Canon EOS 40D

I am seriously looking into buying this camera. The thing is. I have a Sony a200 that has 10.2mp. I don't know if it would be worth it to switch them out. I wanted to know how the 40D does inside without a flash (action shots) Gymnastics to be specific. Is there anyone experienced enough to tell me something about this camera and where it shines other than the 6.5fps (which was what caught my eye in the first place)?...

What I want to know really is: Is the Sony a200 actually a competitor with the Canon 40D. I am looking for unbiased responses... Please... this is REALLY important to me.

EOS_newb wrote in post #5973711
I am seriously looking into buying this camera. The thing is. I have a Sony a200 that has 10.2mp. I don't know if it would be worth it to switch them out. I wanted to know how the 40D does inside without a flash (action shots) Gymnastics to be specific. Is there anyone experienced enough to tell me something about this camera and where it shines other than the 6.5fps (which was what caught my eye in the first place)?...

Shooting inside without a flash would also depend on your lens. With the 70-200mm f/2.8 with will perform very well, even at high ISO.

I think the biggest advantage is the entire line of EOS lenses available.

There there is the focus, Canon is known for it's performance with sports.

I don't know if you'll get an unbiased opinion here in a Canon forum and I own the 40D.

I don't know too much about the a200 but took a quick look at this: http://www.dpreview.co​m/reviews/sonydslra200​/ and it appears feature wise to be somewhere between a 30D and Xsi.

About the only thing it has on par with the 40D is 10MP.

As far as no-flash indoor action shots the lens is really going to be the important thing here. Depending on how close you can get to the action there are several good choices. The 85 1.8, 135 2, 200 2.8, and the two 70-200 2.8s.

gooble wrote in post #5973813
I don't know if you'll get an unbiased opinion here in a Canon forum and I own the 40D.

I don't know too much about the a200 but took a quick look at this: http://www.dpreview.co​m/reviews/sonydslra200​/ and it appears feature wise to be somewhere between a 30D and Xsi.

About the only thing it has on par with the 40D is 10MP.

As far as no-flash indoor action shots the lens is really going to be the important thing here. Depending on how close you can get to the action there are several good choices. The 85 1.8, 135 2, 200 2.8, and the two 70-200 2.8s.

The thing is that I already own the a200. Now, with the Xsi vs the 40D, should I allow myself to be swayed by the 12mp and the lower cost with the IS lens or is the investment in a 40D more important.

I am a beginner, as you can tell, but this is important to me because I want to use the stuff in the future without having to update every year. I want a solid camera that will last.

How are the Handheld action shots for you? Is the in lens IS function really a big thing? Im sorry if im rattling off but your help is very appreciated.

the difference between 10 and 12 megapixels is small and can be shrugged off. IS is useful for when you want to have slower shutter speeds and still have the shots stay sharp
now i know havind a lens with a good aperture of 2.8 also kind of does that, but it will freeze the action as opposed to stabilize it, say i want a shot with motion blur in it. while the background still should be sharp. and all that handheld
the IS is a lifesaver

depends really. i like it

gooble wrote in post #5973813
I don't know if you'll get an unbiased opinion here in a Canon forum and I own the 40D.

I'm pretty sure a Canon forum is not the place for an unbiased opinion.

The Sony a200 wouldn't be my 1st choice for a body. But, if I were in your shoes and already had it, I would look REAL hard at the Sony 85 f 1.4 Carl Zeiss Planar T lens.http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …i=rev#anchorToR​eadReviews That is some serious glass right there. That lens is made for low light without flash.

The 40D is a very good sports camera with many choices for lenses. The ISO is very usable to 1600 and beyond if you expose properly. Just a couple of minutes looking at the a200 shows it don't hold up in low light situations and fast lenes are expensive. Just based on lenes Canon seems the be the clear winner for your situation.

Not too familiar with the Sony line (except why the heck is their 70-200 f/2.8 soooooooo expensive? ) but the 40D paired with an 85mm f/1.8 would be a killer combo for shooting gymnastics in a gym without flash.

Was in the same predicament a few years ago... about 5 years.... Ended up with Canon due to their high ISO performance... even with 2.8 lenses you most likely be using ISO1600... I've gotten some very good prints from ISO 3200 after processing them through a noise reduction program...

My work horse lens was my Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX... also used my Tammy 28-75 2.8 quite a bit...

I can shoot at ISO3200 with my 20D (RAW only, JPEG looks horrible), boost exposure by one stop in photoshop, and still have photographs that don't require noise reduction. That's pretty damn good, and the 40D is better still.
But the best thing about the Canon lineup isn't their cameras (as we've been reminded lately ), but their lenses.
I can't praise the 85mm f/1.2 enough. It is the most amazing lens I have ever used, and coupled with high ISOs will give you ample shutter speed under even the most dodgy lighting conditions. It costs a sum, but I've heard good things about the aforementioned 1.8 version as well. But really, you can't go past 1.2 for pure goodness . . .

More importantly what lenses do you plan to buy?

I plan on buying as many as I can. I am fond of Zoom lenses like the 300mm.

Another thing I was looking at was the 5D. The MAIN turn-off was that there is no built in pop-up flash. Would it be more worth it to buy a 5D and an external flash than skipping all that and settling for the 40D. Keep in mind that im a newbie when it comes to photography, but I want something that will last. and also, whats the fps for the 5D?

egordon99 wrote:
why the heck is their 70-200 f/2.8 soooooooo expensive? but the 40D paired with an 85mm f/1.8 would be a killer combo for shooting gymnastics in a gym without flash.

AHH why is THAT lens so expensive?!

watchtherocks wrote in post #5974352
I can shoot at ISO3200 with my 20D (RAW only, JPEG looks horrible), boost exposure by one stop in photoshop, and still have photographs that don't require noise reduction. That's pretty damn good, and the 40D is better still.
But the best thing about the Canon lineup isn't their cameras (as we've been reminded lately ), but their lenses.
I can't praise the 85mm f/1.2 enough. It is the most amazing lens I have ever used, and coupled with high ISOs will give you ample shutter speed under even the most dodgy lighting conditions. It costs a sum, but I've heard good things about the aforementioned 1.8 version as well. But really, you can't go past 1.2 for pure goodness . . .

The OP is looking at sports shooting so I don't know if the 85 1.2 is the lens to go with as it is not the fastest focuser out there if I'm not mistaken but I've not used it.

I have used the 85 1.8 and it is a reasonably fast focuser and about 1/4 the cost.