40D still viable as a backup?

I currently have a 5D2 as my only camera body, and sometimes I feel a bit vulnerable because I don't have another body available if my 5D went down.

An acquaintance is selling a 40D for $200 which is pretty tempting. I'm also saving for a 70-200 2.8, so buying the 40D would further put off buying a lens I've been trying to get for a very long time.

I shoot just about everything, from automotive/motorsports to portraits, to products, and several weddings a year as a second-shooter. I also do several video gigs per month, but I'm not as concerned with a backup having video capabilities right now.

So my question is, is the 40D still viable as a backup body for what I do as a photographer? and if it is, would it be a better investment right now than the 70-200 that I'm hoping to pick up in a week or two?

Heya,

The 40d is certainly viable.

But at $200, do you really need the features of the 40d? Are you ok with APS-C as your other camera? You could also save longer and have a 5D classic as a backup, for a bit more, if you want another full frame.

If $200 is slowing you down from getting to a 70-200 F2.8, then you're in for a long road anyways. If the 70-200 F2.8 is that unaffordable, then I would look for what's more important to you (shooting weddings with two bodies, versus just having F2.8 instead of F4...).

Very best,

I used to have a 40D and that camera was great until low light kicks in. The camera is great for outdoor shoots, controlled lighting, and sports, but don't expect it to perform very well when it comes to indoor events. I would go with the last comment, stay with full frame. Nowadays you can get that 5D classic for around $400 or less if you are lucky. You may also want to check out the 80-200mm L f2.8 as alternative for the meantime. It is an older lens, but can certainly do the same job as 70-200mm and it cost way less. You can find those for around $600-$800 used.

I keep my 40D as a back-up. It doesn't have the low-light performance or AF capabilities of a 5DIII, but if you don't need those things, it still gives very good results.

I was actually looking to get a crop sensor for the extra reach after I get the 70-200, so crop vs full frame doesn't matter much to me.

What do you mean by "you're in for a long road anyway"? I'm a full-time, working photographer/videograp​her, but I've noticed two gaps in my kit that need filling; a backup and a 70-200.

steelbluesleepr wrote in post #17091478
I was actually looking to get a crop sensor for the extra reach after I get the 70-200, so crop vs full frame doesn't matter much to me.

What do you mean by "you're in for a long road anyway"? I'm a full-time, working photographer/videograp​her, but I've noticed two gaps in my kit that need filling; a backup and a 70-200.

Heya,

If $200 is a problem and will keep you from the 70-200 F2.8 which you stated you've been trying to get for a very long time, it leads one to assume (perhaps incorrectly) that budget is limiting here. Personally I would think a 2nd body would be critical to a full time photographer than a piece of glass that you're obviously getting by without. So to me, a $200 backup camera is an absolutely good thing if you don't already have one. When you cannot shoot, you cannot complete a job. You can always carry around more glass, and the same glass will work on both cameras after all. If you're after a 70-200, I'd look for a well cared for second hand Tamron 70-200 F2.8 VC. Saves you a bundle of cash, gives you the 2nd best 70-200 out there (assuming you were meaning the Canon 70-200 F2.8L IS MKII; in which case, this lens change saves you over $1k, which can result in some serious replacements for your current glass).

Very best,

steelbluesleepr wrote in post #17091478
I was actually looking to get a crop sensor for the extra reach after I get the 70-200, so crop vs full frame doesn't matter much to me..

You won't get any additional reach with the 40D as opposed to the 5DII cropped to match. The reach is due to pixel density not due to sensor size. The 40D with it's 22.2x14.8 sensor delivers just a tad over 10mp but crop out a 22.2x14.8 portion of a 5DII sensor and your image size is about 8mp. Not all that different.

right, when I was thinking about that, I was looking at a 7D with 18 megapixels. I forgot to think about pixel density.

I have a 40D as a backup for my 5Dc. Works for me. Harry

Use the 40D as a second body to my 5DII. The camera has a similar "feel" and the controls are not dissimilar. It has Live View too which makes life easier for me and is a feature that I would be lost without...don't think the original 5D has this?

Paulowen wrote in post #17092799
Use the 40D as a second body to my 5DII. The camera has a similar "feel" and the controls are not dissimilar. It has Live View too which makes life easier for me and is a feature that I would be lost without...don't think the original 5D has this?

Nope,

No Live View on the 5D classic. It's the one feature I miss when I'm using it, so that I can pre-meter a scene and look at the histogram without taking a photo and having to then review it to see that information.

Very best,

Since the 40D is a back up, you would not need it unless it was an emergency. I have a 40D as a back up for over three years....never used it.

I will second the suggestion of getting a third party 70-200, the Tamron or the Sigma for real world wedding purposes you will not notice any difference, unless you are providing billboard size photo's!

Any modern Dslr over 10mp will give you a good enough back up, the lenses are more important.

Sounds like you could afford to get;

the sigma art 35 1.4 and the sigma 70-200 OS HSM and the 40d

or

Canon 70-200 mark ii L

I know how I would spend my money.

steelbluesleepr wrote in post #17091368
So my question is, is the 40D still viable as a backup body for what I do as a photographer? and if it is, would it be a better investment right now than the 70-200 that

I would say yes. I have a 40D and I am keeping it as a spare body. In good light it does well. With flash, it does well, also.

jimeuph1 wrote in post #17092998
I will second the suggestion of getting a third party 70-200, the Tamron or the Sigma for real world wedding purposes you will not notice any difference, unless you are providing billboard size photo's!

Any modern Dslr over 10mp will give you a good enough back up, the lenses are more important.

Sounds like you could afford to get;

the sigma art 35 1.4 and the sigma 70-200 OS HSM and the 40d

or

Canon 70-200 mark ii L

I know how I would spend my money.

I'm actually going to be buying the 2.8 non-IS for the time being while I save up the rest for the IS2. The way the used market is going, I could essentially "rent" the lens by buying it used, using it for a year, then selling it with little-to-no loss.

I think I'm going to get the lens when I can since I have several friends that have let me rent cameras from them for bar tabs or the like whenever I need.