Advice on upgrading my Canon 40D

godogs57

Senior Member
Got the itch to upgrade....love my 40D, but there are plenty of other Canon's that are better now. I was thinking about a 50D. I have a friend who is a pro photographer for several magazines who suggested that I focus my desires in the direction of a full size sensor, as opposed to merely looking to bump up my megapixels from 10.1 to whatever.

I consider myself a very serious amateur, not a pro, and will not be spending $3500-$5000.

I am considering a Canon 5D, which has a full size sensor...I think, but can't be sure. Can't afford a 5D, Mark II which is $$$$.

Your thoughts on the 5D?
 

rip18

Senior Member
Both are good cameras. I've shot recently with folks who used both. Like with any camera body, there are drawbacks & benefits. It just depends on how you want to use the camera & what "products" you want to produce at the end.

Check out the reviews at dpreview - particularly the conclusion section (you can jump to that section using the little drop down table in the white box near the top center of each page...).

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/

Best of luck.
 

godogs57

Senior Member
Wow....they kinda ripped the 50d pretty good, implying it was basically no better than the 40d, and in some areas, worse.

Also noticed that the 5d had no built in flash, nor was it weather sealed, which might be a factor on a frosty morning on the deer stand.

Decisions decisions...
 

godogs57

Senior Member
I'll keep you in mind Slim.....if I get another, I will PM you. Looking to pull the trigger soon on this if I do.....sometime in the next couple of months. It's a beauty...no scratches, etc.
 

cornpile

Senior Member
I have a 50d that I just upgraded to from a Rebel XT.It is a fine camera.Heres a pic I took with it.
029.jpg
 

cornpile

Senior Member
Caught him crossing the road on the way home from work.Ten feet shot out the window.He had got up under a downed tree on the bank.He was a nice one.
 

rip18

Senior Member
A nice one in good light! Nice out-the-window shot!!!
 

Browtine

Senior Member
I have a 5D Mk II and personally it is extreme overkill for all but the largest print sizes. I shoot raw files and convert them using Adobe Camera Raw and end up with +/- 120mb files (each!!!) if I convert to uncompressed TIFF. The image quality is great, but I end up downsizing a lot and still having overkill for most print sizes.

The original 5D (not Mk II) is an awesome camera! I actually like the out of camera image quality from it better than the Mk II from what I've downloaded and played with from the web. If you can find a nice used 5D body don't hesitate to snatch it up... if you simply have to have a higher resolution body.

And the 40D is one heck of a camera. I still have mine for now. I find myself using it instead of the Mk II occasionally just so I don't have to mess with the huge files from the II. Before you make the jump to the higher resolution cameras put some thought into file handing and storage. 120mb files EAT UP some hard drive space!

Lastly, don't just assume that each year's model is necessarily an "upgrade" from last year's, or even the one from two years ago. In my opinion, anything beyond 10-12 megapixels is pure overkill unless you are printing HUGE, and with today's software and printing methods I'm not sure just how much real world advantage you'd actually see in big prints between them all.

For what it's worth, knowing what I know now after dealing with the huge files of the Mk II needlessly I'd swap both my 40D and my Mk II for one Nikon D700. Full frame, 12mp, super image quality, great performance... I'm actually considering making that move. I "upgraded" from my 40D to a Mk II... and in reality it wasn't that much of an "upgrade", all things considered. Just think about this before you drop coin.

I'd strongly suggest looking into better glass if you're itching to spend some loot. For most folks' uses, if they have anything from the basic Digital Rebel from Canon or any Nikon D series camera body, glass is where to "upgrade" for a true tangible difference in image quality. I sure wish I had put the money I spent on the MK II into glass for the 40D instead.
 

jbdial1515

Senior Member
Personally, I think that Browtine has given some valuable advice. To quote him, "glass is where to "upgrade" for a true tangible difference in image quality." I also find that even though I only have a 30D and often wich I had more, I am still consistently improving just with time and practice. There is no doubt that my best investments have been better glass. While I do not have the very best, I have purchased some nice lenses and believe this has truly made the biggest diffence for me.
 

Bubba_1122

Senior Member
Gotta agree with Browtine on the glass also. It makes a lot of difference.

Have spent the past couple of years buying, selling and trading glass, and finally have my lens kit about where I want it (will actually be shucking some lenses before too long as I see what gets used and what gathers dust).

Also, I've been shooting a 40D for the past couple of years, and now shooting a 1D Mark IIn (I shoot a fair amount of sports - which requires speed - and this thing delivers speed (this past weekend at NCAA softball tourney - felt like if I just thought about squishing the button, the camera would fire off 4 or 5 pics)).

The 1D Mk IIn is a 1.3 crop. I've also given up some megapixels, but feel like my picture quality is significantly better than on the 40D.

Negative of the 1D series is the camera's heavy - feels like holding a concrete block (shot the 1DIIn with a 100-400 IS L handheld (over 2000 pics)) for the better part of 6 hours Sunday afternoon - could hardly lift my left arm at the end of the tournament).

Bottom line is I have no problem shooting the 5 year old Mark IIn as opposed to the brand new Mark IV. I'm not a pro, and the Mark IIn does everything I need it to do for a fourth of the cost of the Mark IV.

