PDA

View Full Version : 40D Review in at DPR



erichlund
10-24-2007, 12:43 PM
Phil has reviewed Canon's new 40D here (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/).

Interesting results. I suspect it will be even more interesting when the D300 review comes out. ;)

JTL
10-24-2007, 01:15 PM
Phil has reviewed Canon's new 40D here (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/).

Interesting results. I suspect it will be even more interesting when the D300 review comes out. ;)This is what stood out for me:

"Despite sharing identical specifications (10.5 total megapixels, 22.2 x 14.8 mm) the EOS 40D's sensor does appear to be different (or at least its backend electronics) to the EOS 400D (Digital Rebel XTi) as it did manage to deliver lower noise and higher dynamic range (topping nine stops, which is, apart from the Fujifilm S5 Pro, the best out-of-the-camera SLR performance we've had to date)." Phil Askey, DPreview

Now we wait for the Nikon dream machine reviews...

Rooz
10-24-2007, 01:27 PM
out-of-camera doesn't mean much to me personally, especially in a semi pro camera like this cos i suspect this is not all that much of an advantage cos most people would shoot RAW and apply everything in PP. as for the fuji...well it has it's own issues that makes it almost impossible to promote to anyone but a very patient studio photographer.

what is appealing about the 40D is the dynamic range in the shadows from the 14bit processor cos that is something you can't necessarily get in PP. even more so the fact that it is a "well sorted camera". that gives people an air of confidence in buying and is what every consumer wants to hear for their peace of mind.

otherwise a fairly routine review which confirms canon's evolution over revolution theory has been a success.

DonSchap
10-24-2007, 01:40 PM
what is appealing about the 40D is the dynamic range in the shadows from the 14bit processor cos that is something you can't necessarily get in PP. even more so the fact that it is a "well sorted camera". that gives people an air of confidence in buying and is what every consumer wants to hear for their peace of mind.

otherwise a fairly routine review which confirms canon's evolution over revolution theory has been a success.

I not buying into this for one scintilla. The minimal amount of digital noise being described here does not qualify a 10.1 MP sensor size. Bigger is usually better ... for resolution reasons alone, but what the heck ... it's not a big enough deal to argue about, at this time.

Now, when the big, new and updated full-frame sensor cameras come into view ... then ... let the deep discussion begin. :)

fionndruinne
10-24-2007, 02:06 PM
Well, those noise comparisons... look like the 30D. Aside from the highlight capture, there's nothing about the camera that stands out. I've been waiting for the reviews pretty eagerly, as I'm hoping to see the direction technology in general is going.

That rather aggressive antialiasing sounds disappointing - Canon has had a record of good image quality without things like NR, but this is something along those lines.

I'd like to see better from Nikon.

JTL
10-24-2007, 02:17 PM
out-of-camera doesn't mean much to me personally, especially in a semi pro camera like this cos i suspect this is not all that much of an advantage cos most people would shoot RAW and apply everything in PP. I think you're confused. He was speaking about the characteristics of the sensor not the processor and specifically about the dynamic range the sensor was capable of...


I not buying into this for one scintilla. The minimal amount of digital noise being described here does not qualify a 10.1 MP sensor size. Bigger is usually better ... for resolution reasons alone, but what the heck ... it's not a big enough deal to argue about, at this time.Don, if the 40D had a slot on it that dispensed $100 bills, you'd find fault with it. I never saw someone with a bigger axe to grind with no reason to grind it...

DonSchap
10-24-2007, 02:32 PM
Don, if the 40D had a slot on it that disprnsed $100 bills, you'd find fault with it. I never saw someone with a bigger axe to grind with no reason to grind it...

I ground my Canon-axe to stump over a month ago and Ol' stumpy has seen the last of my camera bags, that's for sure. The 40D seems to be a bigger disappointment to many other than myself. I ended the continuing saga with a warning and the sale of my investment.

Come to the dark-side, JTL. There's a SONY A700 is waiting for you ... and you can rule with a real tool. LOL End the wait ... with something great.

30179

This blatant promotional remark was brought to you by a disgruntled photographer. Hey, it happens. It's what you do about it that makes the difference.

griptape
10-24-2007, 03:24 PM
Had they not made the A700 so incredibly ugly, I'd probably be considering it much more seriously. But I think the beginning of next year will be an upgrade to a 30D for me, as I see no major improvements (for my purposes anyway) in the 40D.

fionndruinne
10-24-2007, 05:04 PM
The light side of the force awaits you all... with a lil red racing stripe.;)

JTL
10-24-2007, 07:07 PM
The light side of the force awaits you all... with a lil red racing stripe.;)I will never be turned...well...maybe...if that full-color patent Nikon holds finds its way into a full frame sensor (D4?)...I'm there with no looking back...

TheObiJuan
10-24-2007, 11:50 PM
Since I'm not a gear whore I was very pleased with the 40D and the review.
I see a significant improvement over the 40D.
Perhaps not all image improvement, but overall.

