What is the next step up from the 40D?

[CCRII]

Is it the 1dMKII? I found a deal on one for $2K U.S.D. with only 10K actuations!!

Thanks.

[postcardcv]

It's open to debate how much of a step up a mk II would be - you'd get a slightly faster frame rate (8.5 vs 6.5 fps). The biggest advanatges of a 1 series body is the sealed body, better AF system (45 point) and the ability to AF at f8. I'm not sure of the prices over there but looking at the exchange rate $2k sounds about right to me. The real set up from the 40D would be the 1d mk III - amazing 10 fps shooting, 45 point AF, stunning high ISO performance, but a lot more than $2k.

IMO if you have a 40D then a mk II is not a huge step up and probably not worth upgrading to, if however you are looking to buy a new camera and it's either a 40D or mk II, for me the mk II would have the edge.

[mjmw]

Is it the 1dMKII? I found a deal on one for $2K U.S.D. with only 10K actuations!!

Thanks.

Why do you want to upgrade (e.g. what is wrong with the 30/40d, or what extra feature do you need)? That should determine what the next step is...

[CCRII]

Why do you want to upgrade (e.g. what is wrong with the 30/40d, or what extra feature do you need)? That should determine what the next step is...

Better Image Quality and much better noise performance at high ISO 1000 and above. I currently own the 30D. It is pretty gloomy here and I really need that high ISO in order to get faster shutter speeds. Faster AF would be great too since I am using a canon 300 f/2.8 IS with Canon 2x EF II tc.

Thanks for your help!

[mjmw]

Better Image Quality and much better noise performance at high ISO 1000 and above. I currently own the 30D. It is pretty gloomy here and I really need that high ISO in order to get faster shutter speeds. Faster AF would be great too since I am using a canon 300 f/2.8 IS with Canon 2x EF II tc.

Thanks for your help!

Then, as Peter said, the step up from the 30D is the 40D and then up to the 1D mkIII based on high ISO performance and faster AF.

I think the 1D mkIIN has 'OK' ISO performance up to 800 and useable at 1250, if you don't intend to print big and get the exposure perfect in camera. However, the 40D should do a better job at higher ISO, has the 1.6x crop factor and more pixels for better cropability...

[CCRII]

Then, as Peter said, the step up from the 30D is the 40D and then up to the 1D mkIII based on high ISO performance and faster AF.

I think the 1D mkIIN has 'OK' ISO performance up to 800 and useable at 1250, if you don't intend to print big and get the exposure perfect in camera. However, the 40D should do a better job at higher ISO, has the 1.6x crop factor and more pixels for better cropability...

Thanks Mark! What do you think of the AF speed on the 40D? Guess I will just have to save for a 1D MKIII then.

[mjmw]

Thanks Mark! What do you think of the AF speed on the 40D? Guess I will just have to save for a 1D MKIII then.

I haven't touched a 40D yet for fear of instantly spending $1400 ;)

I am more concerned with AF 'accuracy', focus point selection and how it keeps lock rather than actual speed - the 45 point system on the 1 series bodies are just in a different league to the 20/30/40D 9 point systems with this regard...keep saving!

[awallace]

CCRII - the noise performance of the 40D is nothing short of excellent - especially if you are coming from the 30D. You should certainly take a look at it. I upgraded from the 20D and have been amaezed how often I use ISO400 or ISO800 in normal use. I would never have considered this on the 20D.

[Roy C]

CCRII - the noise performance of the 40D is nothing short of excellent - especially if you are coming from the 30D. You should certainly take a look at it. I upgraded from the 20D and have been amaezed how often I use ISO400 or ISO800 in normal use. I would never have considered this on the 20D.
Cannot quite follow the logic here, You have upgraded from 20D and yet reckon that the noise performance as compared with the 30D is excellent |:S|

[CCRII]

Cannot quite follow the logic here, You have upgraded from 20D and yet reckon that the noise performance as compared with the 30D is excellent |:S|

Hehe ;)

[awallace]

OK - maybe I didn't give you all of the information - a friend of mine and I did a comparison a while ago between the 20D and 30D at high ISOs. We had one of each. Whilst the 30D was better than the 20D, in _my_ opinion it is still not as good as the results I am now getting with my 40D. Happy now? 3:-)

CCRII - I guess that you have read the following detailed review http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/page18.asp

[paul goode]

The newer Canon models all meet the high iso requirements you are after. This was the reason I bought a 1d mkIII and I think the IQ even up to iso3200 is great. Noise does show up but a bit of neat image cleans things up a treat. However I posted a Siskin in the gallery ISO1250 which I hadn't put through NI. I've attached it below. By mistake I shot this in jpeg large as well so this is pretty well straight out of the camera. I can live with this level of noise!

Of course the 1ds mkIII is out now but I haven't got a clue if its better or worse for high ISO noise.
By all accounts the 40d is very good at higher iso's as well so I would have thought the choice is between these 3 bodies.

