Going from a 400D to a 40D; is it worth it?

Anton17

Anton17

Messages
538
Name
Anton
Edit My Images
Yes
Most surely has been asked before, possibly a no brainer.

For those who didn't see my earlier thread my 400D's shutter has recently been rendered unusable and living over in Cyprus I am not sure how long it will take me to get this fixed, or for what cost. There are Canon repairers over here, but it's a long drive, and I hopefully should have my 400D fixed sometime after the end of the month. :thinking:

To the point, the whole thing has given me a glimpse of camera mortality. After I first got my 400D 6 months ago I was astonished at how professional I thought it felt, having only used point and shoot digital cameras before, but little by little I've been feeling how toy-ish the 400D feels and the entry level sticker is plastered all over it. It is not just the feel, but I have been finding that I am simply not getting what I want out of my shots, and I don't want to have to rely on post edit to get the look of an image that I want. I am well aware that part of it is to do with my skill level and experience, but I can't help feeling there's something else in the mix.

Now in normal circumstances you would all tell me that it's not the 400D body I need to replace, but the lens. I have only the stock lens and a 90-300m which there is really nothing to say about (I don't even have any filters). I would consider getting more glass, but decent glass is just as much as a second hand body + lens, and after having my 400D break I don't feel very safe using it. :shrug:

What kind of differences am I likely to see if I went ahead and bought a 40D? I wouldn't be able to get one from new, and I'm scouting eBay for when my wages come in, but right now I'm considering my options. I am very happy with the 400D but I do find it just lacking in some things below par and I am sure that is to do with what the camera is designed for. Is the 40D going to feel like a noticeable step up in both camera operation/effectiveness and most importantly, picture quality?

The thing is that I know I am still a noobie and I am sure that I haven't reached the limits of the 400D, and I think that's a good thing. I am sure I could still get better through using it (I can still feel it now) but the break has left me feeling insecure about it and I would like to up the ante. If it were up to me I would love a 50D but that kind of money is not an option now, and I'm wondering if a 40D is going to be a big enough difference to make getting it worth it. (Should I wait about 3 months (saying this before knowing whether/when I can get the 400D fixed) and save for a 50D, or get a 40D and build up the glass before another upgrade?).

Would like to hear any opinions or experiences from anyone, if you've been in a similar situation. I am sure I would not be disappointed with 40D and I'm sure I would love it and not regret it, but is that the right thing for me now? I feel like I'm leaving the 400D in the dark and being a bad craftsman by blaming his tools... but if a 40D is going to be better, then I'm going to find it hard to resist. :nuts:
 
the 40d is bigger and heavier. but feels more comfortable to me. when you sit the 400d next to a 40d you really notice the difference. the 40d has better noise handling at higher iso and the 2nd wheel on the back is great for altering settings quickly. image quality wise, i doubt you will see that much difference.

go for it since you have no faith in your existing equipment, or if you are happy the 400d is ok, go for the glass. you will see more of an improvement
 
I upgraded to a 40D 2 months ago. It is a reat improvement for me, but the main thing I needed was the faster fps to shoot skateboard sequences. I had invested in glass first, and to me that is the key to getting the most of either 400d or 40d. When I put on my first piece of decent glass, my images were taken to another level!

Difficult one really. Personally unless you need a feature of the 40D stick with the 400 and invest in glass.

If you want to bulk up the size of the 400D consider a battery grip (Some on here swear it makes you look more "Pro":lol:)
 
Thanks to both of you 40D owners.

I completely agree with the lens side of it but for one I wouldn't know where to start with a new lens or what I'd be looking for, and two is the price of the buggers. But the all important number 3 is that even if I can get my 400D repaired it's going to feel like damaged goods, and it's no good buying a nice lens if I don't have a (fully working and pristine) body to use it on.

Looking at the kit lens that comes with the 40D (the 17-85mm) I can see just from looking at it it's going to be a better lens (comparing to the kit lens of 400D). Would anyone confirm that? If that's the case, then wouldn't getting a 40D with the kit lens be a step up in both lens and body? Seems like a good compromise, no?

