That would be interesting to see how that is done... The nice part about this purchase is that I am selling my older camera and with my renter giving me money then I will wind up not really losing any money at all.
I havent tried the 40d. And I am probably not even worth commenting on a 50d (I am still learning, and have no ribbons).. but I did try a 50d for a week or so before getting the D90. I thought it had worse noise performance for same settings than a D90. OTOH, I have heard nothing but great things about the 40d. Now that I think about it... had I tried 40d instead of the 50d, I prob wont have switched... but I dont complain now... love the D90:-)
From what I have read/heard/experienced, 50d = 40d + (more MP, HDMI output, brighter/better LCD, lens focus micro-adjustment, more noise). The only thing that impressed me in that one week was the lens micro-adjustment.. which I actually needed to use to tweak a brand new Tammy 17-50 2.8 that was off focussing by about -17 units (as shown by the 50d GUI).. and it actually worked well after the adjustment.
What made you guys pick the 40 and not the 50D. Just asking cuz I am just about to upgrade myself and can't decide.
LVicari, I chose the 40D mainly because of cost. There is the well known debate of whether or not the noise at high ISOs is worst on the 50D but from the examples I've seen, I can't tell. The 40D is absolutely amazing and a big step up from my 350D. I feel comfortable taking pictures above ISO 400 where as on my 350D, it wasn't even worth the time to take a picture above ISO 400. Pictures are very exceptable at ISO 1600 on the 40D. That was my main reason for upgrading...
I don't think you can go wrong either way. There'll always be something newer and better out there so you just have to be happy with your decision.
