I like my 40D. Picked it up last year and have easily shot over 10K pictures to-date. No problems. I think I purchased the same 17-85mm kit. Grabbed various other lenses as well to complete the focal range.

It's worked well in the rain and snow. (Used a Kata cover E-702) I was quite surprised when I saw people out with their cams with no cover and umbrellas are not a solution.

An upcoming trip for three months will see the camera in heat and humidity, so we'll see how it fares.

While it's cool that there's camera reviews on Gizmodo, when it comes to reviewing gear that is generally the next step on an amateur's list, I'd expect such a summary won't really sell someone on a $1400 investment without a more in depth review such as the one available on dpreview.com.

The thing is, for the entry level prosumer, the Rebel XSi is the do-all. For the slightly advanced prosumer, the 40D is an ideal compromise, while for the prosumer stepping into pro area, the D300 is the entry level to the pro arena. For the price differences and features, XSi to 40D is a small step but XSi (or XTi for all intensive purposes) to D300 is too big a step. For the prosumer, Nikon makes some things harder than they need to be, while for the pro, Canon sets the bar a bit too high with the 5D and 1D. While definitely a compromise, the 40D is a great middle-point for pretty much everything.

I must ask though, how do you feel about the Sony Alpha series?

The "wonky" AF would be helped by a faster lens (say the 17-55mm f2.8 IS)

or even better fast normal prime like canon's 28mm f1.8 or sigma's 30mm f1.4

I absolutely love my 40D. The image quality is spot on and the custom functions are a lifesaver for creating quick presets for image styles. Can't even imagine going back to my old flimsy feeling XT now.

The 40D will autofocus in LiveView. I do think that it needs to be enabled in the custom functions though...

the 30D also has the H ISO option upping it to ISO 3200. this has to be enabled in the custom functions, like the 40D...

@electrikecho: Of course. These were only my two cents.

Thanks all for the corrections and wisdom, keep passing em on.

@oyumurtaci: Wilson loves the Alpha. Says it almost does too much, though. Email him, he'll tell you more. I'm not sure I can recommend a company only partially in the cam game for dslr level equipment.

I can't travel without my 40D. I bought the same kit and a Sigma 18-55 f2.8 EX lens as well as the Canon Speedlite 580 EX II flash, plus the Batter Grip for the 40D, the eye piece extender, the wrist strap, and a shieldzone LCD protector kit that protects the LCDs on the back and the top. I topped it off with a nice and super fast 4gb UDMA Belkin Devices CF card. I love this setup. It served me really well on my last trip to the tropics.

BTW, PhysicsMan is right about LiveView:

Custom Function III; 6 - AF during Live View Shooting : Enable
You can autofocus anytime you want with liveview.
Push the AF-On button and it will drop the mirror and reaquire focus. When it beeps let off the button.

Credit to evoryware who is a reader in PhotoCamel ([photocamel.com])

@burningsensation: Are you refering to the Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM Lens? I'm ready to buy my first prime and would like to buy a speedy one but don't want to spend a fortune. I think I can pick one of those in my local camera store for about $380.00 new.

If your looking for a DSLR and havn't invested in Nikon and Canon yet, you have to give Sony a chance.

Consider that film has almost nothing to do with digital. Film was a chemistry set, digital is a computer with a lens on it. Canon is in a good spot because they made copiers, and Sony for video. A digital slr is more like a photo copier than a film camera.

Also, when it comes to lenses every manufacturer has quality glass and it all costs a lot. So look at what gives you the best features for your dollar, how about useful live view and in camera stabilization for the same price?

40D uses what's called contrast detection to simulate focus, when the mirror comes down it kicks in the real focus sensor, Sony's way always uses the real focus sensor. Live view from Nikon and Canon will also cut your shutter life in half (100k -> 50k) cause each live view shot is two shutter cycles, also runs sensor hot constatly (overheats and shuts off camera), plus you loose a lot of speed and can't use live view in burst mode.

@BLam: 18-85mm lens? is that the version only available in japan or something? =)

@apeguero:
I've got the 30mm f/1.4 on my D300 and LOVE it. the thing is super fast and super quiet, and for under $400 is quite a contributing piece of glass for me (I haven't really used anything else other than that and the 70-200 f/2.8 VR. It is bigger and heavier than I thought it was, but that's a good thing, duh!

