[drb5]

That's been a huge number of pictures i've seen now, taken with the 40D and tbh they stand out massively. The sharpness of the pics is gorgeous and after having my A100 for only a few months, with a decent enough kit list, i'm considering selling up and moving over to Canon.

I get a feeling my thoughts are something which i'd feel no matter what camera i have though...someone else will always show pictures that blow me away. I'm not the best photographer....i know this, but i can't help but think the A100 is a "starter" DSLR and the 40D is a bit more...."serious"?

Am i off my head and jumping to conclusions without making FULL use of the Sony, or is there definately a big benefit to moving away to Canon?

[macker_s]

Hi,

Here is my 0.02 ore worth, I had the 300D when it first came out and just two weeks ago I upgraded to the 40D with the 10-22 and 17-85 lenses and the difference is night and day. So far I am super happy with the image quality and overall functionality of the camera.

,Mackers

[drb5]

Thanks.

I'm sure i've seen the 300D compared to the A100 quite a lot too?

[Yandros]

I suspect that a large part of it is that 40D owners are, on average, more experienced photographers and better PPers than A100 owners. I think this has far more of effect on the images than the camera body. The other factor is that 40D owners are probably using better glass, and more likely to be using a tripod and expensive lighting equipment.

[chrisbaker42]

I know there is a well respected school of thought that says you should learn to fully use your current kit before upgrading but the 40D is certainly a great camera. I swapped my 400D for a 40D three days ago and it is certainly worth doing.

[drb5]

Originally Posted by Yandros

I suspect that a large part of it is that 40D owners are, on average, more experienced photographers and better PPers than A100 owners. I think this has far more of effect on the images than the camera body. The other factor is that 40D owners are probably using better glass, and more likely to be using a tripod and expensive lighting equipment.

I figured this may be the case, but also considered the 40D still being easy to get to grips with?

If i put it like this....will i stay with the A100 forever? I doubt it and although there is no REAL need for me to convert, with my current kit list being worth up to 1k, i'd be able to get the body and walk about lens for the same money.

Some may even say, why do i need to change to Canon if the reviews are to be believed and just upgrade to a 700. lol Then again, it ain't quite as cheap.

[loz]

FWIW, I sold my A100 for £250. (having paid only £320 for it in the first place).

I sold all my alpha mount lenses for more than I paid for them - having bought them of ebay in the first place - or in jessops shop closure clear outs last year - they actually all went up in value.

That funded my Canon 450D with kit lens, a 55-250mm IS lens and a 580EXII flash.

So my conversion from Sony to Canon cost me nowt
Though I did have a bigger range of minolta glass before. So now I will be spending some money additional lenses for the Canon

[springtide]

Originally Posted by drb5

Some may even say, why do i need to change to Canon if the reviews are to be believed and just upgrade to a 700. lol

Couldn't have said it better myself

If you sold your A100 and 7D you'd not be that far off an A700.

I got £300 for my 7D and you can now get the A700 for £650 from a UK dealer!

If you are looking for another camera, why not sit down with a pen and paper and write down all of the things that you feel are holding you back with your photography, and the big question will a new camera help?
Are you finding the A100 difficult to use for instance? (doesn't look like!). Are you looking for a camera with Liveview?

[drb5]

Thanks guys.

I suppose(as there always has been, even when FIRST buying an SLR) there is pro's and con's to doing either...Canon or Sony. Reviews may say the Sony is better in some instances, but it does cost £200 or there abouts more, when you take into account Canon's cashback offer.

Think you hit the nail on the head there Springtide. I'll get myself into my localish camera shop and have a fool around with both, then check some reviews and do some thinking/jotting down.

:D Photography is fun isn't it?

[drunkenmaster]

I also moved from a 300D to 40D and I don't intend on changing this camera for a long time
It took me a hell of a time to consider the change but well worth it

[denno75uk]

Just a comment on cameras around the 40D level.
When I got my 30D, I was under no illusions that is was more camera than I needed, but the thinking was to get a camera that had just a few more features than the entry level ones to give me something to grow into. I also hoped it would keep the upgraditis at bay a little longer and so far it seems to be paying off. It's still more camera than I need but I'm working on changing that. And even with the release of the 40D, I'm no less happy with the 30D. (Granted, that may have more to do with Canon helpfully not making the 40 massively better than the 30 - and therefore more tempting - than my self discipline).
That said, the price of the 40D alone has had me considering the upgrade too.

[senu]

Originally Posted by denno75uk

Just a comment on cameras around the 40D level.
...I also hoped it would keep the upgraditis at bay a little longer and so far it seems to be paying off. It's still more camera than I need but I'm working on changing that. And even with the release of the 40D, I'm no less happy with the 30D. (Granted, that may have more to do with Canon helpfully not making the 40 massively better than the 30 - and therefore more tempting - than my self discipline).
That said, the price of the 40D alone has had me considering the upgrade too.

