thoughts on upgrade to 40D from Rebel XT

[Cozen]

I've had a Rebel Xt for some time now. Good solid camera. But I came across the opportunity to upgrade to a 40D. What are some of the major feature differences since I've never held a 40D in my hand? Other than the 8mp-10mp upgrade.


Also the 40D comes with a 28-128mm and a 70-300 all for $850.





Thoughts on this upgrade? worth it or should I just wait and save up for my 70-200f4 IS?

[BCalkins]

I used to have an XT and now have the 40D. I would say the most significant features are:


1. Larger viewfinder. ISO in viewfinder.


2. Faster frame rate, feels more responsive. For my work I find i usually have the camera set to 3fps - the shorter blackout time is nice.


3. Better autofocus. I could not use the outside sensors on the XT in low light, now I can.


4. Rear screen is nicer, RGB histogram ensures no clipped channels.


5. Custom settings on mode dial. I underestimated these - I love being able to snap the camera into a know state. No more wondering if the ISO was set back, etc. I have one for manual/flash, one for wide open aperture; medium ISO; high frame rate and another for mirror lockup.


6. Live view - great if you do macro on a tripod, otherwise not a big deal.


Bottom line is that the image quality difference isn't significant, but there are lots of features that help make the difference of getting the shot. Be prepared for a larger camera, though. Whether to upgrade body or lens is really based on what you aren't happy with in your photos. If you have purple fringing, can't keep up with focusing, or soft shots the lens is the way to go. The body will get you speed and ease of use - that can help get shots too.

[Cozen]

thanks for the great information!





Larger viewfinder and ISO in viewfinder is major plus for me. As is the larger LCD so I can review my shots and make sure they are sharp and in focus.





I'm not too familiar with the frame rates. What do you mean by shorter blackout time?


Also can you describe what "Live View" is





so there isn't much a difference in IQ? I guess the difference in MP isn't much. How about noise for lower ISO's? I find myself having to lower my ISO to 400 and 800 often in low light situations.

[Maleko]

I upgraded from a 350D to a 50D, MAJOR improvement, but then again, I needed to as I was using my camera more for photo shoots!

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

I'd used the XT for 2 years before I upgraded to the 40D two years ago. The big differences for me are..

the large 3"LCD, you don't think it's important but once you use it you'll love it,
the joystick
the frame rate 6.5 vs 3
the buffer rate, 17 raws
the focusing speed and accuracy
the larger and brighterviewfinder
last but not least the 40d feels solid and better in your hand.

[Cory]

Just my personal opinoins, but the lenses that come in the normal kits are pretty much always crap (comparativley). I'll bet whatever you have for your Xt is almost, if not, as good. If you do upgrade do it to a body only and spend the rest on a good lens.

[Cozen]

I picked up the 40D. It is definitely nicer than the XT. After the first day out shooting with the 40D, the biggest differences are the 3' LCD, the speed of the autofocus, the burst shots and battery life. I shot almost 300 shots and it's still at full charge. As for IQ, I don't see much of a difference.





As for a lens I'm using the 28-135 IS. I've had it for about a month now, and was using it on my XT. I like it, but I want something with a longer range, higher magnification, and is sharper when I zoom in for 100% crops.

[Garrett-Grimsley]

I currently use a XT, and have been for the past two years. I don't own any other digital bodies, but I just want to throw out what I'm frustrated with and reason why I would upgrade to a X0D body.


- First off is AF accuracy for me. I shot almost wide open all the time with my 85mm f/1.8, and the XT's miss-focus rate is far too high for me. I've missed out on tons of potentialy great potrait shots, lost because the camera front of back focused a bit.


- Secondly is the LCD. The size of the XT's LCD often throws me off, and this goes hand-in-hand with the AF issue, because the screen is so small I can hardly tell if a image didn't focus right until I see it full view on my PC, AFTER the shoot. Very frustrating.


- And thirdly the size of the body. I have somewhat huge hands and it was nearly impossible to use the XT without the battery grip.


ISO performance, and FPS are also small issues, but not enough for me to complain, as I can fix noise in post processing, and I don't regularly shoot anything that requires a fast FPS.


And may I note that the XT isn't exactly a intimidating camera either. It almost looks like a big P&S with the 50mm f/1.8 mounted.





So other than what's noted above I absolutely love the XT. Here's a couple photo's from NY I took last week with the XT. The night ones were taken at ISO800-1600, and look at how clean they look after post processing; you'd never know these were taken with a XT and non-L glass lenses. View them full sized to see em' better.


http://www.cubeupload.com/files/e16400img4558.jpghttp://www.cubeupload.com/files/d00600img4330.jpg


http://www.cubeupload.com/files/c70000img4532.jpghttp://www.cubeupload.com/files/e70400img4460.jpg


http://www.cubeupload.com/files/75e200img4285.jpg

[Cozen]

I'd have to agree with you. the XT is a great camera that you can get great results from. Like you, the small LCd and missed focus was frustrating me as well. I'd go home after a long day shooting all excited just to find out half the pictures were out of focus. I'm hoping the larger screen on the 40D will help prevent that for me now.


Those are some nice shots. What kind of lens are you using?


I'm thinking of now saving up for a 70-200 f4 non IS. I like IS, but $500 more for IS is a bit steep.


On a side note, I sometimes see 100% crops that are near crystal clear. Usually to make a shot appear more macro like. Is that from the lens used? I can never get the type of clarity on my 28-135 IS.

[DavidEccleston]

Based on Bryan's magic mouse-over comparison pages, yes, the lens can make a huge difference in quality of 100% crops.


Your lens vs. 70-200 f4 L IS ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?SampleComp=0&FLI=3&API=1&Lens=116&Camer a=9&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=404&CameraComp=9) both at f/4 on a 1Ds II.

[Cozen]

I agree. I checked the comparisons before. My lens at f8 and 135mm seems quite sharp tho.

[Garrett-Grimsley]

Those are some nice shots. What kind of lens are you using?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Those were taken with the Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM and the Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 lenses.

[District_History_Fan]

My son has an XT and I have a 40D. One thing no one has mentioned is High ISO noise. You'll be at least a stop better on noise control with the 40D.





The 40D is a much better made, more responsive camera than the XT. Everything from its LCD to the improved menu system will be an upgrade. You are in for a treat if you get a 40D.

[DavidEccleston]

At 70mm f/8, the square has lots of chromatic aberation. The horizontal lines leading into it are a bit blurred, and the vertical lines are fairly blurred. The numbers are blurry too. The diagonal stripes are blurred. The 70-200 F4 IS blows it away, even at F4.


At 135mm f/8, the top circle and numbers, and the middle section are sharper, but still not as sharp as the 70-200. The bottom part of the image still has all the blurriness issues 70mm has, and going up to f/11 or f/16 doesn't completely clear it up.


So, yeah, for 100% crops, which is good for birds, etc. that you can't get too close to, certain lens will produce much cleaner images. I'm sure the 28-135 lens is great for general use, but if you're interested in 100% crops, it's not the best of lenses.