Love my 40D, chose it OVER the Nikon. Most of my reasoning has all ready been hit upon in other comments, but if you really want a professional, detailed camera review, go to DCResource.

now I'm confused...is the canon 18-85 lens a fable or real?

I'm a bit confused as well.

I thought the kit lens was an EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM lens?

[www.amazon.com]

@Brian Lam: While I agree that the Sony line tries to be the best of all worlds (and therefore compromises a lot in the process), I wouldn't say they're exactly newbies in the cam business. Sure the point and shoots have been around since forever and that's a whole different segment, but they have been developing SLR sensors for a while now (hello Nikon, how would you like your pixels today?) and the acquisition of Konika-Minolta means they have a historically sound base to stand upon. Adding Zeiss optics into the mix was also smart, and considering the pro video experience Sony has, it's not that far a step to the DSLR market really. All of this aside though, I understand your skepticism and will pass on poking Wilson on this one, as I'm familiar with most camera models (occupational hazard).

@vagrant: Regarding using gear without a cover in rain or snow, it depends on the conditions. Light rain without strong winds or non-blizzard snow, I am fine traveling out with my D200 (weather sealed) and my 70-200 ƒ2.8 (also sealed). If it is terribly windy and precipitating, I usually avoid going out to shoot. I am not a pro, I am not getting paid. ;)

I am not saying Nikon > Canon, but different cameras have different features.

Wow, a long time to wait to do a lightening review of the 40D!

I love my 40D very much. I love it even more than my Rebel XT which I still have (and unfortunately ignore). The my 17-55 2.8 IS and 70-200 2.8L IS both love my 40D more with its better focus engine and improved center point focus. Capturing high speed shots is no problem and the 6.5 fps is not super fast, but fast enough for the average user. The 3" LCD is bright, clear, very useful when you set it to display camera settings (instead of the window on top by the shutter button). The build quality is solid and is one of the best.

Remember, it's the LENS that is more important than anything else. Having good glass (which usually costs more than the body itself) will help resolve detail in those pics. Kit lens is passable, but definitely does not compare to a pro lens. Camera bodies come and go, and will eventually depreciate a lot. Higher end lenses themselves retain 80-90% of its value over time if it is in excellent condition. Can't say that much for my little XT getting dusty in my camera bag.

Note that for DSLRs almost as much as for the old film SLRs, the purchase price of the camera body itself is likely to fade into the background compared with the price of lenses.

For this reason, the significant price premium of the D300 - $US1800, versus $US1150 or so for an EOS-40D - really isn't important, unless you already have a bunch of Canon lenses.

If you've got a lens collection already, then just the hassle of selling your old lenses and buying new replacements is unlikely to compensate for the advantages of any new camera body in anything like the same class as your old one. You're not actually likely to lose as much money as you might think, because fools-and-their-money are plentiful in the used-lens market. But you've got to seriously enjoy the whole swap-meet photography scene to make this worthwhile.

If you don't already have a significant number of lenses for one kind of camera, though, then the lens-to-body price ratio means that there really isn't a very meaningful difference between the price of the Nikon and Canon midrange cameras. If you want the best performance right now there's a very good case to be made for the Nikon. And if Canon or Sony have the camera-tech advantage in the future, don't worry about five hundred bucks one way or another; add up the price of the body and a few decent lenses and that won't amount to much of a percentage difference.

The other situation in which the price of the body is important is if you don't actually intend to buy more than one or two lenses for your new DSLR. In which case, you very probably shouldn't actually be buying a DSLR in the first place. Get over your Freudian self, and buy a cheaper, easier-to-carry integrated-lens camera instead. A cheap 35mm film back, an f/1.8 50mm and no other lenses at all is a perfectly defensible photographic option, but a $2000 DSLR plus the kit zoom and an off-brand 30-300mm may be big and bulky and masculine-looking, but is unlikely to give you better results than a point-and-shoot.