Very true
The 40D is better than the 30D ,and its price very tempting..The 30D never got so affordable even 14 months after its release

Putting aside the arguments of the Sony "camp", for the OP

The 30 and 40D and cameras of that ilk will only show how good they are when you learn how to get more out of them
In Nikon land I find this especially true of the D200
This is however not to say they cannot be used in newbee mode until the "voyage of discovery" begins
What is sobering though is how much more difference good glass can make

An entry level DSLR and great glass would get one more than great body and mediocre glass
A capable body, some knowhow and good glass are the combo to aim for. Shooting RAW and a little Photoshop "know how" is icing on the cake IMHO

[jonnypb]

ur not wrong to hanker after it as it's a great cam and at under £500 it's a good price

if funds allow then it would be hard not to but a good camera and lens don't guarantee good pics. of course it helps but it's down to the thing holding the lens!

[drb5]

This is where my mind goes a bit hazy though....lenses.

When i set out to buy my first DSLR, the cost of lenses came into the equation in a big way. I've managed to get some okish ones and a couple of good ones, but i can't begin to consider ALL the lenses i MIGHT buy if i were to get a 40D.

Is there a general "good" lens for the 40D that doesn't cost a grand? :D

At the moment i've a Tam 17-50mm... this considered to be a good lens, or for that range of zoom, or can that still be easily bettered?


I'll be close to a Jessops today, so i'll have a pop in and see what they have. Trouble is, it's as big as a cupboard. Can't see them stocking the 40D.

[senu]

Originally Posted by drb5

This is where my mind goes a bit hazy though....lenses.

When i set out to buy my first DSLR, the cost of lenses came into the equation in a big way. I've managed to get some okish ones and a couple of good ones, but i can't begin to consider ALL the lenses i MIGHT buy if i were to get a 40D.

Is there a general "good" lens for the 40D that doesn't cost a grand? :D

At the moment i've a Tam 17-50mm... this considered to be a good lens, or for that range of zoom, or can that still be easily bettered?


I'll be close to a Jessops today, so i'll have a pop in and see what they have. Trouble is, it's as big as a cupboard. Can't see them stocking the 40D.

Why not, the 40D isnt that big..?
The Canon 17-55 f 2.8 USM IS is probably the very best in that range .It is L glass in all but name and costs about £500 not 1K .
However It may be argued that it may not be better by a multiple of its price. If money is not too tight it would be worth considering
Only downside is that it is EF-S and cannot be used for FF bodied like the 5D but it does have reale value if you need to upgrade
The 24-105L also doest cost 1K , it is very well liked : a downside would be that 24mm may not be wide enough

If you have the Tamron, why not use it to start with.. Getting the 40D is no excuse to remortgage for lenses.. that can happen gradually and you may be surprised that your current lenses may have a "new lease of life" with a new body
I found that the (much slated ) Canon 17-85 USM IS was better on the 30D than the 350D

[chrisbaker42]

I have a sigma 24-70 DG EX which I picked up on this forum at a very good price, it gives excellent results.

[drb5]

Originally Posted by senu

Why not, the 40D isnt that big..?
The Canon 17-55 f 2.8 USM IS is probably the very best in that range .It is L glass in all but name and costs about £500 not 1K .
However It may be argued that it may not be better by a multiple of its price. If money is not too tight it would be worth considering
Only downside is that it is EF-S and cannot be used for FF bodied like the 5D but it does have reale value if you need to upgrade
The 24-105L also doest cost 1K , it is very well liked : a downside would be that 24mm may not be wide enough

If you have the Tamron, why not use it to start with.. Getting the 40D is no excuse to remortgage for lenses.. that can happen gradually and you may be surprised that your current lenses may have a "new lease of life" with a new body
I found that the (much slated ) Canon 17-85 USM IS was better on the 30D than the 350D

Ment to reply to this earlier, but was pushed for time.

Chuck a couple camera bags into the Jessops i'm talking about and they soon run out of space. :D Went in for a look-see just there and although the saleswoman couldn't tell me much and i never had too long a play(battery was going flat), it felt a lot more comfortable to hold than the A100/7D and way more robust. Kit lens is 17-85mm, but is it worth even bothering with it?

Bought a couple magazines and will look more into the lens price thing.

Off to Mexico on Thursday for 2 weeks, so that gives me the perfect time to use the Sony and see how good it turns out to be when i get the pics onto the laptop once i'm back.

Anyone know someone who's JUST started using a 40D and has posted pics? Be nice to see what exactly you start of with.

