edit My Images
Yes
I had a 40D, an excellent camera even nowadays. No video, although there is a workaround but to be honest, it never bothered me. A lot of camera for your money.
 

Cobra

Staff member
Messages
96,583
Name
Phitt, Hissy Phitt
Edit My Images
No
and always thought the 40 was quite a capable camera, however, time has passed and tech moves quickly.
The 7D is far superior to the 40D
But the 40D can be had at under £100

Depending on your budget they can be had quite cheaply these days £259 from MBP* with approx 10.000 clicks on the clock

The 7DII is far superior to the 7D But of course it starts to get expensive with an "if only I had a few more quid" :D
Having came up that route, I then stuck at the 7DII for that reason :D

*disclaimer there are other 2nd hand dealers available. Its just the first one that came up
 
Last edited:
Messages
10,758
Edit My Images
No
FWIW

I had the 40D and IMO it had one of the best low noise sensors......very akin to my later owned 5D3. Lovely smooth image files needing very little by way of post processing.

The 7D on the other hand had marked noise that increased the amount of post processing required.
 
Messages
13,685
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
FWIW

I had the 40D and IMO it had one of the best low noise sensors......very akin to my later owned 5D3. Lovely smooth image files needing very little by way of post processing.

The 7D on the other hand had marked noise that increased the amount of post processing required.
I had two 40D's and got some decent photos from them.
With the right lenses sure it would be fine today
Also had a 7D, one of the best cameras ergonomics wise.
One of the worst for low ISO noise, had to get the exposure dead right
 
Messages
266
Edit My Images
Yes
40D are good but the sensor tech is old now.

I think i would rather go for a plastic modern one with a newer sensor these days rather than older better built
 
Messages
5,278
Name
Dale.
Edit My Images
Yes
FWIW



The 7D on the other hand had marked noise that increased the amount of post processing required.
I found this with my 7D (mk1) too, to the point I actually hated it. I learned the ETTR technique, which is actually very easy and this certainly improved images off my 7D. I'd call my relationship with it now, love hate.

There was a bad batch of the 18mp sensor though, if memory serves me right? (which I firmly believe mine is one of and the reason why it will never be seen in the classifieds here).

For the money, it's difficult to see past the 40D, well built and lovely, clean files.
 
Messages
1,238
Name
Kell
Edit My Images
Yes
I think people get hung up on having the very latest tech.

I recently bought a 20D for just £50 and loved it.

It was real back-to-basics photography and produced some great images.

I only sold it on as I wanted to get a 5D1 and didn’t want to become a camera hoarder.

Here are some of my pics from that camera.

 
OP
R
Messages
23
Edit My Images
No
Lots of replies! Thank you all!

I'd love to go for something like the 7D, but I'm realistically looking at £150 max for a body and a lens (which I appreciate isn't a lot!).

Also factoring I'll need some kind of editing software, although I'd prefer not to subscribe to the Adobe package which I used to have and probably some filters... Arghh I forgot how expensive photography gets!
 
OP
R
Messages
23
Edit My Images
No
I think people get hung up on having the very latest tech.

I recently bought a 20D for just £50 and loved it.

It was real back-to-basics photography and produced some great images.

I only sold it on as I wanted to get a 5D1 and didn’t want to become a camera hoarder.

Here are some of my pics from that camera.

Wow those pictures almost tempt me to go for the 20D! I'm not that old but a bit past having all the latest gadgetry, I just want to take nicer pictures than I can with my phone!
 
Messages
1,238
Name
Kell
Edit My Images
Yes
I’m not sure if this is allowed, but I’m just about to sell some of my EF-S lenses.

Including the 18-135 I used in the shots I took with the 20D in that album.

It was the the kit lens that came with my 600D, but it’s actually a really useful zoom and produces very sharp images.

If you get a camera and are interested I will be looking for around £80.
 
Messages
1,238
Name
Kell
Edit My Images
Yes
Wow those pictures almost tempt me to go for the 20D! I'm not that old but a bit past having all the latest gadgetry, I just want to take nicer pictures than I can with my phone!
Thanks.

The biggest eye-opener for me was just how noise-free they were compared to my 600D.

I thought it produced really clean images that were pleasing to my eye at least.
 
Messages
13,685
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
I would say its worth getting one wifh a built in sensor cleaner.
Think tne 40D was the first one to get it, well worth having.
 
OP
R
Messages
23
Edit My Images
No
Thanks @Kell however I'm thinking I want to start off with a 50mm f1.8 so will need to save just a bit longer! Think I'm happy now the 40D will still be OK and just thought of another plus, compared to a newer camera, smaller files need less storage!
 
Messages
1,238
Name
Kell
Edit My Images
Yes
The nifty fifty is a great, cheap lens.

The only thing I would say is that on a crop sensor it feels more like an 80mm.

It was one of the first additional lenses I bought for my 600d, but in practice I couldn’t use it indoors much as it always felt too in your face - by which I mean youi couldn't really get back far enough in a lot of situations.

A 30mm or 35mm lens is better suited to a crop body IMHO. The only problem is that they’re not as cheap.

Canon do also have a 24mm pancake lens and a 40mm pancake lens. They’re both f/2.8 rather than f/1.8, but will give you a wider field of view - especially if you're thinking of using one for lansdscapes.

The final thing I’d say about them is that they can go ‘off’ quite quickly. I had a 1.8i for my 600d from new, but after a year it simply wouldn’t focus.

I bought a SH 5D that was supplied with a 1.8ii and that was also front focusing quite a lot - making it essentially unusable. Now I’ve just bought a 5D3, it’s usable again as you can adjust the autofocus. I had to shift it to +20 though.

