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

  • NEWS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here

Canon Upgrade ? ?

Willpower 7 455 United Kingdom
15 Aug 2012 9:19PM
I currently have a Canon 40D which has served me very well for the past 4 years. Recently I have been considering upgrading to a 7D.
Has anyone owned both cameras and can give me a user opinion as to whether it is actually worth upgrading.
I really have no use for the video function on the 7D, I'm more interested if the camera is functionally better than the 40D. I know that optically it depends on the lenses being used, but both cameras being compatible with my current lenses I am curious if the 7D performs any better.
And before you all start shouting I can't afford a 5D so that is out of the question.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Gwladys 12 6
15 Aug 2012 9:43PM
I have owned both a 40D and a 7D. My 40D was OK but I had problems wih it after about 2 years. The 7D is a much better camera, yes, I would say, yes it performs better.

You also have an incamera leveller which is a big help if you are taking pictures of horizons and don't want them to be wonky. I am very pleased with my 7D and wouldn't go back to the 40D at any price. You can customise your settings, I don't remember if the 40D had custom functions. Yes worth the money and I would certainly buy another.
justin c 14 4.9k 36 England
15 Aug 2012 10:04PM
The 7D is quite a considerable upgrade over a 40D in many ways.
Willpower 7 455 United Kingdom
15 Aug 2012 10:10PM
Thank you both Smile The 40D does have 3 customisable functions which I use regularly. How many does the 7D have ?

Justin what upgrade features would you consider to be of greatest significance ?
tatkinson1983 11 130
15 Aug 2012 10:57PM
The focus system and the noise will be loads better. Then the HD video stuff can sometimes be fun to play with.

The question I would ask is what lens do you have? I see 18-200 in your galleries a lot. A 40D with a better lens will perform better than a 7D with an 18-200.

Then the hard part is working out what you shoot the most and which lens to go for. Landscapes- something wide, portraits - prime lens, 50mm or 85mm maybe. A better zoom, for similar prices to 7d you could get a 70-200 canon lens.

Lens are a much better investment than a camera body.
steve_p 12 1.2k England
16 Aug 2012 6:12AM
When I had the 7d, at first I didn't think I would use the video. I ended up using it a lot. Even at my stepson's wedding.
I did find it a big improvement over the 40D, better focussing and general speed of operation.
The integrated speedilite transmitter was quite useful, too. As has been mentioned you do need to make sure you have good quality lenses to get the best from it.
mikehit 8 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
16 Aug 2012 8:58AM
I had (in fact still have) the 30D and I now have the 7D and these are my views on the everyday functions I use.

The focus system on the 7D is far superior not only regards performance itself but also in customisability, but if you do not shoot much action or wildlife I would say this is a not much of an upgrade. In a similar way, the higher pixel count is significantly higher so it will take heavier cropping, but if your main subject is studio work or landscapes this may not be a huge improvement.
Noise perfomance is between one and two stops better, three at a push because the noise does not seem to become harsh as quickly, so for lowlight work this is probably the biggest improvement as it means you can also use higher shutter speeds in other situations.
The camera not only has a leveller but you can also project a grid onto the LCD and viewfinder so you can check verticals/horizontals quite easily.

The biggest question is what is it about the 40D that is limiting you - as others have said above my first call is always to get better lenses first then upgrade the body. For example, for birds in flight I found that using a 100-400L on my 30D instead of the 70-30 (non-L) increased my hitrate significantly. I own the 70-200f4L and the 100-400L but if the 70-300L had been out at the time I would have bought that and not bothered with the other two. And that is high praise from me because the 70-200 is an absolute beauty.
Unless you simply like the idea of owning a 7D body (I have used weaker reasons to upgrade cameras and hifi) Tongue
By the way, you can find second hand 5D2 for little more than the 7D and the price will drop a little more with the release of the 5D3 so if you really want one it should be possible to find one.
robthecamman 6 1.7k United Kingdom
16 Aug 2012 11:35AM
iv the 7d from the 450d set it up tweaking picture style
mikehit 8 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
16 Aug 2012 11:50AM

