Canon 40D
Mr. Snappy did a fine video on this fine camera. He said to post pics here so here you go.
I had this camera in 2012. Prior to it I had a Canon XSI. I was always a Nikon guy, but Canon had a better viewfinder. The cheap Nikons were terrible in that regard.
I had the kit lens from the XSi 18-55 ish, a 75-300mm ZOOM that I bought, not kidding...in a Kmart in a small town in Wisconsin on Thanksgiving morning, when I was visiting my sister. It was on sale $99. It was not at all a great lens, but it worked and it had autofocus. At the time I was not privy to the fact that cheap zooms look a whole lot better 1 f stop down than wide open. Also at this time, I had really limited photo editing skills and did not know what a RAW file was. Some look grainy and have artifacts- over sharpening.
That camera had the best ergonomics and layout -ever. It felt PERFECT in my hand and was a joy to use.
I ended getting a sick Nikon refurb D7000 deal and while there was just no contest in sensors, mostly due to age but i think the Canon 60D was significantly behind the Sony sensor that went into the D7000, the Pentax K5 and whatever Sony put out. So that was the route I went.
A lot of what I was trying to do was what i aspire to do now, which is really high IQ wildlife photos. This is my idiot neighbors outdoor cat's scornful glare. I am proud of this shot because I caught that evil gaze from 100 feet away and driving. It's saying, I just took a dumps in your garden and killed a couple of federally protected birds that you were stupid enough to attract in. 
Cat on a Picket Fence by Mark Kasick, on Flick
Chicago Skyline 1 by Mark Kasick, on Flickr
The second shot is downtown Chicago. If I remember right, it was so freaking cold and icy I just brought the tripod out and took one pic. Probably an ethanol inspired adventure.
i can't seem to post a link but if You go on my Flickr page I made an album called Canon 40D. There are a couple shots in there.
Beautiful examples, better than I’ve been able to work up so far but I knew the camera has tons of potential. I just think it’s such a great deal for someone looking to get into photography for the first time. I’m learning more and more that I’d rather invest in nice glass than a fancy smancy body (though both would be nice if money was no object, which is how someone people like to spend money I guess). The Canon 40D is a great foundation of a camera for cheap. I bet a talented someone with a 50mm could even start up a photography portrait business with it.
If you could find one for under a $100, preferably with a lens, then sure. That's a no brainer.
It had a lot going for it. You could see if you like Canon or not.
Would be a fine camera to learn on though.
I see Nikon D300 bodies go for $200 too. Back then the D300 sold for a LOT more. Had I that camera, might not have bought the D7000 as I had a couple Nikon lenses to mess with. Nikon backwards compatibility was huge. Looks like on KEH and those stores 40d in EX condition goes for $160. Then I would be looking at saving up another $150.
Much more than that I think other options would enter the picture. At time I had the 40D, a Canon Xsi Rebel and a Nikon D200. Then I got a D7000 on refurb for $600. Quickly all three other cameras began to collect dust and one by one I sold them with zero regrets.
From what I remember the difference was so big in low light and anytime I needed to crop (which was seemingly all time) .
I don't know about the lens over camera thing either, when you are talking that big of a difference in sensor performance, I am not quite sure any lens could make up the difference.
Maybe I am wrong, but that's how I remember it. My photography and post processing skills are way better than in 2013, maybe I would feel differently.
If you still have a K5 (same Sony sensor as D7k) it would be interesting to compare.
The other thing is once you start buying better lenses for your cheaper body then you get married into a system.
At low ISO the Canon sensor was pretty good. This is the Xsi the cheap body. 12 mp a year or two later. ISO 100, .8 sec, f14.0 (probably diffraction) . 18-55 kit lens.
You'll get a better view in Flickr. Click on the image and then again in Flickr. Much sharper there. Check out the wet rocks, they look cool.
Wildcat Canyon Starved Rock State Park by Mark Kasick, on Flickr
I printed these at costco pretty large prints,. they came out nice.
Quote from KankRat on September 13, 2021, 5:46 pmIf you could find one for under a $100, preferably with a lens, then sure. That's a no brainer.
It had a lot going for it. You could see if you like Canon or not.
Would be a fine camera to learn on though.
I see Nikon D300 bodies go for $200 too. Back then the D300 sold for a LOT more. Had I that camera, might not have bought the D7000 as I had a couple Nikon lenses to mess with. Nikon backwards compatibility was huge. Looks like on KEH and those stores 40d in EX condition goes for $160. Then I would be looking at saving up another $150.
Much more than that I think other options would enter the picture. At time I had the 40D, a Canon Xsi Rebel and a Nikon D200. Then I got a D7000 on refurb for $600. Quickly all three other cameras began to collect dust and one by one I sold them with zero regrets.
From what I remember the difference was so big in low light and anytime I needed to crop (which was seemingly all time) .
I don't know about the lens over camera thing either, when you are talking that big of a difference in sensor performance, I am not quite sure any lens could make up the difference.
Maybe I am wrong, but that's how I remember it. My photography and post processing skills are way better than in 2013, maybe I would feel differently.
If you still have a K5 (same Sony sensor as D7k) it would be interesting to compare.
The other thing is once you start buying better lenses for your cheaper body then you get married into a system.
Hmm, good thoughts. And it's true that some modern kit lenses are quite good, and so a more modern camera with a good kit lens may perform better than a older camera with a more expensive lens. In my little experience though, the lens has made all the difference, and especially on the used market you can get older pro lenses with an older body for less than just a modern body without a lens. I'm cheap, so that wins for me 😀
But you should always look ahead and not get stuck in a system if you know they don't have what you are interested in lens wise. Of course, I guess no one really knows that going in. My photography has changed so much over the years. I do think your advice is good though.
Beautiful photo. I think what I'm learning here is that YOU can get good photos no matter what camera or lens you have 😉
Thanks.
I think there is a lot of photography that is highly dependent on good image quality- wildlife comes to mind, where people like to see all the details where, you normally would not in real life. There is so much difficulty getting in close, getting lighting that is not crappy, having enough light. For a while I was taking a drive every weekend to the state park where above photo was taken, trying to get a shot of a bald eagle during the winter migration. To and from was 150 plus miles. I went almost every weekend all winter for a while without a single good shot with any of those cameras.
Once I got the D7000 and 70-300mm I got a few okay shots of perched eagles. With that same combo I tried to get a good shot of a dragonfly in flight- 2 years of working at it. Within a week or two I got a shot with the 300mm F4 on the D7000 because the focus was SO much faster. the 70-300 wasn't even that bad. The ISO on those old cameras would not even go up to to that high (5K) and if it did, would not have been usable.The 300 prime has much nicer details I kind of doubt that older body would even resolve them. It was a step up to the D7200- but not so huge.
If you had ideal lighting- which where I live is almost never (kind of like ideal weather), then I think the older body would fair better.
Would the 300 prime fair better than the zoom on the older body- for sure-. I only shot the zoom at max aperture of f8 (much sharper and little to no CA than wide open), the prime I shoot at f4 all the time.
That's 4 times as much light going to the sensor- you could shoot at ISO 400 as opposed to 800- which would be a big deal on one of those cameras.
But that aside. Not all photography is dependent on image quality and sometimes the experience counts too. The entry level DSLRS at least the Nikons have spectacular image quality. But I would not trade a single one for the D7K - even though the sensor was probably better.
There are so many different aspects of photography where any old body might be fine. Raelly think about it, Lightroom has a slider for grain now- as in to increase it.
