Canon 40d vs 600d?
Discussion
Firstly I know nothing about cameras so please do treat me like a thicko! Mrs B upgraded from her old 350d to a 40d just over a year ago but is now going on about sticking it on eBay and picking up a 600d. As I understand it the 600d is lower in Canon's current range but importantly a couple of generations newer. So is it worth me spending some money on her to change or will there be little difference (when used by someone who knows what they are doing and with a good Canon lens)?!
Thanks!
Thanks!
hmm.. ok..
the 600D will have a better sensor and better ISO handling and will have video that the 40D will not.
The 40D is a magnesium case, 600D is plastic.
The 40D has a higher FPS rate (number of pictures per second - useful for sport/wildlife).
The 40D will "handle" better..
In short the 600D is the modern version of her 350D.
The modern version of the 40D is the 60D.
An upgrade would be a 7D (for sports/wildlife and the like anyway).
You could think of the 40D as a 15 year old Audi and the 600D a brand new Ford. The Audi was a decent spec for its time and probably has a few things the Ford doesn't have, but the Ford has a slight upper hand with regards to performance, economy etc, even though its a "cheaper" car.
the 600D will have a better sensor and better ISO handling and will have video that the 40D will not.
The 40D is a magnesium case, 600D is plastic.
The 40D has a higher FPS rate (number of pictures per second - useful for sport/wildlife).
The 40D will "handle" better..
In short the 600D is the modern version of her 350D.
The modern version of the 40D is the 60D.
An upgrade would be a 7D (for sports/wildlife and the like anyway).
You could think of the 40D as a 15 year old Audi and the 600D a brand new Ford. The Audi was a decent spec for its time and probably has a few things the Ford doesn't have, but the Ford has a slight upper hand with regards to performance, economy etc, even though its a "cheaper" car.
Side by side comparison here:
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-s...
I have a 40D too (and 7D, and a few others). Would certainly not consider downsizing the 40D to the 600.
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-s...
I have a 40D too (and 7D, and a few others). Would certainly not consider downsizing the 40D to the 600.
jimmy156 said:
I would talk her out of it, the 40d is better in many ways, and the 600d could feel like a downgrade. Some think of the 40d as the sweet spot for the xxd range, saying its a better camera then the 50d (which i have) and I wouldn't swap mine for a 60d either!
I have a 40D, I see nothing in either 50D or 60D that make me want to upgrade.The 7D and 5Dii are another matter though.
I know the 40d is one of those legendary cameras, but moving to a 600d in my opinion is a good move.
The sensor is much bigger (resolution), and I know we're not meant to emphasize megapixels, but lets be realistic - 18M vs 10M - that's a big difference. And the sensor is hugely updated so lower noise, better low light, etc.
Another reason I like the 600d (although I haven't bought one yet) is its ability to expose red correctly. This seems to be hugely overlooked. Take a photograph of a red car, or something with red carpet, and you'll soon discover how bad older cameras expose red. I probably notice this more than most with a red car. A good example of awful red was Autosport Show last year with the red carpets - even some pros that I know had some crappy looking images because the red carpets just blew photographs apart.
Plus there are a bunch of software handling features outlined in the dpreview link earlier that make the 600d a much better proposition than a 40d which is pushing 5 years old now.
The sensor is much bigger (resolution), and I know we're not meant to emphasize megapixels, but lets be realistic - 18M vs 10M - that's a big difference. And the sensor is hugely updated so lower noise, better low light, etc.
Another reason I like the 600d (although I haven't bought one yet) is its ability to expose red correctly. This seems to be hugely overlooked. Take a photograph of a red car, or something with red carpet, and you'll soon discover how bad older cameras expose red. I probably notice this more than most with a red car. A good example of awful red was Autosport Show last year with the red carpets - even some pros that I know had some crappy looking images because the red carpets just blew photographs apart.
Plus there are a bunch of software handling features outlined in the dpreview link earlier that make the 600d a much better proposition than a 40d which is pushing 5 years old now.
JDRoest said:
I know the 40d is one of those legendary cameras, but moving to a 600d in my opinion is a good move.
