Going from a 40D - to a 60D or a 7D?

before buying my 7D, visited the local shop & tried both back to back.

Lots of differences, most already put here, but visiting the shop, was the best thing to do.

Scott M wrote in post #13003756
I also upgraded from a 40D to a 7D over a year ago. I went with the 7D over the 60D for the follwoing reasons:

1. Better auto focus system
2. Button layout and ergonomics were much closer to my 40D
3. Compact Flash instead of SD cards, so I could still use my existing CF cards
4. Didn't want an articulating screen
5. Three custom mode buttons, just like the 40D
6. Better viewfinder

From my old 40D, the biggest improvements for me have been the AF system, improved high ISO performance, and the higher resolution -- allowing me to crop some wildlife shots where even a 400mm lens does not provide enough reach.

Ditto. Loved my 40D but love my 7D more. I still travel with two bodies, the 40D and the 7D, but last trip I used the 7D over 90% of the time.

jonneymendoza wrote in post #13003763
all and i mean all crop boies share same IQ. only difference between 50- 60 and 7d is maybe AF.

get a 5dmk2 if u want IQ differences

No doubt, I mean what else could get this kind of DOF control, and high ISO 12800 (last image) performance? Crops can't touch this.

Rocky Rhode wrote in post #13003287
What is it about your 40D that you feel is lacking?

Nothing really. I have been monitoring the 7D threads and am in the mood to spend some money hat I have saved up over the summer...I may actually end up getting a new lens instead....

Thanks for the sincere replies everyone. I think I have re-evaluated my situation and may be looking towards more glass.

Use the money on better glass.

Or if you really want a newer camera the 7D is more of an upgrade than the 60D imo

TeamSpeed wrote in post #13006753
No doubt, I mean what else could get this kind of DOF control, and high ISO 12800 performance? Crops can't touch this.

Yep. As long as one realizes that the high ISO performance is there because of the extra shallow depth of field (more precisely, you can't get that high ISO performance unless you go with that shallow depth of field)...

If those shots were taken with a 5Dmk2 then I'm impressed with the lack of banding. Did you have to do anything to eliminate that?


To the OP: if you're happy with the camera and the images it produces (and the 40D really does produce very nice images), then don't bother upgrading the body. Get more glass. In your case, it looks like you don't yet have an ultra-wide-angle lens. That's where I'd look next. After that, maybe a prime or two.

The OP has chosen the path of glass. Wise choice. The 40D really is a lovely camera. If you were to upgrade the choice betwen 7D and 60D would be down to your style of shooting. For what it's worth I upgraded from a 40D to the 60D as my second/backup body to the 5D2. I chose the 60D over the 7D not for reasons of cost, the reason was that articulating screen. Now if you're a wildlife or people photographer that screen probably does nothing for you, but for landscape photography when you want the camera down at ground level or artefact/product photography on a tripod it is worth it's weight in gold - fact is for my style of shooting that screen is the best and as I focus manual half the time oober fast AF is hardly needed. For others the situation will be reversed. There is No right answer!

kcbrown wrote in post #13007290
Yep. As long as one realizes that the high ISO performance is there because of the extra shallow depth of field (more precisely, you can't get that high ISO performance unless you go with that shallow depth of field)...

If those shots were taken with a 5Dmk2 then I'm impressed with the lack of banding. Did you have to do anything to eliminate that?


To the OP: if you're happy with the camera and the images it produces (and the 40D really does produce very nice images), then don't bother upgrading the body. Get more glass. In your case, it looks like you don't yet have an ultra-wide-angle lens. That's where I'd look next. After that, maybe a prime or two.

No they were taken with a 7D, I just hoped Johnny would come back to defend what seemed to be a pretty strange answer, and my reply was to nudge him a bit.

The banding on the 5D2 is an interesting beast. There is a variance between them. I had 3 5D2s, and some exhibited the banding more noticeably than others. The last 5D2 I had was the best out of all of them. Also, if you look back at my posts regarding the 1 5D2 that had severe sensor "blotchiness", that was the worst at banding too. I wonder if some of the issues we see aren't all due to the way Canon designed the analog and digital gains, but also in pretty large tolerances in sensor manufacturing.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #13008136
No they were taken with a 7D, I just hoped Johnny would come back to defend what seemed to be a pretty strange answer, and my reply was to nudge him a bit.

Okay, that was good. LOL! You even had me fooled there. I attempted to examine the EXIF data of the first shot and it's just not there, and I figured the same was true of the rest of them. That's not the case, as it happens...

I have little doubt it's a combination of those things. A handful of very knowledgeable people have commented on how bad Canon's readout electronics are.

hannibal31 wrote in post #13001815
What would be the better choice. I have had a 40D for 3 years now and would like to upgrade. I am looking between a 60D or a 7D. I am just a hobbyist/enthusiast - not a professional.Are they both equal as far as IQ?

I have had a 40D for over four years already, and was thinking of upgrading to a 7D or 5DII. Chose the 7D, and could not be happier.

Go for broke. Get a 1D MkIV...

The 40D is a very nice camera and I still have one for a backup. I shot many images with mine that were for professional use. The 10mp files never really contained the intricate, fine detail that I considered optimal. When I went to a 50D, the 15mp files do have more detail (to my eye, at least). That said, I would say that either the 60D or 7D at 18mp would produce better IQ if you like to print large or crop images. For computer use and smaller prints, it is doubtful that you will see any improvement over the 40D. Also, the high res sensors require great glass for optimal results.

A couple of drawbacks to the 40D are its low resolution LCD (if you like to use LV manual focus) and the lack of micro adjust (same goes for the 60D).

I had both...I like the feel of the 40D better. Ive also had a 5D and then moved to the 40D.. I loved my 5D but I like the 40D + better glass more.

I like the 40D because Im a very minimalist shooter. I dont like to take video...use flippy dippy screens, or use live view. The quality differences between the cameras is negligible if you can get better glass on one of the bodies vs the other (because of the initial cost of the body being cheaper on the 40D...and you already have it)

TeamSpeed wrote in post #13010086
Okay, you make some good points, but quite honestly there isn't an astronomical difference between the 40D and 7D. The 40D and 50D exhibit some heavy banding at > 3200, but with proper technique you can take care of most of it. The 7D and its techno peers are probably about 3/4 stop better at high ISOs, but with an resolution increase to boot, plus very little to none of the banding seen on the xxD line pre-60D.

My point when I said astronomically, was that the 40D max ISO is 3200, so if you compared ISO 6400 on the 7D to ISO 6400 on the 40D, the 7D will obviously win since the 40D can't go that high.