Convince me not to buy a 40d

I have a rebel XS, and while it is perfectly capable of taking some fine images, I am running into a few roadblocks after using it since December. I shoot a wide variety of stuff: Action sports, some strobist stuff, wildlife when I feel like taking a walk, and portraits when people ask me or pay me, lol. So my needs (wants?) are pretty wide.

First, the problems I'm running into with the XS:

-1.5 FPS in RAW, running into the buffer after 3 or 4 shots...I mean come on here. That's doltishly slow for sports or birds.

-No spot metering...not THAT big of a deal, and I've managed just fine without it, but the option would be nice

-AF...the XS' focus is fine in daylight, but unless it's broad sun I've noticed I've been running into some issues with it hunting, even with USM L lenses like my 70-200,

-the XS is small...this is both a blessing and a curse. I've got big hands but it's nice to be able to throw it in a bag and not have it dominate

-High ISO performance just isn't there, not really usable above 400, in my opinion

Now, I'd like to keep the XS as a backup/second body if necessary. Am I being reasonable to say I'd be paying anywhere from 600-750 for a used 40D? And would I just basically be paying that much for some more FPS and neato features that aren't really necessary? has anyone else here (i'm sure they have) made this move/switch?

Here are a few photos I've taken, to give you an idea of what I'm doing. Maybe you can decide that I don't need a 40D at all and should just spend time practicing, ha!

some sports:

Upgrade for the feature = yes

Upgrade for image quality = no.

The 40D has a very nice set of features and much of what you are complaining about will be solved. But don't expect the images to look any different. Most likely you will not be able to tell the pics apart.

I'm pretty (very) happy with the IQ of the XS, sans the ISO issue and focus woes. I'm pretty sure they are pretty similar in specs related to IQ, digic III, 10.1 mp, etc etc.

Having recently upgraded from an XTi to a 40D for essentially the same reasons as you (sports photography), I'd say you're an ideal candidate for a 40D. It's a terrific machine; you'll love the 6 fps and accurate af. As for high ISO, there's really no comparison. The 40D performs really well at ISO 800 and very acceptably at 1600 and even 3200.

But it's not just these aspects that made the move worthwhile for me. The 40D is an altogether more substantial camera and the control system seems more logical, at least to me. The expanded menu options are great too.

I'd say go for it. You're unlikely to be disappointed.

I've seen some very nice shots from the 40D at iso 800 and higher.

Take my opinion with a grain of salt because I'm still an amateur, but it seems like if you shoot sports you'd really enjoy the better autofocus and faster FPS. I'm blown away by how fast my 40d shoots, and because of it I get a lot more keepers than I used to with my 350d. It's really useful for people photography. And I've found that ISO 1600 looks totally fine as long as the exposure is good.

The 40D can handle up to 1600 ISO pretty well - very little PP needed in most cases.
The speed and buffer side will make you very happy with your sports work!
And once you have spot metering I think you will enjoy it enough to never want a camera without it...
Oh wait - you said "Convince me not to buy a 40D..."
Please disregard all previous information in this post.
Okay - disregard the previous disregard message and go buy a 40D - you will love it!

The larger LCD on the 40D has terrible quality. (I'm sure any other canon body with the 3" screen with only 240,000 pixels are just as bad, such as the 1D MIII)

constrict wrote in post #7630984
The larger LCD on the 40D has terrible quality. (I'm sure any other canon body with the 3" screen with only 240,000 pixels are just as bad, such as the 1D MIII)

The 240,000 pixels really has nothing to do with it, if that was the case then viewing any image even zoomed fully out would look bad but untill you zoom in several times the image will look very sharp.

The issue is totally down to the fact that the 40D does not use the full resolution image when viewing images on the rear LCD (which I assume is down to the processing power not being up to viewing/zooming/pannin​g a full rez image inside the camera) so the image becomes soft as you zoom the image in.

If the 40D used the full resolution image then the 240,000 pixel screen would have enough definition to check sharpness and noise levels fine.

If you are not doing any gigs for payment and you are not particularly accident prone I dare say you don't really need a back up. I would sell the XS and get the 50D or 40D plus some glass.

I have the 40D and still use it quite a bit. But if I had the choice between the 40D and 50D I'd get the 50D. The high res LCD is nice (I love this on my 5D2) and the higher ISO on the 50D will come in very handy (albeit with some noise). I'm not convinced that the extra 5MP on the 50D is an advantage over the 40D though.

Do it.

Skonk wrote in post #7631014
The 240,000 pixels really has nothing to do with it, if that was the case then viewing any image even zoomed fully out would look bad but untill you zoom in several times the image will look very sharp.

The issue is totally down to the fact that the 40D does not use the full resolution image when viewing images on the rear LCD (which I assume is down to the processing power not being up to viewing/zooming/pannin​g a full rez image inside the camera) so the image becomes soft as you zoom the image in.

If the 40D used the full resolution image then the 240,000 pixel screen would have enough definition to check sharpness and noise levels fine.

That doesn't make sense at all considering I had no complaints about the screen on my 30D. Canon increased the size of the screen of the 40D without increasing the amount of pixels. It seems they finally got the hint that it sucked finally started addressing the issue with the new models with the 3.0" screen to 922,000 pixels which look just as good (actually better) than the 2.5" screens with 240,000 pixels.

The 40D lcd seemed useless to check sharpness or most everything imo. The newer 3.0" screens with 922,000 pixels are great...I'm assuming the 50D has one...

btw, the OP is asking us to convince him NOT to buy a 40D, so regardless of who's right about the technical reason behind the 40D LCD sucking it doesn't matter. It still sucks!

You are going to get better AF and burst, and that is essentially it. So if that would make your camera $400 more enjoyable, then upgrade. High ISO on the XS is really good, the 40D is not going to be noticeably better - especially if you think 400 is the limit now. The only way to get noticeably better than the XS at 800/1600 is to get a 5D.