Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

40D vs 450D

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

55% OFF new PortraitPro 12 - use code EPHZROS414.
Leave a Comment
    • «
    • 1
    • »
    ajdowd
    ajdowd  10
    17 Nov 2008 - 4:40 PM

    Hi everyone.

    I'm currently using a Canon 300v film SLR and I'm finally looking to upgrade to a DSLR. I was going to go for the 450D but have some concerns about the size since I'm 6' 3" tall and have biggish hands. I was checking eBay and noticed that for the price of a new 450D including lense I could buy a newish 40D body and figured that this might be a good option. My angle could be to buy a 40D and use the old lense off my 300v (EF 28-90) until I can buy a decent lense.

    So, my questions are:

    1. Does the 40D represent a significant step-up in performance that makes it worth 100 more even without a lense?
    2. I need to go and handle one but would the 40D size be better for larger hands?
    3. If I want to also buy a decent lense / lenses for the 40D body what cost would I be looking at on top of the 420? Any lense recommendations that won't break the bank?

    I have about 500 - 600 to spend in total and am interested in a pretty broad range of photography from potraits and street scenes through to landscapes so any thoughts would be very much appreicated. Thanks.

    Last Modified By ajdowd at 17 Nov 2008 - 4:42 PM
    Sponsored Links
    Sponsored Links 
    17 Nov 2008 - 4:40 PM

    Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

    strawman
    strawman  1021991 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
    17 Nov 2008 - 4:47 PM

    For biggr hands, yes the 40D will fit better. Is it worth 100 more subjective decision but I would say yes for longer life shutter, metal body, faster frame rate, and 2nd control wheel. Some might not. Its a subjective choice.

    Next lenses, for your list I would suggest lenses covering from 10mm to 200mm. For portraits the low cost solution is Canons 50mm f1.8. Yes you could get buy with the existing lens, but it will not be very wide for landscapes Sigma 10-20 is good, but @ 300. Canons 17-55 f2.8 is good for street photography but costs about all of your budget

    Sigma 18-50 f2.8 again about 300. or 17-70. Sorry too many lenses to help

    Last Modified By strawman at 17 Nov 2008 - 4:48 PM
    richard00
    richard00  7504 forum posts1 Constructive Critique Points
    17 Nov 2008 - 4:49 PM

    1 - Hell yes
    2 - You'd notice the size width wise but its the height you really need with small hands - hence the popularity of grips
    3 - Depends on what you want to photograph, but a 50mm F1.8 [60ish] would be a good place to start or a short zoom, maybe sigma - or look on ebay for 2nd hand

    edit - Bugger! - well 2 shouts for the 50mm

    Last Modified By richard00 at 17 Nov 2008 - 4:50 PM
    steve_p
    steve_p  81073 forum posts United Kingdom
    17 Nov 2008 - 5:19 PM

    I would agree with the last posts the 40D is a class above the 450D except for megapixels 12.2 against 10.1 but that hardly matters.
    Sigma 17-70 is a good buy for the cash, it covers most of what your 28-90 will do- BUT you do need the wider end, dont forget on aCanon crop sensor camera to multiply the focal length by 1.6.

    Rende
    Rende e2 Member 737 forum postsRende vcard Netherlands4 Constructive Critique Points
    17 Nov 2008 - 6:06 PM

    I have the 40D and the 400D, and although I don't have specifically big hands, the 40D is significantly nicer to hold, besides taking better pictures (can't say anything about the 450D on that account).
    I agree with Steve P. about the Sigma 17-70; it is an amazing lens, certainly for the price!

    duratorque
    duratorque  10411 forum posts United Kingdom
    17 Nov 2008 - 6:50 PM

    300V is about the same size as 450D. If you don't have problem with 300V, then 450D will be fine.

