webservants
Senior Member
Is there any merit replacing a 20d with a 40d? I am not considering the 50d right now and I see that the 40d is at a great price either new or refurbished. Please comment.
blessings,
Steven
blessings,
Steven
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
20d to 40d make any sense?
- Thread starter webservants
- Start date
jlynch
Leading Member
You can't go wrong with either body. I own both and they both work great. The 50D's price continues to drop (as does the 40D) so it's really a matter of money.
--
Jeff Lynch
Serious Amateur Photography
http://jefflynchdev.wordpress.com
--
Jeff Lynch
Serious Amateur Photography
http://jefflynchdev.wordpress.com
Henry E
Leading Member
While the 20D is an excellent camera, the improvement in handling and performance in the 40D is quite noticeable and, IMO, especially at the price point a 40D can be found for these days, can make sense if it fits your budget. The larger screen, live view, and improved ISO performance do provide greater flexibility. The 50D is excellent, but if it exceeds your budget, the 40D is a worthwhile choice.
Henry
Henry
For me, the 40D has been a noticeable upgrade from the 20D.
Live view is handy, the much larger rear display is great for my crummy old eyes, and there are many other features that make it a better camera for me than my 20D.
But now I'm wishing for a 50D. For me, the improvements that it would bring over the 40D would be:
Even better rear display and an image review system that allows people to really tell if a shot is sharp or not right there in the field. The 20D and 40D cannot do that because of their use of a very compressed, downsized image review "thumbnail".
Contrast detect AF while in live view. This is something I would not use often, but it would still be fun to play with.
Higher image resolution. Going from a 20D to a 40D is a very small step up in sensor resolution. In linear terms (the way the eye actually sees it), the difference between a 20D and a 40D is only 1.12X. The difference between a 20D and a 50D would be 1.37X. That'd be much more noticeable.
AF Microadjust. I think that feature should have been on the 40D, but was left out just to make me mad ;-)
Supposedly, on the 50D, Canon has fixed a bug in the 40D's flash metering that allows proper exposure for close-up shots. With my 20D, things are great. With my 40D, close-ups or macros are often so badly blown out that no amount of -FEC can fix the problem. This has been widely noted by other 40D macro shooters. Maybe Canon can fix this on the 40D, but it's been so long that I doubt that they ever will. It's a shame to need to buy a whole new camera to get away from an obvious firmware bug, but.....
Anyhow, to me, if I was doing it now, I'd go with the 50D versus the 40D. The 50D now costs no more than what I paid for the 40D. But that was well over a year ago so I've gotten a lot of good from the 40D in that time, and would not want to give that up.
So it's a tough choice. The 40D is most certainly a step up from the 20D. It's a fine camera (with the exception of that flash exposure problem).
But the 50D does seem to offer some significant improvements.
It does come down to the price difference and how much you think you'd get out of the advantages that the 50D offers. Right now I see the 50D at $1,069.95 from B&H, and the 40D at $799.95. That's $270 difference.
I think you'll love either one. You really can't go very wrong no matter what you decide.
--
Jim H.
Live view is handy, the much larger rear display is great for my crummy old eyes, and there are many other features that make it a better camera for me than my 20D.
But now I'm wishing for a 50D. For me, the improvements that it would bring over the 40D would be:
Even better rear display and an image review system that allows people to really tell if a shot is sharp or not right there in the field. The 20D and 40D cannot do that because of their use of a very compressed, downsized image review "thumbnail".
Contrast detect AF while in live view. This is something I would not use often, but it would still be fun to play with.
Higher image resolution. Going from a 20D to a 40D is a very small step up in sensor resolution. In linear terms (the way the eye actually sees it), the difference between a 20D and a 40D is only 1.12X. The difference between a 20D and a 50D would be 1.37X. That'd be much more noticeable.
AF Microadjust. I think that feature should have been on the 40D, but was left out just to make me mad ;-)
Supposedly, on the 50D, Canon has fixed a bug in the 40D's flash metering that allows proper exposure for close-up shots. With my 20D, things are great. With my 40D, close-ups or macros are often so badly blown out that no amount of -FEC can fix the problem. This has been widely noted by other 40D macro shooters. Maybe Canon can fix this on the 40D, but it's been so long that I doubt that they ever will. It's a shame to need to buy a whole new camera to get away from an obvious firmware bug, but.....
