stanj wrote:
Really? What camera? (your profile doesn't say). Also, how do you turn the said 14-bit image into 12-bit? Do you have a plug-in that chops the bottom two bits? I am really curious.
By comparing the difference in tonality between my 1DsMKII, 1DMKIIn, 400D, and 1DMKIII on my EIZO CG210 monitor.
Maybe you guys should post a string on this with a vote, see if there is some substance to it. I'd certainly be interested in checking such a string out. In fact, such a string would have a whole lot more guts and substance than alot of what goes on because we could "see" it, and we are all photographers
Any of you have access to "all" or most of those cameras? Well, shoot the same scene or subject and let the rest of us vote, that would be excellent, but the subject and situation needs to be exactly the same, and photographed at the same time. It takes one of you guys who have all of the cameras, I know you are out there You rich guys
OldCodger73 wrote:
One feature of the Nikon D300 that hasn't been mentioned is its magical ability to render your present Canon camera, or for that matter the 40D, incapable of taking the quality pictures that you have been able to do in the past.
Jim Victory wrote:
By comparing the difference in tonality between my 1DsMKII, 1DMKIIn, 400D, and 1DMKIII on my EIZO CG210 monitor.
Sorry, but that's comparing apples and oranges. The point was people pointing out the slow burst speed between 12 and 14 bit on the same camera (D300), which is why the comparison needs to be made on the same camera. Take your 1D3 image, strip the bottom two bits (set them to zero), and then go compare them. And therein lies my challenge.
stanj wrote:
Sorry, but that's comparing apples and oranges. The point was people pointing out the slow burst speed between 12 and 14 bit on the same camera (D300), which is why the comparison needs to be made on the same camera. Take your 1D3 image, strip the bottom two bits (set them to zero), and then go compare them. And therein lies my challenge.
It doesn't work that way. You can't "strip the bottom bits" from a 14 bit vs. 12 bit image. A 14 bit pixel is described as one of 16k levels while a 12 bit is around 4k. "Dropping the pixels" involves resampling the image down to the new bit depth. Just like saving from 12 bit RAW to jpeg (which is 8 bit) doesn't drop the "bottom" or "top" bits, it's resampling it.
The difference could be seen on screen when adjusting an image with a very smooth gradient. Lets say you have a very smooth image that goes from one shade of grey to another. In a 12 bit RAW file, the difference between each colors can only be described in terms of 4000 steps per channel (I'm just talking about black/white, because it's easier.) If the image has 4000 pixels, each with a unique shade of grey, any adustment to that region would result in banding or posterization. Each color can *only* be described in terms of those 4000 levels, so if the levels get closer together, it has to pick one that's not perfectly acurate anymore. The 14 bit RAW file has the ability to vary the darkness of that color over 16,000 levels.
Is that situation typical? No. Is it possible? Yes.
This really is going nowhere!, I just want my 40D so I can break the habit of checking this thread........ Due in end of next week (SIGH)
Will not give a second of thought to Nikon when it arrives with the 70-200 f4 IS, Sigma Macro 105 & Tokina 12-24.. Keeping my 50mm 1.8 but 300D and other lenses going Kit & 55-200 f4.5-5.6 II
The specs on the 40D are more than I expected & with the new glass I can't wait to be blown away!!!
Shadow areas that need to be bumped up during post processing should benefit a great deal from 14 bit captures. Due to the way data is distributed across a capture, shadow areas have far fewer samples than midtones and highlights. 14 bit captures will increase the number of tonal samples in a given range by 4x!
It appears someone in HK has just receive a 40D and has posted a few samples, such as they are. The last image of the DVDs at ISO 1600 is interesting in that it looks rather noisy, but chroma noise seems to be quite low. I'll reserve judgment until I see more high ISO samples.
