Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: John Camp on September 05, 2007, 11:48:28 pm
-
In the report, Michael compares the 40D to the (specs) on the upcoming Nikon D300, mentioning the Nikon's bigger price tag and also the bigger and higher-res LCD screen on the Nikon. I suspect that people will juggle the D300's slightly better feature set against the 40D's US$500 lower price, but that the sales, for good or ill, will be made on the LCD screen. People are habituated to television, and will pay big bucks for better TV. That's what the LCD screen is -- probably doesn't offer that much more in function, but you put the two cameras on the sales counter with the buyer's snapshot on each, and that Nikon LCD is gonna look mighty good...
JC
-
How much better is the LCD? The Nikon specs are in dpi not pixels.
-
Isn't the D300 LCD screen over 900,000 pixels as opposed to the 40D's 230,000?
If each of those pixels has a red, green and blue element, that's equivalent to a semi-high-definition TV set compressed in size to 3" (or is that 3.5"). Very impressive!
I'd really like to buy the 40D. They've just started to become available in Australia although I expect the first shipment would have gone immediately to those who pre-ordered.
I find it strange that the camera is already being sold but there are no thorough reviews available yet. From the few people who have posted images comparing the 40D with the 20D, I'm getting mixed messages. Some say there's no noticeable noise improvement at high ISO and no resolution improvement that's worth mentioning. But one report I came acroos claims that both noise and resolution are much improved at ISO 3200, although very similar at lower ISOs.
I feel I need some solid improvement in either resolution and/or high ISO noise before I can justify buying this camera. I'm not terribly attracted to bells and whistles even though they might be very lovely bells and very impressive whistles.
-
The first thing I noticed about mine was how much quicker it seems than my 30d. Not just frame rate, but the whole package. Also, the sound of the shutter is MUCH nicer. Quieter, should be less annoying.
-
The first thing I noticed about mine was how much quicker it seems than my 30d. Not just frame rate, but the whole package. Also, the sound of the shutter is MUCH nicer. Quieter, should be less annoying.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137624\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So you've got one already!
I'd be interested in seeing a comparison of any identical scene showing any image quality improvement the 40D has to offer over the 30D, whether it be lower noise in the shadows, higher resolution and/or lower noise at ISO 3200, smoother tonal gradations, whatever.
-
It's a trivial thing, but I can't help but notice that whereas the 20D had 5 control buttons on the back (excluding the power switch, joystick and wheel), that the new 40D now has 10 buttons. Coupled with the larger LCD it means things are getting pretty crowded back there! . . .
-
It's a trivial thing, but I can't help but notice that whereas the 20D had 5 control buttons on the back (excluding the power switch, joystick and wheel), that the new 40D now has 10 buttons. Coupled with the larger LCD it means things are getting pretty crowded back there! . . .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137646\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oops! . . . make that 7 on the 20D.
-
It's a trivial thing, but I can't help but notice that whereas the 20D had 5 control buttons on the back (excluding the power switch, joystick and wheel), that the new 40D now has 10 buttons. Coupled with the larger LCD it means things are getting pretty crowded back there! . . .
I'd far rather have a bunch of buttons for things I use regularly than to have to search through menus to find them, or remember that a button does three different things in three different modes and figure out what mode I'm in. That's still a heck of a lot fewer buttons than a TV remote...
Lisa
-
So you've got one already!
I'd be interested in seeing a comparison of any identical scene showing any image quality improvement the 40D has to offer over the 30D, whether it be lower noise in the shadows, higher resolution and/or lower noise at ISO 3200, smoother tonal gradations, whatever.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137634\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ha, yeah, I got on the list for one with a smaller retalier when the specs first leaked. Usually I wouldn't do that sort of thing, but the price was right, the specs were right and [american] football season shall soon pass.
I haven't noticed any radical IQ differences yet (though I've used it very limitedly). I hate shooting JPGs again, feels weird, but I have no recourse until raw support comes along. I have a very heavy weekend of shooting college sports and events (which will be largely shot between 800-3200) coming up this friday, if anyone is interested I can let you all know what I think.
-
I suspect that people will juggle the D300's slightly better feature set against the 40D's US$500 lower price, but that the sales, for good or ill, will be made on the LCD screen.
