40d Upgrade to 70d worth it?

[m841]

Just looking for others opinions and hopefully experience on wether an upgrade from the 40d to a 70d would be a worthwhile thing to do.

Currently the main consideration for it is an upcoming trip to Europe later in the year.

Currently the kit consists of the 40d, Sigma 17-70 DC HSM OS, Canon 50 f/1.8, 70-300 IS, as well as a Canon 430 EX flash.

The majority of shots that I take are landscape, and would probably be the same on the trip, apart from some indoor stuff like cathedrals, etc that you often find in that part of the world. A lot of my pics are usually taken on 4wd trips away, so quite often there aren't too many other people around to take pictures of, and there is just a lot of nothing, or not much.

My biggest issue is that there is nothing wrong with the 40d, so why upgrade it? It still performs perfectly fine, produces some pretty good shots, and I've never had an issue with it in the 6 or 7 years I've owned it.
But at the same time the advantages in low light that the 70d offers makes it an appealing upgrade. But then I think that well I've got the flash there, so is there really going to be that much gain to doing it, apart from the fact that I wouldn't need the flash in a lot of places with the 70d.

Sure I'd love to go to the 6d, but having to upgrade lens' and body all at the same time isn't so appealing right now, as great as it would be to have a 6d!

Have others gone through this conundrum and can offer some advice?

[MattNQ]

Not a Canon user, so no advice from me there (although I have played with a 60D - a nice piece of kit - assume the 70D is also nice)
Keep in mind that a lot of significant old buildings in Europe forbid flash photography, particularly with old tapestries & paintings.

Also some places like the Sistine chapel forbid all photography .....so if you want to sneak a shot, you'll need the ability to focus fast & shoot without a flash

[William W]

. . .Currently the kit consists of the 40d, Sigma 17-70 DC HSM OS, Canon 50 f/1.8, 70-300 IS, as well as a Canon 430 EX flash.

The majority of shots that I take are landscape, and would probably be the same on the trip, apart from some indoor stuff like cathedrals, etc that you often find in that part of the world. A lot of my pics are usually taken on 4wd trips away, so quite often there aren't too many other people around to take pictures of, and there is just a lot of nothing, or not much. . . My biggest issue is that there is nothing wrong with the 40d, so why upgrade it? It still performs perfectly fine, produces some pretty good shots, and I've never had an issue with it in the 6 or 7 years I've owned it. But at the same time the advantages in low light that the 70d offers makes it an appealing upgrade.

In Europe and indoors for "Cathedrals" and the like, I would want wider than 17mm on a 40D.

Performance at "Low Light" is not really a concern for "Cathedrals" and the like , because the interiors of the buildings are not moving, provided that one can get steady, (or have image stabilization) then ISO1600 ~ 3200 is usually always quite sufficient even for an F/4 lens.

A 40D can well manage ISO1600 to ISO 3200

For wildlife or other distant Subjects that I would likely come across outdoors, driving in a 4WD, I might want longer than 300mm.

Considering that you are happy with the 40D I suggest that you consider the value of adding something like a 10 to 22 UWA Zoom Lens to your kit and/or selling the 70 to 300 and looking at the 100 to 400 L IS.

WW

[SteveInNZ]

I've just upgraded from a 40D to a 70D. The max ISO (without expansion) of the 40D is 1600, compared to the 12800 of the 70D. You wouldn't use either at those settings but it indicates what you could potentially pull out of the shadows.
The articulated screen is really helpful if you like to get a shot from a low perspective or shoot upwards.
One thing that doesn't seem to get mentioned much is that the popup flash can act as a master to your 430EX so you can have off-camera ETTL flash.
I'm suprised that you don't already have a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. From what you've said your interests are, that would be on the top of my list.

Incidently, I initially bought a 6D but decided to take it back in favor of the 70D. Sure, it's great in low light (my main interest is astrophotography), but at the expense of the versatility of the 70D when you consider the whole camera bag IMHO.

Steve.

