Suggest a upgrade canon 40d

Right forgive me if some people think I am ignoring their posts, or neglecting to acknowledge their points... I am not, there's simply been that many replies in such a short time, and such a lot of info to take in, that a few have got missed or quite simply confused me.

Originally I would have liked the simple cost effective soloution of ugrading my 40d, to something similar, that would prove to be slightly better in low light. I was not expecting noise free images, but wanted something LESS noisy than what I had... I had assumed that higher models of the same range, would always outperform the one below, and it would be as simple as going from a 40d to a 50d or a 60d and I would have seen a noticeable improvement... not a vast one, but one where I can see the difference if you know what I mean.

My idea was that I would ideally get about £100ish for my 40d, and I could put £100 to £150 to myself for the body.

Obvioulsy the camera that I was wanting, does simply not exist.

I did not want to switch systems originally for the simple reason, I loved the jump from a d60 nikon to a 40d canon (even the 350d I had inbetween I found preferable) and I love my 55-250 too, and I did not want to replace all of my lenses....

However when it's become obvious, that to get a marked difference with canon, I would have to either spend more than I was willing to on a higher xxd or xd body.. or switch to full frame, it then became a case of
"Well, if I switch to full frame, then I will have to switch out all my lenses anyway, so I may as well consider switching systems...".

I don't mind losing some length on the 250.. as some 125 were mentioned, I rarely use it a the full end, but it was the Quality of that lens that I did not want to lose... I would be happy with a lens that maxes at 125 as long as the quality does not drop off from what I already have... In short it seems a bit counter productive to buy a better body, to end up with worse glass as my budget does not stretch to an new body and a L lens too !

If I am considering switching systems or moving to full frame, there may be a little more cash to play with, as I would swap my 18-55 and 55-250 plus a little cash for a single lens like the 28?-125, again I don't mind taking a nip on focal length, as long as the quality is there... I can work around that !

As stated, I think people have got the mistaken impression that ALL I shoot is low light, which is not correct.
In fact I RARELY shoot low light , most of what I do is outdoors, or uses lighting so my 40d was not an issue, so I wasn't keen on investing £100's to solve a problem... that was not really a problem

I appreciate everyone that responds and takes the time to add their input , I apologise if anyone feels ignored... I would love to dedicate hundreds more to get some of the gear suggested... and to all those that suggest saving longer so I can put more in... it simpy won't happen, so I have to accept I will always be on the lower end of the scale, older models and well used gear... the best of the worst as it were.

I have a lot of animals, and work with a lot of rescues and have a lot of vets bills and costs assosciated with that... though yes I probably could save another, £400 or £1000 that the selfish side of my brain would love to blow on gear ... but the more logical other side of my brain would say that money could be spent on much more useful things and I would never allow myself to spend that much on myself.

I've taken into consideration everything that I have read... and I think I probably will try to make the jump into Full Frame and invest in some primes along the way too... what I don't want to do is skint myself all in one go as If I put my 40d in px towards a full frame body, and don't leave myself enough money to replace my zooms with a half decent lens the only thing I would have left to use with it is a nifty fifty.... so then I would be alright for low light... but not for much else !

Sorry I went on a bit there, but I understand now I am asking the impossible, but one can always hope their might have been something to fill that gap.

I will probably go the PX route through wex or mpb, and get a well loved half decent, oldy but goody full frame like a 5D or a 1Ds II
 
Nothing to do with the thread itself but good on you for working with rescues. I really respect people who do and I can totally understand the fact that your animals come before photographic equipment..again, good on you!
 
htid said:
Nothing to do with the thread itself but good on you for working with rescues. I really respect people who do and I can totally understand the fact that your animals come before photographic equipment..again, good on you!
Click to expand...

Thank You, I do love them to bits and they always come first, I'm not an official rescue or charity, so everything comes out of my own pocket, the costs for my own animals and the ones that I take on aswell.
And as I deal with mainly exotic species , we have to pay a higher rate at the vets too, it's usually £40 just to be seen, and that's before treatment.