The sensor is much bigger (resolution), and I know we're not meant to emphasize megapixels, but lets be realistic - 18M vs 10M - that's a big difference. And the sensor is hugely updated so lower noise, better low light, etc.
Another reason I like the 600d (although I haven't bought one yet) is its ability to expose red correctly. This seems to be hugely overlooked. Take a photograph of a red car, or something with red carpet, and you'll soon discover how bad older cameras expose red. I probably notice this more than most with a red car. A good example of awful red was Autosport Show last year with the red carpets - even some pros that I know had some crappy looking images because the red carpets just blew photographs apart.
Plus there are a bunch of software handling features outlined in the dpreview link earlier that make the 600d a much better proposition than a 40d which is pushing 5 years old now.
10M vs 18M is largely irrelevant if you're printing at anything A3 or less and even on prints of A2 I doubt you'd notice much difference. Unless you're regularly shooting at much over 800ISO then I doubt you'd see much difference there either. I regularly shoot at 1250ISO on my 40D and a quick run through Noise Ninja makes it perfectly acceptable to my eyes. I've also never had a problem with the 40D exposing red correctly. Come to that I never had a problem with the much older Nikon D50 exposing red either. Not sure where your problem with this has come from?The sensor is much bigger (resolution), and I know we're not meant to emphasize megapixels, but lets be realistic - 18M vs 10M - that's a big difference. And the sensor is hugely updated so lower noise, better low light, etc.
Another reason I like the 600d (although I haven't bought one yet) is its ability to expose red correctly. This seems to be hugely overlooked. Take a photograph of a red car, or something with red carpet, and you'll soon discover how bad older cameras expose red. I probably notice this more than most with a red car. A good example of awful red was Autosport Show last year with the red carpets - even some pros that I know had some crappy looking images because the red carpets just blew photographs apart.
Plus there are a bunch of software handling features outlined in the dpreview link earlier that make the 600d a much better proposition than a 40d which is pushing 5 years old now.
Luminarium 01 Canon 40D by dogsey, on Flickr
TVR Sagaris Nikon D50 by dogsey, on Flickr
Finally, I'll take buttons for adjusting major parameters over software solutions any day. While the 40D may be nearly five years old the 600D will still feel like a step backwards in all appreciable ways. I think the only current realistic upgrades to the 40D are the 7D or the 5Dii. Which one you go for depends on what you prefer shooting.
Crafty_ said:
The modern version of the 40D is the 60D.
Not really, the 60D lost the mag body and is more of a 600D+ IMHO. The successor to the 50D was really the 7D. I would say that any of the xxD (possibly with the exception of the 60) are a better bet than the 600. Right down to the 30D and maybe even the 20.
Dogsey said:
10M vs 18M is largely irrelevant if you're printing at anything A3 or less and even on prints of A2 I doubt you'd notice much difference. Unless you're regularly shooting at much over 800ISO then I doubt you'd see much difference there either. I regularly shoot at 1250ISO on my 40D and a quick run through Noise Ninja makes it perfectly acceptable to my eyes. I've also never had a problem with the 40D exposing red correctly. Come to that I never had a problem with the much older Nikon D50 exposing red either. Not sure where your problem with this has come from?
Finally, I'll take buttons for adjusting major parameters over software solutions any day. While the 40D may be nearly five years old the 600D will still feel like a step backwards in all appreciable ways. I think the only current realistic upgrades to the 40D are the 7D or the 5Dii. Which one you go for depends on what you prefer shooting.
I'll do this point by point. I don't mind being wrong, so feel to correct me.Finally, I'll take buttons for adjusting major parameters over software solutions any day. While the 40D may be nearly five years old the 600D will still feel like a step backwards in all appreciable ways. I think the only current realistic upgrades to the 40D are the 7D or the 5Dii. Which one you go for depends on what you prefer shooting.
1. 10M vs 18M is hugely important once you need to crop. This is often overlooked. I would prefer to have a few more megapixels than something intangible like a magnesium body or more buttons. I kicked my 400d across a pavement last year - and it's fine. I think that's pretty tough.