Anyhow, to me, if I was doing it now, I'd go with the 50D versus the 40D. The 50D now costs no more than what I paid for the 40D. But that was well over a year ago so I've gotten a lot of good from the 40D in that time, and would not want to give that up.
So it's a tough choice. The 40D is most certainly a step up from the 20D. It's a fine camera (with the exception of that flash exposure problem).
But the 50D does seem to offer some significant improvements.
It does come down to the price difference and how much you think you'd get out of the advantages that the 50D offers. Right now I see the 50D at $1,069.95 from B&H, and the 40D at $799.95. That's $270 difference.
I think you'll love either one. You really can't go very wrong no matter what you decide.
--
Jim H.
Rob van Hoorn
Senior Member
really it depends. I have both and use them side by side on assignments. And while the 40D has some nice features, bigger buffer, faster review, less noise at high iso, and most importantly iso in the viewfinder, while shooting I sometimes can't tell which camera is in my hand. If only that iso button was in the same place.
And since I use C1 and raw I often can't tell when viewing a days work what camera took what images. But that's me, I don't care about live view, that bigger screen is useless with that few pixels. You can't tell if an image is sharp or not. I only check for closed eyes and histogram. Could be monochroom for all I care. That's the biggest improvement for the 50D IMO.
Rob
--
'Life is funny but not Ha Ha funny. Peculiar I guess'. (Mr. E.)
And since I use C1 and raw I often can't tell when viewing a days work what camera took what images. But that's me, I don't care about live view, that bigger screen is useless with that few pixels. You can't tell if an image is sharp or not. I only check for closed eyes and histogram. Could be monochroom for all I care. That's the biggest improvement for the 50D IMO.
Rob
--
'Life is funny but not Ha Ha funny. Peculiar I guess'. (Mr. E.)
It's a camera. It's the photo that counts. If your 20D is working for you why change ?
If you go into Home Depot and someone offers to help you and he is not an employee, you are in Canada
Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?
--
If you go into Home Depot and someone offers to help you and he is not an employee, you are in Canada
Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?
gavin
Veteran Member
I did move up when 40D was new. Now I would get 50D. Here are the reasons for 20D to 40D:
1) Improve viewfinder and ISO information
2) Custom settings
3) Anti-dust
4) Live View, yes the AF thing is annoying but its useful in difficult angle shots
5) LCD, very small benefit but still... Also you cannot check focus due to low res JPEGs used for review
Now I would get 50D which has all those benefits but higher ISO and higher resolution. I would like the resoluiton for cropping and editing.
--
What camera do I have? I rather you look at my photos http://www.flickr.com/photos/gavinz
1) Improve viewfinder and ISO information
2) Custom settings
3) Anti-dust
4) Live View, yes the AF thing is annoying but its useful in difficult angle shots
5) LCD, very small benefit but still... Also you cannot check focus due to low res JPEGs used for review
Now I would get 50D which has all those benefits but higher ISO and higher resolution. I would like the resoluiton for cropping and editing.
--
What camera do I have? I rather you look at my photos http://www.flickr.com/photos/gavinz
Jeff Peterman
Forum Pro
Now you have me thinking!
I have a Canon ring flash at home, which I used a lot with the 20D but haven't used much with the 40D. At work, we have the Sigma ring flash and recently upgraded a 10D to a 40D. I often had problems with overexposure with the Sigma on the 10D, and when I saw the same with the 40D I sent the flash in for repair. $90 later, I have the same problem - I thought it was the flash, but maybe it's the camera?
--
Jeff Peterman
Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.
http://www.pbase.com/jeffp25
http://www.jeffp25.smugmug.com
Jeff Peterman
Forum Pro
I upgrade from a 20D to a 40D when the 40D first came out, and was happy with the improvements. I've kept the 20D and often shoot with both bodies. When I do, the smaller LCD bothers me, but the big difference is the shot buffer - I often have to stop shooting and wait for the buffer to empty on the 20D and I don't have to with the 40D under the same conditions.
When shooting macro on a tripod, Live View is certainly a big deal - I've been able to get good macro shots with the 40D that would have been VERY tough, or impossible, without Live View (I've used the right angle finder on the 20D and it just doesn't compare).
