Would you replace a 40D with a T2i (550D) to get video?

I'm thinking about replacing my 40D for a used/refurbished T2i, and here's why:

1) I'd like the option to take high-quality video on a DSLR while my kids are still young.
2) I don't use my 40D that much (mainly use my 5D classic) but like to have a 1.6x crop for shooting wildlife occasionally.
3) I assume the T2i has better high-ISO performance than the 40D.
4) The T2i is 18Mpix versus 10Mpix for the 40D.
5) I can buy a used T2i for about $450 and sell my 40D for about the same, pretty much an even trade.

What do you think? Should I do it or just save up for a 7D or 5Dmk2?

Thanks!

I wouldnt, but video doesnt have much value to me. And if it did, I would probably get a dedicated video camera. I understand you can do amazing things with DSLR video (tv episodes are shot on 5DII's), but to get the most of out of the video feature you need to work it. Dont assume #3, I haven't heard anything like that.

If video is important, sounds like a no brainer.

After first having a 400D, and then moving up to a 40D, i would never go back down the ladder. The build quality, ease of use, ergonomics and overall feel of a two-digit camera is for me kicking the ass of a three-digit camera any day of the week.

What you should consider is selling the 40D, and maybe upgrading it to a 60D. 60D has the same sensor as 7D (hence: same video quality), and as a added plus for video-enthusiasts it has a swivel-screen, which is incredibly useful for taking video. 550D again has the same sensor, but lacks the quality-feel of a semi-pro camera, and does not have the swivel-screen. For video-purpose, i would rather pick up a 60D instead of a 7D: and it is cheaper, which is good.

Now, after getting a 1DIII, the 40D feels like total plastic to me, but that is a different story

I would not. I prefer the feature set of the 40D to the T2i, particularly the burst rate.

Replacing the 40D with a 60D may be a better option - via CLP, they're quite reasonable.

I simply use my SX230 for 1080 video. It does an excellent job, and I have no desire to start buying video accessories like shotgun mics and constant lights.

For about a half year ago I was pondering about the same switch... I had the opportunity to test a 550D for a weekend and I really liked the improved auto ISO feature and the video capability and the higher resolution of the screen. It all felt somehow a bit better for the exception of a few parts.

My hands are quite big so the small size of the 550D was an issue. And the battery life was much lower as was the FPS rate obviously. I was not sure at all if the switch would be worth the video at all.

Then I took the plunge and moved to 60D. OK, all my memorycards went bye bye and I had to get SD cards. The body is a bit smaller than the 40D but acctually I like the smaller size. It's not that much but I seem to have more room in my camerabag now. The frame rate went down but I guess I have to live with that now...

My brother has the 7D and a major difference for the video part is that I can adjust the audio recording level on my 60D (and I have the swivel screen). OK my 60D isn't made with a magnesium body but I don't use my camera as a hammer so that's not an issue for me.

So should you replace your 40D with the 550D?
You would get:
Video
Smaller size body (consider the balance with your lenses)
Lower FPS
Shorter batterylife
More megapixels --> larger file size
SD card shopping opportunity

And you would have to learn the button and function difference for the 550D (but that's the case for 60D also)

I would not. The 40D is a GREAT camera! Highest ISO I usually went with mine was 1600 with good results. I could care less about video. I've had a 5DII for over a year now and haven't shot a movie as of yet. 40D burst rate is good, uses CF Card. Much better build. My 40D leaped to its death and I'm replacing it with another 40D. I want one as a backup and a crop camera, and I'll take a 40D over a 50D and can't justify spending the money on a 7D for what will be primarily a backup. Have never heard anyone say, "I don't like my 40D because of..."

i actually went the other way from a t2i to a 40d but my needs were different than yours.

i would pick up a nice camcorder instead of downgrading to a t2i. the specs are better, but the images from the 40d is much better to me even at ISO 3200. there is A LOT of noise with the t2i. you might not like the controls. it took me some time to get used to the x/xxD controls but now i can't go back to the rebel. you'll lose the top screen, the dial in the back, the quality of the body itself, etc. plus a camcorder can autofocus on its own and it might be better than using a dslr.

unless you really want both video recording and photo in 1, then get the 60d like everyone said. the swivel screen is nice and the functions will be similar to the 40d. you will be losing the quality of the body but will gain in features. but i still say get a camcorder.

if i had the 40D
my answer is no
and i will pass the 60D too
and go for the 7D

The main difference between the rebel and the double digit D lines is the FPS?

shinyknights wrote in post #14000593
The main difference between the rebel and the double digit D lines is the FPS?

No, thats one difference but probably the least. The major difference is build quality and the control system. The XXD line has a much easier set of navigation controls that use a wheel and a joystick. Once you use that no rebel will ever be satisfying.

I forgot to mention that I also have a 400D (Rebel XTi) which I only use when I need something small and light or when I loan it out to family/friends. I paid less than $100 for it so haven't found a compelling reason to get rid of it yet.

I'd consider swapping the XTi plus some cash for a T2i but not sure if I'd want to loan a T2i out to family/friends.

I'd like to get video on a DSLR at some point, but maybe I should consider the S95 or S100 instead. I think I need to do more research on shooting video with a DSLR versus a point and shoot.

You guys need to re-read OPs post. OP cares about video. 40D does not do video (easily).
OP looking to do this for almost nothing. (Even trade).

Want video + no cost = great trade.

Go for it.

Although personally I much rather buy a dedicated HD camcorder to do video. It's easier for others in the family to shoot with the camcorder.

Doing video right with DSLRs usually requires a better sound solution and shooting on a tripod wouldn't hurt either.

shaftmaster wrote in post #13999171
I'm thinking about replacing my 40D for a used/refurbished T2i, and here's why:

1) I'd like the option to take high-quality video on a DSLR while my kids are still young.
2) I don't use my 40D that much (mainly use my 5D classic) but like to have a 1.6x crop for shooting wildlife occasionally.
3) I assume the T2i has better high-ISO performance than the 40D.
4) The T2i is 18Mpix versus 10Mpix for the 40D.
5) I can buy a used T2i for about $450 and sell my 40D for about the same, pretty much an even trade.

What do you think? Should I do it or just save up for a 7D or 5Dmk2?

Thanks!

\

if you want HD video, better ISO performance, image quality, new and not used - go for it