The 30D improvement over the 20D was FAR less significant.

It just seems like now it's Canon's turn to take the heat and Nikon can now take center stage. :(

I mean, really-who cares!?

The A700 review will leave many wanting more.
Sure its a huge deal over the A100--but they are not in the same line. ;)

I suppose without inbody IS, a certain someone would not have anything positive to say.

erichlund
10-25-2007, 06:58 AM
The one thing that would bother me is the white balance. Out of camera jpg is supposed to be a strength for the Canon cameras, but Jeff was unable to get WB right in jpg and had to switch to RAW. Phil basically found the same thing under indoor lighting. People who shoot jpg generally want to do less post processing, so this seems to go a bit against the grain.

Other than that, there's a lot to like about the camera. Even the new 3" LCD is finally forcing Canon to produce a "man sized" camera. But that's a personal preference. ;)

Nautique
10-27-2007, 09:09 AM
I like the 40D. I included my personal file on it for those that need direct access to the documentation, tips, techniques, and customer service links.

Canon 40D (http://personafile.com/Canon-Digital-Camera-SLR-EOS-40D-10.1-Megapixel-3%22-LCD-Monitor-P013803002112.htm)

fionndruinne
10-27-2007, 10:36 AM
Why on earth doesn't Canon add a AF-assist lamp so you don't have to manually close the flash before taking a no-flash shot in low light conditions? I mean, you're spending big bucks for a very nice DSLR, but this particular feature seems so backwards.

griptape
10-27-2007, 04:38 PM
Why on earth doesn't Canon add a AF-assist lamp so you don't have to manually close the flash before taking a no-flash shot in low light conditions? I mean, you're spending big bucks for a very nice DSLR, but this particular feature seems so backwards.

I really have to agree. It does seem extremely odd. Even my little S3 had an AF lamp not connected to the flash.

fionndruinne
10-27-2007, 04:47 PM
I understand that flash-assist tends to work better, as it's brighter, but there are times when we don't want a low-light environment punctuated by sudden white strobing. And yes, manually closing the pop-up flash before taking a shot, on a semi-pro, "enthusiast" camera... well, I'd have to be pretty enthusiastic not to get tired of that real quick.:rolleyes:

griptape
10-27-2007, 06:26 PM
Considering a great number of people buy a DSLR for the fact that it has a usable ISO 1600 that you just can't get out of a P&S, there's no logical argument for attaching the AF beam to the flash.

Having said that, the AF in low light isn't bad, and honestly, if I find myself in a situation where the light is so low that the camera isn't focusing properly, then it's a situation where I need to use the flash anyway.

Still though, you're right, and I can't find any logical explanation for a 6th generation high end camera to not have addressed it. +1 for reasons it's not a big enough improvement for me to upgrade to a 40D.

TheObiJuan
10-27-2007, 07:42 PM
That's my biggest complaint, the lack of an independent AF beam is a hugely missed feature.
Far more important than a better battery door, mirror lockup button, or anything else.

I tried to take some pics in LOW light at a renaissance festival and the subjects would move once the AF light flickered thinking the flash was over and picture was taken--freakin' annnoying!

selnz
10-28-2007, 03:42 PM
low light focus. Why?
To get rid of the low light focus assist, you just turn it off. The camera focuses in near darkness quite happily without it.
The first thing I do when entering a situation with different lighting is set a manual white balance. Problem solved.
Dpreview ie. Phil has said the same thing about canon white balance for years and it has never worried any of the 100s of thousands of canon users. If it had, no one would have bought the cameras.

Sel ....

griptape
10-28-2007, 04:33 PM
low light focus. Why?
To get rid of the low light focus assist, you just turn it off. The camera focuses in near darkness quite happily without it.
The first thing I do when entering a situation with different lighting is set a manual white balance. Problem solved.
Dpreview ie. Phil has said the same thing about canon white balance for years and it has never worried any of the 100s of thousands of canon users. If it had, no one would have bought the cameras.

Sel ....

It's not so much that you CAN overcome these irksome problems, it's the fact that after 6 generations on a high end camera, we shouldn't HAVE to. Not so much a deal breaker as to make it a bad problem, but something that has been annoying for multiple generations with no fix.

selnz
10-28-2007, 05:40 PM
It's not so much that you CAN overcome these irksome problems, it's the fact that after 6 generations on a high end camera, we shouldn't HAVE to. Not so much a deal breaker as to make it a bad problem, but something that has been annoying for multiple generations with no fix.