--
Jeff Peterman
Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.
http://www.pbase.com/jeffp25
http://www.jeffp25.smugmug.com
When shooting macro on a tripod, Live View is certainly a big deal - I've been able to get good macro shots with the 40D that would have been VERY tough, or impossible, without Live View (I've used the right angle finder on the 20D and it just doesn't compare).
--
Jeff Peterman
Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.
http://www.pbase.com/jeffp25
http://www.jeffp25.smugmug.com
What I and others have noticed is that with the 40D, particularly when using the MT-24EX, and even with the camera set to the ETTL Evaluative mode, shots where there is a distant background (which is common with macros, giving you that "black hole" look, the flash will totally blow out the main subject. And it blows it out to the point that even with the maximum negative FEC, it's still badly blown.
For macro scenes where there is fairly uniform reflectivity over the entire frame, the exposure is usually just fine. But it's as if, for close-ups, the camera is, effectively, always in ETTL-Average mode, and when you've got a subject that does not have a close-in background, or if you've got a light subject on a dark background, the camera is trying to bring the entire frame's average brightness up to its idea of "gray".
Yet with more distant scenes, the camera seems to do the standard ETTL-Evaluative thing of exposing to protect the highlights.
With my 20D, when I'm in ETTL-Evaluative, the system is overly protective of highlights no matter whether I'm shooting close-in subjects or working at more "normal" distances.
I have actually noticed this "macro blow-out" problem even when using the 580-EX for close-in work, too.
It's as if the camera is somehow using the focus distance information and deciding that the highlights are too physically small to be worth worrying about.
Many of us have complained that the 20D/30D are overly protective of highlights. Perhaps, when they built the 40D, they got a bit too clever and tried to determine the actual physical size of various highlights by taking into account the shooting distance and the size in the frame of highlights. Then, if the highlight is smaller than some size, the system allows it to be blown out (when in ETTL Evaluative mode) in order to try to get better average lightness in the frame.
So the result is that for macros, effectively, we're always in ETTL-Average mode for flash.
That's all total speculation, but it is the way it seems to work for me.
I just about cannot shoot with the 40D and the MP-E65 lens, with the MT-24EX.
ETTL-Average or ETTL-Evaluative, it makes no difference. If the scene is not uniformly distant from the camera, and of a relatively uniform reflectivity, then things are blown out.
And often, for macros, we end up with a bug on a leaf with nothing else in the scene at that same distance. The background is so much farther away that we expect that background to end up almost black. But with the 40D, the background is brought up in brightness while the main subject is hopelessly blown out.
My 20D handles this type of shot just fine, and usually requires about +2/3 or more of positive FEC.
And what's more of a pain is that in M mode for the MT-24, I cannot set the flash power down low enough for some situations. In ETTL mode, the camera does have the ability to set flash pulse power that is far lower than what's available manually. So even in M mode, I'm hosed for many shots.
In the weekly macro threads in the lens forum, this has been fairly widely reported, and people with the 50D say that this bug seems to have been fixed in that camera.
I keep hoping that this new firmware for the 40D will address this issue, but nobody seems to know exactly what the new 40D firmware actually does do.
I really like the 40D for macros, but that flash exposure bug is really a problem for many shots.
--
Jim H.
For macro scenes where there is fairly uniform reflectivity over the entire frame, the exposure is usually just fine. But it's as if, for close-ups, the camera is, effectively, always in ETTL-Average mode, and when you've got a subject that does not have a close-in background, or if you've got a light subject on a dark background, the camera is trying to bring the entire frame's average brightness up to its idea of "gray".
Yet with more distant scenes, the camera seems to do the standard ETTL-Evaluative thing of exposing to protect the highlights.
With my 20D, when I'm in ETTL-Evaluative, the system is overly protective of highlights no matter whether I'm shooting close-in subjects or working at more "normal" distances.
I have actually noticed this "macro blow-out" problem even when using the 580-EX for close-in work, too.
It's as if the camera is somehow using the focus distance information and deciding that the highlights are too physically small to be worth worrying about.
Many of us have complained that the 20D/30D are overly protective of highlights. Perhaps, when they built the 40D, they got a bit too clever and tried to determine the actual physical size of various highlights by taking into account the shooting distance and the size in the frame of highlights. Then, if the highlight is smaller than some size, the system allows it to be blown out (when in ETTL Evaluative mode) in order to try to get better average lightness in the frame.
