Canon EOS 40D review

There’s no denying Canon’s success at the amateur end of the DSLR market. The EOS 350D (web ID: 72900) and 400D (web ID: 97741) made good impressions when they arrived. But while the low and high ends of the market arguably belong to Canon, the mid-range has long been owned by Nikon with its superb D200 and, below that, the D80. Canon’s mid-range effort, the 30D, didn’t offer enough to sway users looking for more than an entry-level camera without spending well over a thousand pounds.

But the new EOS 40D is a very significant step-up for those looking for more than the 400D can offer. The 40D’s skeleton is made from magnesium alloy instead of plastic. The result feels incredibly tough, and at 146mm wide it’s better suited to adult hands. Not only does it feel as if it will stand the kind of catastrophic mishap that occasionally strikes cameras, but its toughness is appropriate to a semi-professional piece of equipment.

The 40D’s resolution is the same as the 400D’s, courtesy of the 10.1-megapixel sensor, giving enough pixels to print at up to 13 x 8in at 300dpi. Our test photos shone: colours are reproduced accurately and there’s plenty of detail in the background. But image quality isn’t markedly better than the 400D’s admittedly good output. The CMOS sensor is the same physical size and, coupled with the high pixel count, this means noise is a touch higher than the venerable 350D’s, with noticeable amounts creeping in at ISOs as low as 400. It isn’t dreadfully disruptive, but will be an annoyance for those looking to upgrade their 400D for better image quality.

The key difference between the 40D and other cameras around this price is its burst speed. Canon claims a 6.5fps maximum: in five seconds, we managed to snap 34 shots for a real-world result of 6.8fps. Canon’s claims of 75 top-quality JPEGs in continuous drive mode proved equally modest: the 40D captured 188 frames before the buffer filled. Even in RAW mode, the 40D captured 20 frames before it was exhausted. There are other useful drive modes besides, including a lower-speed continuous option for better control of burst shooting. With the fastest option selected, we found ourselves accidentally grabbing a few shots when one would have done the trick.

The 40D sports a 3in LCD. With 230,000 pixels, it offers plenty of detail for reviewing images, and it’s bright to boot. The 40D is also the cheapest Canon DSLR to offer Live Preview. Enable it in the menu system and press the Set button in the middle of the control dial, and the mirror flips up. The CMOS transmits what it sees directly to the LCD. It never proved more than mildly useful, though. Manual focusing is also slightly harder through Live Preview.

The rest of the 40D’s controls are excellent. The top-mounted secondary LCD, sorely missed in the 400D, displays at-a-glance shooting information. The control dial on the back in conjunction with the dial just behind the shutter release allows various changes to be made without needing to dip into the menu system. Drive mode, ISO, white balance and focus mode can all be changed without needing the main menu system, which is useful in those situations where battery life is marginal. It also makes selecting a new mode quicker, which is useful if things are changing in front of you.

The 40D’s predecessor, the 30D, came with the same 18-55mm lens that accompanies the 400D. Slow and prone to chromatic aberrations, it was never suitable for a high-end body, and the 17-85mm f/4-f/5.6 USM IS lens that comes with the 40D is far more appropriate. Coaxing chromatic aberrations out of it is tricky even in very high-contrast situations. The stabilisation is a useful plus as well, allowing you to shoot up to three stops slower for hand-held shots.
If you already own a 400D and a growing collection of Canon equipment, the 40D is a worthy upgrade. It’s significantly faster, adds a secondary LCD and offers much better handling courtesy of its increased size. But if you’re simply looking for a semi-professional DSLR, it’s still hard to see past the charms of the Nikon D80. The Nikon offering is less suitable for sports photography and doesn’t offer a stabilised kit lens. It also has less convincing build quality, but it’s still rugged enough to survive most calamities. Unless you really need semi-professional build quality, the D80 is still a better buy for those who haven’t yet bought into either of the big two’s camera systems.