Review of Canon 40D/17-55 vs XTi/17-85 after trips to China
 

I restarted my photography hobby in fall of 2006 when I bought the Canon Digital Rebel XTi (400D) for a trip to Hong Kong, and then Yunnan, China. My first dSLR. I also bought an used Canon 17-85IS lens and a new 10-22 wide angle. I didn't bring my 430EX flash nor my other lenses that time.

I hadn't appreciated the benefits of shooting RAW at that time, so everything was shot in JPEG. Here are the Yunnan photos:

rkkwan.zenfolio.com/f334779450/

After a subsequent trip to Italy, I sold the 17-85IS for about the same price I paid for it, and upgraded to Canon's 17-55/2.8IS. Then this past fall, I sold the XTi and upgraded to the 40D.

I just came back from a trip to Hong KOng and Sichuan. I took all my lenses - 17-55, 10-22, 50/1.4 and 70-300IS to Hong Kong, but only the 17-55 and the 10-22 to Sichuan. I also took my 430EX flash.

rkkwan.zenfolio.com/f1048124216/

Here's my comparison of the 40D vs XTi and 17-55 vs 17-85.

<b>40D vs XTi (400D)</b>

The 40D is a much more substantial camera than the XTi, which means bigger and heavier. That's a big minus for traveling, though I attenuate the situation somewhat with a new camera bag, the Six Million Dollar Home from Crumpler. I also have an Op-tech strap and the Habuka Grip LH to help with carrying and securing the 40D. After a few days, I start to forget about the XTi's virtue in this area.

There are many feature upgrades from the XTi to the 40D (though many of them are now on the brand new XSi). What I find most substantial include:

- Better focusing. I usually only use the center focusing point, and this point is fast, accurate, and works in very low light. Much fewer of my pictures are out of focus, and when they are, they're due to user error. The extra AF button also makes the process easier for me.

- Higher sensitivity. It has ISO3200, and its noise at 800 and 1600 are lower than on the XTi. I could take pictures from a moving car at dusk and still get acceptable shots.

- Better viewfinder. Significantly larger and brighter. I also swapped in the optional gridded focusing screen to help aligning the horizon. ISO numbers also great addition.

- Live View. Some may think it's a gimmick, but it's useful to take candid pictures with the camera hanging down my neck.

- Larger LCD and very fast loading of pictures from the card. When visiting the rural poorer areas, showing the kids their picture on the large LCD will always make them very happy and many will want more pictures taken of them.

- Larger capacity battery. Last much longer than the one in the XTi. Very comfortable with just having one spare even on days that I shoot over 400 frames.

Now, many of those features have been implemented on the new XSi, so the benefit of a 40D over a XSi is not as apparent. But with 40D prices starting to come down while XSi is new, the price difference also isn't that big.

One of the new features on the 40D that I thought would see more use are the three Custom Presets. I had it set for outdoor, indoor, and action criteria. I don't know why I didn't use them more often, though I probably should have; at least for the one I set for action.

Now image quality. I can't compare with the shots I took in Oct 2006, as I was shooting only JPEG then. But compared to more recent shots I shot in RAW on the XTi, there isn't a significant difference in image quality, apart from the higher sensitivity. One thing I did notice is the higher dynamic range. When processing the RAW files, I can pull back up to 2-stops of blown highlights when necessary.

17-55 vs 17-85 coming up.

Thanks, rkkwan. I've had a 20D for three years now, and am thinking about an upgrade. Am curious about why you chose the 40D rather than the 5D.

beachbum - Very easy answer. The 10-22 and 17-55 are both EF-S. I will not give up these excellent lens to move to full frame.

And also, even though the prices for the 5D has come down a bit, it's still at least twice the 40D.

<b>17-55/2.8IS vs 17-85/4-5.6IS</b>

On paper, the Canon's 17-85 seems like a winner. Perfect zoom range for travel, useful image stabilization, and a reasonable price. However, I've read enough poor reviews of it in 2006 that I decided to buy a used one on eBay to test it first. I took it on two long trips, and then sold it. Main reason is the unacceptable barrel distortion at its wide end. I found that during my trip to Italy, I was swapping to the 10-22 all the time whenever I want something wider than about 22-24mm; but then I would lose IS.

The 17-55/2.8IS is much bigger and heavier, and cost twice as much. The pedal hood is also very large. All not good for travel. However, I think this lens is worth its 90-some thousand pennies.

- f/2.8 together with IS means almost night-vision capability even when handholding the camera.

- This lens is sharp, even at f/2.8 or 4. Compared to the 17-85, I'm using a lot less sharpening later on to get excellent details, even when pixel-peeping.

- Contrast is also significantly better than the 17-85 when shooting in back-lit situation. I only saw flare in one situation when I was almost shooting into the sun.

- Bokeh may not compare to the best primes, but for a zoom, I think it produces some of the better ones. Here's one example from my trip to Hong Kong last May. The out-of-focus light sources appear round and even:

rkkwan.zenfolio.com/p400104934/?photo=517680624

So, what I don't like about this lens besides its size and weight?