This was a hedgehog someone left with me, they bred her, sold the babies and then gave her to me as she had chronic mastitis.
2.jpg 10602728_10152332471661989_736153864_n.jpg

I've even had a snake with cigarette burns on it's back
 
To summarise...
  • You would prefer to stay with Canon (as you find the ergonomics better coming from a nikon d60), But you would consider it. (1)
  • Most of your shots are NOT low light, but you do struggle with low light in situations where you cannot use flash
  • The nifty fifty helps, but is fills the frame too much (2).
  • You are considering going FF (5D or 1Dsii) but this means you can't use your favourite lens which you use most of the time.
  • Zoom is important, but not necessarily to 250mm, IQ is more important to you than extreme reach. (3)


(1) Nikon and Sony reputedly have better low light / high iso sensors than canon. (Someone with a Nikon / Sony background would need to advise what cheap 2nd hand camera will better the 40d you already have in this space).
(2) Your suggestion of using a wider prime may be the best short term solution *IF* the f1.8 of your nifty is good enough (have you any images you can post using the nifty?). However, looking at reviews of the 28mm f1.8 and 35mm f/2 indicate you may be buying into issues. The new 35mm f/2 USM looks better, but a fair bit more expensive.

  • Why not wait a year? Rumours of the 6D mk2 abound on the web. When this camera arrives the original 6D will drop in price (look what happened to 7D mk1 values!) but the 6D will still be a fantastic camera.
  • If you can't wait that long, then maybe a 5Dc + the 50 f1.8 will work (it may not) whilst keeping the 40d for your other uses. Low Light IQ is marginally better than the 40d and the 50mm will be a true 50mm rather than an effective 80mm. You can then trade the 5D in towards a 6D latter on.

This will leave you with the 40d & zoom lenses plus the 6D for low light.
(3) You could/should then consider pxing the 40d and zooms for 'say' a 70-200L f/4 (or even maybe the f2.8) to use with the 6D.
 
LC2 said:
To summarise...
  • You would prefer to stay with Canon (as you find the ergonomics better coming from a nikon d60), But you would consider it. (1)
  • Most of your shots are NOT low light, but you do struggle with low light in situations where you cannot use flash
  • The nifty fifty helps, but is fills the frame too much (2).
  • You are considering going FF (5D or 1Dsii) but this means you can't use your favourite lens which you use most of the time.
  • Zoom is important, but not necessarily to 250mm, IQ is more important to you than extreme reach. (3)


(1) Nikon and Sony reputedly have better low light / high iso sensors than canon. (Someone with a Nikon / Sony background would need to advise what cheap 2nd hand camera will better the 40d you already have in this space).
(2) Your suggestion of using a wider prime may be the best short term solution *IF* the f1.8 of your nifty is good enough (have you any images you can post using the nifty?). However, looking at reviews of the 28mm f1.8 and 35mm f/2 indicate you may be buying into issues. The new 35mm f/2 USM looks better, but a fair bit more expensive.

  • Why not wait a year? Rumours of the 6D mk2 abound on the web. When this camera arrives the original 6D will drop in price (look what happened to 7D mk1 values!) but the 6D will still be a fantastic camera.
  • If you can't wait that long, then maybe a 5Dc + the 50 f1.8 will work (it may not) whilst keeping the 40d for your other uses. Low Light IQ is marginally better than the 40d and the 50mm will be a true 50mm rather than an effective 80mm. You can then trade the 5D in towards a 6D latter on.

This will leave you with the 40d & zoom lenses plus the 6D for low light.
(3) You could/should then consider pxing the 40d and zooms for 'say' a 70-200L f/4 (or even maybe the f2.8) to use with the 6D.
Click to expand...

you've pretty much hit the nail on the head there... but without the cost of px-ing my 40d towards a new body, it drops the amount of cash that I have to spend on a body by about £100.
 
