40d is a good start for a camera, but I recomend saving a little more and getting the 5d mark 2 It's simply the best. It Crushes the competion as far as over all options quality and abilities. Although if you get the 40d first, maybe you'll have a greater appreciation when you use a 5d mark 2.
I'm thinking of selling my brand new 550d + kit lens to buy a 40d + an L lens or a few lenses, do you think this is a good idea? The 550d feels too plastic-y and small for me, and i have no real need for HD video.. do you think its a good idea?? Thanks :)
@RiOtEmpire777 It's a bit of a risk knowing that it's second hand. It could end up costing you more if most of the sensor life has been used. That's unless you are certain the previous owner didn't use it much. The L glass is also a bit of a risk. If for instance it has IS, or USM it could end up having mechanical issues in the future and you won't be covered. My advice would be to save up for a 7D.
I cannot stress that Canons user interface sucks and that if you want to buy a lens over 300mm you are better off with Nikon or Sony because very few decent lenses at 400mm or above exist for the Canons and the ones that did from Sigma either need re chipping or don't work correctly with DLSR cameras. For this reason alone you should avoid canon until they make an affordable 400mm lens. I don't consider $1000 much less $8000 affordable for a lens. $600 for a 400mm is reasonable.
@squishy949 I can't find you a nikkor or many Zeiss but I can identify a 400mm Sigma prime that will whoop your 100-400 L for a fraction of the price. The Sigma AF 400mm f/5.6 HSM APO macro which works on Nikons & can be re-chiped to work on minolta/sony cameras. This lens is also very comparable to the 400mm 5.6 L . There are a few Primes from sigma such as the sigma High speed-wide 28mm 1.8 that can still be used on Nikon cameras but not Canon. That's 2G saved by not choosing Canon.
I don't know many nikon users with a 400 f/5.6 sig. None to be exact. Because it's not easily available and have AF accuracy issues. All the nikon using wildlife photographers I know have current generation 400mm+ lenses. They're only cheap because, albiet a sharp lens, it's discontinued and only available used.
.And sigma no longer re chip them to work on sony/minolta's because it's been out of production. If they were still rechipping, you could get it chipped for EF mount as well.
@squishy949 The lenses are available used, you just have to keep an eye out for them. As far as focusing issues that's not a big problem with the 400mm. Naturally being a sigma however results will vary. But truthfully the same goes for any glass but to re-chip sony / minolta cameras there is a guy in japan who you can order the chip from & install yourself for about $60 however it wont work with Canon & that is exactly my point.
Well if that's what you want to do, then stick with nikon or sony/minolta.
But it's hardly a downside to canon.
I like having a new 100-400, even considering it isn't canon's most reliable lens and isn't quite as sharp as a prime, it is still good, and any issues I have with it for the next couple of years can be fixed in warranty
If I wanted optimum sharpness, I'd have bought a second hand 400/5.6L, but I wanted the flexibility of having IS and a zoom.
@squishy949 I considered the 100-400 L myself but then realized that the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM along with a Canon or Sigma 400mm 5.6 is a better deal because of the fall off at 400mm and the fact that for field sports 400 is often too powerful plus it's IQ for birding is lacking. Think about it, you could have got both lenses for close to the same price as your 100-400.
I can get sharp cropped images wide open at 400mm easily. Just not quite as sharp as a prime. 1/3 of a stop down to f/6.3 improves sharpness slightly, and another 1/3 stop down to f/7.1 improves again slightly.
The 100-400 is definitely superior to the 70-300 at all focal lengths, and it's easily sharp enough at 400mm to produce superb images.
The siggy 400/5.6 was a great lens, I don't know why they stopped making it. But my 100-400 works for me.
@bronxboyXXX Perhaps the 100-400 you are referring to was a bad copy? There are a couple around (something to do with 'lens group misalignment'), but that is sorted easily by canon, and the good copies are very sharp lenses.
The cheetah says "You won't be able to catch me" and then the guy says "I will be able to catch you" and then the cheetah says again, "You won't be able to catch me" and then the guy says "I will definitely be able to catch you". lold.
p.s. rad video
L7weinie 2 months ago
40d is a good start for a camera, but I recomend saving a little more and getting the 5d mark 2 It's simply the best. It Crushes the competion as far as over all options quality and abilities. Although if you get the 40d first, maybe you'll have a greater appreciation when you use a 5d mark 2.
L7weinie 2 months ago
just bought one cant wait to play with it
stevens19900 5 months ago
I'm thinking of selling my brand new 550d + kit lens to buy a 40d + an L lens or a few lenses, do you think this is a good idea? The 550d feels too plastic-y and small for me, and i have no real need for HD video.. do you think its a good idea?? Thanks :)
RiOtEmpire777 9 months ago 4
@RiOtEmpire777 40D is step higher in performance and build quality,go for it.
royraiden 9 months ago
@RiOtEmpire777 Yes thats a great idea. Thats what I did and holding the 40D feels like I've take two steps forward :D
The247th 5 months ago
@RiOtEmpire777 It's a bit of a risk knowing that it's second hand. It could end up costing you more if most of the sensor life has been used. That's unless you are certain the previous owner didn't use it much. The L glass is also a bit of a risk. If for instance it has IS, or USM it could end up having mechanical issues in the future and you won't be covered. My advice would be to save up for a 7D.