Ah, but who says it is a problem. Canon evidently don't think so other wise I would have thought they would have changed it. I don't think it's a problem. You evidently think it is. O.k. So why don't you tell canon what you think they ought to do about it. How will they ever find out what bugs you if YOU ( or all the others who don't like it like this ) don't tell them.

griptape
10-28-2007, 06:54 PM
Ah, but who says it is a problem. Canon evidently don't think so other wise I would have thought they would have changed it. I don't think it's a problem. You evidently think it is. O.k. So why don't you tell canon what you think they ought to do about it. How will they ever find out what bugs you if YOU ( or all the others who don't like it like this ) don't tell them.

Unusually poor auto white balance and an auto focus beam that's arbitrarily attached to the pop up flash on a $1400 camera is a problem. I don't think anyone needs to say it for it to be true.

And I believe they employ people to do market research, and I shouldn't have to do their reporting for them.

And again, it's borderline nit picking to be complaining about that sort of thing, but it just makes you scratch your head when they got so much else right.

fionndruinne
10-28-2007, 08:56 PM
Canon is big enough not to need an apologist.

Personally I think Nikon tends to get the "bigger picture" better than Canon most of the time. Which is not to say Canon doesn't get certain things better than Nikon does; low noise for example. But I hope the D300 CMOS will fix that.:cool:

griptape
10-28-2007, 09:26 PM
Canon is big enough not to need an apologist.

Personally I think Nikon tends to get the "bigger picture" better than Canon most of the time. Which is not to say Canon doesn't get certain things better than Nikon does; low noise for example. But I hope the D300 CMOS will fix that.:cool:
It might, but it's getting it off a Sony designed sensor. I'm a good night of drinking away from switching to the ugly duckling A700. Nothing like hitting up Amazon.com with a credit card and beer goggles. Heck, Don's not all that far from me, we could be pals.:p

fionndruinne
10-28-2007, 09:29 PM
My (still over half full) Newcastle Brown Ale says: "Pshaw! Go for it!" :D

(Pshaw being the British touch)

TheObiJuan
10-28-2007, 11:29 PM
Only thing that bothers me about Nikon DSLRs is the stupid mixed font. Different sized and looking letters/numbers just irks me!

http://a.img-dpreview.com/previews/NikonD300/Images/toplcd02.jpg

I suppose its a good thing if the only complaint of the latest Nikon's is the font. :p

fionndruinne
10-28-2007, 11:36 PM
Not to mention the picture of the drywall screw they put above the remaining exposure count. That's just weird. I mean, how minute is the differentiation between this and the picture you get when you "nail" the exposure, as opposed to screwing it up?

:D

michaelb
10-29-2007, 05:48 AM
The one thing that would bother me is the white balance. Out of camera jpg is supposed to be a strength for the Canon cameras, but Jeff was unable to get WB right in jpg and had to switch to RAW. Phil basically found the same thing under indoor lighting. People who shoot jpg generally want to do less post processing, so this seems to go a bit against the grain.....

This is now why I shoot almost exclusively RAW; IMO, there is just no better method for getting WB correct than tweaking it just how I want it on a callibrated monitor, prior to conversion to jpeg. Its a bit of a pain at times, but when I get the colors just right, its worth it; if the colors aren't correct, nothing else matters. ;)

hankbeblazin
10-29-2007, 11:14 PM
My (still over half full) Newcastle Brown Ale says: "Pshaw! Go for it!" :D

(Pshaw being the British touch)

if you like newcastle try Warsteiner...those are my 2 favorites...but Warsteiner has the win

fionndruinne
10-30-2007, 12:14 AM
Thanks, I shall try it out one of these days. I'm biggest on Guinness, myself, but Newcastle is a close second.

I also got a Traquair House Ale ("a handmade ale brewed in the ancient brew house of the oldest inhabited house in Scotland") which I've yet to try... it was $6.50 for the single 12-oz. bottle (!) but I got it free for trading some produce. Should be interesting.

Not that I drink much, or often. But 'tis good once in a while.

Gintaras
10-31-2007, 07:20 AM
The 40D review is nice to read but I see no big reason that would make me want 40D over XTi. Probably because I am still newbie in DSLR world, huh? So I am sitting on a fence counting to the moment when Canon rolls out a new 50D. No rush for me.:cool:

As for Nikon D300, the jury is still out. :rolleyes:

Fionn, I see you take your pleasure in beating 40D into dust…but I still wait to see if D300 has more than just its 3’’ highly pixelated display. :p

fionndruinne
10-31-2007, 10:58 AM
No, don't get me wrong, I like the 40D. (It's close enough to "D40" to earn my approval:p) The reason I nitpick is because I'd like it even more if it didn't have what I'd call a couple of pretty obvious flaws. But as far as build, picture quality, etc., it's a nice, nice camera.

Gintaras
11-04-2007, 02:05 PM
yesterday i put my hands on 40D in a shop, wow, great feeling. Compared this along with 5D and 40D felt so more responsive, not mention larger LCD and comfortable feel (surprisingly it felt better than 5D). Very good camera, instant connection between the gear and photographer IMO. Yet waiting to see a revolutionary D300 out of curiousity. :p