[Tannin]

Actually, as someone who owns 20D (near enough to the same thing as 30D), 40D and 1D III, I'm not entirely convinced that the 1D III is a big step up from the 40D, at least not so far as bird photography goes.

Yes, it's got excellent high ISO, but then I've had some fantastic shots at very high ISO out of the 20D, and we are not talking a huge difference - certainly not enough to justify the price.

Speed? Not really all that helpful most of the time. I am finding that I rarely use the 1D III at full speed anyway, instead I drop it back to about 6FPS (a) because the focus works better at the lower speed, and (b) because otherwise there is no easy way to fire a sensibly small number of shots - you wind up firing so many off that your buffer fills up and you are right back to seeing a great bird in a great pose in great light and waiting for the damn camera buffer to empty. (Coolpix 4500 anyone?)

The ID III has better controls than the 40D, but that's something you might spend a few hundred dollars on, not a few thousand. The 1D III viewfinder is magnificent, but then the 40D is much better than the 20D, and all three are miles in front of the horrid little thing in the 400D.

So, you may ask, what is the point of spending all that money on a 1D III? Well, sometimes I ask myself the same question. Yes, the 1D III is probably the best bird camera I own, but I quite often use the 40D instead, and if push comes to shove, I could leave them both at home and use the ancient 20D without tears.

Keep the 30D and spend your money on lenses. If you have good lenses, spend your money on a top-quality tripod head. (You might even do that first.)

[Tannin]

CCRII - the noise performance of the 40D is nothing short of excellent - especially if you are coming from the 30D. You should certainly take a look at it. I upgraded from the 20D and have been amaezed how often I use ISO400 or ISO800 in normal use. I would never have considered this on the 20D.

Huh?

Don't agree at all. In fact, I can't understand why anyone would say this. Makes no sense to me.

First, the 40D is no better than the 20D at high ISO, or if any, then not much. I'd have to do careful (boring!) test shots to be sure, but I can't say I've noticed any improvement to speak of. There is more visible noise reduction going on, however. (Although to be fair I don't use the 40D at high ISO a lot, mostly the 1D III these days.)

Second, I thought we were talking about high ISO - 400 is certainly not considered high these days, and 800 is only medium. High ISO is 1600 and up.

[Roy C]

CCRII - the noise performance of the 40D is nothing short of excellent - especially if you are coming from the 30D. You should certainly take a look at it. I upgraded from the 20D and have been amaezed how often I use ISO400 or ISO800 in normal use. I would never have considered this on the 20D.
I have both the 30D and 40D and as far as high ISO noise goes I certainly have not seen much difference. I have always used ISO 400 as the norm for bird shots (even when I was using the 350D).

[Jaff]

Quote: What is the next step up from the 40D?

A D300? ;)

[CCRII]

Actually, as someone who owns 20D (near enough to the same thing as 30D), 40D and 1D III, I'm not entirely convinced that the 1D III is a big step up from the 40D, at least not so far as bird photography goes.

Yes, it's got excellent high ISO, but then I've had some fantastic shots at very high ISO out of the 20D, and we are not talking a huge difference - certainly not enough to justify the price.

Speed? Not really all that helpful most of the time. I am finding that I rarely use the 1D III at full speed anyway, instead I drop it back to about 6FPS (a) because the focus works better at the lower speed, and (b) because otherwise there is no easy way to fire a sensibly small number of shots - you wind up firing so many off that your buffer fills up and you are right back to seeing a great bird in a great pose in great light and waiting for the damn camera buffer to empty. (Coolpix 4500 anyone?)

The ID III has better controls than the 40D, but that's something you might spend a few hundred dollars on, not a few thousand. The 1D III viewfinder is magnificent, but then the 40D is much better than the 20D, and all three are miles in front of the horrid little thing in the 400D.

So, you may ask, what is the point of spending all that money on a 1D III? Well, sometimes I ask myself the same question. Yes, the 1D III is probably the best bird camera I own, but I quite often use the 40D instead, and if push comes to shove, I could leave them both at home and use the ancient 20D without tears.

Keep the 30D and spend your money on lenses. If you have good lenses, spend your money on a top-quality tripod head. (You might even do that first.)

Thanks for the input Tanin,

What about the AF speed of the 1D III? This is something I am after as well as I often have to shoot in overcast conditions. I though it was just asking for too much to slap a 2x tc on the 300 f/2.8 and get snappy or responsive AF but then I met someone on another forum who owns the 1D III and lives in similar conditions and has the same lens combo I have (canon 300 f/2.8 IS + 2x II EF TC) and finds that the AF is snappy!

[CCRII]

Quote: What is the next step up from the 40D?

A D300? ;)

***Ominous theme from Empire Strikes Back****

That is the Dark Side! I'll never join! :) Actually it would really suck to go to Nikon after investing so much into Canon at this point but thanks for the input.

