Worth upgrading from 350D to 40D?

Hi,

I enjoy shooting amateur stage shows, and selling CDs of the photos. I've appended some examples from a recent show, just to give you an idea of the kind of thing I do.

So far, I have been using a trusty old 350D, and have spent money on buying a couple of decent lenses (24-105 f/4.0L and 70-200mm f/4.0L). The results aren't bad, and while there's no way that this could be described as a well-paying task I have brought a few hundred pounds in, which is probably more than most amateur photographers . It's an area that I have not heard of any local professional photographers trying, and I would refuse to take any job that was previously done by a pro.

Anyway, with the price of the 40D now at £580 less a £60 Canon rebate, I am wondering if I should upgrade. Would I expect to see smoother colours, lower noise at 1600ISO? Is the 3200ISO mode usable? Or would I just have a bulkier camera for no real gain?

Any insight much appreciated.

regards,
/alan

(Here are a few photos from Theatre Guild, Glasgow's Copacabana - they have already been posted in the "Share Your Photos" section; I'm only posting to give an idea of what I shoot and am not particularly looking for comments )

40D's AF is a fair step up from the 350Ds... I'd consider it a worthy upgrade.

If budget allows also look at a 24-70L and 70-200 2.8 IS (or 135L, my personal favourite) if you want better focusing and that extra stop of light.

ISO 1600 is easily usable on everything from a 20D up. If you get the exposure right 3200 is usable... I've had huge prints from ISO 1600 pushed a fair bit in RAW and with care they can turn out nicely to 8x12".

Thanks... Maybe I'll be trying to get Santa to be nice to me

regards,
/alan

ISO 1600 is practically all I use on the 40D. The other big step up was that I can actually use any of the focus points in low light (since they're all cross sensors on the 40D), rather than being forced to use the center focus point only. ISO 3200 is OK... not great... I use it only when I absolutely have to. For low light, you might also think of the less expensive large aperture prime lenses: 50mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.8. Of the two I vastly prefer the 85mm f/1.8 lens, but I get more use out of the 50mm focal length.

Thanks, Riff Raff. I'm going to try using a prime more often, but I am normally restricted in where in the theatre I am free to go, and how much movement I am allowed during the rehearsal. So foot zooming to get a range of shots just isn't practical.

Of course, if I do upgrade and keep the 350D, the prime could go on that!

regards,
/alan

I once (long time ago) upgraded from 350D to 20D. Even that was absolutely worth it.