[Bristol Pete]

The 40D destroys the sony in every way,

much better focusing system, better low light performance due to the digic 3 processor, feels great, handles well, some weather shielding, live view, a decent screen and some tidy customer feautures like highlight tone priority.

Personally, for the money, its a great buy now. The 17-85 is a good lens too. As a deal it comes in at about £210.00 which is not a bad price for a lens that retails standalone at £399.99. Nice colours, razor sharp, good contrast and IS t to boot.

Just my thoughts.

Pete.

[drb5]

Thanks Pete, you've made a good point about the kit lens price there. And after having a quick look to see what a secondhand 17-85 lens goes for on Ebay, you certainly wouldn't lose much on it, if i decided to get another L lens.

Is there a site similar to dyxum, which i've found very valuable when choosing Minolta/Alpha lenses?

[drb5]

Maybe i'm getting something wrong here, but isn't this extremely cheap considering you get a lens with the body?

http://www.camerabox.co.uk/product1....ProductID=1158

[cedmondson]

Originally Posted by drb5

Maybe i'm getting something wrong here, but isn't this extremely cheap considering you get a lens with the body?

http://www.camerabox.co.uk/product1....ProductID=1158

I think I'd give this one a wide berth.

Firstly as I'm sure you know you can still pick up the 40D body for circa £500 after cashback.
Secondly this deal says 'no cashback because price is so low'. Retailers have no part to play in the cashback promotions so I'd strongly suspect this means it is a grey import & thus has no valid warranty.Apart from the lack of warranty this implies a value of £80 for the lens...
Thirdly in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'd assume the lens is the non-IS version that comes with the 400D. Whilst I don't think this lens is entirely the 'dog' some people crack it up to be, it isn't worth £80.

You could do better

[drb5]

Excellent, thanks for that.

I never considered the cashback thing being due to a possible import, but HAD thought the lens must be a "lesser" model.

[springtide]

Take a look at the reviews over at Pop Photo.

http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4724...alpha-700.html
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4668...n-eos-40d.html


Summary of Pop Photo reviews...

A700 is has better handling than the 40D, since the A700 now uses dedicated buttons very similar to the Nikons .

A700 has faster and more accurate AF than 40D and this is with the all lenses and not just HSM. This wa also the conclusion of the German mag Foto which also compared the Af speeds of many of the Semi-Pro cameras. The only issue with this is the enthusiastic AF motor in the A700 can strip gears in the cheaper Sigma lenses an some people have found out.

Pop Photo Page 1
"It [A700] also focuses faster than the Canon EOS 40D, Nikon D80, and Nikon D200 down to EV 4, then gives up a fraction of a second at EV 2 through -1. It's slower than the Canon at EV -2, but faster than the Nikons. And it focuses faster at all light levels than either the Pentax K10D or the Olympus Evolt E-510."

and..
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4911...cus-page2.html
"In our tests, the D300 focused extremely fast in bright and moderate light from EV 12 to EV 6, slightly faster than the EOS 40D, but not as quick as the Sony A700 or Olympus E-3. In low light from EV 4 to EV 1, it was just behind the Canon but much faster than the Olympus. And in very low light from EV 0 to -2, it was faster than any other DSLR we've tested, maintaining an AF speed of under 1 second even at its limit of EV -2 (the Olympus stopped at EV -1)."

40D has slightly better High ISO performance at ISO1600 and above. Note that 40D doesn't do ISO6400, but the A700 is pretty unusable at the ISO anyway, so no big deal.

A700 has Anti Shake, 40D has Liveview.

Both cameras ave some kind of Dynamic Range technology for exposure control of difficult scenes. You already know the Sony (DRO), but it now has advanced settings which is very similar to the Canon and Nikon versions.

And my view...

I would say there are more lenses available for the 40D and are generally cheaper than the Sony lenses for the 'own brands'. Obviously 3rd party lenses are the same price, but new lenses are released for Nikon and Canon before any other brand. This could be your deciding factor as well as the cheaper price of the 40D (£150 cheaper I think)

I've read the reviews and have a good friend that has a 40D who bought at the same time that I did, hence have had the discussion about both cameras as we showed each other our new toys.

The 40D is is a great camera and I looked at the 40D when I was looking to buy my A700. The D300 was a more tempting camera but decided go with Sony. Whether I made the right choice, only time will tell.

I would say the A700 is the better camera (based on my needs), the improved handling (dedicated buttons for Exp Comp, ISO, etc) sells is for me but it is also more expensive. In fact the 40D is more like the price of the A350, which puts the Sony A350 to shame a little.

Another option is the 450D from the other discussions in this forum. But it depends on what you want from a camera. Written up your requirement yet?

[drb5]

Originally Posted by springtide

And my view...

I would say there are more lenses available for the 40D and are generally cheaper than the Sony lenses for the 'own brands'. Obviously 3rd party lenses are the same price, but new lenses are released for Nikon and Canon before any other brand.