Oh another thing, wait for deals or buy used. Most people who are into photography understand that photography equipment is expensive, so they usually treat them with care. Buying used can save you a few hundred dollars sometimes. I know I've saved enough to make it worth my while to upgrade a few lenses. Also, there are always coupon deals for large websites (Dell, Amazon, BB, etc), wait for these deals to get maximum discount. Usually DSLR photography gear does not go on sale that often, so it's wise to wait for rebates or look for coupons. Prime example: In November 2007, I got my 40D from Dell.com ($1499) with a 20% and 10% stackable coupon, got free shipping, sold the 28-135 IS kit lens (for $385 b/c I didn't need it) and ended up only paying about $760 for the body (when the cost of the body at the time was $1299)

@Daniel Rutter: agree

I use only "L" lenses for my 5D (few other choices since it's full-frame)

the body is not as important as the lenses you have--an old body can be swapped for a new one with better technology/features, but good lenses remain the core.

As to which camera brand is the best...well, they all have their own charms. I love my manual Nikon, I love my Canon DSLR, and I love my automatic Contax RF. They all take great pictures. And if I'm left with nothing else, my iPhone works well. So what's best is what you have at the moment.

I love all these comments...

Amongst others, I have the Sigma f/1.4 30mm prime lens that has been discussed in a few of the other comments (in case you're wondering, it's this one - [www.sigmaphoto.com]), and highly recommend something like it, no matter what brand of body you intend to put it on.

The flexibility that you get from its performance in low light is (for the price, under US$400) pretty useful. Photographing kids indoors without flash or 7-11-blindness-inducing-level lighting is nice. The 30mm x1.6 is roughly equivalent to a 50mm on a full-frame sensor, which is also handy.

There's an interesting comparison of using Nikon & Canon setups over at [www.luminous-landscape.com] .

I am using it for some 6 Month
And i think shes great :-)
I am using the 50mm 1.8 Len - which can solve all your low light problem
(OR the 50 mm 1.4 for that matter)
although i dont have a ZOOM , I found the after shotting Croping option enough.

Gizzy... why are you doing a review on a camera thats been on the market for a while??? A little too late don't ya think???

Daniel, I've been a hobby photographer for most of my life and have always been most comfortable with the SLR style.

When I converted to digital, I first used my Canon XL1 MiniDV camera as my still camera because it created nicer images than the digital still cameras of the time (which were very primitive).

I next bought a Nikon CoolPix 900, and found it awkward and difficult to take good pictures with, thanks to the poor optical viewfinder and the hard to use manual controls.

When I switched to a Canon EOS D30 digital SLR, I found it a far, far better experience even though I only own one lens, the 28-135 IS. I have never removed that lens from my camera, even once, and yet thanks to the clear, through the lens optical viewfinder and easy to use manual focus and zoom, I've been able to compose great pictures.

I am now planning to replace that camera, probably with a Nikon D300 with their 18-200 VR lens, and I anticipate taking even better pictures with it. Higher usable ISO, faster operation and a much wider zoom range are the main things I'm looking forward to with the new camera. I expect that the 18-200 lens, again, will probably be the only lens I will use with the camera.

I agree with you that I am not getting the ultimate image quality by doing this. But I think that in most cases, if you ever want to use manual focus, have more direct control over your zoom, and want to occasionally use manual exposure, the DSLR is still your best choice even if you see no need to ever change lenses.

I could certainly save a lot of money if I was wrong about this! But my understanding is that even high-end point and shoot cameras lack through the lens viewing and manual focus/zoom rings and as a result the DSLR is the best option for me even though I don't change my lens.

I'm posting this primarily because I think many people might decide you were right and a point and shoot would be better for them without recognizing the advantages of through the lens viewing and good manual controls in picture composition.

Your thoughts?

D

@chopstickhero: I'm going to second you on the glass statement. While it's something that amateurs/prosumers hear all the time, it can't be emphasized enough that the glass makes all the difference.

I purchased my 40D a few months ago, and went all out with the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS. My buddy, who owns an XT, was fretting cause my camera was taking a much sharper picture than his stock setup. He was convinced that he had to go out and get a new body, until I put my lens on his camera. The picture quality was exactly the same once my lens was on his XT.

Yes, it's hard to fathom spending $1000+ on a lens, especially when you shelled out that much on the camera body itself. But, if you market your photography at all, you need to invest in glass.

Lens Rentals.com lets you rent great lenses for a variety of time frames (3 days all the way up to a month at a time). If you want to see just how much difference an L series lens makes, drop $50 for a week rental. As anyone who uses an L series can agree, the first time you see a shot taken with a great lens, you're hooked.