- For something costing this much, I would like it to be weather sealed. Instead, it is literally a vacuum cleaner, and at this moment, Canon is cleaning it for me under warranty.

- The large diameter means the internal flash is useless at most focal length. I didn't bring a flash last time to China, and I have no choice this time. It's a nature of a wide aperture lens, not a design flaw.

Yeah, that 10-22mm lens is my favorite. Hate to have to give it up, but wonder what I'd get for it in exchange for the 16-35mm f/2.8L. I've seen the 5D body for as low as $939 on some internet sites.

Under $1,000 for a 5D? I would be pretty suspicious. Though it may be more credible after Canon releases its successor. Many were expecting it this week, but Canon instead announced the XSi/450D.

The 10-22 definitely retains its value. Should have no problem getting good money for it. But a 16-35L II is not cheap either, though the 17-40L/4 is also very very nice. Just one stop slower.

rkkwan, thanks for the review, its very interesting. I own the Digital Rebel and have thought about upgrading, but don't want to spend the money, and the size/weight is a huge drawback to me. I have that 10-22 as well, and I love it. I use the 28-135 for general purpose photos and think that's pretty good as well.

I'm curious about your comment on the focus. I often have unfocused pictures with my Rebel, and I had assumed it was mostly user error. but are you suggesting that some of it is because the rebel isn't accurate enough? had you discovered any particular tricks to avoid this problem?

nothing worse than finding a bunch of fuzzy photos. And the lcd display on the rebel is really not big enough to see if if the picture is really sharp.

china_cat: I am not an expert on this, but I feel like the focusing is improved in at least two ways.

One is the high sensitivity of the center focusing point. Especially with my 17-55 with the large 2.8 aperture, it can get focus even in very dark or low contrast situation accurately and quickly. It will not send the lens to keep hunting for focus, where I will have miss the shot or get a out-of-focus shot.

The other probably has to do with tolerance. You know that after you focus on a subject, if you release the shutter and press again to focus, the focus ring may actually move to a slightly different focusing point; and the camera will consider both &quot;in focus&quot; or &quot;good enough&quot;. It's subjective, but pixel-peeping at the pictures, I feel like the 40D have tighter tolerance for what it considers &quot;in focus&quot; than the XTi.

I don't shot action or use AI Servo much, but in a different comparison, I took pictures with my 70-300IS on a Turbojet ferry between Hong Kong and Macau in May with the XTi, and in Jan with the 40D. With the 40D, AI Servo with all focusing points active, literally every single shot of the ferries (about 100MPH of closing speed between my ferry and the other coming towards us) are in-focus. Very impressed. I'll post pictures later on.

china_cat:

The LCD of the 40D is large, but not very high resolution (unlike the Nikon D300 or Sony alpha-700). Many people complain one still can't check focus with it. Since I shoot RAW, I actually set my Picture Style (which is on newer Canons like the XTi and XSi) to maximum sharpness to get a better representation on the LCD (along with minimum contrast to more closely resemble what may be recorded on the RAW file).

Some more comments:

- I also like the ergonomics of the 40D better. Besides the new AF-ON button, I'm definitely glad to get the Quick Dial back (which is on my film Elan). When I review a shot and find the exposure off, I can quickly spin the dial and reshoot. Much easier than on the XTi.

- The ISO button is very situated for the index finger. For me, that's one setting that I change the most often when shooting. Very handy.

I have the 17-55 on my 20d and am very pleased with its performance.

One thing you might try cut down dust -- use a uv or haze filter. This cover the ports, or so I've read. At any rate, no dust yet.

Have no plans to upgrade the camera until my capabilities exceed its potential, or it wears out. No plans to go full frame at all.

I have been in the camp of &quot;no UV filter&quot; lately. Good quality UV filter for 77mm costs a bundle. I can send it to Canon to have it clean twice for that money. And even the best quality filter will cause some flare and some loss of contrast, even though the effect is very small.

I use a lens hood most of the time, and find that it provides me with enough protection. Except for the dust, that is.

Update: The 17-55/2.8IS has come back from the Irvine, CA service center. Total turn around time: just over a week. Not bad.

I may have missed it, but did you compare trigger speed between the two -- i.e. how quickly after you press the button does it take the photo? Cheaper digital cameras, that are still pretty expensive, are still way too slow for my itchy finger.

And, if I may ask, what is the price differential here? Did you purchase on line or in a store?

soccr - I never felt a shutter lag with the XTi, so I can't say I can tell the difference between it and the 40D.

I usually buy my photographic stuff online. But for the 40D, because I wanted it very soon after it came out, I actually got the kit at Circuit City with the 28-135 lens. I purchased a CC 10% coupon on ebay for a few dollars, and then sold the 28-135 lens on Amazon Marketplace. Ended up paying about $1,150 for the 40D body at that time, after going through all the trouble.