Well I have had my 40D for a couple of weeks now so thought it was time to see how it compares to the 400D that I have been using. I’ve not done any side by side test shots for this, just basing it on personal experience of using the cameras in the field.
Size and Handling: The 40D is significantly bigger and heavier than the 400D, although I’ve always been happy with the 400D for me the 40D feels much nicer in the hand. The 40D feels more solid and better built (though I’ve had no problems with the 400D). I've a feeling that once I add a grip I'll like the feel of the 40D even more.
Controls and layout: despite years of using 350/400Ds and being very familiar with the layout of these cameras the 40D was instantly easy to use. I find it even easier to alter settings on the fly with my new camera, I particularly like the exposure comp on the big wheel and that the ISO is displayed in the view finder. The main menus are much the same on both cameras, both very straight forward and easy to navigate.
Image quality: I was surprised to notice a distinct difference in the IQ of these two cameras. Whether this is down to the 40Ds 14-bit conversion (which generates much bigger RAW files) I don’t know, but I do know that my photos need noticeably less sharpening with the 40D. The other much talked about issue is the high ISO performance, though it’s mainly being compared to the 30D. My starting point is ISO400, dropping down when light allows and pushing up to 800 when really needed. With the 40D I still start at ISO400 but have found that these images often don’t need any NR (400D at ISO400 almost always did). I will happily push it up to ISO800 (to my eyes these images are similar to ISO400 on the 400D) and at ISO1600 it’s better than the 400D at ISO800.
Other features: one of the big draws of the 40D for me was the faster frame rate, needless to say I’m loving this. For birds in flight it’s been a real bonus, as has the bigger buffer (17 RAWs vs 9RAWs for the 400D). The battery life is also a lot better, I was getting ~800 shots out of each charge with the 400D, the first charge of the 40D managed just over 2000 shots! RAW files are much bigger with the 40D, so I only get ~150 shots on a 2gb card rather than ~200 as I do with the 400D – slightly annoying, but given the low cost of memory not something I’m too worried about.
Verdict: the 400D is and always has been a great camera and at the price you really cannot go wrong. But… the 40D is (IMO) a nicer camera to use, and delivers slightly better images. The bigger buffer, faster frame rate, better high ISO handling and spot metering all make it a better birding camera. I’m very pleased I made the change, I dare say that if funds allow I’ll upgrade my second body to a 40D too.
Size and Handling: The 40D is significantly bigger and heavier than the 400D, although I’ve always been happy with the 400D for me the 40D feels much nicer in the hand. The 40D feels more solid and better built (though I’ve had no problems with the 400D). I've a feeling that once I add a grip I'll like the feel of the 40D even more.
Controls and layout: despite years of using 350/400Ds and being very familiar with the layout of these cameras the 40D was instantly easy to use. I find it even easier to alter settings on the fly with my new camera, I particularly like the exposure comp on the big wheel and that the ISO is displayed in the view finder. The main menus are much the same on both cameras, both very straight forward and easy to navigate.
Image quality: I was surprised to notice a distinct difference in the IQ of these two cameras. Whether this is down to the 40Ds 14-bit conversion (which generates much bigger RAW files) I don’t know, but I do know that my photos need noticeably less sharpening with the 40D. The other much talked about issue is the high ISO performance, though it’s mainly being compared to the 30D. My starting point is ISO400, dropping down when light allows and pushing up to 800 when really needed. With the 40D I still start at ISO400 but have found that these images often don’t need any NR (400D at ISO400 almost always did). I will happily push it up to ISO800 (to my eyes these images are similar to ISO400 on the 400D) and at ISO1600 it’s better than the 400D at ISO800.
Other features: one of the big draws of the 40D for me was the faster frame rate, needless to say I’m loving this. For birds in flight it’s been a real bonus, as has the bigger buffer (17 RAWs vs 9RAWs for the 400D). The battery life is also a lot better, I was getting ~800 shots out of each charge with the 400D, the first charge of the 40D managed just over 2000 shots! RAW files are much bigger with the 40D, so I only get ~150 shots on a 2gb card rather than ~200 as I do with the 400D – slightly annoying, but given the low cost of memory not something I’m too worried about.
Verdict: the 400D is and always has been a great camera and at the price you really cannot go wrong. But… the 40D is (IMO) a nicer camera to use, and delivers slightly better images. The bigger buffer, faster frame rate, better high ISO handling and spot metering all make it a better birding camera. I’m very pleased I made the change, I dare say that if funds allow I’ll upgrade my second body to a 40D too.