If you can find one second hand, the 50mm f/1.8 STM version is better than the other two.

Good luck with sourcing your kit.
 
Last edited:

Canon Bob

Loves the Enemy
Messages
10,738
Name
Bob
Edit My Images
Yes
FWIW
I had the 40D and IMO it had one of the best low noise sensors......very akin to my later owned 5D3. Lovely smooth image files needing very little by way of post processing.

The 7D on the other hand had marked noise that increased the amount of post processing required.
That mirrors my experience.and I'm still happy to give the old 40D an outing and leave the 1DXII's on the shelf.
 
OP
R
Messages
23
Edit My Images
No
Clearly you lot are a bad influence as I've found a 40D in good nick for £85 with 16k shutter count that I've decided to get! I'll save up for a lens but thought that seemed a reasonable price for the condition and too good to pass up...
 
Messages
735
Name
Clint
Edit My Images
Yes
If you’re happy to go down the Nikon route the D300, D300s is similar to the 40D but has a few better features.
 
OP
R
Messages
23
Edit My Images
No
If you’re happy to go down the Nikon route the D300, D300s is similar to the 40D but has a few better features.
Had a Nikon a while back and didn't like the feel of it and their lenses always confuse me what fits on which camera (I'm a bit dense sometimes ) I did consider it, though so good shout!
 
Messages
21
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
Also factoring I'll need some kind of editing software, although I'd prefer not to subscribe to the Adobe package which I used to have and probably some filters... Arghh I forgot how expensive photography gets!
I found myself searching for a software package akin to Photoshop which didn't cost more than I could afford. I came across Affinity Photo, and based on my usage so far, I recommend it. Far more capable than the PS v6.0 I used to have access to at work, many years ago.

BTW, I still have my 350D and 450D; both are going strong, and take good images. The glass is the thing! Grab a 50mm f1.8 if that is all you can afford. A mild telephoto is not a bad lens for landscape--you can pick out details and patterns, rather than just the wide vista.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,238
Name
Kell
Edit My Images
Yes
When I first got a DSLR Canon camera, I used the DPP software that came with it.

I've since switched to Lightroom, but if you're looking for something free, you can download it from Canon direct.

It's very capable.
 
Messages
5,752
Name
Darran, Daz or ****
Edit My Images
Yes
The 7D is far superior to the 40D
But the 40D can be had at under £100
The 7D had noise issues and even now I would personally opt for a 40D over the 7D.

The 40D was and still is capable of taking excellent photos
I've previously owned a 40D and a 50D and you should be able to pick either bodies quite cheaply.
 
Last edited:
Messages
5,752
Name
Darran, Daz or ****
Edit My Images
Yes
Strange that, a few people have said that, now, but I never found that to be the case :thinking:
I remember a few owners (at least 2 from here) talking about it but then some complained about the 50D for various reasons but I never had any problems.
Now thinking about it, I know a young lad with a 7D who takes fantastic bird photos with it and he's been told by a few people they are the best photos they have seen taken with a 7D.
 

Cobra

Staff member
Messages
96,583
Name
Phitt, Hissy Phitt
Edit My Images
No
I remember a few owners (at least 2 from here) talking about it but then some complained about the 50D for various reasons but I never had any problems.
Now thinking about it, I know a young lad with a 7D who takes fantastic bird photos with it and he's been told by a few people they are the best photos they have seen taken with a 7D.
Maybe some camera's suit / don't suit some people, more so than others?
 
Messages
5,278
Name
Dale.
Edit My Images
Yes
Strange that, a few people have said that, now, but I never found that to be the case :thinking:

It is odd, common concensus is that the Mk1 was (is) a noisy beast. Mine is bad in the shadows and solid colours, especially blue. I think the 7D is slightly misunderstood though, nailing the exposure really helps, maybe you have the knack of exposing with it Chris. (y)

In my experience of it, it will never be a low light camera, it's ok in good light though with good exposing technique. ETTR really helped with mine, cutting down on post processing too. I still have mine, I use it in the hide and it's handy to have sitting about incase something interesting turns up in the garden.

The 40D was 10mp (if I remember right?), so 8mp lower than the 7D. With far less pixels to accomodate on the same sensor physical size, images will be cleaner off the 40D.

All that said, no matter what the camera, proper exposure is everything, especially with RAW files. (y)
 

Cobra

Staff member
Messages
96,583
Name
Phitt, Hissy Phitt
Edit My Images
No
It is odd, common concensus is that the Mk1 was (is) a noisy beast
Don't get me wrong the 40D is a great camera, I broke my digital photography teeth on it.
And used it for a few years. But I did find the 7D better all round.
It was mostly coupled to a 70-200 2.8. is.
Maybe because I never found the need to shoot above 800 iso?

I've no idea what it was like above that though ...
 
Messages
5,752
Name
Darran, Daz or ****
Edit My Images
Yes
Maybe because I never found the need to shoot above 800 iso?
Same for me and megapixels as I rarely print any of my photos.
Perhaps not need to pushing my 80D to it's limits I don't see any potential flaws.
 
OP
R
Messages
23
Edit My Images
No
Well I've managed to pick up a low shutter count 40D and a pristine 50mm f1.8 for £125 which seems a fair price and got batteries, memory card, filters etc included which will be sufficient to get me started again. (so much for saving up!) I'll probably look for a 24mm in a few months once I've got some practice in. Only got an old laptop to edit on (screens not up to much) but it's a start! Look forward to sharing some photos soon
 
Messages
13,685
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
Sounds good, can still get a good camera for not much cash

Don't forget live view needs to be turned on in the menu, off by default.
 
Top