Having seem many reports on the 40D, seems it definitlely it has better image quality compared to the 30D at higher ISO like 800/1600. Most of the images I have seen in reviews etc however are off camera JPG's. Would really like to see some image comparisons of the two at 100/200/400 ISO after some skilled post processing. Is there really that much difference to make an upgrade worth it?
My impressions are the same as Il Medico. I think that the 30D is a very fine camera having previously owned the D30, 10D and 20D for comparison (and several variations of 1-series cameras and my current 5D). I bought a new 40D at an excellent price and sold the 30D but not for image quality reasons rather it was for some of the other features that have been upgraded. It has only been a couple of weeks since I made the switch but I am very pleased so far.
A significant amount of my work is African wildlife photography. I have used the 20D, 30D, and now the 40D with all combination of teles and superteles. With those lenses under typical safari conditions, each has proven a significant upgrade. However, the upgrade from 30D to 40D is most dramatic. The focus is faster and always more accurate; the colors are better; The 40D at ISO 400 is equal to the 30D at ISO 200; the menu layout on the 40D makes for far fewer mistakes; and lastly, the body just feels more 1 series like. I purchased two 40Ds while waiting for the Mark III fiasco to work itself out. I have a 1Ds Mark III on order and will keep my two 40D's when it arrives. Some upgrades are worthwhile, some are not. This one is certainly worthwhile. At least for my 2 cents worth
Cheers-Red
I owned a 30D and upgraded to a 40D. I do not really see any differences in IQ but the 40D's other features (improved AF, bigger viewfinder, liveview) made it worthwhile for me. As I wear glasses, the viewfinder alone was a major consideration. I could never see the whole viewfinder and the digital display at the same time! I wouldn't upgrade for better IQ but the 40D is a superior camera in all other areas.
You will see a difference if only very slight. What is forgotten too often with increased resolution by those who say they don't need it is that more resolution gives you more room to crop when finishing your image. I welcome the 10mbps of the 40d over the 20d/30d if for no other reason than I can crop and retain enough resolution for quality prints better than I could with the 20d. Some other huge reasons to upgrade is that the 40d has great AF and 6.5fps shooting speed making it really good for fast moving objects. I also love the shutter sound. It's very, very quiet. If I'm shooting in a quiet environment I don't get disapproving looks. This camera also feels really good in the hands. This may sound like a small thing but it's small things that either irritate us with, or endear us to our cameras.
I shoot a lot of low-light youth sports. I THINK the 40D is better at ISO3200 than my old 30D, especially with the High ISO Noise Reduction on. I've been shooting hockey jpg's at 3200, and been very impressed.
Here's an example, shot through the glass with some Neat Image applied. I don't think the 30D could have done this, but I also have to admit I didn't give it many opportunities at this ISO either. http://msalvetti.smugmug.com/photos/266156050_9vFVt-XL.jpg
perspective wrote:
... Some other huge reasons to upgrade is that the 40d has great AF and 6.5fps shooting speed making it really good for fast moving objects. I also love the shutter sound. It's very, very quiet. If I'm shooting in a quiet environment I don't get disapproving looks. This camera also feels really good in the hands. This may sound like a small thing but it's small things that either irritate us with, or endear us to our cameras.
I agree 100%. I love how quiet the 40D shutter is. That alone could be worth an upgrade for some photogs who need to be descrete. No doubt about it that the 40D is an awsome camera in many ways and a huge improvement over its older brother.
I have a bit of a different perspective than many of those above. In terms of resolution, I don't see a big increase going from the 30D to the 40D. However, I feel that overall image quality with the 40D is better (similar to the 1D MkIII), and requires significantly less post-processing straight out of the camera. The 40D seems to get exposures closer to correct without any interference from the human element compared to the 30D. The 14-bit aspect couldn't hurt IQ, but I sure do see the increase in the file sizes as a result. Lastly, though I haven't done any testing, I think the 40D's high ISO is a bit better, but not enough to make any decisions to upgrade from a 30D.
For me it was user interface issues since migrating to a 1D MkIII that led me to upgrade. I liked the new AF ON button, and it started to drive me nuts that I couldn't focus similarly with the 30D (I know i could have reassigned the MkIII's buttons to match), and going back and forth became arduous. I personally think that the xxD series AF stinks all around (coming from the 1-Series), especially in regard to sensor placement. Why they don't take that archaic 45-point system and just drop it into the prosumer cameras is beyond me.