I see some people has taken the advertising blurp from Nikon about the display off the D300 and D3 line, hook and sinker. The display is NOT 922 000 pixels, it is 307 000 pixels. Check the specs carefully and you will see it is true. The D300is a very nice camera but should not be compared to the 40D but rather to the 5D. The 40D is affordable and is a significant update from the 30D and is going to be very succesfull.
Sanlameer wrote:
I see some people has taken the advertising blurp from Nikon about the display off the D300 and D3 line, hook and sinker. The display is NOT 922 000 pixels, it is 307 000 pixels.
Aw, come on. Don't blame Nikon for the industry standard of triple-counting those LCD pixels. For instance, prior to those incredible Nikon LCDs Canon had been proudly showing off their 230,000 pixel 3" LCD. But did you know that there are only 76,800 pixels in Canon's so-called 230,000 pixel LCD? Whether you're comparing 992K vs 230K, or 307k vs 77k, there's no getting around the fact that the Nikon LCDs have four times as much pixels as the Canon LCDs.
Sanlameer wrote:
The 40D is affordable and is a significant update from the 30D and is going to be very succesfull.
True. The EOS 40D is now available in Hong Kong at a street price of $1150 USD. Incredible. After 1-2 months, these prices tend to fall some 5-10% below the initial street price. The EOS 40D will be below $1100 USD long before the $1800 Nikon D300 even hits the market in November.
In a way, you have to commend Nikon for their incredible sense of timing. Imagine --- in 2006 they release the $1100 D80 against the $800 XTi. It's inevitable that all the reviewers would pit those two cameras against each other, inspite of the huge price difference. Critically, the XTi got knocked out, even though it was contending with a camera from a different weight class.
In 2007, again Nikon releases a $1800 Nikon D300 against the $1300 EOS 40D. Inevitably, people compare those two cameras again, inspite of the huge price difference. The cheaper camera gets its butt kicked, and Nikon keeps winning in the P.R. department.
Of course, the 350D was clearly more capable than Nikon's offering in the same price bracket (D40). But did people notice? Nope.
The 400D was clearly more capable than Nikon's offering in the same price bracket (D40x). But people didn't notice either, because the 400D carried the stigma of getting its butt kicked by its mismatched rival, the D80.
Likewise, the EOS 40D is head and shoulders above Nikon's offering in the same price bracket (D80 & D200). But do people care? Nope. The 40D is an excellent camera, but it will always carry the stigma of having been outclassed by a mismatched rival, the D300.
Likewise, the EOS 40D is head and shoulders above Nikon's offering in the same price bracket (D80 & D200). But do people care? Nope. The
It' all about P.R. and timing.
Nor do I care that Canon is finally being buried by the competition. Time to sell and let them fall behind. Except perhaps for thier 8000.00 top of the line..
Those look awefully good to me. Not as nice as the MkIII but my quick reaction is they are better than the xti. What do people think about a stop better? maybe a little less?
My main concern here is this.... what kind of lens you have to use on the D300 and 40D to get good quality images. I've seen sensor issues with the 5D when using non L Canon lenses. The same lens on a 20D and on a 5D looked sharper on the 20D. I wonder how far can you push Mpixels on a crop sensor before you start outrunning the lenses. I'm on a budget, I don't want to have to invest over 2000 dollars on lenses just to be able to take good quality sharp images out of a 10 or 12 Megapixel sensor :|
Will, for example, the 50mm f1.4 Canon lens still take sharp images on the 40D? Or will people have to move towards the high end 50mm F1.2L?Will this be even more critical on the Nikon D300? Because, both cameras are on the "safe" area for me as a studio photographer in Brazil living on a budget and who would like to invest on a good camera, and more lenses, and have a body to last a couple of years.
I'd like to see tests regarding that issue of pushing more megapixels on the same sensor area, Vs how the lenses handle this increasing need for sharpness and resolution. Same with the 22Mp Mk3 Vs a 22Mp digital back ( someone mentioned the D300 and 40D being in diferent price ranges but now direct competitors... the new Mamyia ZD on 9999.00 with body and lens on the 22Mp range, will be direct competition to the new Mk3 as well ).
