Hi. I know you’re probably all tired of the 30D vs 40D talk but I’d really appreciate some advice.

I was going to wait for the 40D, the main reason being the argument that a 30D is in many ways a 20D (admittedly an excellent camera) with some minor changes. Now I’m starting to think there’s no point in waiting around for a 40D which will cost more than the price of a 30D does now (UK is around £650 for a 30D plus 18-55 lens) but I guess it all comes down to how the 40D is different.

I can’t say I’d be all that bothered if the 40D comes out with 10.1m pixels and 7fps, as I don’t see that as being a major leap forward. But part of me thinks Canon has to make a bigger move now the Nikon 200D is out and selling well and after some critics commented the 30D was infact just a 20D Mk II. I’m not one for chasing megapixels but if a 40D were to arrive with 12.8m I might sit up and take notice, although to me that seems unlikely (the sales of 5D would fall as a result). What does eveyone think? Is the 40D really going to be much more of a camera than the 30D is now?

Part of the reason for posting this post (and not reading the old ones) is I would also like to know if anyone has had much experience with the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS Lens. Jessops in the UK do a deal with the 30D and this lens for £900 which to me seems a good price. I’ve heard that the IS Lens can sometimes lack a bit of sharpness but having the IS (and being able to work without the tripod now and again) certainly appeals. Someone mentioned it might not be a suitable choice for architecture which worries me (I live near The Gherkin and take a lot of photos of buildings).

It’s a shame Canon don’t put IS in the camera body. I guess that’s the main benefit of the Sony Alpha 100 but I think that’s a debate for another time…

Thanks for your input. I love this site!

Owen
London