[Jaff]

Does that mean I now belong to the light side then? Or to put it another way, have I seen the light? ;)

[Tannin]

CCRII, AF is not exacly where the 1D III is shining right now. :eek!:

All the web-based paranoia and hype aside, I'm not terribly impressed by the AF system of the ID III. Yes, it can do some amazing things sometimes, but it's far too hit and miss, given the whopping price premium they charge for it. On my usage so far, it's faster to focus than a 20D or a 40D, but not any more accurate. You get about the same percentage of bad shots - which I do not think is acceptable for a product in this price class.

I upgraded from firmware 1.1 to 1.1.3 today, so perhaps that will help. I'll be away on a trip for the next 5 weeks, so I'll have to wait till after I get back to to put my name down on the waiting list for the sub-mirror replacement. I hope it will improve matters - otherwise, my ID III is just a big, fast, very expensive 40D with a wonderful viewfinder.

But let's set all that aside and consider some other things about AF on the 1D III.

First, all those extra focus points. For most bird work, they are useless. Yes, you heard right. You have 45 focus points, but if you want the eye of the bird to be sharp, you have to turn 44 of them off - otherwise it just grabs the nearest object under a focus point or an assist point, and focuses on that. The result is nearly always a poor quality front-focused image.

However, if you are doing flight shots, that's a different matter. The AF assist points really come into their own with flight shots, and here the ID III stands in a class above anything else I've ever used.

Second, low light focus. The 1D III is amazingly good at focusing in light so bad you would struggle to read a newspaper. I'm not sure how useful this ability is in practice, as that sort of light isn't suitable for bird work anyway. I can see it being fantastic for someone doing (say) indoor portraits at a candlelit dinner, however.

Third, focus speed. The ID III is faster than a 20D or 40D, but not all that much faster. If you think of the focus speed difference between having a 1.4 converter on and not using the converter, the ID III is about half that. In other words, it's faster than the 20D, but 20D + 500/4 is faster than 1D II + 500/4 + 1.4TC. With a 2X converter it slows a bit more. Nevertheless, I'm impressed by the accuracy of focus it manages (rather slowly) with the 500/4 and a 2X TC. From memory, with the 2X, the ID III & 500/4 focus at about the same speed as a 20D with the 100-400, perhaps a bit slower - it's been a while since I compared them though, and I didn't take notes, so don't take that last statement as gospel.

It seems to me that your best bet for poor light would not be a ID III. I suspect that your best answer is a 500/4 or a 600/4 which you can use bare-lens. I don't have a 300/2.8 to compare with, but faced with a heavy overcast, the first thing I do is take off the converter. If I'm pushed for reach, I'll often use the 40D and 500/4; as the light gets worse, I switch back to the ID III for its better high ISO performance.

But we may find that the ID III improves quite a bit after the firmware and hardware upgrades. Watch this space!

[CCRII]

Tanin,

Thanks for your excellent insights. I think that the high ISO performance is a big plus because like I said I am often working in poor light. It is often overcast here and I do not have much of a choice. So to be able to crank up the ISO in order to get better shutter speeds would be great. I just wonder how much better the ISO performance of the ID III is compared to the 40D? How much better is it?

I agree that I need to get a 500 f/4 or 600 f/4. I guess I need to decide if I should be getting the lens or camera body first?

[Tannin]

Lens first, no doubt about it.

I haven't done enough high ISO work to have a really good feel for the improvement offered by the 1D III, CCRII. I did a heap this time last year (using a 20D) in the rainforests of Queensland and NSW, but I've mostly been back in the dry country since then, where good to very good light is the rule. I'll withhold my judgement on that until I've had a chance to do more rainforest birding with the ID III.

[CCRII]

Lens first, no doubt about it.

I haven't done enough high ISO work to have a really good feel for the improvement offered by the 1D III, CCRII. I did a heap this time last year (using a 20D) in the rainforests of Queensland and NSW, but I've mostly been back in the dry country since then, where good to very good light is the rule. I'll withhold my judgement on that until I've had a chance to do more rainforest birding with the ID III.

Thanks Tannin! Big help!

[postcardcv]

I think that the high ISO performance is a big plus because like I said I am often working in poor light. It is often overcast here and I do not have much of a choice. So to be able to crank up the ISO in order to get better shutter speeds would be great. I just wonder how much better the ISO performance of the ID III is compared to the 40D? How much better is it?

I'm happy enough with the high ISO of the 40D, here's one shot at ISO800, no NR applied - http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=169914

[CCRII]

I'm happy enough with the high ISO of the 40D, here's one shot at ISO800, no NR applied - http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=169914

Nice! I would love to see the uncropped photo though. Mainly because I am going to be doing A4 prints.

[postcardcv]

Nice! I would love to see the uncropped photo though. Mainly because I am going to be doing A4 prints.

that shot is uncropped, just resized and a bit of USM - here's a link to the full file - http://www.blueskybirds.co.uk/wibble/jay_071207_0013.jpg this is just converted from RAW to jpg, no sharpening, NR or resizing (though I slightly reduced the file size to help with uploading it).