40d better than expected

[chickenhawk212]

Recieved a new 40d a few days ago and though ive only shot a few hundred frames so far just wanted to share my experience with everybody.

Image quality is awesome, most of the review sites said it would be great: low noise with wide dynamic range, and it is.  What is most striking though is how really really nice it feels, though the changes from my 20d are small, it somehow just feels extremely well put together.  This is especially true when comparing to my rebel xt backup body.  So so much nicer.  Probably the best part is how fast the camera responds: the autofocus is much better, and the buffer size and shooting speed just make the camera feel always ready and instantly responsive.  Though ive never used a 1 series camera, this camera feels very much like a well made photographic tool, not some plasticy toy.  If you are considering this camera, youll be very happy with the purchase upgrading from an earlier x0d model camera; furthermore, those upgrading from the rebel series will be ecstaticly happy...they are totally different animals.  

Good luck all and happy shooting!

[santa]

I basically agree but I have found one serious problem area that I need to explore further. With my 1DMKII, I can set the focus button to the * and hold that down in AI Servo mode so the camera will continue to focus on an object, then I can press the shutter button and get high speed firing immediately. With the 40D, when I do this same thing, I often get a seriously long lag before the initial firing starts and often it appears to refuse to fire properly. If I set the shutter button to focus and shutter and hold it down partially to keep focus on moving object, I get no hesitation when I go to fire the shutter. I have not explored the problem with both cameras in the exact same lighting but the fact that the 40D works with shutter-only button properly but not with the * used for focusing is a real potential problem for me. Other than that, I like the camera a lot and if I can solve the * focus / shutter fire problem it will be great. Otherwise....I'll have a 40D on the market.

[Ray]

Though ive never used a 1 series camera, this camera feels very much like a well made photographic tool, not some plasticy toy.  [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148710\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Are you saying that your 20D feels like a plasticky toy by comparison?

[Misirlou]

Are you saying that your 20D feels like a plasticky toy by comparison?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148732\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My 40D definitely feels more solid than my 20D, but that may be because my 20D is pretty worn now. In some places that were originally matte, my fingers have polished it smooth. I have no idea how a new 40D compares to a new 20D, but since new 20Ds aren't for sale now, it really doesn't matter.

I agree that the 40D feels generally more responsive, and that the image quality is superior. The 40D definitely has a wider dynamic range and lower noise. Autofocus is substantially improved as well.

I have never experienced the focus delay mentioned above.

A poster on a different forum complained that he wouldn't buy a 40D because it isn't supported in Camera Raw by Photshop CS2. While that is technically correct, you can use the free DNG converter to make DNG files that will work in CS2. Besides, it's not like CS2 will support any other new cameras from here on out, unless they write older RAW formats or DNG.

[chickenhawk212]

Santa: I haven't noticed the problem you're talking about, although i haven't set the autofocus to the * button, i've just kept the autofocus on button performing that function.  Is having autofocus on the * button rather than the AF on easier for you?  I experimented a little with shooting in low light where focus couldn't be achieved or some fast action of my girlfriend playing soccer but in both cases there wasn't a delay in AF servo.

Ray: I guess i was referring more to the difference between the rebel and the 40d which is probably pretty obvious to anyone who has held either, but their is a significant difference between the 20d and 40d.  I bought the 40d because i smashed the 20d in a rock climbing fall  (pretty stupid) so mine isnt a very good comparison anymore because its pretty beat up!

Misirlou: I had never used canon raw converter before and was a little sad cuz it is definilty not as nice as ACR.  I didn't realize until i got it home that it wasn't going to be compatible...grrrrrr.  I was considering getting lightroom and i guess now i have a reason better than just wanting it  .

Cheers all!

[Misirlou]

Misirlou: I had never used canon raw converter before and was a little sad cuz it is definilty not as nice as ACR.  I didn't realize until i got it home that it wasn't going to be compatible...grrrrrr.  I was considering getting lightroom and i guess now i have a reason better than just wanting it  .