Quote:Iv the 7d from the 450d set it up tweaking picture style

and the translation is....?
Willpower 7 455 United Kingdom
17 Aug 2012 12:26AM
Wow so much information. And so many interesting comparisons. I shall be considering all of your suggestions and may well come up with some new questions.
One has immediately struck me from tatkinson 1983 A 40D with a better lens will perform better than a 7D with an 18-200.
Could you please explain why you say this, I am very curious.
Yes I do use the 18-200 as a general all purpose lens, but I also have a 75-300 and a 100mm macro. Why is it that a 7D would perform worse than a 40D with that same lens ?
I understand that many people will say go for better lenses first, (Thank you mikehit) but my 40D is now on 46,900 actuations and I think it might soon be time to replace it. I suppose that is what you could call a limitation.
Being retired and on a fixed income, I have to consider my options carefully. More time on my hands means more images being taken. So it's a case of stick with an ageing 40D and get better lenses. Or get a newer body (7D) but use the same lenses.
This is my dilemma

Thank you everyone for your suggestions thus far. Anything more would be gratefully accepted.

By the way robthecamman, just what do you mean ? ? Smile
steve_p 12 1.2k England
17 Aug 2012 7:11AM
Mainly it's because the 7D has an 18 million pixel sensor as against the 10 million one on the 40D. This means that any weakness in the lens will be more noticeable.
However it all depends on how critical you are. There are many people who use this site who are extremely critical.
Something to put into the mix is that the 40d you have with that many actuations is probably going to need some attention soon, as you say.
If you do get a 7d you will not be disappointed, I had one and had to sell it for financial reasons. I wish I still had it but I am more than happy with the 60D I now have.
GlennH 12 1.9k 1 France
17 Aug 2012 8:25AM

Quote:There are many people who use this site who are extremely critical.

There are? Not that I'm looking to disagree, but heated threads about cameras and lenses on ePhotozine seem to invariably end up with 600 pixel image examples—uncropped—presented as empirical evidence of image quality. At that size you may as well be using a Kodak EasyShare with a UV filter stuck on the front from Poundland.
cheddar-caveman 14 1.1k England
17 Aug 2012 8:26AM
Yes, started with a 350, then the 40D now the 7D. Never had any problems with my 40D, great camera, but had a lot of teething problems with the 7D. Had 3 bodies before Canon asked me to send the body and all my lenses to them for "calibration". Since then, brilliant. Still on a learning curve after two years!

It has always been a fact that no camera will take decent pictures unless there is a good lens on the front. Save on the body but spend on the lens!

A zoom lens is always a compromise - usually only at its best mid range so as has been said the 40D with a "good" lens will give better results that the 7D with the 18-200 (that's a big range)!
mikehit 8 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
17 Aug 2012 9:30AM

Quote:Why is it that a 7D would perform worse than a 40D with that same lens ?

Quote:Mainly it's because the 7D has an 18 million pixel sensor as against the 10 million one on the 40D. This means that any weakness in the lens will be more noticeable.

I always have a problem with that statement because if you put a the same lens on the the two cameras, and take the same picture and present it at a fixed size (both full screen on the computer or both printed at 18x12) then why would the image with the 7D be worse? If the 40D is masking any lens problems then that is a body issue not a lens issue. Putting the lens on the 7D will improve the image but this will make easier to see where the lens has distortion/artefacts in certain areas.
Yes, it is semantics but it is important to explain things correctly so the OP makes the best decision.

Quote:One has immediately struck me from tatkinson 1983 A 40D with a better lens will perform better than a 7D with an 18-200.

By and large, that is true. However I will caution that the lens correction software now available has closed the gap considerably between consumer grade and L-grade lenses.In one of the photo magazines this month I saw a stunningstudio image taken with a 300D (!) and kit lens.
At f8 and above, the centre performance of a consumer lens will be extremely close to that on an L lens. When you buy something like a 24-70L, the extra hundreds of pounds is buying superior performance at full-open aperture, superior performance at the edge and corners of the frame and often a glass and coatings that gives a stronger contrast which is perceived as being sharper (but can be replicated in post processing). So it all depends on what you will use the camera for.

If you really need the autofocus or the 8fps of the 7D then go for it.
If you really like the idea of owning a 7D then go for it.
Looking at your pf, you have planes and insects where the 7D will help with focussing and you have a couple of low light shots where the 7D would have better noise performance. So even with your current lenses you will see an improvement in hit rate and image quality, but a better lens will have better AF. Above you say you have the 75-300 but the exif data on the plane shot says 70-300 - which one is it because the 70-300 is much better for both image quality and AF performance.
User_Removed 14 3.3k 4 United Kingdom
17 Aug 2012 10:04AM

Quote:This means that any weakness in the lens will be more noticeable.

You have to balance that with the fact that more striking image details should be more noticeable.

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.