The 40D is an excellent camera, very solid, fast, and well thought out. As someone said, it would be light years ahead of your D30. That being said, a friend of mine just bought a Rebel T1i last week and I got to play around with it yesterday. It's definitely small and a little plasticky, but the responsiveness is impressive and it has the AF from the 20/30D. The video is awesome as well. All in all it's really a nice camera. I still think that the 40D might be more satisfying in the long run though. Even with the 50D and 7D eclipsing it in the Canon line-up it's still a superb camera and will be for some time to come.
A pertinent related question is how old is your computer? If it is as old as your camera you'll want to add a new one into your budget equation.
There will be a domino effect when making a quantum leap from the circa 2000 D30 to any of the newer models. File sizes are much bigger so there is much more processing overhead. When I made the final jump from film SLR to Canon 20D in 2004 and started shooting RAW I found it necessary to switch from OS9 to OSX and upgrade Photoshop. Coming back from vacation with a couple thousand RAW files to edit caused me to bite the bullet and replace the computer with a faster one.
As for bodies? I used an liked a D30 back in 2001 but waited to enter with the 20D which was the first 8MP under $1,500 and had improved DigicII ambient and ETTL-II flash metering. I skipped over the 30D and 40D hoping the AF system would improve, and pulled the string on a new 50D a year ago when a trip to the floor damaged the 20D. In retrospect I wish I'd waited a bit longer and gotten the 7D.
Since you seem to buy for the long haul there would be some logic in buying the latest model, the 7D, but I don't think you'd go wrong with the 40D or 50D either. Apart from the bump in resolution the 50D added micro-adjust for lenses, the 7D has improved 19 point AF, a new flash metering system and HD video.
Thanks, everyone! It sounds like the overwhelming consensus is in favor of the 40D -- and it should be enough camera to cover my use for another 5-10 years. I've waited 6+ years to upgrade, so what's another couple of months of saving up?
A pertinent related question is how old is your computer? If it is as old as your camera you'll want to add a new one into your budget equation.
I've got a powerhouse of a workstation, a few years old, but no dinosaur. It should suffice until I buy a new Macbook Pro in the spring (necessary expense for the day job, and a major reason cash is so tight).
I'm actually more worried about needing to buy new glass, since obviously the D30 wouldn't have benefitted much from the sharpest lenses. Should that be a concern?
Honestly, with that budget, I might try to get a 20d at ~250 or 300. I got a 40d first, then a 20d as a backup, and while the 40d is nicer.... the 20d would get you 80% of the upgrade for half the price.
Btw, I have since sold the 40d (replaced with a 1d mkII), yet kept the 20d as a backup.
Well, as OP says, the upgrade may include glass....what lenses do you have now?
Perhaps the 28-135 IS? In any case, they're likely EF lenses, (unless you modified an old 18-55 to fit) so you may not have anything wider than 24mm...I'd definitely recommend the 18-55 EF-S IS (image stabilization), unless you're happy with whatever the widest FL is now on the D30....I liked my 24-85 on it, but the 18-55 ImageStabilization version, though shorter is much better...
Yup, all EF lenses, none of them particularly recent. There's a 50/1.8 mk1 -- that should be fine, right? Then a 28-70/3.5-4.5 which dates to the late 80's or something and has served as a walkabout lens. And a Sigma 28/1.8 that got a lot of use shooting live theater in small spaces. (You can probably tell I was on a tight budget then too, huh?)
I'm fairly content with the focal lengths represented (which isn't to say I wouldn't love more options if I could afford them). But I don't suppose anyone's familiar enough with the latter two lenses to know how they'll fare on a 12MP camera? (Maybe that's a topic for another thread?)
Prices are really dropping on used 1Dmk2's. I've seen them at $750. That's not much more than your current budget. I might consider saving some pennies and going for that camera. Either that or saving up more for the 5D classic. That camera is still an awesome machine at 4 years old. The 40D would be a good upgrade and in your price range but you're so~ close to a huge jump to the 1D series.
nufferkay wrote:
akivisuals, that's an interesting option. What do you see as the advantages of the 1Dmk2 over the 40D?
Better 45 point autofocus, solid weathersealed body, FPS, better viewfinder, more customizing in menus, shoot both CF and SD cards, possibly a bigger buffer, and many others.
Cons? Weight, big heavy batteries, less inconspicuous.
For the cost difference I see the 1D2 as a very good option to consider. Not many at that $750 price point but if you look you might find them.
nufferkay wrote:
The 1D2 would require an external flash and probably better glass than the 40D, though, right?
It would require an external flash if you need to use one. The popup flash isn't all that great anyway though. The 1D2 doesn't necessarily need better glass. Better glass will help any body as a general rule but the sensor of the 1D2 doesn't require ultra high resolving lenses like the 1Ds3 or 5D2.