[REDbiv]

What are your reasons for and against the 6D and 70D or even keeping the 40D and possibly buying some faster glass? I'm not sure on the cost of either, but I'm guessing about a grand in difference

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

[m841]

I'm suprised that you don't already have a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. From what you've said your interests are, that would be on the top of my list.
Steve.

Photography has taken a back seat the last few years, with the only addition being the Sigma to replace the stock canon all round lens that I got when I originally purchased the 40d.

Have spent the last couple of hours pondering UWA lens' though, and it does make a lot more sense on the way to go. Really I am struggling to justify the replacement of the 40d, especially at the $1k cost!

Looking at the results of the UWA choices though, and yes it does make a lot of sense to go that way, as it will provide a much greater result than what I'd get at 17mm with the Sigma.
From trawling through posts, including links off to various examples form people that have owned the lenses, it seems that the Tokina 11-66 f/2.8 or the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 are the best ways to go, especially when it comes to cost against the Canon version.
The Tokina seems to get the best reviews and is a fairly common option to go with, and produces some great results.

Unfortunately going up to a 100-400L might be out of the budget at the moment!

- - - Updated - - -

What are your reasons for and against the 6D and 70D or even keeping the 40D and possibly buying some faster glass? I'm not sure on the cost of either, but I'm guessing about a grand in difference

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

The only thing against a 6D is that I'd have to replace most of the lens' as part of the process as well as they aren't compatible with the full frame bodies.

The 70d is the only real choice for upgrading, but I can't see the justification for it cost wise, and for most of the feature differences.

[Roosta]

Both the Tokina and the Sigma are great lenses, but F2.8 is just that much faster and more versatile in the low light. Stick with the 40D and get some good glass. If you go FF lens, make sure you work out the EFOV for the Crop body, then if you go FF later, you'll have a lens. Best of both worlds. Some low light city or landscapes from the trip will make it all that more worth while IMO.

[Tannin]

Roosta is spot on. As other posters have suggested, upgrading your glass is clearly the priority. (Or leaving money in the bank, of course.) I seldom see much need for fast glass in the ultra-wide category as you can hand-hold down to quite insane shutter speeds at 10 or 12mm, but there is no doubt that Tokina make great lenses and their f/2.8 UWA is certainly very popular. The speed might come in handy for indoor stuff.

Bear it in mind that your 40D will probably expire one day (as old cameras tend to do) and it it unlikely to be worth repairing. I am not saying "replace it just in case", just reminding you that it's wise to have a few dollars spare so that when the worst happens (this week, next year, or 2017) you can replace it with a 70D (or a 99D by then) without also needing a divorce.

While on lenses, your 70-300 is a bit of a weak point too - it's always been one of Canon's least-nice lenses - so you might give some thought to replacing that. The trouble is, it's pretty hard to find a really nice lens in the 70-300 class: most of them are a bit cheap and nasty, while the superb Canon 70-300L costs a fortune.

[William W]

. . . While on lenses, your 70-300 is a bit of a weak point too - it's always been one of Canon's least-nice lenses - so you might give some thought to replacing that. The trouble is, it's pretty hard to find a really nice lens in the 70-300 class: most of them are a bit cheap and nasty, while the superb Canon 70-300L costs a fortune.

The EF 70 to 200F/4 IS USM and the x1.4 EF Teleconverter MkIII is another option: maybe that costs as much as the 70 to 300L.

WW

[JM Tran]

My opinion from owning a 40D many, many many years ago? GET A NEW BODY.

Everyones talking about getting a new lens etc, but the camera sensor also plays a very important part in colour/contrast/sharpness/overall feel of the photo. For something that is as old as the 40D - its time to upgrade, no ifs or buts about it.

Even getting a second hand 7D or something else is what I would recommend. The 40D's sensor from medium to high ISO is quite poor now to modern/current day cameras. My biggest gripe with the 40D back then was the large 3 inch screen at only 250k resolution - meaning that you cannot tell or find it very hard to see if your photo is sharp as the LCD screen cant render enough details to show sharpness even when zoomed in.

Seriously, its 10MP sensor did not fare as well in high ISO performance as the 30D, but better than the 50D - gosh that one was terrible from ISO800 and above.