I feel like I'm being naive for the sake of wanting a new toy. :)
 
I think the 400D IQ would be more on par with a 30D tbh, if that - I'd expect the 30D to be better. Comparing mine to a mate's 400D that's what I see anyway.

It's a big step up, but if you're looking for good, inexpensive glass try the 50mm 1.8, it's a star! :)
 
to be fair, if a reputable company/person has done the repair and a service. it should be fine for a while. if you car breaks down once, do you lose all faith in the car or get it fixed and carry on your merry way?

i would stick with the 400d unless it is stupid money to repair. the 17-85 is better than the old non IS kit lens and i couldnt fault mine for what it was.

what budget have you got?
 
DTM said:
It's a big step up, but if you're looking for good, inexpensive glass try the 50mm 1.8, it's a star! :)
Click to expand...

Yep I had my eye on that little gem for a while, but I've been doing a lot of landscape shots lately which draws me to the lower mm's of the 400D kit lens for the frames that I want. That's another thing that really draws me to the 40D, since that kit lens has just the kind of range I'm looking for; 17-85mm would do me wonders.

fletch5 said:
to be fair, if a reputable company/person has done the repair and a service. it should be fine for a while. if you car breaks down once, do you lose all faith in the car or get it fixed and carry on your merry way?

i would stick with the 400d unless it is stupid money to repair. the 17-85 is better than the old non IS kit lens and i couldnt fault mine for what it was.

what budget have you got?
Click to expand...

Yeah, okay, I do agree... but I am just a little shaken up with me breaking my 400D. I want to see if I can get it serviced and cleaned when I take it in for a repair just so I know everything is ship-shape.

My budget is a hard thing to say right now. I am over in Cyprus playing live-music shows by the night so I get paid for how many shows we do in a month, so I'm not entirely sure just how much I will have at the end of the month. I think after taking off rent, the cost of the 400D repair (estimate) and some books I will have about £400 to work with. That's not a lot but I think it will do, and it's about as far as I can realistically stretch (this is why I'm trying not to look at the shiny 50D) and I reckon I can get a nice 40D from eBay for around that price.
 
I went through this debate myself and eventually picked up a second hand 40D on here. The only thing I regret is not doing it sooner. The 40D is a much better camera, the size and weight offer a much bigger advantage than I would have anticipated.

I find that I can hand hold shots alot better, which means I can leave the tripod at home much more. I also find that my exposure with the 40D is spot on more than I would have had with the 400d, so for me, I feel that I am getting better images from the 40D.

Great camera!
 
I went from a 400d to 40d and don't regret it for an instant, but I upgraded for better ISO performance and decreased shutter lag, I shoot mostly animals and bugs so the difference was worth it. However if landscapes are your thing, I think better glass and a tripod would make more impact for you until you can afford a fulll frame monster!!
And the repair on your 400d should be guaranteed no?

Tara
 
Personally I went from a 300D to a 40D and its a world apart, the build quality of the 40D the size and weight all suit me very well and I love the speed of it, wouldn't change it for anything but a 1D at the moment, does everything I need it to and will always be more capable than my skill as a photographer.

MB
 
Hmmm, for what you want, it has to be a glass upgrade.
You are saying you are worried by a 400d breaking, yet you are after a second hand 40d? Surely that defeats the object.

Why not look at the tamron 17-50 f2.8? Never tried one myself but it gets rave reviews from alot of the members here for being very sharp. With it being a third party brand, it also is alot cheaper then a Canon lens, and will give you a decent wide aperture too.
Then, also look at spending a few quid on a fairly decent, sturdy tripod and (and dont take this the wrong way, i'm not being funny) get some books on landscape photography.

I made the upgrade from the 350d to a 40d, but that was because i needed the higher FPS and better noise handling at higher ISOs.

With regards to the 17-85, i didnt like it. Personally, i would look for a second hand Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5. Its very light and would be a good walk about lens. That, combined with the lightweight body of the 400d will make this a nice, light camera, perfect for long walks around :)
 
I had a 20D, I moved to a 40D

Did my images improve overnight? No.