I currently own 'em both, and I've literally never used my 30Ds once since buying my 40D last September.
Anyone who says there's no appreciable "native" difference in IQ isn't shooting in the situations that push the capabilities of the cameras.
Hell, for a lot of photography a P&S will do - but that doesn't mean that a P&S and a good SLR are "the same" in IQ terms, it just means that for that kind of photography (whatever it is) a P&S is adequate for the job.
Listen to Red Grainger, msalvetti and (to an extent!) Jeff: the rest either don't know both cameras, or shoot in situations where any camera will do the job.
I agree with Jeff on the image quality out of the camera. I skipped the 30D when it came out because I did not feel it was worth upgrading from my 20D but I have had plenty of hands on with this camera thanks to my friends.
The images I get with my 40D as well as the MKIII just look so much better straight from the camera. Also the new menu system is such a pleasure to work with. I used to hate the fact that I would be shooting with the MKII and then switch to the 20D and get menu brain lock! I would have to stop and think about how to use it. Now with the 40D and MKIII I have my most common used functions saved to the My Menu section and find it so much easier to switch between bodies.
Another thing I know is the the auto focus on the 40D has been improved over the 20D/30D bodies. My 40D has no problem focusing in low light with my 24-70L where my 20D would tend to hunt from time to time. It also locks focus faster.
As for noise at high ISO. I feel the 40D has improved. I don't mind shooting at 1600 anymore and like the fact that I can shoot at 3200 if I feel like it. It's still not as good as my MKIII as far as noise is concerned, but usable images all the same.
Sure there are things I wish Canon would have added to the 40D. I would love to have the 1 series focusing system in my 40D but I realize why they don't do it. Take the 40D and add a 45 point auto focus, weather sealing, dual card slots, and you might as well be buying a 1 series body because that is how much it is going to cost.
I have a 20D and 40D. When shooting with the same lens and same ISO, no flash. The 40D image quality is only slightly better, a little less noise.
However as others stated, the 40D's other features are much worth it. The clearer viewfinder, larger LCD, 6.5 frames/sec and faster focus lock was enough for me to buy it.
I have 10D, 30D and have recentlig got a 40D. Have just been in Norway for vacation. Almost all my pics shows fantastic colours. I can see a different compared to my 30D, I think sharpness is the same but the pictures are more colourful.
Below you can see an example.
Jan Jensen
Denmark
Edited by Jan Jensen on Mar 29, 2008 at 09:23 AM GMT
I have 10D, 30D and have recentlig got a 40D. Have just been in Norway for vacation. Almost all my pics shows fantastic colours. I can see a different compared to my 30D, I think sharpness is the same but the pictures are more colourful.
Yes I do!
I use a Sandisk Extreme IV 8.0 GB Flash Card so no problem to exposure jpg L and in RAW.
By the way it seams that uploading don't work ? I use Browse and find the picture in the actual folder and then click EDIT Message but the picture aren't there ? What is wrong can you help ?
Yes I do!
I use a Sandisk Extreme IV 8.0 GB Flash Card so no problem to exposure jpg L and in RAW.
By the way it seams that uploading don't work ? I use Browse and find the picture in the actual folder and then click EDIT Message but the picture aren't there ? What is wrong can you help?
To tell you the truth I have never used that function and do not even know how to upload pictures here - I always link to external site(s) instead. Like the 40D pictures below. They were of course recorded in RAW. I find that the 40D's picture quality is very good provided you avoid kit-lenses like the 17-85 4.0-5.6 or worse. I have not compared it directly to the 20D/30D, though. But I feel that the 40D is better.
Bogatyr,
Yes I know that way to do it, use my own server an just make a link to the pics !
Ultra sharp pics you have uploaded. I,m agree with your suggests regarding glasses. I have the same lens as yours : 200mm 2.8 II and 100-400 L, 24-105 L IS, 17-40 L, 50mm 1:4, Macro 100 mm 2.8. Especially my 24-105 L IS is mounted most of the time on my 40D, it takes great pictures and is very versatile in additional.
? What is wrong can you help ?