Your Sigma 17-70 lens is quite sufficient too, its a pretty well rounded performer. I had one when it first came out before it had OS back in 2007. These days if you want low light without spending silly amount - get the Sigma 18-35 f1.8, excellent reviews and great for low light and all round travel lens for APSC sensor cameras.

[REDbiv]

Isn't the 7D pretty crap once you get the higher ISOs? At least I've been told that by a couple of people

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

[arthurking83]

Isn't the 7D pretty crap once you get the higher ISOs? At least I've been told that by a couple of people

......

it only depends on your output requirements.

Compared to a D800 at the same output resolution .. it probably is.
Compared to a smartphoney .. it's at least 10 years ahead in IQ.

It's all relative(to what you are comparing it too).

As for the actual upgrade path for the OP .. (and not being a Canon person myself).
I'd say a new lens(type?) may be the better option.

So in this instance, and due to a lack of an UWA lens .. maybe this is the better option. I can vouch for the high quality of the Tokina, even wide open!
And while you are at it, spending money on a new lens(and being a predominantly landscape oriented type), maybe a few quality filters to go with the new lens.

Although in saying all this, if you can't see yourself spending any more money on photography gear within the next couple of years maybe now is the time to get an updated camera body, and enjoy it for the next 5 years.

a new body is also a relevant upgrade option, not only for the better low light capabilities of the newer tech camera, but other features such as faster/better/more flexible AF performance, or better speed capabilities(buffer, frame rate, etc) ..... or whatever other feature gives you any advantage!

[Tannin]

Yes, Redbiv, it is. Anything over 400 ISO on the 7D is pretty ordinary, and it's not really worth using over 800. I often notice the huge difference between 7D and 1D IV (my two birding cameras). OK, the Mark IV is a bigger sensor (APS-H), but nevertheless, the difference is massive. The 40D was a modest downgrade ISO-wise on the famously excellent 20D/30D twins. The 50D was worse, the 7D not much improved on the poor 50D. I can't comment on the 60D and 70D though as I haven't tried them. Perhaps they have improved matters. Nevertheless, if you want low noise at hhigh ISOs, then a big sensor is the only way to go. My elderly 5D II produces cleaner images at ISO 1600 than a 50D does at 400, and the newer ones are better still, I hear.

Nevertheless, contrary to JMTran's view, the 40D still takes great pictures and although I no longer own one, I had two of them and the better one of those two is still in the family so I get to use it sometimes, with perfect satisfaction. The only major features missing, off the top of my head, are all that useless video carp, and who cares about that anyway?

[REDbiv]

G'day Tony, long time no see (APF)

[Tannin]

^ Cheers mate. I don't get time to be on-line much these days - which on the whole is a good thing!

[REDbiv]

I get all too often. Part of trucks and delays for the most part.

I'd been wondering where you were, found you, I guess you were the hide and seek champion as a kid haha

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

[Hayaku]

As a compromise have you considered the 60d? Cheaper than the 70d and while not as good as the 70d, is at least able to compete with it in low light.

[m841]

Thanks for everyones input on this. So many options, and so many things to consider.

I am thinking that at this stage I'll grab the Tokina fairly soon and spend some time with that before the trip, to see how the two go together, and then closer to the time if I'm not liking the performance of the 40d then upgrade to the 70d. Plus if I time it right then the body upgrade will be a bit cheaper as I'll be able to claim back the GST.

[ooooops0]

I use Canon gear at work and have had 30D to 70D and have to say that for what I do the 50D-60D-70D are pretty similar, but the 40D still took great shots.

I know there are new features etc but if I owned a 50D I would not spend the money going up to 70D unless it was stuffed (just my thoughts) but I cant think back to what the 40D was like as last time I used it was years ago.

What about the Canon EF 50mm F1.8 lens? Only about $110- and from all reviews I've seen it's a great low light lens for the price.

[Dylan & Marianne]

I'm not sure how the 70D performs at moderate iso's but I do remember having noise issues with the 40D even at 400-800 if slightly underexposed.