40d question

I have been using a 400d with canon 70-200 f4 is lens for the last few month and am starting to get some really good results but am starting to find the 400d a little restrictive.

I could do with something that is slightly faster focus and not quite so grainy as i shoot at 400 iso most of the time. is the 40d noticably less grainy at 400iso and quicker at focusing?

Faster AF but I don't see major different in term of noise. Build in NR may help a bit though.

lostmytoy wrote in post #6052211
Faster AF but I don't see major different in term of noise. Build in NR may help a bit though.

Agree with that.
I look on the 40D as a great camera but closer to the 400D noise wise than my 30D was.
But it cleans up very well and is a good upgrade to the 400D IME.

Agree with the faster AF, but I found the noise very similar in both cameras at ISO 400. ISO 1600 is a totally different story, even ISO 800 is better in the 40D IMO.

You're doing something wrong or looking too closely if you're having bad noise at ISO 400 on any Canon camera.

BTW is this in RAW or JPEG? If you shoot in JPEG that could be much of the problem if you're underexposing and fixing exposure in post.

You have to really underexpose and boost in post by 1-2 stops to make an ISO 400 image noisy. You should be able to have at least a stop leeway without hurting the image much.

Some 100% crop examples would help us tell.

hey tongard,
i'd agree with others and say that you will notice a bigger difference in AF than in ISO performance. 40d locks faster and also has much better AI servo tracking. however, i will go out on a ledge and say that i have noticed a difference in ISO's 400-1600. the difference is more pronounced between the two models as the ISO increases, but i have noticed noise at iso 400 on the rebel whereas i haven't seen as much noise from the 40D. it could also be that i started out on the rebel, possibly underexposing sometimes, and improved a little by the time i got the 40d. however, i brought the rebel back home and left the 40d at school...and i am seeing some noise at iso400. maybe i'm over critical, and want to tell myself that the 40d is a better camera. making mountains out of molehills...quite possible.

i think you will notice a couple things going from rebel to 40d, not sure if they are important to you:
ergonomics: better balance, and better fit (at least for me) with bigger lenses, especially
handling: the double wheel is awesome
viewfinder: much bigger, going back to the rebel is like tunnel vision
the bigger lcd: i'm not a huge fan of their decisoin to up the size by half an inch without increasing resolution. IMO, the rebel's 2.5" screen was the biggest they should've made it for that given resolution
sports/action: double the framerate is awesome, and 3200ISO comes in handy for capturing low light action

all of this said, i am starting to wish i had gone for the 5d as an upgrade. 40d served me well shooting stage performances and tracking dancers...but now that i'm graduated i will probably not shoot as many school dance events and will likely delve more into my other interest...portraits. not that the 40d is a slob at that

gooble wrote in post #6052826
You're doing something wrong or looking too closely if you're having bad noise at ISO 400 on any Canon camera.

I guess im doing something wrong as well then because i can see noise in 100% crops at ISO400. While its nothing i worry about and doesnt show up on prints its still there.
I shoot at ISO400 a lot of the time. oVer here in the UK we dont get too many sunny days
I guess it depends on what you call "too closely"

dave_bass5 wrote in post #6055675
I guess im doing something wrong as well then because i can see noise in 100% crops at ISO400. While its nothing i worry about and doesnt show up on prints its still there.
I shoot at ISO400 a lot of the time. oVer here in the UK we dont get too many sunny days
I guess it depends on what you call "too closely"

I also said 'bad noise' not no noise. Sure there'll be some noise especially in shadows but print that out 8x10 and see what it looks like. And I'm assuming the exposure was correct and that an underexposed shot was not boosted, which will increase noise greatly.

Be aware that for most 8-10MP images printed around 8x10 or smaller noise will be less of an issue as you print smaller. If printing larger than this it will be more of an issue as all the data will be preserved but just enlarged.

gooble wrote in post #6055782
I also said 'bad noise' not no noise. Sure there'll be some noise especially in shadows but print that out 8x10 and see what it looks like. And I'm assuming the exposure was correct and that an underexposed shot was not boosted, which will increase noise greatly.

Agreed but then i dont think anyone said they were seeing bad noise at ISO400 so i thought you were replying to people who were saying there is noise at ISO400.

Still, like you say, its not really an issue for prints and it cleans up nicely IME.