40D for IR Photos?

[mak65]

I find I am very interested in infrared photography. I know LifePixel has reduced their conversion rates and I was wondering if a Canon 40D would be a good candidate for this?

I currently have a 50D (not IR) for photography and would like something similar. But, a used 40D is less than a used 50D. I realize there is a reduction in pixels and a few other features.

Thoughts?

Thanks in advance.

[groovyone]

Should work great. I use a 5 year old 10 MP A100 and have no complaints. One of the rebels would be good as well. Typically you won't be worried about framerate or AF speed with IR.

[crbeveri]

20D 30D or 40D would be great for an IR. Like Keith said (and he knows) there are no problems with using an older camera. Personally after owning a 50D and using a friends 40D a lot I prefer the 40D over the 50D. But that's just me.

[SueGirl]

Sure it will work... But ...
keep in mind how you will do Wide Landscapes and your lenes.
Not all Lenes are good IR canidates - there are lists of what lenes are best
for IR and given model. Some produce Hot Spots and excess flair.

I may get a next gen 5D MK III and then convert my classic 5D to a full IR camera.
I would only do IR in FF because when I think wide landscape I think FF.

[shnitz]

When I started with Canon, I used a 10D. I still see some photographers using that model camera when I'm out and about. If you're worried that the 40D's features are too old and obsolete to effectively do photography, then you are listening way too much to Canon's marketing department.

Just to highlight this, the 40D came out in 2007. It's predecessors the 10D and D60 came out in, respectively, 2003 and 2002, and they're both 6 megapixel.
Flickr: Canon D60
Flickr: Canon EOS 10D
Looks like someone forgot to tell these photographers that they have such crappy cameras.

[mak65]

Thanks for the comments thus far. I hope I didn't mislead anyone.

I wasn't implying I don't want an older model of any kind. I'm looking for a camera to convert to IR that I would be comfortable using. I love my 50D and know the panel configuration by heart. The 40D is practically a mirror image so I am leaning that direction. Since I haven't used a 40D I wanted other's opinions. I'm intrigued by Chris' comment that he prefers the 40D over the 50D since I have never compared them through actual use.

I have nothing against older models. And, by no means was I discounting the 30D or other models. I don't do vast landscapes (I tend to see the tree not the forest). So, even an older FF could fit my needs but FF is not a requirement I feel I need to fill.

When I upgraded from an old Rebel to the 50D the model was on its way out. I could have purchased a 60D or even the 7D but they have one thing I would never use - video.

Keep the ideas coming.

[darktiger]

I think it would be a decent IR camera.. I opted to do a G11 because I did want to carry to many SLR bodies with me.....

[groovyone]

Originally Posted by mak65

Thanks for the comments thus far. I hope I didn't mislead anyone.

I wasn't implying I don't want an older model of any kind. I'm looking for a camera to convert to IR that I would be comfortable using. I love my 50D and know the panel configuration by heart. The 40D is practically a mirror image so I am leaning that direction. Since I haven't used a 40D I wanted other's opinions. I'm intrigued by Chris' comment that he prefers the 40D over the 50D since I have never compared them through actual use.

I have nothing against older models. And, by no means was I discounting the 30D or other models. I don't do vast landscapes (I tend to see the tree not the forest). So, even an older FF could fit my needs but FF is not a requirement I feel I need to fill.

When I upgraded from an old Rebel to the 50D the model was on its way out. I could have purchased a 60D or even the 7D but they have one thing I would never use - video.

Keep the ideas coming.

I do shoot landscape in IR and do not think FF is a requirement, but Sue does have a point anout some lenses being better than others. I cannot speak for Canon lenses, but I am sure someone can give a good heads up on which ones are ggood for IR and which ones are not.

If you like the 40D, go for it. I certainly understand the controls familiarity being a bonus. I opted for an A100 over the better A700 because of cost and weight. I also felt kind of bad converting a perfectly good A700 at the time. These days though, I would not feel bad since it has been about 2 years since I did it.

[shnitz]

I didn't mean to be harsh on you; I just don't buy the notion of "not good enough" when it comes to photography. I hate someone wanting to get into it, and then they're recommended, "Well, unless you have the latest and greatest, you aren't going to go anywhere."

Which is why I also highly disagree with the FF for landscape argument. Full-frame is a format. APS is a different format, and it is no more correct to use one over the other. There are even smaller formats than that which people are using very successfully for landscape, including point and shoots! There are no shortage of lenses for either APS or full-frame that work astoundingly well for pretty much any situation. Just as easily as Sue derides APS for landscape, I can deride full-frame, because its lenses are not as wide as medium or large format. I don't think that any serious landscape photographers think of full-frame digital when they think of landscapes; they're either thinking bigger, or thinking smaller. And if you want to bring lens quality into the equation: Schneider and Zeiss, who I would arguably call the two best lens-makers in the world, have both committed to the m4/3 format (Olympus, Panasonic), which is even smaller than APS.

What Chris says with regards to the 50D was happening just as I was getting out of Canon. They had been playing too much of the "Better stats that someone shopping at Best Buy or Wal-mart would fall for, like megapixels" game, and the 50D scored lower than the 40D in many online sensor tests. It was just a too-tightly packed sensor, and it had unacceptable noise. Doing a quick google search to point you towards an example:
Comparing the Canon 40D and Canon 50D | Serious Amateur Photography
40D vs 50D noise comparison...yes another one! - Canon Digital Photography Forums
I don't have any personal experience with this, so I can't state on this issue one way or another; I just know that the argument's out there. I have seen a lot of 7D users around that have bought the camera almost exclusively for video work, so it does seem that Canon is leaning on the bells and whistles a bit. It hasn't really gotten my heart racing, or made previous models obsolete (like the 5D Mk II did over the 5D). I'd be just as happy with a 40D as any other Canon APS for traditional photography.

[RexGig]

Commonality of controls makes good sense, to me. The 40D is still a very fine camera. I sometimes think I upgraded just a little too quickly, from a pre-owned XTi to pre-owned 40D to a new 7D within five months. In an effort to have two work cameras with identical controls, I recently purchased a second, pre-owned, 7D body. In hindsight, I would be just as happy today if I had stopped at the 40D level, and bought myself a second 40D. I don't find myself using the video capability, and the 7D makes files larger than I need at
this time.

I prefer the ergonomics of the 7D's controls, and the Q button has been very handy, so I am not feeling buyer's remorse, but I liked the 40D's controls just fine when it and the XTi were all I knew. I have no plans to sell my 40D.

As of last October, my first photography instructor, Christopher Duncan, was still happy with his 40D, indicating he had seen no reason, at that point in time, to upgrade.

[FireHeart Photography]

on the lifepixel site they have a list of the cameras and issues you might have with them - check it - I thought the 40d had issues with light leaking... not sure but I would check - I use my 30d with a calberated 17-40 on it ... you have to deal with flare with any IR conversion... nothing that a small reflector can't manage. Make sure you have the calabrate your lens as this is really important to get sharp images.

[mak65]

Originally Posted by FireHeart Photography

on the lifepixel site they have a list of the cameras and issues you might have with them - check it - I thought the 40d had issues with light leaking... not sure but I would check - I use my 30d with a calberated 17-40 on it ... you have to deal with flare with any IR conversion... nothing that a small reflector can't manage. Make sure you have the calabrate your lens as this is really important to get sharp images.

Thanks for the note. I had seen this too.

From the LifePixel website -- "* Canon DRebel XTi (400D), XSi (450D), XS (1000D), T1i (500D), T2i (550D), 40D, 50D, 60D, 7D - Require ultra thin filters and because of this the Deep BW filter for these model will still have a little visible light leakage. In order to obtain a pure BW image you may need to set your camera to capture in BW mode."