Would my images be any different if I went back to a 20D now? No (Well, maybe a little less noise). What are you finding your images lack? Because my gut feel is that despite the 40D being a serious upgrade to a 400D you will be dissapointed at how little yourimages change.

If you upgrade to a 40D then it should be because you want a body that has better autofocus, improved handling and speed. Not because you want better image quality

The stock lens, the 18-55 non IS is not really very good. Nor, if I'm honest, is the 90-300. Now the 17-85mm is a better lens and you probably will notice an improvement - especially with the image stabiliser.

HTH
 
RichardtheSane said:
I had a 20D, I moved to a 40D

Did my images improve overnight? No.

Would my images be any different if I went back to a 20D now? No
Click to expand...

Completely agree and I wasn't for a second thinking that wasn't the case. I was asking more in terms of capability and potential rather than "Lets throw money at something and hope that we looks better". I think having a better body like the 40D is going to take off a few (if there are any) limits and open me and the images up a little more at both ends and I think that's a big reason why I'm looking forward to one.

RichardtheSane said:
If you upgrade to a 40D then it should be because you want a body that has better autofocus, improved handling and speed. Not because you want better image quality.
Click to expand...

Okay, I guess I phrased it wrong (but who doesn't want better image quality?). Basically I knew straight after getting my 400D that even though it impressed me and I could take some real nice shots, I saw it as a beginner camera so I could learn the basics. I intended to keep it a lot longer than I have now (I probably still will) before I upgraded either a body or a lens, so I could get as much out of it as I could/should. I don't think I have done that yet, and that may be a bad thing, but I think it just means that I can go on and progress with a better body/lens with the 40D possibly get further, faster, and have more fun.

I really want that extra heaviness in the camera, actually, since I find things like that very comfortable and reassuring, and I found the auto-focus on the 400D naff in some shots so I would not mind upgrading that at all. The speed, maybe not, but the less shutter lag then definitely yes. Like I said, I was going to have the 400D a lot longer before having another body but having it break has given me a kick up the backside. I didn't think I was going to get a 40D since I thought if I were to upgrade I'd want a big change a.k.a. 50D with more money invested in it at a later date; the 40D seemed like a pointless middleground. Now it seems like a very reasonable and appealing compromise given my situation... and in all honesty, I'm quite excited at the thought of one, and that can only reflect in future shots.

RichardtheSane said:
The stock lens, the 18-55 non IS is not really very good. Nor, if I'm honest, is the 90-300. Now the 17-85mm is a better lens and you probably will notice an improvement - especially with the image stabiliser.
Click to expand...

Fully aware that my current lenses are... crap. The lens I'd be getting with the 40D, the 17-85mm, is a really big teaser and half the reason I'd be getting the 40D (in short-term and immediate conditions, anyway). I really think I'd have a ball with that lens and the body to compliment it.

Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy the 400D and it has taught me a lot, and even though it feels quite premature I feel like I need to move on. The 40D feels more and more appealing the more I think about it, but I'm far from a decision. In complete honesty, though, even after listening and agreeing to all the points about lenses - if I had the choice between a new lens for my 400D or the 40D and it's kit lens then I'd choose the 40D in a heartbeat; that's how I feel right now.

I have listened to both parties and they have really just stated the same things I was split in my mind about, and I still am. Though, I am leaning strongly and fastly towards the 40D. It all depends on circumstance... but lets take this for an example. I'm a guitarist, and I had two guitars while I was starting out that I started out on. When I bought my first half-decent one I could feel the improvements and changes straight away, but I was still crap. I now fully realise as more of a accomplished musician that I would have never gotten to where I am skill-wise and knowledge-wise without the equipment I have/had. It is like spending a lot of time with talented people, and they start to rub off on you. Call it inspiration, if you will, or a balance between the technology of tools and your own hands, but there is definitely something there that has made me step up my game in the past. Photography is a very different thing, but I am sure that will happen with the 40D, I just want to consider my options and more experienced people's opinions.

