450d or a 40d? Help Required

davesophs · 07-09-2009, 9:59 PM

Hi all,
I am new to this site so hi to all.
A few years back I studied photography at college but due to certain circumstances when I left college I got back into the family business and let my photography slide. I am looking to get back into it now I have more time. I used a canon eos 50e (now an atique).
I liked my canon cameras then, tried a few different, so would like to stick to canon and also have a few lenses. I was originally looking at the 450d but was told to look seriously at the 40d. I see the 40d is being now discontinued for the 50d, however the 50d is above my price range. The 40d is still available in someplaces. Am I better to pay just under the £500 (with lense) for the 450d or go to nearer the £700(with lense) for the 40d? Is the price justified? If anyone has seen the prices lower let me know.
I'm looking to do a bit of variety with my camera at the mo, lanscapes, sport, portrait etc.

Thanks up front for all help

RobDickinson · 08-09-2009, 12:37 AM

IMO the 40D is a stunning camera, less features that the 500D, less resulution, but faster, faster shooting, better body and handling, better viewfinder.

If sport is likely the 40D will slaughter the 500D.

For landscapes and portraits its probably evens.

**senu** · 08-09-2009, 6:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobDickinson

IMO the 40D is a stunning camera, less features that the 500D, less resulution, but faster, faster shooting, better body and handling, better viewfinder.

If sport is likely the 40D will slaughter the 500D.

For landscapes and portraits its probably evens.

I agree with the above except the " less features"
The 500D has video, the 40D does not, that does not matter to myself and many who just get out our camcorders instead
Even with less resolution the 40D is capable of files of very decent definition which are likely to me more noise free at higher ISO
The 450D is a decent little performer though but for speed and sports .. the 40D will serve you better

MattTheBeanster · 08-09-2009, 3:09 PM

40D vs 450. 40D has less megapixels (10 vs 12), greater iso range (3200, but it's pretty much only for emergency's), faster burst (6.5 fps vs 3.5) and stores on compact flash instead of sd (in case you care).

Apart from the fps it doesn't sound like very much of difference does it? But I would go for the 40D in a heartbeat as in my (none too small) hands it feels more solid, the ergonomics are excellent and the additional top screen is excellent to have. The 450 will do pretty much all the 40D can (except the fps) but it's sooooooo much easier and (IMO) more enjoyable doing it with the 40D.

just my 2p worth. if you haven't already, go to a shop and feel one in person.

WhiteAndBlue · 08-09-2009, 4:05 PM

Quote:

40D vs 450. 40D has less megapixels (10 vs 12), greater iso range (3200, but it's pretty much only for emergency's), faster burst (6.5 fps vs 3.5) and stores on compact flash instead of sd (in case you care).

Agree...
I go with 40D.

davesophs · 10-09-2009, 12:13 PM

Yeah i've been down to a few stores to get a feel for them. I have had probs trying to get a hold of the 40d but have held what i've been told are similar cameras. Totally agree, the feel of the '40d' is far more substancial.
So taking all this and more into account, i've just bought the 40d. Should receive delivery in the morning. ooooo

Thanks for all your help