Bah. Only for those that don't have a preference and already own either a Nikon or Canon and lenses, etc. A pro is bound to have a full kit by either brand and body swapping from that standpoint is silly as they'd have to sell off what they have at a loss and buy again new. Bad logic. Besides, as far as Canon goes, they have been dominating the dslr market since their first real camera have they not? I suspect those that purchased Nikons were going with brand loyalty when they made the switch, couldn't afford the Canon or were mis/ill informed. No offense to Nikon users, I was once one, but wouldn't lately no matter how big the lcd...
-
So you've got one already!
I'd be interested in seeing a comparison of any identical scene showing any image quality improvement the 40D has to offer over the 30D, whether it be lower noise in the shadows, higher resolution and/or lower noise at ISO 3200, smoother tonal gradations, whatever.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137634\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Seconded. I was a bit surprised to hear how 40D is what the 30D was supposed to be, when the improvements are merely marginal. The only major improvement (for me) is the sensor cleaning feature. The megapixel increase is negligent, better weather sealing welcome. But everything else is icing on the cake or even useless - live view? Come on, seriously. And I'm so glad Michael is carrying the torch for easy MLU and/or programmable button(s).
The big question remains what the "14-bit" means as at the moment it's just marketing hype - and if it actually is 14-bit. If 40D offers "real" 14-bit results and superior shadow performance at low ISOs, I'll seriously consider upgrading. Otherwise I'll wait and buy L glass, as that's a better investment in my photography than splurging a few hundred euros for a marginal upgrade.
-
I suspect that people will juggle the D300's slightly better feature set against the 40D's US$500 lower price, but that the sales, for good or ill, will be made on the LCD screen.
Bah. Only for those that don't have a preference and already own either a Nikon or Canon and lenses, etc. A pro is bound to have a full kit by either brand and body swapping from that standpoint is silly as they'd have to sell off what they have at a loss and buy again new. Bad logic.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137735\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I didn't really think of it as a pro camera -- I was talking about people who are moving up to a DSLR from a P&S, with no pre-conceived notions and without a great deal of photography knowledge. In other words, the market that Canon and Nikon are struggling for. Once somebody has committed to a whole line of lenses, it's difficult to get them to change without a massive difference in the quality of the final image. When Canon had a clearly dominant camera at the top, pros switched; if Nikon comes out with a hi-res D3x to match the current announced D3, I think the switching will pretty much be over, as the two lines will mostly matchup. (And we can, thank God, be mostly done with the fanboy dominance of camera forums.)
JC
-
True. I don't think of it as pro either, but that term is used so loosely these days. I remember when 'prosumer' was en vogue. That being said, something like the 5D is only pro for certain 'pro' applications..
-
What is the infactuation with the large screen? ,,, what is the real importance of it,,? its such a small sample, do you really use it to edit stuff?? i sure dont base any of may work on a 3inch screen. except for the most obviously blown stuff,, otherwise, i use the computer. heaven forbid trying to determine the sharpness of an eye on that tiny screen,,, beisdes, i am likely to miss a shot chimping thinking i can do some quick editing,,,
-
The big question remains what the "14-bit" means as at the moment it's just marketing hype - and if it actually is 14-bit. If 40D offers "real" 14-bit results and superior shadow performance at low ISOs, I'll seriously consider upgrading. Otherwise I'll wait and buy L glass, as that's a better investment in my photography than splurging a few hundred euros for a marginal upgrade.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137736\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The 40D has lower read noise at ISO 100 than the 20D or 30D, by at least a half stop (IOW, at least 1/2 stop more DR). This may or may not be due to the particular 14-bit ADC, but even if it is, the noise level is not low enough to benefit from 14 bit RAWs; 12-bit RAWs would be sufficient (as it also is with the 1Dmk3, which has a tiny bit less read noise at ISO 100).
-
Isn't the D300 LCD screen over 900,000 pixels as opposed to the 40D's 230,000?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=137621\")
No.
"... In the post "Nikon D3 and D300," we reported about the Nikon D3 that "the new 3-inch LCD has almost a megapixel of resolution." This was the result of a somewhat disingenuous if not deliberately misleading specification by Nikon, but it turns out it's not true. As LCDs are usually specified, the D3's LCD has 307,000 pixels of resolution."