I appreciate all answers and I have agreed with almost all of them, even ones that contradict a feeling I personally have. I think I started this thread with an answer already in my mind and I just wanted people to confirm it, and I think they have. It may be a bad thing, and I'm not fully decided yet, but when you see what you want it's hard to want anything else. It's a while off yet but I'm falling for the 40D... :bonk:
 
GET NEW GLASS! :lol:
 
The way I see it, is if you buy the 40D instead of paying to get the 400D fixed you're saving yourself money and time because...

... you'll upgrade eventually anyway - the 40D is for life, the 400D is for christmas. :D
 
RichardtheSane said:
I had a 20D, I moved to a 40D

Did my images improve overnight? No.

Would my images be any different if I went back to a 20D now? No (Well, maybe a little less noise). What are you finding your images lack? Because my gut feel is that despite the 40D being a serious upgrade to a 400D you will be dissapointed at how little yourimages change.

If you upgrade to a 40D then it should be because you want a body that has better autofocus, improved handling and speed. Not because you want better image quality

The stock lens, the 18-55 non IS is not really very good. Nor, if I'm honest, is the 90-300. Now the 17-85mm is a better lens and you probably will notice an improvement - especially with the image stabiliser.

HTH
Click to expand...


Good post
Good advice

:thumbs:
 
I went from a 400D to a 40D last month, I did this as the upgrade cost me about £200 which I had to hand, looking for better glass was going to cost me mega bucks for L glass which was entirely out of my range. What I did want from the 40D I've got, namely better high ISO perfromance, lesss shutter lag, larger screen and better ergonomics (the 400D felt small to me). One added bonus is the 40D can spot meter when required, a facility the 400D was lacking.

If you have the budget for L glass then stick with the 400D as this will produce better cleaner images, if not go for the 40D.
 
I went for the 40d from a 450d. I couldn't see the benefit in the extra cost of the 50d. I like the feel of the 40d.

Reason. I often go out with my granddaughter and we have had to take turns with the 450d. Now we can have one each. Simple, eh!!!

John
 
Whats all this talk of "shutter lag"? I've used a few different DSLRs and I've never experienced any lag on any of them?

Are we talking about the time it takes for the shutter to activate or the time it takes to complete the whole 'shutter up, expose, shutter down' process?

Just curious!
 
I went from a 400D to a 40D last month and am so glad I did. Firstly I much prefer the feel of the 40D to the 400D, with the larger more robust body feeling much more natural and comfortable in my hands. Features wise, it's more a case of small improvements in all areas rather than one big single thing I wanted. Things such as spot metering, better AF, larger & brighter viewfinder, better ISO performance, larger LCD screen, secondary LCD screen, 6.5fps, lower shutter lag and so on. All these conspire to make it a much better body all round.

That said, I also have to agree with others here that you ought to upgrade your glass, either first or at the same time. This isn't mandatory of course and I'm not suggesting that many of the above features won't be an advantage unless you buy new glass but you'll be "strangling" the 40D a fair bit if you don't.

As an example, I knew that the 40D was the body I wanted even when I bought the 400D but I had a choice back then. I could either get the 40D (then a brand new model) with just a basic lens or I could get the 400D and spend the difference on glass. I went the latter route, figuring I could upgrade the body later and got my Sigma 17-70 and Canon 70-200 before upgrading the body to the 40D. Looking back I still think this was the best route to take but YMMV :)

HTH :)
 
I went from a 400D to a 40D a few months back, to be honest I loved/love both models! I get better noise handling and a faster fps plus spot metering & live view etc now with the 40D as well as it feeling much better to handle as it's bigger and yes side by side it makes the 400D look like a toy but as many people have said my images haven't really improved that much and I did love my 400D when I had it. Although I'm happy I made the switch lenses will be my next buys for the next 2 or 3 years or until I feel I have outgrown the 40D.
 
To me "shutter lag" is the time between you pressing the button and the photo being taken. Less lag = less missed shots, the difference was noticeable to me between my 400d and better halfs' 30d, the 40d is faster again.

Tara
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top