2. ISO and noise are hugely important once you take your photography to that next level. I tend not to use anything over iso 100 as 400 is just too grainy, and there isn't much difference between the 400d sensor and 40d sensor. A more modern sensor (at least in the Canon range is going to be much better, as is the better processor that the 600d sports (DIGIC 3 vs DIGIC 4). You can see a change even at iso 400 between a 400d and 1000d purely because the 1000d is a later model with the better processor.
You are also overlooking the ability and use of higher ISO. This evening I was shooting hand held long since the sun had gone down. 40d vs 600d - ISO 1600/3200 vs 6400/12800 - so that's 2 stops better. Do you want noise or camera shake? You can deal with noise, but you can't deal with camera shake. If you haven't got Alzheimers you can use the two stops to get back to f8 again. Which would you prefer? More buttons or more stops?
3. Noise reduction software is a bit like bolting the gate after the horse has bolted. In my opinion it's better to capture a good image to start with than screw around in software afterwards, like noise reduction software (I use Neat Image).
You might also want to check about using ISO1250 on a Canon as it's done in software and you lose dynamic range by using a fractional stop. Another reason I wouldn't let Auto ISO ever run a camera (unless I can ensure it runs full stops).
4., Red - I've had this problem numerous times hence picking it out. Haven't got any examples to hand right now as they are archived. Never knew why until a Canon UK bod told me about it:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/2/7/canoneos600d
[quote]Both the EOS 600D and EOS 1100D models feature a metering sensor with 63 zones, compatible with all nine AF points. Typically, metering sensors are more sensitive to red subjects which can lead to overexposure. The EOS 600D and EOS 1100D counter this with the dual layer sensor, which has one layer sensitive to red and green light and one that is sensitive to blue and green light. The metering algorithm then compares the level of the two layers and adjusts the meter reading accordingly.
I know the 40d is a firm favourite, almost cult like camera, but things are moving on and the 40d is now 3 generations old.
Keep the 40D [it's only worth £250 or so] and buy a new 600d to partner it
A second body is always worth having, I use my 'OLD' 40d as my everyday carry around camera [replacing my G7 & G9 compacts] which wern't tough enough for my purposes. [my 40d has done over 214K clicks without problems
If I'm out on a location shoot then I use my 'New' camera's 7d & 60d the 'Old' 40d remains in the glovebox of the car sulking
hope this helps
A second body is always worth having, I use my 'OLD' 40d as my everyday carry around camera [replacing my G7 & G9 compacts] which wern't tough enough for my purposes. [my 40d has done over 214K clicks without problems
If I'm out on a location shoot then I use my 'New' camera's 7d & 60d the 'Old' 40d remains in the glovebox of the car sulking
hope this helps
Edited by S47 on Sunday 15th January 13:40
Edited by S47 on Sunday 15th January 13:41
JDRoest said:
I'll do this point by point. I don't mind being wrong, so feel to correct me.
1. 10M vs 18M is hugely important once you need to crop. This is often overlooked. I would prefer to have a few more megapixels than something intangible like a magnesium body or more buttons. I kicked my 400d across a pavement last year - and it's fine. I think that's pretty tough.
2. ISO and noise are hugely important once you take your photography to that next level. I tend not to use anything over iso 100 as 400 is just too grainy, and there isn't much difference between the 400d sensor and 40d sensor. A more modern sensor (at least in the Canon range is going to be much better, as is the better processor that the 600d sports (DIGIC 3 vs DIGIC 4). You can see a change even at iso 400 between a 400d and 1000d purely because the 1000d is a later model with the better processor.
You are also overlooking the ability and use of higher ISO. This evening I was shooting hand held long since the sun had gone down. 40d vs 600d - ISO 1600/3200 vs 6400/12800 - so that's 2 stops better. Do you want noise or camera shake? You can deal with noise, but you can't deal with camera shake. If you haven't got Alzheimers you can use the two stops to get back to f8 again. Which would you prefer? More buttons or more stops?
3. Noise reduction software is a bit like bolting the gate after the horse has bolted. In my opinion it's better to capture a good image to start with than screw around in software afterwards, like noise reduction software (I use Neat Image).
You might also want to check about using ISO1250 on a Canon as it's done in software and you lose dynamic range by using a fractional stop. Another reason I wouldn't let Auto ISO ever run a camera (unless I can ensure it runs full stops).
