chose 30d over 40d

I`m wondering what you think of my decision about ordering a 30d with 17-55mm f2.8, giving up the 40d with 17-40mm. From what I have read online so far, the 40d is an awesome camera - if and only if you get a good copy!!! - . Apparently, there are lots of broken copies of the 40d around waiting for sale, as many people complain about some issues of softness and focus. On the other hand, I haven`t came up with any single bad review about the 30d yet. So I decided to go with the 30d with a 17-50mm f2.8. Actually, I don`t need the 2 millions of extra pixel and live view. I have been using a digital rebel for more than 3 years, so 30d is still a big step up for me. So what do you think? Did I make a bad decision, or would you do the same?

Where did you read these bad review about the 40D???

There is actually a bunch of potn users who are not satisfied with their 40d`s. Just take look at the forum. Also in the review of cameralbs.com, 30d gives better results than 5d, while 40d seems to be softer than 5d with the same lens used.

I've used the 5D extensively with my 30D and I wouldn't say it produces "Better" images then a 5D... I would say the OP made a good choice... The 30D is a very capable camera and putting that price difference towards getting a nice lens was the way to go IMO... I couldn't tell much of an IQ difference between the 30D and 40D... Though that big LCD screen on the 40D is pretty damn sweet!

lostdoggy wrote in post #4070414
Where did you read these bad review about the 40D???

Ummm, - here. (this forum).

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=388071

It's a shame that you made your decision based on a few unhappy people - many of whom seem to have issues other than having a bad camera. Here are a bunch of happy 40D owners: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=387652

I originally saw no need for Live View but now consider it an important and valuable tool in focusing landscapes and in low light conditions. I now would not buy a camera without it.

The AF blows the 30D out of the water (I have both cameras). I haven't pixel peeped but my 40D images seem much better than the 30D. The viewfinder is much easier to see (and ISO is always displayed!), 6.5 fps is great and the 17 RAW buffer is a joy.

You will enjoy your 30D but I find the 40D a great improvement in almost every way.

(BTW, you missed the moaning and groaning when the 30D came out. It was pretty much trashed and many were of the mind that the 20D was 'better'. This sort of thing always happens with new camera releases.)

i love my 40D and think it was worth every single penny!

connexile wrote in post #4070460
There is actually a bunch of potn users who are not satisfied with their 40d`s. Just take look at the forum. Also in the review of cameralbs.com, 30d gives better results than 5d, while 40d seems to be softer than 5d with the same lens used.

I think, relatively speaking, there is a very small number of POTN users who are not satisfied with their 40D. Its the same general scare that happened/happens/is happening with the MkIII. Some people may have a legitimate problem and then they come here and post about it. Not only does that some amount of people think that all MkIII/40Ds are flawed, but it makes the people who have/are getting one to scrutinize their machine much more closely than they really should be. They think as soon as there are a couple OOF shots, they have the same problem too.

Im not saying that there is or isnt a problem. All Im saying is that for every dissatisfied user on this forum, there are many many more VERY satisfied owners out there in the real world.

I still cant get over one big thing about RG and his "OOF" test shots with the MkIII...He had to use a program and tell YOU which ones were OOF because otherwise, you couldnt even tell! No camera in Ai Servo is going to be able to track a subject and shoot every frame tack sharp. No camera is going to be able to produce a tack sharp image of a static object every time...Its just not going to happen. The camera doesnt see what your eye sees and even if it did, I bet theres tons of things you see that are "in focus" until you would zoom in on them and blow them up.

If Im shooting with my MkIII and take 5 20shot bursts of a moving subject, only a handful may be dead on tack sharp. None so far have been so OOF theyre unusable. Any that arent tack sharp are so close that you never know it unless I posted a 100% crop of the original ( and maybe not even then! ). Theres just too many variables between the camera trying to figure out whats in/out of focus and the non-uniform ( even under best conditions ) of any moving object.

If anyone ever made a camera that got 100% tack sharp images when in AI servo mode it would be worth its weight in diamond!

connexile wrote in post #4070460
There is actually a bunch of potn users who are not satisfied with their 40d`s.

I cant imagine that.

There are too many reports on all the photogaphy boards of inconsistencies about the Mark III and 40D, especially about focus. It seems when somebody gets a good one the pics are great, but getting a good one seems to be a crap shoot for now. You're probably a lot better off getting the 30D and buying higher quality lenses. Good luck, enjoy your new camera and be sure and post some pics!

I think those getting bad 40d's are just more vocal and in the minority.

I got mine and couldn't be happier with it. ...and IMO, is better than the 30d. Based on the type of shooting i do (sports), my keeper rate has gone up significantly since moving to the 40d.

Jon_Doh wrote in post #4071456
There are too many reports on all the photogaphy boards of inconsistencies about the Mark III and 40D, especially about focus.

So does every single satisfied 40D owner have to post something to that effect before people realise that the "too many" unhappy owners almost certainly represent a vanishingly small percentage of total 40D sales?

I believe that in the States posts like yours are referred to as "FUD"...

connexile wrote in post #4070396
I`m wondering what you think of my decision about ordering a 30d with 17-55mm f2.8, giving up the 40d with 17-40mm. So what do you think? Did I make a bad decision, or would you do the same?

To answer your question succinctly I would not do the same . I would mount the 17-55 on the 40D and go shooting. This will be an awsome combo, IMHO, can't wait for mine to arrive.

Keith R wrote in post #4071631
So does every single satisfied 40D owner have to post something to that effect before people realise that the "too many" unhappy owners almost certainly represent a vanishingly small percentage of total 40D sales?

I believe that in the States posts like yours are referred to as "FUD"...

Apparently so!

I love my 40d...perfect camera in my humble opinion...worth the money.