gml1 wrote:
Keep the faith, Geoff! Canon's daddy is bigger and stronger than everybody else's
I'm not minimizing the impact Nikon has had. I think it is great for competition. But I haven't seen in any of these Olympic Nikon/Canon threads any mention of the NBC sponsorship listing at the end of the broadcast the acknowledgement for the Canon HD lenses.
The biggest issue that i have with the 40D is that at 100% there's no sharpness. Even at 100 iso. It could be tha Aliasing filter or it could ne the on chip NR (the D700 and D3 seem to suffer simularly). My 5D images are way sharper. My worry with 15mp on a 1.6 cropped sensor, isn't iso noise. I belive that Canon have always increased the noise level in pace with their increase in MP, so the noise with a 20D is the same as a 40D, but one gains in MP. But my concearn is the clarity and sharpness of it's pixels at 15mp. I've looked at those examples and sure, they might be fakes. But there's not a sharp image there. The last Subaru image is a 1600 iso pic taken with a 600mm f4 and it's soft as liberal social worker.
Huh? Do you have any examples? I shoot 5D's but the files from a 40D that my 2nd shooter was using last wedding were just as sharp. Not as good tonality or resolution but the sharpness was there. Seriously, make a RAW file available sounds weird.
05xrunner wrote:
its the same 9 point af thats been around since the 20D...its time to revise it and add more points to make it more comparable to the competition. Like 25points would be great. Just cause they are cross now...still doesnt fill those huge voids between them
I saw something in one of the many 50D threads that said the 50D (if it exists) would have 9 AF points, all of the crosshair type. My 20D only has the center as a crosshair type.
In the 4 years I've owned it I've never felt the need to use anything other than the center AF point when I use AF. But that's probably just my 35+ years experience with center split screen/microprism focusing aids showing.
Beni wrote:
Huh? Do you have any examples? I shoot 5D's but the files from a 40D that my 2nd shooter was using last wedding were just as sharp. Not as good tonality or resolution but the sharpness was there. Seriously, make a RAW file available sounds weird.
Edited by Beni on Aug 24, 2008 at 01:59 PM GMT
Try comparing at 100 iso. The 5D images get softer as the iso increases. At 100 iso it's RAW files are stunning. The 40D seems soft in comparision. They sharpen well, but they also don't seem to carry the same level of detail. At 400 iso, I find the 40D really soft.
RJJR wrote:
I saw something in one of the many 50D threads that said the 50D (if it exists) would have 9 AF points, all of the crosshair type. My 20D only has the center as a crosshair type.
In the 4 years I've owned it I've never felt the need to use anything other than the center AF point when I use AF. But that's probably just my 35+ years experience with center split screen/microprism focusing aids showing.
+ me, too (only 31 years). And the fact that in 99,9% there is no focus point where I want to have the focus. Before I switch I am much faster and more secure, to move the center point, focus and rearange. If the semipro viefinders would give a chance, I still would focus manually 95% of shootings.
RJJR wrote:
I saw something in one of the many 50D threads that said the 50D (if it exists) would have 9 AF points, all of the crosshair type. My 20D only has the center as a crosshair type.
Thats already in the 40D..the center is cross and diagonal with 2.8 and faster and all 9 points are cross type at 5.6
I don't really care if it's 9 points or 11 points or 45 points as long as the darn thing tracks as well as what I've heard the D300 does. If it's not an improved AF system I'll have a hard time upgrading. Better high ISO, microadjust and a higher res LCD isn't enough in my opinion.
all I want is three low-light sensitive, high precision, cross-type sensors at 25%, 50%, and 75% of the long dimension. No other crap clouding up the viewfinder. My F100 was pretty close to this and worked great.
RJJR wrote:
I suppose it doesn't really matter to me since I only use the center AF point if I use AF at all.
I guess then No one needs to have ANY other options since thats how you shoot and you make it seem like thats the only way to shoot. Center point or nothing
05xrunner wrote:
I guess then No one needs to have ANY other options since thats how you shoot and you make it seem like thats the only way to shoot. Center point or nothing
I said, "it really doesn't matter to me," and it doesn't. That doesn't exclude the options for others and I don't really care what others do. And yes, I use the center point or nothing. Usually nothing since I manual focus the vast majority of the time just like I have for almost 40 years. I'm just used to doing it that way.
RJJR wrote:
I said, "it really doesn't matter to me," and it doesn't. That doesn't exclude the options for others and I don't really care what others do. And yes, I use the center point or nothing. Usually nothing since I manual focus the vast majority of the time just like I have for almost 40 years. I'm just used to doing it that way.