You've made a very good point there...something i hadn't realised. Sure i'd noticed the third party lenses price, but didn't know about the release dates, or considered Sony lenses being similarly priced to Canon's.

Originally Posted by springtide

Written up your requirement yet?

I've been too drunk to get on with that Was going to be a job while away on holiday and that would give me good camera time with the A100, but i suppose what i consider is
ultimate sharpness(i feel i can afford to lose out a bit of colour. That can easily be added during software, but i feel the sharpening of software isn't good enough)
could definately do with the liveview and lcd screen on top of body
i like to future proof(A100 i reckon i WILL want to upgrade from at some point soon, although might not always want to move to Canon/Nikon)
i don't need image stablization as much as i expected
cost(this makes Canon lenses a problem, BUT i really don't need anything more than a great walkabout lens, excellent long range for motorsport and a non-is macro.)
comfort(A100 isn't bad, but it does feel cheap and with my large hands, a bit too small now. It felt fine at the time of buying, but back then, i couldn't have afforded a semi-pro body.)
useability(the Sony is very user-friendly, being able to find what your looking for quickly and easily. On looking at the 40D screen, it looked a lot more detailed and confusing...maybe this is a good thing, giving me more to learn?)
ISO capability(no competition here. A100 was always regarded as a noisy camera.)


With a fuzzy head still, i'm struggling to think what else tbh. At the end of the day, i know they both do the same thing...take pictures. I just figured with my current kit list sold, i could afford a great camera and lately, i've seen dozens and dozens of pictures taken with the 40D and i've not seen any i'd have said looked "ok". I know this can be accounted to the user, but i've still seen many newbie's having bought a 40D and their pictures are of excellent quality, even with the kit lens.

If i were to consider the A700, then i know i wouldn't sell all my lenses and at that, puts the 700 out the equation...down to cost.

[drb5]

Popped into Photo Optix today for another look and had a good discussion with the salesperson in there.

He failed to see the point of the liveview as you can't auto focus when your in it? Seem's a bit strange to me, as there's no way you get right on the sweet spot!?

[Gizmo 76]

For the cashback I believe you'd just enter your serial number for your body, and the serial for the lens, which would get to your £140.

I have a 40D, but i'm yet to play that much, but I'm sure I remember an AF mode setting for Live View in the menus, a quick search revealed this:-

Focusing while in Live View is a little complicated. Because the 40D's autofocus sensor is in the camera's pentaprism (the contraption on top of the camera, where the viewfinder is), and because the mirror that reflects light into the pentaprism must be flipped out of the way for Live View to work, autofocus during Live View is impossible. You have two focusing choices: You can manually focus by turning the focus ring on your camera's lens; or you can tell the camera to auto-focus, which requires it to drop the mirror, thus temporarily stopping the Live View.

Taken from here

So i'm not sure the shop you went to is giving out all the right information here...

EDIT: Well it is kinda of I guess, as the Auto-Focus wouldn't be totally Live

[drb5]

Thanks Gizmo.

Can we say that by giving the camera the chance to auto-focus, THEN select live view, it will keep it's auto focus till you've taken the picture? If that's the case, then will the focus have stayed the same for the following picture?

I had another look at Canon site and worked the cashback thing out.

[Gizmo 76]

Basically when you switch the Live View on I believe the camera will lock the focus depending on what focus point you have selected. Then once the Live View is on, if the object that you focused on moves, the focus won't, you would have to re-auto focus. This would cause Live View to temporarily go off and back on while the camera does this.

That's is how I take it anyways, but i'm yet to really have a play with Live View as yet. I would probably manually focus as the screen is a decent size and clear.

[denno75uk]

What kind of situation do you anticipate using/needing AF in Liveview? I only ask because I saw a video of the D300 using live-view to focus manually and thought it was a fantastic idea, but I'm pretty sure it was manual and obviously on a stable base. Also with the D300 you can use a 1:1 sensor/screen pixel ratio to really hone a fine focus.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, if the 40D can do this, I'd still consider it to be a big selling point even without AF capability.

[drb5]

Originally Posted by Gizmo 76

Basically when you switch the Live View on I believe the camera will lock the focus depending on what focus point you have selected. Then once the Live View is on, if the object that you focused on moves, the focus won't, you would have to re-auto focus. This would cause Live View to temporarily go off and back on while the camera does this.

That's is how I take it anyways, but i'm yet to really have a play with Live View as yet. I would probably manually focus as the screen is a decent size and clear.

Yer, figured that's what it ment.

I did feel when in bright light, you might not be able to use a manual focus on the liveview though, thus needing autofocus. The no autofocus in liveview certainly hasn't put me off it at all. Just means you'd need to find your own way to happily use it.