JessicaLuchesi wrote:
My main concern here is this.... what kind of lens you have to use on the D300 and 40D to get good quality images. I've seen sensor issues with the 5D when using non L Canon lenses. The same lens on a 20D and on a 5D looked sharper on the 20D. I wonder how far can you push Mpixels on a crop sensor before you start outrunning the lenses. I'm on a budget, I don't want to have to invest over 2000 dollars on lenses just to be able to take good quality sharp images out of a 10 or 12 Megapixel sensor :|
Will, for example, the 50mm f1.4 Canon lens still take sharp images on the 40D? Or will people have to move towards the high end 50mm F1.2L?Will this be even more critical on the Nikon D300? Because, both cameras are on the "safe" area for me as a studio photographer in Brazil living on a budget and who would like to invest on a good camera, and more lenses, and have a body to last a couple of years.
I'd like to see tests regarding that issue of pushing more megapixels on the same sensor area, Vs how the lenses handle this increasing need for sharpness and resolution. Same with the 22Mp Mk3 Vs a 22Mp digital back ( someone mentioned the D300 and 40D being in diferent price ranges but now direct competitors... the new Mamyia ZD on 9999.00 with body and lens on the 22Mp range, will be direct competition to the new Mk3 as well )....Show more →
I don't think you'll have to worry too much going from 8 to 10mp. Of course, the better the resolving power of a lens, the better iq in the long run for future bodies above 12mp. I noticed more of a difference in lenses on the 5D at the edges for obvious FF reasons. Jumping to a 16mp 1DsmkII was a bit more critical on lenses. But simple primes like the 50/1.4 still produce great results... no need for the 50/1.2 in my case.
Do you think Amazon.com information about 40D - Sep 20 shipment is correct? Previously do they follow dates they are promising?
I am selling 400D to get 40D as second body, just wondering if this is good time. Could it be that BH or other reputable store might have it faster?
I just happen to assist a photographer who owns a 20D and a 5D, so, I could see the diferences first hand
And getting ready to buy new lenses too, because from those sample ISO images, I kind of noticed the kit lens won't just cut it anymore, I found those images a bit too soft.
I pre ordered through adorama and copied and pasted directly from Adorama's web page. Towards the bottom of the page they estimate delivery for early September.
Adorama Camera | Digital | Cameras & Accessories | Digital Cameras |
Canon EOS-40D Digital SLR Camera Body Kit, 10.1 Me..
Item Includes | Description | Features | Specifications
Canon EOS-40D Digital SLR Camera Body Kit, 10.1 Megapixels, Interchangeable Lens Camera - USA Warranty
Click for large image
SKU # ICA40D
Mfr. Part # 1901B004
Our Price: $1,299.00
Email this item
Add to Wish List
Product Rating
(0 Ratings)
Write a Review
Product Rating Write a Review
This is a new item which is not available yet. Delivery expected to start in September 2007
Please note: you can order this now and as soon as it arrives we will ship it to you.
We do not charge your card for any backordered items. We only charge your card when we actually ship.
My delivery date shows Oct 1st - 5th. I was one of the very first to place an order on Amazon. From my experience, I always receive my Amazon products much earlier than the estimated delivery date, so Sep 20 sounds about right for the 1st batch to ship out. If you chose free shipping you should get it in about 4 days... so around Sep 24th, that's my estimate.
I also have a 400D and will sell it once I receive my 40D. I don't think 400D prices will fluctuate that much on Ebay between now and October. You should just keep the 400D until you have your 40D in hand.
george malamis wrote:
I pre ordered through adorama and copied and pasted directly from Adorama's web page. Towards the bottom of the page they estimate delivery for early September.
...
This is a new item which is not available yet. Delivery expected to start in September 2007
I only see 'start in September' in your copy/paste text....which could be anywhere between Sept 1st or 30th...where do you see 'early September'?