    MalcolmS
    MalcolmS e2 Member 81059 forum postsMalcolmS vcard England13 Constructive Critique Points
    17 Nov 2008 - 7:17 PM

    Both great cameras, I have the 40D my partner has the 450D. I prefer the 40d for all the techy reasons and build quality but the second control wheel is a significantly better method of choosing options. Plus you can permanently display the over exposure warning which I like, taking mainly landscapes.

    nickfrog
    nickfrog  7333 forum posts
    17 Nov 2008 - 8:37 PM

    If you buy new, the difference in price, body only and after cashback, is 160.
    The 450d can be bought new for 340, which would leave you with more cash for lenses, hence better IQ, pound for pound.

    Last Modified By nickfrog at 17 Nov 2008 - 8:40 PM
    ajdowd
    ajdowd  10
    18 Nov 2008 - 3:54 PM

    Thanks for the replies everyone - it's been very useful. I'm going to keep an eye on the eBay 40Ds for a while to see what they average out at because if I can pick up a bargain I'd be keen on the 40D.

    In the meantime, if I go with the 450D what's the advice on whether to get body only or the kit option?

    Option 1: 340 for the body leaves about 260 for lenses which would really only get me the Sigma.

    Option 2: 400 with the 18-55 IS kit lense leaves 200 to put towards another lense. I hear that this kit lense is not bad so maybe I could stick with that for a while until I get enough for a better 2nd lense?

    Option 3: 600 for the double lens kit which is the 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS. Not convinced that's the right option as I doubt the 2nd lense would be up to much.

    Anyone have any opinions on this and / or experience of these lenses and their quality?

    porty2003
    porty2003  1097 forum posts Scotland
    18 Nov 2008 - 4:12 PM


    Quote: Thanks for the replies everyone - it's been very useful. I'm going to keep an eye on the eBay 40Ds for a while to see what they average out at because if I can pick up a bargain I'd be keen on the 40D.

    In the meantime, if I go with the 450D what's the advice on whether to get body only or the kit option?

    Option 1: 340 for the body leaves about 260 for lenses which would really only get me the Sigma.

    Option 2: 400 with the 18-55 IS kit lense leaves 200 to put towards another lense. I hear that this kit lense is not bad so maybe I could stick with that for a while until I get enough for a better 2nd lense?

    Option 3: 600 for the double lens kit which is the 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS. Not convinced that's the right option as I doubt the 2nd lense would be up to much.

    Anyone have any opinions on this and / or experience of these lenses and their quality?

    As mentioned before,size does matter!.If I was you I'd get myself to a camera shop and get to grips with both 40D & 450D [try the 450D with the grip as well maybe?].All other things being 'almost equal' one will 'feel' better than the other and in your case [large hands] I'll guess the 40D will win out!.

    strawman
    strawman  1021991 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
    18 Nov 2008 - 4:29 PM


    Quote: Option 3: 600 for the double lens kit which is the 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS. Not convinced that's the right option as I doubt the 2nd lense would be up to much.

    from what I have heard both are OK for the money now. The old 18-55 was slated for not being very sharp but apparently the new IS lens is quite a bit better. I also hear the 55-250 IS is a reasonable performer for its price too.

    A friend is trying to get one, but supplies are short. I am intrigued because a light walk about 55-250 lens with IS could be handy for travel use.

    Both have plastic lens mounts I understand and that will always be a worry for long term life.

    Generally jumping up to an EX series from Sigma or even better an L series from Canon gets you a more robust product, but you may find that the bundled lens pair is enough to get you going.

    About 5 years back when I bought a 300D I bought it with a low cost pair of sigma lenses 18-50 and 55-200. The 18-50 I replaced after 3 years with a 17-40L mainly because the canon has lower distortion, the sharpness was fine, but looking back I can see where the 17-40 took over in the images. Also the 17-40 is near silent with its USM while the sigma made a terrible noise, but I used it a lot and had value from it.

    The 55-200 I still in my kit bag, why because it works reasonably well and its not a focal length I use lot. I have a 100-400 and that plus the two wide angles do most of what I do.

    So in a long winded way, I would not rule out the kit lenses without giving them a try. If you get 3 to 4 years out of them that's fair. Alternatively if you know what you want, start searching the EX and L series range. Quality lenses last and work better.

    • «
    • 1
    • »

    Add a Comment

    You must be a member to leave a comment

    Username:
    Password:
    Remember me:
    Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.