Hi

Ive got a bit a spare cash at the moment and was thinking of treating myself and splashing out on the new Canon EOS 40D at approx £900 body only & £1200 with a 17 - 85mm lens.


http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_SLR/EOS_40D/index.asp


What peoples opinions on this new Canon DSLR.

Niiiice !

This page has details of changes to that and other bodies - see the bit on the 18th after you've scrolled and drooled over the 1Ds III info

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_1DS_MkIII.html

The 5D could be fab, depending on what they do to it. I'm seriously thinking of getting a 1Ds III in March - bit of saving to be done between now and then unless I win the lotto of course :P

As a long time Canon DSLR user I would say if the 40D meets your needs go for it, although if you want a camera sooner, the 30D is now available for £550 and it is a tried and proven body (look at the focus issues on early 1D mkIII bodies).

A 30D plus 24-105 f4 is a nice combination and you could get those off the shelf now for £1100

There is a rather good comparison between the 30D and 40D features here :

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos40d/

The video at bottom of page is cool. Gotta love the 1D III in burst mode - even more like a machine gun than my camera :)

The video at bottom of page is cool. Gotta love the 1D III in burst mode - even more like a machine gun than my camera :)

High Speed is great but it eats storage space ;) At a recent motor sport event I managed to fill about half a dozen 4Gb CF cards and a few 2Gb SD cards :( I didn't use high speed mode because it was just too quick most of the time.

I will never miss a shot because this camera is too slow.

Battery life is stunning.

If you go for a 1Ds mkIII you will not be disappointed, although the controls are more like a 10/20 or 30D than a traditional 1 series, which personally I prefer.

Oh for a big fat pile of cash. Some of the 40Ds improvements are quite impressive, considering its market position and rivals. The new 1ds though I think just crushes the professional rivals and leaves them a squidgy mess of electronics on the ground. Out of my league, but very nice looking.

Rob, I assume this is your first DSLR as you mentioned in May that you were thinking of buying later in the year?

The 40D will undoubtedly be an excellent camera, but apart from the 6.5fps, is there really anything there that justifies spending twice the price of a 400D?

£1200 would get you the 400D, an unboxed 24-105 f/4 (far superior to the 17-85 although sometimes a bit long at the wide end) and a bit of change for a UV filter, a spare battery and a nice bag with lots of zips and pockets (most important). If you're more likely to shoot wide, the 17-55 f/2.8 is also an excellent lens.

If you're really set on the 40D, wait a few months and it should be down to about £650.

And don't forget the Tom Ang book.

Gotta love the 1D III in burst mode - even more like a machine gun than my camera :)
There's always the taking the picture at the right time, school of photography. Too many photographers now simply point and shoot hoping to get something of interest. Don't see why they simply don't just get a video camera and do frame grabs and pretend to be a photographer that way instead. :rolleyes:
Just a thought! And here's the camera to do it on http://www.red.com/ That's the future of photography according to the Picture Editor at the Telegraph. But with a cheaper camera, though.

Oh for a big fat pile of cash. Some of the 40Ds improvements are quite impressive, considering its market position and rivals. The new 1ds though I think just crushes the professional rivals and leaves them a squidgy mess of electronics on the ground. Out of my league, but very nice looking.
Nikon have finally made a camera that is full frame, so they are not looking quite so lame now. Though they are still not so good on wideangle lens as Canon though, though their new 14-24mm f2.8 is interesting. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082311nikonafs14-24-70lenses.asp
Though a 24mm F1.14 + 35mm f1.4 is more appealing. To me anyhow.

Nikon have finally made a camera that is full frame, so they are not looking quite so lame now.

Yeah I guess the people buying at that level have something to think about now. Canon are in to untested ground with live view on the professional range, and Nikon have their first full frame model. Interesting times.

I am waiting for Sony and their new cameras - as I have lots of Minolta equipment things can get really interesting, especially with these two new bodies announced (as betas) on last Photokina. We'll wait and we'll see... :)

Rob, I assume this is your first DSLR as you mentioned in May that you were thinking of buying later in the year?

The 40D will undoubtedly be an excellent camera, but apart from the 6.5fps, is there really anything there that justifies spending twice the price of a 400D?

£1200 would get you the 400D, an unboxed 24-105 f/4 (far superior to the 17-85 although sometimes a bit long at the wide end) and a bit of change for a UV filter, a spare battery and a nice bag with lots of zips and pockets (most important). If you're more likely to shoot wide, the 17-55 f/2.8 is also an excellent lens.

If you're really set on the 40D, wait a few months and it should be down to about £650.

And don't forget the Tom Ang book.


I asked myself that very same question, do i really need a 40D when really something like a 400D would be more than enough camera for me.

And like you said with the money id save with the 400D over the 40D i could buy myself a few extras.

The 40D may be to the 400D, what the 20D was to the 350D, on the face of it very similar specced cmaeras, but the lower priced model was crippled to a marketing price point. As a result, it was much less user friendly and far more difficult to use.
The 20D was way superior in handling to it's lower priceing sibling with the same sensor and a way better camera as a result. I'm sure the 40D will be the same.
Rob, so it's not simply the case that the 400D will be good enough when comparing it to the 40D. You need to consider how the camera handles too and what less obvious features have been omitted. The 350D was deficient in flash handling compared to the 20D I seem to recall. I'm not talking fancy flash stuff here, but basic flash usuage.

There's always the taking the picture at the right time, school of photography. Too many photographers now simply point and shoot hoping to get something of interest. Don't see why they simply don't just get a video camera and do frame grabs and pretend to be a photographer that way instead. :rolleyes:
Just a thought! And here's the camera to do it on http://www.red.com/ That's the future of photography according to the Picture Editor at the Telegraph. But with a cheaper camera, though.

Ooooh thats nice. But until I win the lotto I'll stick with my 1D IIN in machine gun mode to capture the moments my slow responses miss such as this at the Sheffield Fayre today (http://rfstock.co.uk/Images/OR3U2541.jpg) :)