[a href=\"http://theonlinephotographer.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html]http://theonlinephotographer.com/the_onlin...blog_index.html[/url]
Sept 1 post.
-
I traded in my 2 year old 20D for a 40D early this week. I'm on a 4 day trip to Amelia Island, FL and have shot about 700 images with my new 40D using my Canon 24-105 f4 IS L lens.
Unfortunately, I had to load Canon's aweful DPP 3.0 software on my MacBook Pro in order to read the RAW images. Aside from that temporary inconvenience, the initial images from the 40D look very sharp and smooth. The color is very natural and accurate as well.
When shooting, one of the biggest improvements over the 20D is the much quieter shutter. No more obnoxious mirror slap. The view finder is much brighter. Also very much appreciated is the 3" LCD screen for reviewing images and using the camera menus. I no longer have to bring my reading glasses with me when I take pictures. I didn't bring a tripod with me on this trip, so I have not used the Live View function yet for mirror lockup, but it looks very cool.
Now I can't wait until Lightroom and ACR are able to read my 40D RAW files so that I can make some prints to examine.
I think that anyone with a 30D or earlier model will definitely want to upgrade to the 40D. It's that much better to use.
Cheers,
Bud James
North Wales, PA
-
When shooting, one of the biggest improvements over the 20D is the much quieter shutter. No more obnoxious mirror slap. The view finder is much brighter. Also very much appreciated is the 3" LCD screen for reviewing images and using the camera menus. I no longer have to bring my reading glasses with me when I take pictures. I didn't bring a tripod with me on this trip, so I have not used the Live View function yet for mirror lockup, but it looks very cool.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138132\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Quieter shutter, a bigger screen and a bit of bling factor is enough to call for a definite need to upgrade costing several hundred euros? Not in my book.
-
Quieter shutter, a bigger screen and a bit of bling factor is enough to call for a definite need to upgrade costing several hundred euros? Not in my book.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138136\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's easy! Don't buy one. But for me, it was money well spent.
Bud James
-
Bud, being a 20D owner myself, I'm debating the purchase and am glad to see your comments. I was wondering if you'd noticed any improvement with the new auto focus configuration -- is the AF any faster/ more accurate? Have fun shooting in FL!
Thanks,
Matt
That's easy! Don't buy one. But for me, it was money well spent.
Bud James
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138138\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
No.
"... In the post "Nikon D3 and D300," we reported about the Nikon D3 that "the new 3-inch LCD has almost a megapixel of resolution." This was the result of a somewhat disingenuous if not deliberately misleading specification by Nikon, but it turns out it's not true. As LCDs are usually specified, the D3's LCD has 307,000 pixels of resolution."
http://theonlinephotographer.com/the_onlin...blog_index.html (http://theonlinephotographer.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html)
Sept 1 post.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=138131\")
Thank you for digging this up! (The direct link is [a href=\"http://www.popphoto.com/popularphotographyfeatures/4555/mcnamara-report-confusion-over-dots-vs-pixels.html)]http://www.popphoto.com/popularphotography...vs-pixels.html)[/url] I was getting my suspicions, as that kind of large-step tech advance is very rare and would have been touted much more by Nikon. Just another shot in the marketing war, I guess.
-Lars
-
No.
"... In the post "Nikon D3 and D300," we reported about the Nikon D3 that "the new 3-inch LCD has almost a megapixel of resolution." This was the result of a somewhat disingenuous if not deliberately misleading specification by Nikon, but it turns out it's not true. As LCDs are usually specified, the D3's LCD has 307,000 pixels of resolution."
http://theonlinephotographer.com/the_onlin...blog_index.html (http://theonlinephotographer.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html)
Sept 1 post.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138131\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wrong I am afraid.
Check the DPreview hands on report of the D300 for more details.
Both nikon (900.000) and canon (230.000) use dots while they should be using pixels. Either way, the Nikon does indeed have 4 more dots (or 4 more pixels if you prefer), than the 40D.
Besides, the positioning of the dots of the D300 is also better which should result in a user experience even better than the 4 times pixels data suggest.
The 40D is an excellent camera, no doubt, but the screen of the D300 is simply in a totally different league. This will probably only be relevant for those users interested in the live view function. It appears that Nikon has once more tried to deliver a coherent sets of specification in order to deliver real world usefulness (live view + decent screen + AF ability) as opposed to a simple marketing gimmick.
