40d better than expected

[Misirlou]

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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148978\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

feppe,

Since you're only interested in ISO 100, I'll just pull out those files and zip them seperately. I'll put them on my web site tonight, and then post here so you'll know when they're available.

[budjames]

Let the pixel peepers wage on with their intellectual debate! I say, go look at some prints to draw your own conclusions.

As a former 10D, 20D, 1D MkII and 1Ds Mk II owner, I am very impressed with the quality and color from my new 40D. Compared to the 20D, the 40D is a very worthwhile upgrade. Not only because of improved image quality, but faster focusing, and faster motor drive, but because of the whisper quiet shutter.

My 2 cents.

Bud James
North Wales, PA

[Ray]

Let the pixel peepers wage on with their intellectual debate! I say, go look at some prints to draw your own conclusions.

As a former 10D, 20D, 1D MkII and 1Ds Mk II owner, I am very impressed with the quality and color from my new 40D. Compared to the 20D, the 40D is a very worthwhile upgrade. Not only because of improved image quality, but faster focusing, and faster motor drive, but because of the whisper quiet shutter.

My 2 cents.

Bud James
North Wales, PA
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149035\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's fine. I'm happy for you. I'm just rather skeptical when people make claims that cannot be demonstrated or shown through the internet by people who are expert in testing cameras.

You must realise that most people do not have the opportunity to compare prints of identical scenes from different cameras, so why suggest it?

No-one is doubting that the 40D has many new features that are worthwhile; faster frame rate, supposedly more accurate focussing, live view, ISO bracketing etc.

It's just that better image quality is something I haven't noticed yet, except at the pixel-peeping level at 200% enlargement.

However, I believe the saturation of red has been toned down a little on the 40D and that's the only difference I notice when I compare the 40D image of the house with the 30D image of the same poster of the house at Imaging Resources, using their comparator.

You'll have to forgive me if I think some of you might be engaged in some wishful thinking on the issue of improved image quality.

[feppe]

Let the pixel peepers wage on with their intellectual debate! I say, go look at some prints to draw your own conclusions.

As a former 10D, 20D, 1D MkII and 1Ds Mk II owner, I am very impressed with the quality and color from my new 40D. Compared to the 20D, the 40D is a very worthwhile upgrade. Not only because of improved image quality, but faster focusing, and faster motor drive, but because of the whisper quiet shutter.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've seen plenty of claims about greatly improved IQ, but I don't see that in any of the unprocessed full-sized JPEGs I've seen. Dynamic range is improved by 0.5 stops according to pixel peepers, whoop de doo. Any benefits promised by 14-bit processing are nowhere to be seen. And the resolution increase over 30D is marginal. But I'll wait for the RAWs to pass final judgment on IQ. I was very excited after I saw the initial hands-on tests claiming it to be as good as 1-series Canons of the previous generation, but it appears that it was mainly cognitive dissonance from people who made an expensive upgrade for marginal gains (I hope nobody from the MFDB forum reads this  ), or who actually like the new features.

I couldn't care less about better focusing, faster drive or quieter shutter. Or LiveView; I mean, seriously? Since when were dSLRs designed for the lowest common denominator? Oh, right, since when Canon decided a frigging direct print button is more in demand than an MLU button. And if that's actually the case in the trenches, we really have something to be worried about. And since Canon (and Nikon) is still stuck in the 35mm SLR setup without making real UI improvements - such as programmable bracketing, 30+ sec exposures without dunking €100 on a stupid remote, fully parametric exposure settings, and multiple programmable presets or coming up with something which is actually new, such as [a href=\"http://audioblog.fr/archives/2007/10/02/adobe-dave-story-future/]this[/url] or this -, and still refusing to put the goddam MLU button, I see little real improvement for myself. I'm getting increasingly frustrated at the dSLR manufacturers who seem to be resting on their laurels, and milking the cow that is price discrimination, marginal improvements and planned obsolescence. I just hope Fuji, Foveon or a black horse comes in and starts shaking things real soon, otherwise we'll be stuck with this same old for another few generations.

Whew. I feel much better now.

[AJSJones]

I couldn't care less about better focusing, faster drive or quieter shutter. Or LiveView; I mean, seriously? Since when were dSLRs designed for the lowest common denominator?
Whew. I feel much better now.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149079\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Glad you had the "[/rant]" disclaimer at the end of your post - the 4 things you listed are why it is getting rave reviews from wildlife shooters, for example at Naturescapes.  Yet they are far from lowest common denominator photographers

[Ray]

A faster frame rate will always be useful for hand-held HDR shots with CS3's much improved auto-alignment feature. Faster and more accurate focussing is likely to result in a smaller proportion of one's shots being misfocussed and Live View might facilitate more accurate manual focussing.

The fact that pixel count has been increased (compared with the 30D) without compromising image quality which, at the pixel-peeping level actually appears to be very slightly better, is some comfort but nothing to shout about.

[feppe]

Glad you had the "[/rant]" disclaimer at the end of your post - the 4 things you listed are why it is getting rave reviews from wildlife shooters, for example at Naturescapes.  Yet they are far from lowest common denominator photographers
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149110\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

More pertinent disclaimer was the italiziced "for me" claim there: the features don't matter to me, but I concede that there are a lot of shooters who do benefit from those. This is (mostly) a landscape forum, so I feel my consternation is appropriate.

A faster frame rate will always be useful for hand-held HDR shots with CS3's much improved auto-alignment feature. Faster and more accurate focussing is likely to result in a smaller proportion of one's shots being misfocussed and Live View might facilitate more accurate manual focussing.

The fact that pixel count has been increased (compared with the 30D) without compromising image quality which, at the pixel-peeping level actually appears to be very slightly better, is some comfort but nothing to shout about.

I've done some hand-held stitch-jobs and digital blending, and don't see how higher frame rate would ease this at all: you still need to align the shots. Focusing is not an issue for me 90% of the time since I focus manually, as I hope most landscape shooters do. Live View will also facilitate higher noise levels, although I'm not at all convinced that noise is anything to be worried about - but how does manual focusing benefit from squinting at a low-res LCD screen?

Actually, the only marginally increased pixel count gives me some hope that Canon is concentrating on other IQ factors than the headline megapixel figure. But after reading the several reviews, it appears that the claimed IQ improvement by marketroids from higher DR and 14-bit processing is even more marginal than the megapixel increase.

Again, nice features, but are they worth several hundred for me? Hell no. I don't need to have the latest and the greatest - my 30D made great photos half a year ago, and it still does. And I can buy a nice prime with that money, which would go much farther in increasing the IQ of my shots - not to mention it doesn't become "obsolete" again in 2 years.

That is until Canon comes up with a new range of digital lenses with 1DsIV  Mark my words.

[Ray]

I've done some hand-held stitch-jobs and digital blending, and don't see how higher frame rate would ease this at all: you still need to align the shots.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149146\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The faster frame rate should result in less misalignment (without tripod) which is easier to correct. CS3E also has a stacking feature which produces considerable reduction in noise from 5 or so stacked and auto-aligned images. The more the better. A faster frame rate should enable one to shoot more images hand-held with less misalignment and get greater noise reduction without loss of resolution.

but how does manual focusing benefit from squinting at a low-res LCD screen?

I presume the image on the LCD screen in Live View mode can be greatly magnified just as the shot image can on playback. The 40D LCD screen is also impressively large.

the only marginally increased pixel count gives me some hope that Canon is concentrating on other IQ factors than the headline megapixel figure. But after reading the several reviews, it appears that the claimed IQ improvement by marketroids from higher DR and 14-bit processing is even more marginal than the megapixel increase. 

Actually, I'm all in favour of increased pixel count as long as noise and dynamic range does not suffer. That's the challeng when any manufacturer increases pixel count. Canon has done a reasonable job with the 40D in maintaing low noise and high dynamic range whilst increasing pixel count by 25%.

Unfortunately, a 25% increase is not enough for a noticeable increase in resolution, beyond the pixel peeping level. One needs at least a 50% increase. A 12mp 40D would have been a much more attractive proposition as an upgrade to the 20D or 30D.

[Misirlou]

That's fine. I'm happy for you. I'm just rather skeptical when people make claims that cannot be demonstrated or shown through the internet by people who are expert in testing cameras.

You must realise that most people do not have the opportunity to compare prints of identical scenes from different cameras, so why suggest it?

No-one is doubting that the 40D has many new features that are worthwhile; faster frame rate, supposedly more accurate focussing, live view, ISO bracketing etc.

It's just that better image quality is something I haven't noticed yet, except at the pixel-peeping level at 200% enlargement.

However, I believe the saturation of red has been toned down a little on the 40D and that's the only difference I notice when I compare the 40D image of the house with the 30D image of the same poster of the house at Imaging Resources, using their comparator.

You'll have to forgive me if I think some of you might be engaged in some wishful thinking on the issue of improved image quality.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, I don't claim to be an "expert camera tester," nor do I particularly rely on them to guide my choices. I only care about how the equipment works for me. In my experience, a 40D image looks pretty similar to a 20D one on a per pixel basis, but the 40D has a lot more pixels. As far as I'm concerned, that's better.

The 40D has plenty of new features, most of which I expect to use. I never shoot JPGs, so I'm not especially entranced by Picture Styles, but I suppose there are others who might be excited.

Is the 40D better enough to merit replacement of anyone else's 20D? I don't have the foggiest idea. Depends on how you use your cameras, how much you like to spend on them, etc. I've certainly never claimed a 40D is as good as a full-frame camera, and it doesn't matter to me because I can't afford a full frame camera anyway.

My wife bought me a 40D, and I prefer it to my old 20D. That's all I can say.

I did shoot a series with both my 20D and my 40D at avery available ISO. I converted the RAWs to DNG, and zipped up the whole set, which you may find at:

[a href=\"http://www.wesandcarol.com/Files/PixelPeeps.zip]Humongous Zip File[/url]

The whole zip is over 100M, so I'm warning you that it will probably take a good long time to download.

I ran the AcrCalibrator script on both cameras, and here are my suggested settings for ACR:

40D
shadow tint -2
red hue -18
red sat 21
green hue -4
green sat 8
blue hue 6
blue sat -5

20D
shadow tint 0
red hue -16
red sat 20
green hue -7
green sat 17
blue hue 4
blue sat -6

[feppe]

Thanks misirlou, coming at a nice 400+kB/sec!

[Misirlou]

Thanks misirlou, coming at a nice 400+kB/sec!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149249\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It uploaded a lot slower than that!

[budjames]

That's fine. I'm happy for you. I'm just rather skeptical when people make claims that cannot be demonstrated or shown through the internet by people who are expert in testing cameras.

You must realise that most people do not have the opportunity to compare prints of identical scenes from different cameras, so why suggest it?

No-one is doubting that the 40D has many new features that are worthwhile; faster frame rate, supposedly more accurate focussing, live view, ISO bracketing etc.

It's just that better image quality is something I haven't noticed yet, except at the pixel-peeping level at 200% enlargement.

However, I believe the saturation of red has been toned down a little on the 40D and that's the only difference I notice when I compare the 40D image of the house with the 30D image of the same poster of the house at Imaging Resources, using their comparator.

You'll have to forgive me if I think some of you might be engaged in some wishful thinking on the issue of improved image quality.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149056\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray,

So I think that it's a real simple answer for you - don't buy a 40D.

Bud

[Ray]

Ray,

So I think that it's a real simple answer for you - don't buy a 40D.

Bud
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149306\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bud,
I never had a question. I've done my research and was merely correcting the original poster's statement which implied there was a definite improvement in the 40D's image quality compared with the 20D.

I won't be buying a 40D because my main camera is the 5D. My 20D is now used quite infrequently; mostly when I want the extra reach it gives me with my longest lens.

There is a noticeable and definite resolution improvement in the 20D image compared with a 5D image which has been cropped to the same FoV as the 20D image, after using the same lens with both cameras from the same position, and that's because the cropped 5D image is just 4.7mp.

[chickenhawk212]

(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.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148972\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray,

I have a 100-400 and a 1.4x teleconverter and the 40d does a pretty good job of focusing with this combo with the pins on the TC taped to allow AF.  i love shooting birds and since they are generaly far away and small, the crop factor, the 400mm and the 1.4x make it much easier.  In good lighting its fine, in poor lighting it will sometimes hunt, but its better than the 20d in this regard.  Come to think of it, i haven't tried untaping the pins, i wonder if it would work on the 40d?

Chris

[stever]

thanks for answering the question i was going to ask

if my old EOS 3 (peacefully resting in the closet) could autofocus at f8, why can't all new digital Canons do the same?

but then, why does Canon offer an 800mm lens instead of up-dating the 100-400?

[Ray]

Come to think of it, i haven't tried untaping the pins, i wonder if it would work on the 40d?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149427\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've read on other forums that it doesn't. Is there some technological problem here due to the size of the sensor? It seems a bit odd to me. If focussing accuracy and speed is increased on the 40D, then one would think it would be increased proportionally under all lighting conditions to the extent that at f8 autofocus becomes acceptable good if not always brilliant.

I can't remember, do any of the Nikon cropped format cameras have autofocussing at f8?

[Ray]

if my old EOS 3 (peacefully resting in the closet) could autofocus at f8, why can't all new digital Canons do the same?

but then, why does Canon offer an 800mm lens instead of up-dating the 100-400?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149471\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, the 800/5.6 is filling a gap between the 600/4 and the ridiculously expensive and heavy 1200/5.6.

What I would like to see from Canon is a whole range of lightweight f5.6 telephoto IS lenses starting from 400mm. The current 400/5.6 needs updating because it has no IS. The 400/2.8, 500/4 and 600/4 all have IS but are too heavy.

I can understand in the days of film, f5.6 long telephoto lenses would have been of limited use. They would often require use of high ISO film to get the required shutter speed, but most of Canon's DSLRs produce acceptably sharp and noise free images at ISO 800, which was not the case with ISO 800 film.

The 100-400 IS is marred because it's noticeably less sharp at f5.6 than at f8. It should be possible to produce prime telephoto lenses that are at least as sharp at their maximum aperture of f5.6 as at f8, if not sharper.

[macgyver]

feppe,

I own a 40d, I would never in a million years thought i would find the live view of much use, especially without autofocus (if it had that it would be great for scrum shots).  That being said, it makes manual focusing much better.  If all landscape shooters should be manual focusing, as you say, then this is a big help.  The ability to zoom in to 10x the normal view and fine tune things is excellent, and far more acurate that the viewfinder, even on the "low-res LCD screen". I would suggest you try it, you may not like it, you might.  I didn't think it would be useful but it is.

[feppe]

I pixelpeeped misirlou's 20D vs 40D RAWs (thanks for the effort, misirlou!). I only looked at the 100 ISO as that's where I do 99% of my shooting. This is the first time I've really done anything like this, so keep that in mind when reading this.

I couldn't find any evidence of increased dynamic range, but the scene lacks deep shadows with details. The colors are very slightly different, and the ColorChecker shows most difference in the fleshy tone. The stucko wall in the sample has quite a different tone, and it's somewhat flesh-colored. Hard to tell if it's more "accurate" with real flesh tones, but I'd imagine that was the reason for changing it. Whether that was another optimization for Japanese or Caucasian skin tones is a matter for portrait photographers to decide.

The biggest difference I saw was in detail. The RAWs from 40D shows quite a bit more detail than 20D, more so than I expected from the modest resolution increase. But when I did capture and output sharpening, the difference was almost unnoticeable at 100%! As the end-result is the only thing that matters to me, this suggests that Canon hasn't made much improvement despite the increased resolution and apparent detail rendition improvement with unprocessed RAWs. I haven't printed out anything, yet.

I was quite shocked at the un-sharpened detail increase, and was already re-considering my stance. But after doing proper sharpening the difference all but disappeared.

What I make of this: still looking for proof of dynamic range increase and shadow noise improvement. If that's not forthcoming, I'll hold on to my 30D.

[Ray]

The biggest difference I saw was in detail. The RAWs from 40D shows quite a bit more detail than 20D, more so than I expected from the modest resolution increase. But when I did capture and output sharpening, the difference was almost unnoticeable at 100%! As the end-result is the only thing that matters to me, this suggests that Canon hasn't made much improvement despite the increased resolution and apparent detail rendition improvement with unprocessed RAWs. I haven't printed out anything, yet.

I was quite shocked at the un-sharpened detail increase, and was already re-considering my stance. But after doing proper sharpening the difference all but disappeared.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151898\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Since I have broadband in my present circumstances, I also downloaded Misirlou's comparison images. I sort of half expected there would be a difference in exposure due to a different ISO accuracy between the two cameras, but I see that Misirlou has compensated for that. The main difference is that the 40D image comes out slightly more contrasty with the same ACR settings. At least the shadows are slightly darker.

The surprise to me is not that the 40D shows greater detail. There is slightly greater accutance in the 40D image but there's also something odd going on considering these shots were taken with the same lens. There's a noticeably greater difference in resolution at the far left edge than there is in the centre.

In fact if the difference in resolution at the far left edge extended across the entire image, I would consider that a worthwhile increase in resolution for the 40D that could not be compensated by any amount of sharpening.

Could it be the focussing in the 2 shots is slightly different and if so, why should it affect edge resolution more than centre resolution? Could it be Misirlou's 20D sensor just happens to be slightly under par in its performance on the left side, or could it be that the 40D has improved performance at the edge of the sensor which no-one but a pixel-peeper would notice?

The two sets of crops below compare upressed 20D images which are unsharpened, although both images had initial default sharpening in ACR.

In the centre crop I used a bit of gamma correction on the 40D image to lighten it slightly and used a bit of local contrast enhancement on the 20D image to equalise the tonality of the two images as far as possible.

[attachment=3800:attachment]  [attachment=3801:attachment]