The lens really makes a difference. That said, current 40D's come with a 28-135mm kit lens that's half way decent and better than kit lenses that were previously availabe with the 30/40D. Focusing in low-light situations is tough for any camera, but the Canon 40D sadly does not come with an AF assist lamp and strobes the built-in flash instead.

With regards to Sony, they have made some fine new bodies, but their lens choice continues to be rediculously thin and will not be taken seriously until that situation improves. You can have the best body in the world but people won't buy it if they can't find the lens they want. Canon and Nikon didn't get to where they are by building sub-par cameras, so whether a DSLR is closer to a film camera or a copying machine is a moot point.

At first I thought the 18-200mm VR lens that comes with the new D300 was going to be awesome, especially after handling one and seeing how compact the lens is.

But as with all optics, there are indeed tradeoffs with this lens. After reading some reviews of the lens, I now think it is a rather poor choice unless point-and-shoot quality is all you care for. The lens has serious issues with telephoto resolution, chromatic abberation, and severe geometry distortion at all focal lengths. Typically the summaries are of the "not bad for the range" type, but if a large focal range is the only benefit this lens can claim, then we are back to square 1 of being the jack of all trades but master of none.

@froboy:
Pleased to see someone else talking about short depth of field in these forums - someone recently had a go at me for that. Where I come from it's what we say.

That lens sounds great, by the way.

@Nirtaz: Or the 50mm f/1.2 L for that matter.

y'all have too much $$

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and Canon 50mm f/1.8 for me, xti body for me

@MrBlahBlah: Communist hippie. Get a job.

Max, I suspect - but do not know, since i don't yet have the lens - that if you're traveling and don't have the space or the strength to carry huge, heavy lenses, a picture taken with the 18-200 is far better than no picture at all, which is the real alternative.

If I wanted roughly the same range as the 18-200 on top-quality glass, it seems like I would need the $1,419.95 18-55 lens, and the $900 80-200 f/2.8 monstrosity. That's great, but it looks like I'd also need a bunch of sherpas to carry them around. And of course those two lenses alone make the 18-200 VR look cheap, especially since Nikon's taking $300 off the total when you buy a D300 and the VR together, as I plan to.

Seems like maybe there are two types of people: The folks who notice what's in the image, and the folks who notice it has pincushion distortion and chromatic aberration. I suspect I will be taking pictures for the former and not the latter.

I'm more a photojournalist style photographer than a studio pro. I know you need the best glass in the world for the latter, but the handiest glass might trump the best when you're wandering around finding things to shoot spontaneously, which is my personal style.

It seems like the 18-200 should be ideal for me.

Of course if anyone has examples of how awful this lens is, and comparisons of it with "real" lenses, I'd be very interested to see them.

D

That sounds like a vote for Nikon, although I'll admit to being a total fanboy.

My first DSLR is the Sony A350 w/18-250 lens. I skipped the normal kit lens. I plan to fill in the lens selection with whatever I can find inexpensively (I wish:-)) but take great pictures. In addition to the Sony Lens selection, Minolta AF lenses will fit and are well respected.

October 2007 called; they want their review back.

@DavidDennis: I agree with your point about the portability of this lens. Having the ability to take 18mm *AND* 200mm shots in the same compact lens is definitely the strong selling point of this lens. And really its performance ain't that bad.

But my point is that "ain't that bad" in this case involves some serious compromises and perhaps to some people, having superior image quality is more important than having a long focal range. A do-it-all lens is only valuable if it works as well as individual good quality lenses - which this 18-200mm VR lens does not.

You can make fun of the "pincushion people" if you want, just wait until the first time someone asks you why that building in your picture looks like it's about to fold in on itself. Fact is, people judge your photographs at face value, they don't take your camera gear into consideration - they don't care why, they just know that trees aren't supposed to have a purple glow about them.

If you seriously think 1 lens will be "it" for your DSLR photography needs, well, enjoy your 18-200mm.

@DavidDennis:
David I agree with you 100% on this.
Am I getting better glass? yes, but I am not going to trip all over my self getting it.
And I do not have buildings folding all over the place either with the Glass that I use , the one that you are getting!
Personal attacks is not the answer as the one guy seems to use as an answer in stead of showing you with glass.
I say if you like what you have then go for it.
You will be glad you did