So the result is that for macros, effectively, we're always in ETTL-Average mode for flash.
That's all total speculation, but it is the way it seems to work for me.
I just about cannot shoot with the 40D and the MP-E65 lens, with the MT-24EX.
ETTL-Average or ETTL-Evaluative, it makes no difference. If the scene is not uniformly distant from the camera, and of a relatively uniform reflectivity, then things are blown out.
And often, for macros, we end up with a bug on a leaf with nothing else in the scene at that same distance. The background is so much farther away that we expect that background to end up almost black. But with the 40D, the background is brought up in brightness while the main subject is hopelessly blown out.
My 20D handles this type of shot just fine, and usually requires about +2/3 or more of positive FEC.
And what's more of a pain is that in M mode for the MT-24, I cannot set the flash power down low enough for some situations. In ETTL mode, the camera does have the ability to set flash pulse power that is far lower than what's available manually. So even in M mode, I'm hosed for many shots.
In the weekly macro threads in the lens forum, this has been fairly widely reported, and people with the 50D say that this bug seems to have been fixed in that camera.
I keep hoping that this new firmware for the 40D will address this issue, but nobody seems to know exactly what the new 40D firmware actually does do.
I really like the 40D for macros, but that flash exposure bug is really a problem for many shots.
--
Jim H.
fwampler
Senior Member
In addition to the features mentioned in the replies above, I really, really like the auto iso feature on the 50d. I've read the 40d auto iso is much more limited.
--
Fred
Luke Kukovica
Senior Member
not worth it to me either ...have both. if you need the features then upgrade don´t expect a much more as far as picture quality goes.
(most of the features will not improve you picture quality either)...
http://www.pbase.com/llukee/inbox&page=65
http://www.pbase.com/llukee/inbox&page=73
(most of the features will not improve you picture quality either)...
http://www.pbase.com/llukee/inbox&page=65
http://www.pbase.com/llukee/inbox&page=73
picsaregreat
Well-known member
I have both. 20d is a very good backup for the 40d. I am like the poster that said he could not tell sometimes which camera he was using. But if you don't have to get rid of the 20d don't. One of the cameras may fail and you will still be able to take pictures. Who knows the 40 may fail before the 20 (but I hope not). If I had not upgraded by now, I would get the 40d because it is so cheap now if $800 is cheap. At least $800 is what B&H has on their website. I don't see how you could regret the move.
Jim
Jim
Having owned a 40D for a couple of weeks by now after almost four years of using 20D ( oh my how time flies!) I pretty much agree; the image quality difference is fairly minor between these two camera bodies. However, 40D has quite a few improvements that make taking a (technically) good shot easier (AF feels faster/more accurate, RGB histogram is nice to have to notice when individual channels are overexposed plus all things mentioned in this thread so far), so I think the upgrade was worth it, if not absolutely essential. I'll still be using the 20D as well though.
I bought the 40D, because while my 20D is still going strong with just 25k shutter cycles and as-good-as-ever image quality, it'll not last forever and I also wanted a camera with live view to make my occasional dabblings in astrophotography more comfortable. 50D, while having some improvements, just feels to me like a step in the different direction than I personally prefer, so for now 40D seemed to be the optimal Canon offering for me. And I wanted to celebrate hearing that a root canal operation done to one of my molars in last winter was a success
I own either pentax k100 gear and canon 10d and 30d. I never made result from canon better then 6 MPX k100.With my tokina 100 f 2.8 macro mounted onto 30d I perform worse in macro shoting that kit lens of pentax k100. Canon perform good only with hight cost lens. But at that point I'd buy a k20 with SR and a lot of very good cheap lens.
Happy new year from Italy
Happy new year from Italy
Anastigmat
Forum Pro
Makes a lot of sense if you shoot sports action or wildlife. The 40D has buffer big enough for 17 RAW images, vs. 7 for the 20D and 11 for the 30D. The LCD on the back is much bigger on the 40D. 30D and 40D also have true spot metering and you can add a wireless control unit that would allow GPS data encoding on the 40D. It is not possible with the 20D or 30D. 40D also gives you the option of having all files stored in a single folder on the memory card, instead of the mandatory 100 files per folder on the 20D. Saves a lot of time retrieving files from the memory card.