1TuBe1983 4 months ago
@RiOtEmpire777 550 has better low light capabilities than 40D though. I suggest go with L lenses and upgrade to FF when you need it
tromba25 4 months ago
Who the F* "disliked" this 40D video? and why??
The247th 1 year ago 3
@The247th nikon haterz most likely..and i'm a nikon user.
FactoryGaming 7 months ago
@The247th obviously the nikon buyers disliked this video. too bad there were only 2 though
csp159357 5 months ago
I cannot stress that Canons user interface sucks and that if you want to buy a lens over 300mm you are better off with Nikon or Sony because very few decent lenses at 400mm or above exist for the Canons and the ones that did from Sigma either need re chipping or don't work correctly with DLSR cameras. For this reason alone you should avoid canon until they make an affordable 400mm lens. I don't consider $1000 much less $8000 affordable for a lens. $600 for a 400mm is reasonable.
bronxboyXXX 1 year ago
@bronxboyXXX
Bollocks.
Show me a sub $600 400mm nikkor or sony!
My 100-400 is very good for the money, definitely better than the sigma.The nikkor 80-400 has no built in AF motor.
Canon make the 400/5.6L, which nikon have no equivalent of.
I prefer canon's user interface to nikon's. It's a matter of personal preference, your opinion that nikon is better does not make them better.
400mm lenses cost money from any brand. Get used to it.
squishy949 1 year ago
@squishy949 I can't find you a nikkor or many Zeiss but I can identify a 400mm Sigma prime that will whoop your 100-400 L for a fraction of the price. The Sigma AF 400mm f/5.6 HSM APO macro which works on Nikons & can be re-chiped to work on minolta/sony cameras. This lens is also very comparable to the 400mm 5.6 L . There are a few Primes from sigma such as the sigma High speed-wide 28mm 1.8 that can still be used on Nikon cameras but not Canon. That's 2G saved by not choosing Canon.
bronxboyXXX 1 year ago
Comment removed
squishy949 1 year ago
I don't know many nikon users with a 400 f/5.6 sig. None to be exact. Because it's not easily available and have AF accuracy issues. All the nikon using wildlife photographers I know have current generation 400mm+ lenses. They're only cheap because, albiet a sharp lens, it's discontinued and only available used.
.And sigma no longer re chip them to work on sony/minolta's because it's been out of production. If they were still rechipping, you could get it chipped for EF mount as well.
squishy949 1 year ago
@squishy949 The lenses are available used, you just have to keep an eye out for them. As far as focusing issues that's not a big problem with the 400mm. Naturally being a sigma however results will vary. But truthfully the same goes for any glass but to re-chip sony / minolta cameras there is a guy in japan who you can order the chip from & install yourself for about $60 however it wont work with Canon & that is exactly my point.
bronxboyXXX 1 year ago
@bronxboyXXX
Well if that's what you want to do, then stick with nikon or sony/minolta.
But it's hardly a downside to canon.
I like having a new 100-400, even considering it isn't canon's most reliable lens and isn't quite as sharp as a prime, it is still good, and any issues I have with it for the next couple of years can be fixed in warranty
If I wanted optimum sharpness, I'd have bought a second hand 400/5.6L, but I wanted the flexibility of having IS and a zoom.
squishy949 1 year ago
@squishy949 I considered the 100-400 L myself but then realized that the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM along with a Canon or Sigma 400mm 5.6 is a better deal because of the fall off at 400mm and the fact that for field sports 400 is often too powerful plus it's IQ for birding is lacking. Think about it, you could have got both lenses for close to the same price as your 100-400.
bronxboyXXX 1 year ago
@bronxboyXXX
I don't consider it's IQ lacking.
I can get sharp cropped images wide open at 400mm easily. Just not quite as sharp as a prime. 1/3 of a stop down to f/6.3 improves sharpness slightly, and another 1/3 stop down to f/7.1 improves again slightly.
The 100-400 is definitely superior to the 70-300 at all focal lengths, and it's easily sharp enough at 400mm to produce superb images.
The siggy 400/5.6 was a great lens, I don't know why they stopped making it. But my 100-400 works for me.
squishy949 1 year ago
@bronxboyXXX Perhaps the 100-400 you are referring to was a bad copy? There are a couple around (something to do with 'lens group misalignment'), but that is sorted easily by canon, and the good copies are very sharp lenses.
squishy949 1 year ago
Hmm, .. my Canon EOS 40D didn't come with a safari park :P
donconco 1 year ago
@donconco lol my 40d didnt come with a 70-200 lens lol 0:32
Recon9143 1 year ago
The cheetah says "You won't be able to catch me" and then the guy says "I will be able to catch you" and then the cheetah says again, "You won't be able to catch me" and then the guy says "I will definitely be able to catch you". lold.
ByBleeker 1 year ago
Which L series lens is that? :D It looks pretty sexy :D
Kaustabh0012 2 years ago
I believe one of the 70-200 f/4 's probably the IS version.
ThomasR099 2 years ago
@ThomasR099
yep. The 70-200 f4 is.
tadej172 1 year ago
you can tune the shutter sound down (:
ColourBlindAngel 2 years ago
how?
fatpaws 2 years ago
I wish that shutter sound would be same as in this adversiment.
vasiliev 2 years ago
the real wound has a squeakyness to it
AZNFlipy12 2 years ago
LOVE this camera.
dandaman247 2 years ago
i got the same!
s3rox 2 years ago