Cheers all!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148744\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But you don't have to use DPP. Go to the Adobe site and dowload the latest version of DNG Converter, which is free. Point it to a directory of 40D CR2 files, and it will make a new copy of each in DNG format. Then load the DNGs in any version of Adobe Camera RAW that you would like. Sure, it means an extra step, but it costs nothing. Later on when you get a newer version of Lightroom or Photoshop, you can go back and work with the original CR2s, if that's what you prefer.

On the other hand, a lot of people say DPP is the sharpest and cleanest RAW converter for Canon formats that you can use. It's clearly not as convenient as Lightroom, but you can't argue with the price.

[chickenhawk212]

Thanks Misirlou, im so happy to have acr back!  Im pretty happy with how acr renders the images, even if dpp is better ill stick with acr as it is fast and easy for me to use.

[budjames]

I traded my 20D in for a 40D about 4 weeks ago. The image quality is definitely better, however, the best surprise was how much quieter the shutter is on the 40D. No more slapping sound.

Initially, LR didn't support the 40D and I played with Canon's DPP that came with the camera. Yuck!!!! A couple of weeks ago Adobe released an update for PS CS3 and LR that reads 40D RAW files. Now I'm back on track with my workflow using LR. It is sooooooo much better than DPP.

I already sold my 2 year old Canon 1Ds MkII and I'm on the wait list for a new 1Ds MkIII. That will complete my DSLR body upgrades for a while.

Happy Shooting!

Bud James
North Wales, PA.

[Ray]

I traded my 20D in for a 40D about 4 weeks ago. The image quality is definitely better, however, the best surprise was how much quieter the shutter is on the 40D. No more slapping sound.

[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You might like to have a look at Bob Atkins' review at [a href=\"http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_eos_40D_review_1.html]http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digit...D_review_1.html[/url]

Bob does a direct comparison of the 40D with the 20D. It's clear that the 40D offers a whole raft of improvements over the 20D, including a quiter shutter.

However, image quality improvement over the 20D is not as definite as you imply. It's rather subtle and only really discernible on test charts. Noise is only marginally less and then only when you have the 40D's noise reduction on, which is a new feature. Dynamic range is also only marginally greater.

I say this not to dampen your enthusiasm but to get the facts straight.

[awofinden]

I find it quite interesting that canon has come up with a camera that is, it seems, better than the original 1ds in all respects except ruggedness of body. At the time the 1ds was seen as a great camera well worth the 8 grand it cost. Now, what 3 years later, this little thing comes along at a fraction of the price with a better screen, better high iso, 14 bit processing etc etc. Thats quite impressive in my mind.

[Misirlou]

However, image quality improvement over the 20D is not as definite as you imply. It's rather subtle and only really discernible on test charts. Noise is only marginally less and then only when you have the 40D's noise reduction on, which is a new feature. Dynamic range is also only marginally greater.

I say this not to dampen your enthusiasm but to get the facts straight.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bob did not say that the 40D image quality improvement is "only really discernible on test charts". What he said was "you'd need to make a pretty large print or do some very heavy cropping to notice the difference," which are two things I do on a regular basis. I assume many others do the same. Bob also said "In just about every respect the EOS 40D technically outperforms the EOS 30D." That's the straight facts.

You might want to look at this review:
[a href=\"http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/page20.asp]http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/page20.asp[/url]

According to that one, you can recover 11 stops of information from a 40D RAW file. I'm getting noticably more dynamic range out of my 40D than I can from my 20D.

Call it "Marginal" if you want, but image quality is improved enough that I'm giving my mom my 20D (considerd converting it to IR, but she really needs an SLR right now). I wouldn't say the 40D makes the 20D or the 30D obsolete, but the 40D is a more capable camera than either. You'll have to decide for yourself if that extra capability is worth the expense or not.

[feppe]

Bob did not say that the 40D image quality improvement is "only really discernible on test charts". What he said was "you'd need to make a pretty large print or do some very heavy cropping to notice the difference," which are two things I do on a regular basis. I assume many others do the same. Bob also said "In just about every respect the EOS 40D technically outperforms the EOS 30D." That's the straight facts.

You might want to look at this review:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/page20.asp

According to that one, you can recover 11 stops of information from a 40D RAW file. I'm getting noticably more dynamic range out of my 40D than I can from my 20D.

Call it "Marginal" if you want, but image quality is improved enough that I'm giving my mom my 20D (considerd converting it to IR, but she really needs an SLR right now). I wouldn't say the 40D makes the 20D or the 30D obsolete, but the 40D is a more capable camera than either. You'll have to decide for yourself if that extra capability is worth the expense or not.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148891\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The 30D (what I have) comparison is shows very weak improvement. Unfortunately their test scene doesn't really have the stuff I'm mostly interested - ie. shadow performance at low ISOs and long exposures, and dynamic range. The test numbers with charts promise about 0.5 EV improvement over 30D, which isn't worth the few hundred euros it will cost to upgrade - especially since I do digital blending from multiple exposures on all tough scenes. The improved reach in shadows would be nice, but since it's in the last bits there are very few levels of usable information to begin with.

As 40D has no features other than sensor cleaning that I'd really like, it seems like I'll hold on for now.

[Misirlou]

The 30D (what I have) comparison is shows very weak improvement. Unfortunately their test scene doesn't really have the stuff I'm mostly interested - ie. shadow performance at low ISOs and long exposures, and dynamic range. The test numbers with charts promise about 0.5 EV improvement over 30D, which isn't worth the few hundred euros it will cost to upgrade - especially since I do digital blending from multiple exposures on all tough scenes. The improved reach in shadows would be nice, but since it's in the last bits there are very few levels of usable information to begin with.

As 40D has no features other than sensor cleaning that I'd really like, it seems like I'll hold on for now.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148895\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A reasonable approach.

Before I hand my 20D over to my mom, I may run a series of tests on my own. I could shoot an indoor scene at night at assorted ISOs, and then just put the RAW files on my website. Interested parties could then play with them ad infinitum.

[chickenhawk212]

I find it quite interesting that canon has come up with a camera that is, it seems, better than the original 1ds in all respects except ruggedness of body. At the time the 1ds was seen as a great camera well worth the 8 grand it cost. Now, what 3 years later, this little thing comes along at a fraction of the price with a better screen, better high iso, 14 bit processing etc etc. Thats quite impressive in my mind.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148837\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Its funny you should mention that, i thought very hard about buying a used 1ds from ebay instead of the 40d as they can be had for 1800-1900 on ebay right now.  It seems to me that the weather sealing, better autofocus, and higher resolution would be worth the extra 500 or so dollars, but i did a bunch of comparisons with data on dpreview and it seemed like despite the higher resolution the IQ of the 1ds just wasn't up to the standards of current bodies, it seemed to have pretty high noise, even at low iso's and just wasn't quite as sharp despite having more pixels.  That coupled with the slow frame speed, shallow buffer, and extra size, that would be in the way for how i use my camera, and i bought the 40d instead.  I bet for alot of people with different needs though, a used 1ds would be a great bargain at those prices.

im headed out to shoot, have a great day guys and gals  

[Misirlou]

Ok, I have done some shooting for anyone who might be interested in advanced pixel peeping of the 40D vs 20D.

I took a series of 12 shots of the same (dismal) scene with both my 20D and my 40D using the same lens (the 50 1.4). The series was designed to "worst case" everything. The lighting was a particularly heinous shade of tungsten, and very dim. I used autofocus, with aperture priority set to f/8 for all shots. I made one frame from each camera at every possible ISO. All noise reduction was turned off on both cameras, and I turned off the highlight feature on the 40D. About the only positive thing I did was place each camera on the same tripod, and shoot with mirror lockup.

I converted each RAW file to DNG, so there is zero processing, and everyone with any version of ACR or Lightroom can play. I compressed all 12 DNG files into a 100M zip file.

Does anyone want this? Let me know, and we'll work out a way for you to get the zip. What is my impression of the results? I don't have one. I don't spend time pixel peeping myself. But you're more than welcome to my files.

[PSA DC-9-30]

Are there any comparisons to the Nikon D80 posted anywhere?

[Misirlou]

Are there any comparisons to the Nikon D80 posted anywhere?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148943\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just the D200 on the dpreview site.

[Ray]

Bob did not say that the 40D image quality improvement is "only really discernible on test charts".[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148891\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, that's what I said after reading Bob's review and others and having compared the resolution of my 20D with my D60 and the 5D with the 1Ds2 and so on. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Show me I'm wrong and I'll admit it.

If you are in the habit of making 6ftx4ft enlargements or heavily cropping telephoto shots taken with a 200mm lens when you should ideally be using a 600mm lens, then you will of course notice a slight resolution improvement in the 40D shots. But in order to demonstrate such improvements, Bob had to display a 200% crop of a test chart.

When a section of a 10mp image is viewed on the average computer monitor at 200% enlargement and from a distance of 12" or so, the detail you see is equivalent to viewing a 6ft x 4ft print (or thereabouts) from the same distance.

[Ray]

Its funny you should mention that, i thought very hard about buying a used 1ds from ebay instead of the 40d as they can be had for 1800-1900 on ebay right now.  It seems to me that the weather sealing, better autofocus, and higher resolution would be worth the extra 500 or so dollars, but i did a bunch of comparisons with data on dpreview and it seemed like despite the higher resolution the IQ of the 1ds just wasn't up to the standards of current bodies, it seemed to have pretty high noise, even at low iso's and just wasn't quite as sharp despite having more pixels.  That coupled with the slow frame speed, shallow buffer, and extra size, that would be in the way for how i use my camera, and i bought the 40d instead.  I bet for alot of people with different needs though, a used 1ds would be a great bargain at those prices.

im headed out to shoot, have a great day guys and gals 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148932\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I can think of only one good reason, and one not-so-good reason, why I might prefer a 2nd hand 1Ds at a bargain price to a brand new 40D.

(1) The possibility of better wide-angle coverage, especially if I already owned some expensive wide-angle lenses.

(2) The capacity to use autofocus at f8 when using a 1.4x converter with an f5.6 lens like the 400/5.6 or 100-400 IS zoom.

However, personally these reasons would not be sufficient for me. I think I would prefer a 40D if I had to make a choice.

In fact, the 2nd reason is not only a poor reason, it's no reason at all. A 400mm lens with 1.4x extender on the 1Ds gives a reach of 560mm with some inevitable loss of image quality.  A 400mm lens on the 40D gives a reach of 640mm with no loss of quality, so we are really left with just the wide angle issue and how important that is to you.

[feppe]

Ok, I have done some shooting for anyone who might be interested in advanced pixel peeping of the 40D vs 20D.

I took a series of 12 shots of the same (dismal) scene with both my 20D and my 40D using the same lens (the 50 1.4). The series was designed to "worst case" everything. The lighting was a particularly heinous shade of tungsten, and very dim. I used autofocus, with aperture priority set to f/8 for all shots. I made one frame from each camera at every possible ISO. All noise reduction was turned off on both cameras, and I turned off the highlight feature on the 40D. About the only positive thing I did was place each camera on the same tripod, and shoot with mirror lockup.

I converted each RAW file to DNG, so there is zero processing, and everyone with any version of ACR or Lightroom can play. I compressed all 12 DNG files into a 100M zip file.

Does anyone want this? Let me know, and we'll work out a way for you to get the zip. What is my impression of the results? I don't have one. I don't spend time pixel peeping myself. But you're more than welcome to my files.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148938\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I would really like this. I'm only interested in the 100 ISO shots. I hope auto-focusing isn't off, as that would unnecessarily complicate the comparison.