Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

450D v 40D


4 Nov 2009 5:08PM
ok, hi all... just spent a few hours surfing the net for a direct image comparison between the 450D and the 40D, i've been told the 450's a better IQ, then every reveiw you read says go with the 40D... i'm for the 40D, but... wheres the comparison pictures?

is it a deadly sin, or a huge secret lol..

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

strawman e2
11 22.0k 16 United Kingdom
4 Nov 2009 5:21PM
The resolution difference is small, so I would say the picture quality difference is small. To my knowledge at low ISO the 450D will have a tiny advantage and at high ISO the 40D an advantage. I must admit to not having seen a review where the picture quality of the 450D was seen as being significantly better.

The difference is in the ergonomics, frame rate, no of pictures per charge, AF module, and rated shutter life;

40D advantage;
extra controls 2nd wheel for example on exposure
Better grip
Faster frame rate (nearly twice)
Metal not plastic construction
Better viewfinder
All 9 sensors cross type
External flash socket
100,000 shot quoted life (not @ 30,000)
Longer battery life

So I too would take (and did) the 40D in preference.

What is your current camera and what do you expect to get from the change?

I would honestly expect hat if you used the same lens and took the same landscape scene with both cameras and produced A3 prints you would struggle to know which camera took it. If however you were trying to photograph a bird in flight or a sports event then the 40D should have the better chance of success.

also the 40D should last longer, but with mechanical things you cannot always predict that.
4 Nov 2009 5:42PM
ty, i was hoping for higher iso with less noise, faster shutter speeds and a bigger buffer...

300D.
strawman e2
11 22.0k 16 United Kingdom
4 Nov 2009 6:03PM
Compared to 300D (which I sold to buy my 40D) you get all that plus a more responsive camera, liveview which I found helps with landscapes and still life, plus more repeatable metering and better AF performance.
wicksy e2
8 79 United Kingdom
4 Nov 2009 10:16PM
I too went from a 300d to a 40d - best thing I ever did, brillant camera! Sorry cant comment on how it compares to 450D. For me the big plus as someone who is wanting to shoot manually is the twin controls - it makes the camera so much more intuative to use.
Chris
PD_BARBS 5 14 United Kingdom
5 Nov 2009 6:37PM
Went from a 400D to 40D and the difference is huge overall is just a better camera to hold, use and maybe its my imagination, but my shots seem to be better.
JulianC 5 15 England
6 Nov 2009 10:47AM
I went from a 450D to a 50D. For me the biggest improvement is in the ergonomics of the 50D (virtually identical to the 40D in that respect). The benefits are mainly as Strawman lists above. High ISO performance will be better than your 450D but other than that, image quality is much of a muchness. My 450D still gets used, mainly when walking/climbing in the mountains, where it's smaller size and lighter weight is an advantage.
Phil1958 5 272 4 Wales
12 Nov 2009 10:58AM
Just bought a "Rebel" (300D in disguise) off e bay with change from 170.00 absolutely mint condition, just for a walk around camera - incidentally a 300D was my first DSLR. Use a 5D for serious stuff such as weddings etc with a 30D as a backup. Have a lens on each as I hate changing lenses especially as none of my cameras has sensor cleaning and I just despise dust! Have used a 40D, cracking bit of kit but not a patch on the 5D- depends a lot on your budget though.
pavman 4 2 England
7 Jan 2010 10:05PM
I went from 350D to 40D the build quality weight and basic handling stood out initially, when you then get use to the features on the D40 compared to the 350D there is a huge step up. Also found auto focusing faster plus the FPS great for shooting action/sports. I still have the 350 as a back up
paul_clark 6 22 United Kingdom
18 Jan 2010 2:32PM
Have the 40d and my wife has the 450d and I have used both.

The 40d is aimed squarely at the keen enthusiast and upwards. Better built, the lcd panel on the top means that it is far easier to navigate settings. The 450d only has the rear lcd panel so less intuitive to use under pressure and becasue the panel is in use more - battery capacity can become more of an issue.

40d has a few more bells and whistles, such as presets for setting up specific shooting configuartions.

Images - the 450d has slightly higher pixel count, personally not enough difference imho to base the decision on.

40d Compact flash, 450d SDHC cards, which might be an issue if you have any existing cameras and memory cards.

Serious about your photography? I would choose the 40d over the 450d. For a lightweight entry level body the 450d may be a better buy for you. Lightweight in carrying btw, certainly not lightweight in quality for the market it is aimed at.
slimey 5 85 Wales
18 Jan 2010 3:00PM
With apologies for hijacking this thread a bit, I'm currently 'planning' my camera spending for 2001. I'm currently using a 400D with a selection of entry-level lenses - 28-105mm, 100-300mm, 50mm f/1.8.

In my head, I'd love to get the 5Dmk2, but I'm thinking I'd be better off with one of the x0D bodies (if not just for the cost, and to leave some money for a better lens).

My photography is typically a combination outdoor walkabout-with-the-family photography, and low-light indoor work.

Given a tight budget, is it worth me sticking out for the 5D, or 'compromise' on a 40D and try to get a new lens (I've got my eye on the 70-200L lenses)
paul_clark 6 22 United Kingdom
18 Jan 2010 3:11PM
Will leave others with 5d's to give their response, just remember its a full frame sensor so no EF-S fittings which may mean some of your lenses will not fit. (the 50 1.8 is the only one I recognise as being an EF lens)

Full frame 5d appears to be better in low light than the 40d and better suited to portrait/landscape. The crop sensor magnification factor of the 40d means its possibly better for longer reach lens focal lengths.

In all honesty, I was saving for a 5d - but now we have the 7d which muddies the water big time for me!
strawman e2
11 22.0k 16 United Kingdom
18 Jan 2010 3:52PM
I would say to get an advantage of the 5D I would upgrade your lenses. So I think you should think of lenses first, even if it means just keeping the 400D for a bit longer.
cambirder e2
10 7.2k England
18 Jan 2010 3:54PM

Quote:With apologies for hijacking this thread a bit, I'm currently 'planning' my camera spending for 2001


You will need a TARDIS first, and even second hand they are pretty expensive.
Sweep 8 43 England
18 Jan 2010 4:02PM
The 5dmk2 is a fine camera I regularly use Iso 1600 and it is still better than Iso 400 on the 40D however EF L glass is expensive and and you will need some for low light work, as to long reach remember that with 20mpix you can crop to EFS size with out loss of quality. at least thats my experience.
Barry

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.