Regards,
Bernard
-
I can confirm the AF is MUCH better. Shot Big college football with it this weekend, much better camera than the 30d.
-
The one thing not talked about is the3 improved viewfinder. LCD are nice but lookng through the 30 d was a joke the 40d is very nice it looks like an slr inside a that makes a much improved shoooting experience.
I can confirm the AF is MUCH better. Shot Big college football with it this weekend, much better camera than the 30d.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138320\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Wrong I am afraid.
Check the DPreview hands on report of the D300 for more details.
Both nikon (900.000) and canon (230.000) use dots while they should be using pixels. Either way, the Nikon does indeed have 4 more dots (or 4 more pixels if you prefer), than the 40D.
Besides, the positioning of the dots of the D300 is also better which should result in a user experience even better than the 4 times pixels data suggest.
The 40D is an excellent camera, no doubt, but the screen of the D300 is simply in a totally different league. This will probably only be relevant for those users interested in the live view function. It appears that Nikon has once more tried to deliver a coherent sets of specification in order to deliver real world usefulness (live view + decent screen + AF ability) as opposed to a simple marketing gimmick.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138307\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Indeed, the preview does clear this up. I just wish they (Canon, Nikon, DPReview and all) would use the same definition for pixels everywhere -- or is the D300 really a 52.3 MP camera? :)
-Lars
-
Straying even further from the original topic. It's nice for once to see reality match the hype. With that in mind I think it's fair to say the D3/300 screen is going to make image review, focus and sharpness checks easier and more relevant.
I've also wondered if I could ditch my Epson P-5000 image viewer and lighten my bag in the field?
I use the Epson 'backup' facility more than I do the image review feature so the smaller (1") screen of the Nikon would not be a big issue.
With dual CF slots on the D3 I could simply use the camera to copy/backup the cards.
I'd be able to use just one battery type and charger (D3, D2x, and backup solution). I'd much rather carry spare Nikon batteries than Epson's.
CF card prices are low enough to not be prohibitive.
I'd just need to check that I could use the D3 to copy a CF card formatted and written to by a D2X.
Maybe there are more uses for better quality screens after all.
-
Latest 10 September IQ update article - just the best, loved the bit about the cat photograph. Michael, you just have to let rip (so to speak) more often
Quentin
-
I've also wondered if I could ditch my Epson P-5000 image viewer and lighten my bag in the field?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138409\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have been wondering too.
The D3 and P5000 have the same resolution, with the D3 screen being just .8 inch smaller.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Bud, being a 20D owner myself, I'm debating the purchase and am glad to see your comments. I was wondering if you'd noticed any improvement with the new auto focus configuration -- is the AF any faster/ more accurate? Have fun shooting in FL!
Thanks,
Matt
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138183\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I just got back from Florida. I shot about 600 images with my new 40D and 24-105 f4 L IS lens, then only lens that I took with me. The camera handles beautifully and focuses very fast. I'm not sure that it focuses any faster than my 20D with the same lens, but the brighter viewfinder makes it seem that way.
I chased a few small birds on the beach that were running in and out with the waves, and the camera focusing was able to keep up. The faster motordrive and larger buffer all proved to be useful improvements.
I'm still sorting through the images with Canon DPP (Yuck!), so I have not made any prints yet.
Stay tuned.
Bud James
North Wales, PA
-
I just got back from Florida. I shot about 600 images with my new 40D and 24-105 f4 L IS lens, then only lens that I took with me. The camera handles beautifully and focuses very fast. I'm not sure that it focuses any faster than my 20D with the same lens, but the brighter viewfinder makes it seem that way.
I chased a few small birds on the beach that were running in and out with the waves, and the camera focusing was able to keep up. The faster motordrive and larger buffer all proved to be useful improvements.
I'm still sorting through the images with Canon DPP (Yuck!), so I have not made any prints yet.
Stay tuned.
Bud James
North Wales, PA
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138513\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
OT I know.. But I love DPP. I find its raw conversions far superior to LR or ACR - to get the same result in LR of ACR is a lot more work.
Just felt like going into bat for DPP as I feel its often villified for the wrong reasons.
-Back OT - Sounds like the 40D is very nice to use.