4., Red - I've had this problem numerous times hence picking it out. Haven't got any examples to hand right now as they are archived. Never knew why until a Canon UK bod told me about it:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/2/7/canoneos600d
[quote]Both the EOS 600D and EOS 1100D models feature a metering sensor with 63 zones, compatible with all nine AF points. Typically, metering sensors are more sensitive to red subjects which can lead to overexposure. The EOS 600D and EOS 1100D counter this with the dual layer sensor, which has one layer sensitive to red and green light and one that is sensitive to blue and green light. The metering algorithm then compares the level of the two layers and adjusts the meter reading accordingly.
5. There are other features where the 600d scores - for instance AEB range is far far wider. -/+2 is nice, but -/+5 is better. I'm sure there are other features where it scores.1. 10M vs 18M is hugely important once you need to crop. This is often overlooked. I would prefer to have a few more megapixels than something intangible like a magnesium body or more buttons. I kicked my 400d across a pavement last year - and it's fine. I think that's pretty tough.
2. ISO and noise are hugely important once you take your photography to that next level. I tend not to use anything over iso 100 as 400 is just too grainy, and there isn't much difference between the 400d sensor and 40d sensor. A more modern sensor (at least in the Canon range is going to be much better, as is the better processor that the 600d sports (DIGIC 3 vs DIGIC 4). You can see a change even at iso 400 between a 400d and 1000d purely because the 1000d is a later model with the better processor.
You are also overlooking the ability and use of higher ISO. This evening I was shooting hand held long since the sun had gone down. 40d vs 600d - ISO 1600/3200 vs 6400/12800 - so that's 2 stops better. Do you want noise or camera shake? You can deal with noise, but you can't deal with camera shake. If you haven't got Alzheimers you can use the two stops to get back to f8 again. Which would you prefer? More buttons or more stops?
3. Noise reduction software is a bit like bolting the gate after the horse has bolted. In my opinion it's better to capture a good image to start with than screw around in software afterwards, like noise reduction software (I use Neat Image).
You might also want to check about using ISO1250 on a Canon as it's done in software and you lose dynamic range by using a fractional stop. Another reason I wouldn't let Auto ISO ever run a camera (unless I can ensure it runs full stops).
4., Red - I've had this problem numerous times hence picking it out. Haven't got any examples to hand right now as they are archived. Never knew why until a Canon UK bod told me about it:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/2/7/canoneos600d
[quote]Both the EOS 600D and EOS 1100D models feature a metering sensor with 63 zones, compatible with all nine AF points. Typically, metering sensors are more sensitive to red subjects which can lead to overexposure. The EOS 600D and EOS 1100D counter this with the dual layer sensor, which has one layer sensitive to red and green light and one that is sensitive to blue and green light. The metering algorithm then compares the level of the two layers and adjusts the meter reading accordingly.
I know the 40d is a firm favourite, almost cult like camera, but things are moving on and the 40d is now 3 generations old.
2. Noise is far less of an issue than the manufacturers make it. A good image does not need to be perfectly clean. It never was in the days of film (unless using a very slow film) and it's not now. Stop pixel peeping, that's what drives the megapixel war. Also:
JDRoest said:
I tend not to use anything over iso 100
JDRoest said:
This evening I was shooting hand held long since the sun had gone down
Make your mind up.3. I agree it's better to get it right in the camera. However, if the situation means that I need to push the ISO up then using Noise Ninja helps me bring it back to a level I'm happy with. I'm also well aware that ISO1250 is a software bodge, however the amount of dynamic range it loses is minimal and it still gives me less noise than ISO1600. I never use Auto ISO as I don't need to, I have a button for adjusting that.
4. As I've already said and shown, I've never had a problem with reds on a DSLR. The fact that a Canon rep told you it was something they've now fixed smells of yet another manufacturer con.
5. And there are just as many other features where the 40D is still far better than a 600D, faster frame-rate and better ergonomics are just two.
I've no quibble that the 40D is now getting on but a) just because a camera has been superseded doesn't stop it being a good camera and b) the 600D is not an upgrade from it, the 7D, 5Dii and 1D range are with the 7D being the closest to a direct upgrade.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff