Hello!
I am new to this wonderful website and thank one and all for their thoughtful commentaries.
Back in the early 60s, while I was in the 7th grade, I convinced my father to help me buy a new 2 1/4 Rollie Twin Lens Reflex-basic model (if I recall the name correctly) for the then princely sum of $60.00. It was a great "teacher" and I have been photographing ever since that time.
As one who has had a myriad of Nikon equipment (all sold to buy a Contax N1, a 24-85mm and f4.0 400mm lens) I'm used to film and seeing as Contax no longer sells cameras in the US, I'm now going to try digital.
So, my quesiton regarding the 40D is, "How does it handle in comparison to a Nikon ____?" My last Nikon was a F5 and ended-up selling it due to poor metering, slow AF, dark and restrictive viewfinder with poor AF and metering indicators inside the VF. Yet, it was very well built with great material usage inside and out.
I now have no preference for either Canon or Nikon, so your professional and personal thoughts are all welcome.
As far as reviewing the camera versus Nikon, we hope to do this as the new models become available to the general public. We do not get cameras under any sort of NDA. Not that I would never sign one, if I thought it would benefit our members.
Jeff, you picked a good time to make a choice as Nikon finally seems to be really catching back up across the board with their camera line.
Curtis, regarding high iso tests and image quality tests, that has just been posted.
Noel, I would say you are right on with your assessment. I'm sure it would make a decent sports cam for the budget minded. Is it a 1D, no. Is it better than the 30d. Most definitely, yes. By the way, these AI Servo results are for the center point only. I did also test with ring of fire, but the results were not much better. However, the ring of fire setting seems to help the 1D MKIII considerably. I guess that is to be expected with 45 focus points versus 9.
I haven't read the "focus drift" thread at all, so I have no idea what they might be saying. However, in my experience, it doesn't "drift" anymore than the 1D's "drift." It just gets it right sometimes and wrong others. If it drifted it would start out good and then gradually get worse and worse. This is not the case. The images that are in focus are pretty much scattered evenly throughout all of the runs with a slightly higher % at the end of the run because the subject fills up more of the frame.
No, unfortunately the 40D does not have the ability to adjust front or back focus as the MKIII does. If indeed, a 40D were to need this service, it would need to be sent off to Canon service with the lenses to get a proper calibration.
Very interesting IQ results, and similar to my own observations. Additional things I've noticed about my own 40D: At ISO 100 there is virtually NO noise visible whatsoever in skies and other smooth surfaces. This is a small but significant difference from my prior 20D in that sharpening can be applied almost at will without worrying about destroying the creamy smoothness of said portions of the photo.
Also, I've been evaluating the 40D for suitability for astrophotography. The additional 2 stops of dynamic range (i.e., the 14 bits of data per photosite vs. 12) really do make a difference in the choice of ISO one would want to use. The 40D is the first dSLR I've seen that actually approaches purpose-built astro CCD cameras in performance. Plus, the high ISO noise is more random than ever (mirroring your findings, Drew). As a very quick test I stacked 3 ISO 3200 images together to see what it would do with the noise and the resultant image got MUCH cleaner, without the signs of remaining banding my 20D was delivering. Finally, there's no amplifier heat signature in the very dark portions of the images. Canon seems to have gotten it all right with this one.
About the only other thing in your image quality tests I would have liked to see is a conversion of your incandescent light images using a low color temperature, as the images you posted have the "Canon yellow" typically seen in such lighting conditions. Converting them with a cool color temperature - or shooting with a custom white balance - really puts stress on the blue channel in the camera, and tends to show whether a high ISO image would fall apart under real use.
Thanks for your work here, Drew. The 40D is a camera deserving of a lot of attention.
Hi!
I must say I'm very puzzled after reading review.
I was going to replace my 350D with 40D but after seeing your test pictures (by the river) don't know ...
Your pictures seam to be VERY soft with not enough detail and high noise even with 100 ISO. They are inferior (very inferior!) compared to my pictures taken with 350D and 50mm f1.4 (same lens that you used).
They look somehow out of focus. I tried to apply some sharpening (CS3) on them but didn't help much.
I haven't seen the images you are comparing these with. However, I can tell you that at one time we had a rebel xti as a backup camera to the 5D. Overall, the images from the 40D are superior to the rebel xti, especially at high iso. At iso 100 there may be very little difference in terms of noise.
Some possible explanations for your reactions to these images are the following.
1) Most of these were shot with raw and converted with DPP with no sharpening or other adjustments. It was all set at default.
2) The ones that were shot as in camera jpeg were shot in "Faithful" mode. Again, no bump in sharpening, contrast, etc.
3) There does seem to be a mismatch between this 50mm lens and this 40D body. I have noticed an overall softness to some of the images. Both the lens and the body are brand new to us. So, I don't know which is at fault. Most likely, neither. They just probably need to be sent in for calibration. Chalk one up for the MKIII series here. You can perform these micro adjustments in camera.
4) The very top image is a very problematic image. It was posted to show some of the typical problems you might have in a high contrast image such as this one. The focus is off, but that aside, the main issues have to do with overexposure.
5) The second image is much better at iso 100, but also suffers somewhat from the challenging subject matter. This is a fairly hi contrast image with a lot of foliage in the background. Most digital cameras (including the 350D) have a very hard time rendering the greens and details in foliage well. It is often even harder to render them well in a print. But, that is another issue.
I very much doubt that if you purchased this camera you would want to go back to the rebel. Even, if the image quality were identical, and its not, there are many other substantial improvements that make the upgrade a no brainer. Of course, you may not need the other improvements. In which case, I would save my money.
A comprehensive test is a good thing. Since Drew did the 1D tests i would tent to trust his results on this test.
But there are so many types of photography and users out there that threads like the 'focus drift' get traction when the test is soooo flawed as to be a joke.
AI servo means just about nothing to me - I use it (sometimes) at weddings for the processional and the 40D beats the 30D hands down - based on the one wedding I shot with the 40D - BUT there are so many variables (speed the girls walked, light amount, light direction, dress color, flowers or how they were held, etc) that my experience is nothing more than anecdotal.
I love my 40D, so any comments I make about it will be shaded by that. Others I supposes expected a 5D/1D mk3 combo on the cheap - you still get what you pay for as this Servo focus test illustrates. The 40D blows the 30D into the weeds in IQ, ISO and focus accuracy/speed based on what I use a camera for.
Was there any reply to Chris' question on difference on 40D & 30D? 6.5fps compared to 5fps; larger 10.1-megapixel than 8.2; $200 price difference found at Penn Camera- 40D at $1,299.99 and 30D $1,099.99.
Re: Canon 40D Interactive Review 
Linear Mode