There is a 5D mk1 thread on here, why not post in there explaining your quandry and asking if someone could take some shots, un-processed, using a 5D & 50mm f1.8 approximating the low light scenario you have. It would give you a view on what can be achieved. There may even be someone close to where you're based that would be willing to let you have a quick play with their 5D.
 
I had a 5dc for a while I shot together with a 50d. The 5dc was not really any better than the 50d at high ISO, I was pretty underwhelmed. You could argue the noise was similar but slightly less ugly on the 5d but I didn't keep the 5dc, which was also pretty slow and clunky.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
I had a 5dc for a while I shot together with a 50d. The 5dc was not really any better than the 50d at high ISO, I was pretty underwhelmed. You could argue the noise was similar but slightly less ugly on the 5d but I didn't keep the 5dc, which was also pretty slow and clunky.
Click to expand...
I agree - the 5D is only going to be a marginal improvement noise wise. But if my reading of these 5 pages is right, the problem with the 40d & nifty fifty is that it is too long.
So... working on that basis, using FF might give @gothgirl the framing she needs (50mm vs effective 80mm).

Of course, I could be wrong on both counts (thus the suggestion to ask for help in the 5D thread).
 
Cant see either the 5D or 1DSmk2 being an upgrade at high ISO from the 40D, they all have the same processor and ISO engine. The 60D would be a better upgrade if higher ISO is needed.
 
LC2 said:
I agree - the 5D is only going to be a marginal improvement noise wise. But if my reading of these 5 pages is right, the problem with the 40d & nifty fifty is that it is too long.
So... working on that basis, using FF might give @gothgirl the framing she needs (50mm vs effective 80mm).

Of course, I could be wrong on both counts (thus the suggestion to ask for help in the 5D thread).
Click to expand...

Yes the nifty fifty is too long (too close)

That's why i was thinking of the 28 / 2.8

I will have a look at that thread.

What about the 1DS-II though ?

I've seen a well loved body... would it be worth conisdering ?
 
Last edited:
gothgirl said:
Yes the nifty fifty is too long (too close)

That's why i was thinking of the 28 / 2.8

I will have a look at that thread.

What about the 1DS-II though ?

I've seen a well loved body... would it be worth conisdering ?
Click to expand...
On the 40d your 50mm equates to a 80mm, a 28mm on crop would equate to 45mm. So on FF, a 50mm is only slightly longer than a 28mm on crop.

I really don't know anything about the 1D bodies.
5 minutes on google found this though ( http://www.tayloryoungphotography.c...-more-thoughts-after-use-sussex-photographer/ ) and the blog has a comment section so might be worth asking his opinion as he has experience with it.
 
The best lowlight crop sensor around that is anywhere near your budget is in the Nikon D7000, Pentax K series somethings and the Sony A580. I have the latter. Sony & Pentax have in body IS so you don't need to spend extra money on IS lenses. Any of the older classic lenses will work. The newer sony sensors aren't as good until you get into the A77ii which is a big heavy bugger and way out of your budget.

If you want budget and low light then sony/pentax is your best shot. Nikon will do it but will cost more. Canon will but you have to pay a lot more still.

This is iso 6400 straight from an in camera jpg on the sony a580 using an ancient 28-300mm zoom:

DSC01338.JPG by Suzy Richards, on Flickr

The nikon/pentax will probably be slightly less noisy.

Iso 1600 is better.

DSC01252.JPG by Suzy Richards, on Flickr

The sony A580s were about £150 second hand but they don't seem to be under £200-£250 these days. You might find the pentax ones cheaper.

I bought mine because I thought it was the most bang for a small budget.
 
Might also be worth considering Fuji X-E1 and their 27mm lens, apart from that as above so anything really with the excellent Sony 16mp sensor.
 
also posted in My Original Thread
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/why-am-i-still-failing-with-no-flash-help.609804/


At this point I am really hoping that I might be making some mistakes in my shooting, facing the skyrocketing costs of replacing my gear
This was shot handheld, so could hopefully improve with the addition of a monopod (that @Terrywoodenpic has kindly offered me)

Not meant to be the best pic and not edited to it's full potential either... but just a very fast example to show this is my 40d, with a 50mm 1.8 on it
Inside my well lit house, with no flash.
shot at 1/60 & 1600iso (any lower the image is too dark to do anything with)

This is how I would usually approach shooting without flash.... I have included

- the original photo straight from the camera
Original.JPG
- an edit that shows just the levels / exposure adjusted with no noise reduction
levels exposure adjust but no noise reduction.JPG
- a "final" edit that has levels, exposure and noise reduction added.
levels & noise reduction.JPG

- copy of exif details.
exif.png

Hopefully there might be something that I can change in the way I am shooting that might slightly improve my "keepers" while I can save a little more money and spend a little more time researching what I want to move to next
 
Last edited:
Based on those images I think you would benefit from understanding exposure a bit more, especially the 'expose to the right' principle.

That won't necessarily help when you are ISO limited because you need a fast shutter speed but will definitely help with shots like this.
 
Nawty said:
Based on those images I think you would benefit from understanding exposure a bit more, especially the 'expose to the right' principle.

That won't necessarily help when you are ISO limited because you need a fast shutter speed but will definitely help with shots like this.
Click to expand...

Not heard of the "expose to the right" principle... but always willing to learn

To be honest, my wallet would be very thankful if the problem is in my head and not my gear :)
 
Yep, these are underexposed. Is this how the camera metered?
 
odd jim said:
Yep, these are underexposed. Is this how the camera metered?
Click to expand...

For those shots I had evaluative metering... though I usually shoot with spot metering, depends on the situation.

I also usually would put +1 or +1.5 in EV comp... but I was told it is counterproductive to noise so didn't this time
 
Last edited:
just to mix the pot up a bit more ,have you thought about a 1Dmk3 i use one ,its the same vintage as your 40d ,i can usually shoot up to around 2000 iso without noise being a problem ,and up to 3200iso with n/r applied .the autofocus system will knock spots off most other bodies so far mentioned ,they are a 1.3 crop sensor so you won't lose to much reach as opposed to a full frame ,they are relatively cheap compared to other secondhand pro body cameras .and the build quality is beyond compare ,i.e they feel like a proper camera should ,10 frames per second shooting so a fast moving dog/bird/animal is not a problem . you would still have to overcome the fact you need EF lenses ,but selling your two ef-s ones should go towards something like a 70-200 f4 or a cheaper sigma lens ..if you link onto my flickr-stream from here i never hide exif data so you can weigh it up yourself and if you delve into it theres photos from 40d.50d.60d .70d 7d 7d2 bodies plus stuff from nikon d60,d80,d200,d300s,d7000,and d7100 .
having used and kept the 1D3 above all of those should tell you something
 
I Am certain you do not have a camera problem. But primarily a technique problem, especially in regard to light.
Your room may be well lit but you have not effectively taken advantage of it.
Get hold of a puppy sized stuffed toy and move it around the room with the Iso set at 400. And take lots of shots. Find the best places to shoot and where the light looks best. Even big animals are close to the ground... get down to their level. Like shooting children you need to occupy their world.
Look at your results... you will find in some locations, what ever Iso you could use,the results would be disappointing, in other locations and angles the results will be great.

Light is the secret of photography, window light is especially good, but even a standard lamp can give amazing results.
Look around any room, some parts will be interestingly lit, other will be flat.

we now come to the second most important factor in photography.. seeing.. and looking.
seeing and light are intimately connected. An experienced photographer will be able to see a picture long before he takes it.
Spend time looking at things note how they are lit what works and what does not.

Whether you are at home, a park or a ring, some parts will be far more photogenic and better lit than others. Wait, persuade or move an animal to go to the best places. You will not get well lit exciting shots in poor lighting. Raising the Iso is no help at all.

incredibly good animal shots can and have been taken on a 40D both indoor and out.

Some times a little flash can help in bright sun, few animals even notice flash it certainly does not frighten them.
A better standard zoom like the tamron 17 50 f2.8 or the canon 17 55 2.8 would be a great help, but in not essential, and will probably have to wait for a bargain to turn up.

Essentially, you will be able to do far better with what you have now with just a little more thought and practice.

remember a monopod can be a great help low down and unextended.
 
Last edited:
Ive downloaded a light meter and working on my exposure , also got my monopod here too

I may be swapping
My 40d , 18-55 and 55-250

For a

Canon 1DS II (FF)
& Sigma 17-50 2.8
& also Keeping my 50mm 1.8

This should give me a move to full
Frame AND a considerable low light boost over the 40d+kit lens while improving in other areas too

I know I'll take a drop in max fps from
The 40d but that doesn't bother me

So I just need a recommendation for a good EF zoom lens , around £100 (negotiable ) used ... But does not need to be low light , seriously 3.5 - 4.5 is fine here, only use the lengthy lenses outside in good daylight so really don't need any lower than 3.5

Something basically to replace the 55-250
 
Last edited:
As stated above that sigma lens won't work properly on the 1DsII.

If you want a cheap zoom on full frame look out for a 70-210mm f3.5-4.5 USM very good piece of kit but over your 100 budget as anything less than £100 will frankly be pants you'll be looking at old sigma 70-300mm DO's and the like which will be very disappointing after your current telephoto!
 
Last edited:
...a 1ds2 isn't particularly good in low light either, the tech is over a decade old (released in 2004), can only shoot at 4 fps and its raw buffer will only hold 11 frames. It's native ISO also only goes to 1600.

It's a clunky old thing (the tiny rear screen is next to useless!). There is no significant upgrade here IMO.

How is a light meter going to help? I assume as you've said downloaded that is a smartphone app? Your 40d already has a more accurate light meter built in?

Seriously, keep the 40d and add a used Sigma 70-200 until you can make a worthwhile upgrade otherwise you're going around in circles wasting money. Apart from the AF, I can't think of any advantages of the 1ds2?
 
Last edited:
Wow, 5 pages and I'm still reading.

I think since you have a limited budget, you are wise to look at all the options as to how best to spend that money.
I also have a limited budget so have had to be careful about what I buy, but I've gradually upgraded over time to a reasonable set of glass that covers me for most situations.

1) You say you shoot mostly outdoors, but low light situations are problematic.
2) You say the 50mm is too long (on the 40D) for the dog shows.
3) You don't have the budget for L glass or a decent full frame upgrade.

Bearing this in mind my suggestion would be go for a lens that will replace your kit 18-55 lens, giving you a wider aperture and thus get more light into the sensor. A Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC (or Tamron's equivalent) can be had for about £160 and is pretty sharp, it'll cover you for wide shots (like the 24mm f2.8 pancake) and be able to zoom up to 50mm staying at f2.8.
This will give you a good general purpose lens that is great in daylight and much better in low light too.
I have this lens and love it, it's very sharp with good colour and contrast and at this focal length, I don't miss the image stabilisation.

Then, I would save and upgrade your 55-250, swapping for a either a Canon 70-300 IS or the Tamron 70-300 VC, both of which have image stabilisation and are compatible with full frame cameras (ie a safe purchase for the future).

While doing this, work on technique, shooting angles, exposure and getting better shots as suggested.

If in 6 months you still want a better body, look again at the 60D, 7D and 5D prices. 60Ds are dipping below £350/400, the 7D will be well below £400. The 5DC or 5D2 will also have come down in price. If you do want to upgrade to full frame, you can trade the 40D and the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 for a full frame camera (and keep the 70-300 that is full frame compatible).

One thing you haven't mentioned is, while photographing animals, whether auto-focus speed is a problem for you? I found that the 50mm f1.8 was really slow to focus on moving kids, upgrading to the 50mm f1.4 USM gave much faster focusing.

For reference, I shoot with a Canon 60D and don't really find ISO to be a major problem. But I did some test shots to see what the high ISO was like. Click each below to see what each ISO is like ISO800,1600,3200, 4000. (for some reason I can't upload the ISO 6400 file)
Shot on a tripod with no flash, with the 50mm f1.4 at f1.8.

ISO 800
ISO_test_60D-iso800-f1-8.jpg
ISO 1600
ISO_test_60D-iso1600-f1-8.jpg
ISO 3200
ISO_test_60D-iso3200-f1-8.jpg
ISO 4000
IMG_6778a-iso4000-f1-8.jpg


Hope that helps
 
Last edited:
Right I could afford a 5D but it would be the original MK1 version ..

I could also afford a 60d... But I don't want to buy a 60d to then end up upgrading to full frame soon anyway

A few people have said I would need to skip 50d and 60d and go to 70d to see real improvement

I looked on dpreview and on paper the 1ds II v 5D MK 1

The 1ds II looked better

And for full frame I want DC lens and not DG?
 
gothgirl said:
Right I could afford a 5D but it would be the original MK1 version ..

I could also afford a 60d... But I don't want to buy a 60d to then end up upgrading to full frame soon anyway

A few people have said I would need to skip 50d and 60d and go to 70d to see real improvement

I looked on dpreview and on paper the 1ds II v 5D MK 1

The 1ds II looked better

And for full frame I want DC lens and not DG?
Click to expand...
Ok, did you read my post? Have you actually researched the 1ds2??

It might be full frame, but it doesn't do good clean high ISO if that's what you want. It was released in 2004 and only the second FF digital body Canon had produced. They've learnt a lot since then!

Your 40d is faster, lighter, smaller no worse at high ISO, has a better screen, takes Dc / efs lenses, I could go on but I fear I might be wasting my breath... The 1ds2 *might* produce nicer files at lower ISO, but the 40d is fine there.

Why are you in such a rush to go "full frame". Just wait a bit and buy a worthwhile body.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Ok, did you read my post? Have you actually researched the 1ds2??

It might be full frame, but it doesn't do good clean high ISO if that's what you want. It was released in 2004 and only the second FF digital body Canon had released. They've learnt a lot since then!
Click to expand...

I did but you told me to buy a 70-200 lens ... Which will give me no help at all to my current predicament as 50 is too close on my 40d ...

Also my question being as someone has stated get a 60d... Well , I could afford a 60d but will it be a significant improvement over the 40d ?

As it seems that for a long time people have been saying full frame is the holy grail

And I'd have to skip the 50d and 60d to see a real improvement

But I suggest two full frame cameras , both of which are old yes, but so is the 40d

And the first thing someone says is get a 40d instead

My heads spinning in circles and I'm very confused with the tamrom and sigma lenses as people saying they won't be as good with the crop factor and it all depends on if you get a "good one"
 
gothgirl said:
I did but you told me to buy a 70-200 lens ... Which will give me no help at all to my current predicament as 50 is too close on my 40d ...

Also my question being as someone has stated get a 60d... Well , I could afford a 60d but will it be a significant improvement over the 40d ?

As it seems that for a long time people have been saying full frame is the holy grail

And I'd have to skip the 50d and 60d to see a real improvement

But I suggest two full frame cameras , both of which are old yes, but so is the 40d

And the first thing someone says is get a 40d instead

My heads spinning in circles and I'm very confused with the tamrom and sigma lenses as people saying they won't be as good with the crop factor and it all depends on if you get a "good one"
Click to expand...
Ok, but the suggstion of the 70-200 was separate to the body comments :)

I thought you shot dog shows (this being the main element)? A 70-200 would be too close? Are you shooting right up in the dogs faces??

FF is technically the better option, like for like, but don't assume just because its FF it'll be better - Its really not as simple as that - my little Sony RX100 compact, for example, will produce better quality images at higher iso's under certain situations than 1ds2! But then the RX100 has exceptional IQ for a compact.

FWIW a 60d will be more of an upgrade than a 1ds2.

But its still not much more of an upgrade, as we stated pages earlier...
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Why are you in such a rush to go "full frame". Just wait a bit and buy a worthwhile body.
Click to expand...

I'm not I'm a rush to go full frame
I hadn't even considered it , originally I was just going to jump from 40d to 50d

But people speak like full frame is the be all and end all , hence looking at spending £250 on a cheaper full frame rather than the 60d.

If the 60d will show a noticeable improvement over my 40d id be more than happy to get a 60d, in fact I'd prefer it.

as stated before I like the ergonomics of my 40d so would be very happy with one in the same series,

I could also get a sigma or tamrom 2.8 to replace my kit lens and that way I can keep my 55-250 too, which has been a very reliable lens for me , it's one I was loath to get rid of as my best shots have been taken on it
 
Last edited:
And as stated before , I simply won't spent £500 on kit... It's not going to happen
For moral reasons not financial

Not because I can't
but because I won't do
It.
And it's not going to change any time soon


I'm looking at around £250 budget for a body

But that includes the value of my 40d.

I know that if I spend more , I will get much better , such is life
But what I am looking for is what is the best improvement I can make with my budget ?

So staying in xxd and Xd ranges and not dropping back to xxxd or xxxxd

What would be the best improvement to go for ( combined with a new 2.8 sigma or tamrom , and maybe a canon pancake )

1DS II
5D MK I
60D
---- other in this price range ?
(£250 pre owned body only)
 
srichards said:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E60D/E60DHI_ISO_NR.HTM

Best one by far is the Nikon D7000 but the 60D isn't that bad.

http://www.harrisoncameras.co.uk/pd...AABIAAAAEClVzZWQgQ2Fub24SAAAABApVc2VkIE5pa29u

£200 and with 12 month warranty. No brainer. FF needs decent quality lenses which on a limited budget will be hard work. Plus that old FF camera will be like carrying a tank around in comparison.
Click to expand...


Edit - SORRY READ THAT AS 600d
Sorry ! X

I've been told the XXXD Ranges Sargent as good as the XXD ranges

And I'll lose some of the features like displays etc ?


FYI as a side note ...

I LIKE HEAVY CAMERAS

One of my favourite things about the 40d is what a beast it is compared to the 350d

(Hence why I call my 40d beast - yes I named my camera )

I really don't like tiny dainty fragile things
I'm all for big meaty heavy cameras that are more likely to break my foot if I dropped them :)
 
Last edited:
60d would be your best bet from those three.

But don't expect a significant increase in overall IQ, especially if you're not upgrading lenses.

I don't think I can add anything more to this.
 
odd jim said:
60d would be your best bet from those three.

But don't expect a significant increase in overall IQ, especially if you're not upgrading lenses.

I don't think I can add anything more to this.
Click to expand...

I plan on getting shot of the kit lens and getting a sigma or tamrom 2.8
And maybe a canon 2.8 pancake too

Also considering down the line getting my 50 1.8 traded in for a 50 1.4
 
Last edited:
gothgirl said:
I plan on getting shot of the kit lens and getting a sigma or tamrom 2.8
And maybe a canon 2.8 pancake too

Also considering down the line getting my 50 1.8 traded in for a 50 1.4
Click to expand...
I wouldn't go for the f/1.4 personally, they're pretty soft until f2.8 in my experience. The 50mm f/1.8 is actually a stunning little lens for the money, I use it a lot on my 6d.
 
odd jim said:
I wouldn't go for the f/1.4 personally, they're pretty soft until f2.8 in my experience. The 50mm f/1.8 is actually a stunning little lens for the money, I use it a lot on my 6d.
Click to expand...

Maybe I just have a bad one ?
I have the plastic fantastic canon one and find it to be soft, noisy and slow
 
gothgirl said:
Right I could afford a 5D but it would be the original MK1 version ..

I could also afford a 60d... But I don't want to buy a 60d to then end up upgrading to full frame soon anyway

A few people have said I would need to skip 50d and 60d and go to 70d to see real improvement

I looked on dpreview and on paper the 1ds II v 5D MK 1

The 1ds II looked better

And for full frame I want DC lens and not DG?
Click to expand...

If you are looking at Sigma lenses, DG if for full frame digital, DC (digital crop) is for crop sensor cameras (ie 40D/60D).

If autofocus speed is what you want, then yes you'll need to go to a 70D to see an improvement (as it has a completely new AF system). (For AF, the 1Ds II has better AF and more AF points than the 5D classic.)
The 60D has lots of extra features over the 40D and 50D, the key ones being video and an LCD screen that flips out. Otherwise there is less in it image quality wise.
As suggested above, a 60D will probably be more of an upgrade than a 1Dd II.

The 1Ds II might have better AF and a faster burst rate, making ideal for sports, but it's much bigger and heavier than the 5D (1.2kg vs 800g).
Neither the 1Ds II or the 5D classic will give you live view (unlike the 40D/50D/60D/5D2) or do much better than ISO 1600.

As I suggested, stick with the 40D, but upgrade your kit lens, and then upgrade your zoom lens to one suitable for full frame, then after a little more saving, make the jump to FF.
The jump to FF is a big one, but there's nothing wrong with a crop sensor and for sports and wildlife it is actually an advantage, some pro sports shooters use a 7D or 7D2 because of the extra reach.
 
gothgirl said:
Maybe I just have a bad one ?
I have the plastic fantastic canon one and find it to be soft, noisy and slow
Click to expand...

I found the 50 1.8 slow and noisy, but image quality wise it's as good as the 1.4. I only upgraded to the 1.4 for the wider aperture, faster af and better build quality.

Here's a comparison between the 50 f1.8 and f1.4 models.
Canon Nifty 50 f1.8 vs f1.4 @ f1.8 by Alistair Beavis, on Flickr
 
ABTog said:
If you are looking at Sigma lenses, DG if for full frame digital, DC (digital crop) is for crop sensor cameras (ie 40D/60D).

If autofocus speed is what you want, then yes you'll need to go to a 70D to see an improvement (as it has a completely new AF system). (For AF, the 1Ds II has better AF and more AF points than the 5D classic.)
The 60D has lots of extra features over the 40D and 50D, the key ones being video and an LCD screen that flips out. Otherwise there is less in it image quality wise.
As suggested above, a 60D will probably be more of an upgrade than a 1Dd II.

The 1Ds II might have better AF and a faster burst rate, making ideal for sports, but it's much bigger and heavier than the 5D (1.2kg vs 800g).
Neither the 1Ds II or the 5D classic will give you live view (unlike the 40D/50D/60D/5D2) or do much better than ISO 1600.

As I suggested, stick with the 40D, but upgrade your kit lens, and then upgrade your zoom lens to one suitable for full frame, then after a little more saving, make the jump to FF.
The jump to FF is a big one, but there's nothing wrong with a crop sensor and for sports and wildlife it is actually an advantage, some pro sports shooters use a 7D or 7D2 because of the extra reach.
Click to expand...

All I'm photographing is animals

Wildlife, Pets, zoos , equestrian sports and dog sports .

(But of architecture and portraiture every now and again )

Never used liveview once

Couldn't even tell you how to put it on

Actually no I Put it on once by accident and totally freaked out , led to me going full on Yorkshire girl and f-Ing and blinding until I got it back to normal

I do like heavy cameras

If I wait a couple weeks to replace the kit lens and cope with what I have now before I get a 2.8 sigma or tamrom ... I may be able to stretch to a 7D

Would the 7D MK I be better than a 60D ?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top