In your shoes, I'd go for for the 5D. I imagine it'll serve your needs well, and if not, the worse case scenario is after shooting it a while, you can sell it on one of the photography sites and get most or all of your money back out of it.
 

Browtine

Senior Member
Gotta agree with Browtine on the glass also. It makes a lot of difference.

Have spent the past couple of years buying, selling and trading glass, and finally have my lens kit about where I want it (will actually be shucking some lenses before too long as I see what gets used and what gathers dust).

Also, I've been shooting a 40D for the past couple of years, and now shooting a 1D Mark IIn (I shoot a fair amount of sports - which requires speed - and this thing delivers speed (this past weekend at NCAA softball tourney - felt like if I just thought about squishing the button, the camera would fire off 4 or 5 pics)).

The 1D Mk IIn is a 1.3 crop. I've also given up some megapixels, but feel like my picture quality is significantly better than on the 40D.

Negative of the 1D series is the camera's heavy - feels like holding a concrete block (shot the 1DIIn with a 100-400 IS L handheld (over 2000 pics)) for the better part of 6 hours Sunday afternoon - could hardly lift my left arm at the end of the tournament).

Bottom line is I have no problem shooting the 5 year old Mark IIn as opposed to the brand new Mark IV. I'm not a pro, and the Mark IIn does everything I need it to do for a fourth of the cost of the Mark IV.

In your shoes, I'd go for for the 5D. I imagine it'll serve your needs well, and if not, the worse case scenario is after shooting it a while, you can sell it on one of the photography sites and get most or all of your money back out of it.

I was torn between the 1D MK III and the 5D Mk II when I was buying my last camera. I soooo wish I had gone the Mk III route now. If only I hadn't convinced myself that I just had to have full frame... and higher "resolution". What I "needed" was far different from what I "wanted", which is so often the case with me... :banginghe

If I don't end up selling my kit and going with the D700 I may end up trying to trade for a used Mk III. I owned one of the original 1D bodies and LOVED it despite the weight. The performance of that thing made the weight worth while for me as I was shooting mostly drag racing action shots at the time.

I soooo miss my old 1D!!! At one point I had it, a 10D and three of the big "L" lenses. I sold it all to get a motorcycle after I sort of stopped going to races due to my work schedule. The best money I've spent on photography equipment since that time was when I recently bought a Canon 24-70 2.8L lens. Even the best camera bodies don't truly shine in image quality until you put some top shelf glass on them.
 

godogs57

Senior Member
How important is the fact that the 5D is not "environmentally sealed"? If its raining I am not going to be toting it to the deer stand or elk woods anyway. Opinions?
 

Browtine

Senior Member
How important is the fact that the 5D is not "environmentally sealed"? If its raining I am not going to be toting it to the deer stand or elk woods anyway. Opinions?

I've had several digital bodies now and only one was "weather sealed" (My original 1D). I've never had a camera fail shooting in damp/wet conditions. However, I at least shielded them from direct rain/water hitting it by shooting under an umbrella or other shelter. I've always worried more about dust than moisture really.
 

rip18

Senior Member
Be careful with the Mk III, Browtine. I know a couple of professionals that went back to Nikon over the lack of focusing in their Mk III bodies. Some Mk III bodies are great, and some were apparently REALLY bad - one wouldn't even focus on a bride coming down the aisle - after having been back to Canon 2 times!

I agree that good glass is important, but with a caveat that when jumping from a consumer level camera to one of the recent pro level bodies (Nikon or Canon), you can sometimes be better off buying a body over a new lens. Case in point: my jump from a D70 to a D3. The higher megapixel, full frame sensor and the quality of the higher ISO performance was MUCH better than buying a good lens (though I don't know what lens I'd have bought...). The high ISO performance of today's pro-level sensors allows you to shoot an f/5.6 lens in light conditions that you couldn't shoot an f/2.8 lens in 5 years ago... Albeit, the f/2.8 lens will focus faster & let you have less problems from background distractions...
 

Browtine

Senior Member
Be careful with the Mk III, Browtine. I know a couple of professionals that went back to Nikon over the lack of focusing in their Mk III bodies. Some Mk III bodies are great, and some were apparently REALLY bad - one wouldn't even focus on a bride coming down the aisle - after having been back to Canon 2 times!

Yep, I've read about the focus issues. From what I can gather though, it's mostly only an issue in AI Servo focus trying to track a moving subject under fairly specific conditions. I never use AI Servo for moving subjects. I've always pre-set focus and shot when the subject reached point of focus.

I've never read a single complaint on single point, one shot focus. Could be I just haven't run across the complaints though. I'm curious as to whether any of your friends with "1" bodies had any complaints outside Servo mode?
 

godogs57

Senior Member
Well, I had my 40D fail on an elk hunt this year and I was scratching my head over it for awhile. I posted my question in this forum back in October after a frosty morning shut my camera DOWN. The experts on here surmised that condensation on the inside caused it to go into a shut down mode. Later on...no problems. I tend to agree with their conclusion, although it was maddening to watch a Nikon buddy snap away and another buddy with a digital camera manufactured sometime before the Kennedy assassination snapping away as well!

I really would like the 5d if it will give me a little bit more than what I am getting from my 40D, but I want to make sure the investment will be worth it.
 
Top