However, not all features of the 40D are better. The 20D has lower noise with the noise reduction of the 40D turned off but the 40D has lower noise when in camera noise reduction is turned on, according to Bob Atkins.
gavin
Veteran Member
Shutter Monkey
Member
I was of the impression that I should hold on to the 20d until I could a FF camera. My assumption was that the 30d, 40d, and 50d were all such small improvements, I couldn't justify the expense.
I'm different than most. I wait until I really want something before I research it. Researching when I'm not in the market leads to wants which leads to unplanned purchases. Good for mfgs and the commercial websites, magazines, etc. Bad for the consumer.
Anyway, I found a spot on my sensor that could not be removed. It was visible with the naked eye and appears like a shiny speck. On test shots, it shows to about f6 and anything smaller. I spent a lot of time on it and I'm sure it's not dust. I had 3 options.
1) ignore it and remove the spots in PS
2) send it in for repair
3) buy a new camera
I did some research. Read some tests here and various mags and found that the 40d is the little camera that could and it was heavily discounted compared to its not much better younger brother. In some ways, it was actually better. This triggered the bargain hunter in me and I decided I would rather buy a new 40d than pay ~$200 to have my old one fixed. Factually, the entire plan was buy the new camera now. Later, send the 20d in for repair and use it as a backup.
Once I got the 40d in my hands and went through the menus and saw some of the improvements first hand, I can honestly say it will bug me to use the 20d. The 40d is that much better (to use). The pictures are not going to be that much better. It's not like you could see two shots and identify which camera took which. But it is nicer to use by no small margin. It makes me happy. I will probably fix the 20d eventually but I will always prefer using the 40d by a huge margin. I suspect it would give you a ton of smiles if you bought one. I suspect you would really be glad you did. Good pictures are still and always will be up to you. But that's always the case so that logic would say never buy a new camera - which we all eventually do.
I'm different than most. I wait until I really want something before I research it. Researching when I'm not in the market leads to wants which leads to unplanned purchases. Good for mfgs and the commercial websites, magazines, etc. Bad for the consumer.
Anyway, I found a spot on my sensor that could not be removed. It was visible with the naked eye and appears like a shiny speck. On test shots, it shows to about f6 and anything smaller. I spent a lot of time on it and I'm sure it's not dust. I had 3 options.
1) ignore it and remove the spots in PS
2) send it in for repair
3) buy a new camera
I did some research. Read some tests here and various mags and found that the 40d is the little camera that could and it was heavily discounted compared to its not much better younger brother. In some ways, it was actually better. This triggered the bargain hunter in me and I decided I would rather buy a new 40d than pay ~$200 to have my old one fixed. Factually, the entire plan was buy the new camera now. Later, send the 20d in for repair and use it as a backup.
Once I got the 40d in my hands and went through the menus and saw some of the improvements first hand, I can honestly say it will bug me to use the 20d. The 40d is that much better (to use). The pictures are not going to be that much better. It's not like you could see two shots and identify which camera took which. But it is nicer to use by no small margin. It makes me happy. I will probably fix the 20d eventually but I will always prefer using the 40d by a huge margin. I suspect it would give you a ton of smiles if you bought one. I suspect you would really be glad you did. Good pictures are still and always will be up to you. But that's always the case so that logic would say never buy a new camera - which we all eventually do.
Alastair Norcross
Forum Pro
And what is the relevance of this to the OP's question? You have neither of the cameras the OP is talking about.
--
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile
I had the 20d and procrastinated for about 4 months, read all reviews, took test photos with multiple cameras etc. Finally I bought a 50D at Christmas. Do not regret it one bit. I know you are asking about the 40D but the 50D is one fine camera. Compared to the 20D, much faster autofocus (hard to explain until you try it and see for yourself), 3" 920,000 pixel LCD, 15mp, Micro Focus adjustment for lenses. I don't have one complaint about this camera. You hear that its got more noise at high ISO's than the 40d and NikonD300 but the noise cleans up nicely in DPP or ACR5.2 or any noise reduction program. And if properly exposed the noise is a non issue. If you could I would certainly spend the extra few dollars and buy the 50D over the 40D but you can't go wrong with a 40D either. Both are good upgrades from the 20D. Also can't go wrong sticking with the 20D - one of the best cameras Canon produced.
--
Bert D
--
Bert D
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum