Question for American members here...
I'm coming to visit the USA (California) end-october. From experience of the release of previous models, do you think the 40D will be readily available in the shops by then, or is Canon fairly slow in the first months? I can imagine that in the first few months demand will be higher than supply. If so, I'd better start ordering!
Has anyone compared the IQ to samples from the "lesser" models. I can't imagine someone with a 5D downgrading for a few small features and I would hope the extra $1,200 would buy you something in the 5D.
I believe I will be the more typical buyer of this camera. I will be moving up from, or adding to, an XT. I was going to buy a used 30D but the few extra dollars for the 40D may be well spent. Reading through this thread really has taught me a lot about the 1 series and the 5. This kind of saddens me. I know now what I have been missing and will continue to miss until I can afford the better bodies.
I think it's going to be worth waiting a few months before putting the cash down for a 40D.
I still intend to get a 40D but with the announcement from Nikon, I'm waiting to see what Canon's response will be. I don't expect any miracles but given how competitive Nikon have become over the last 12 months, Canon will have to do something and I think discounting will start early.
The new Nikons won't change the habits of very many existing Canon users IMHO but they will have an effect on the new DSLR buyer who doesn't mind dropping a bit of extra cash for more capability. In terms of price point, the 40D and D300 are quite different but still within range of each other. The point is that I don't see the market share changing that much just yet. Canon's price advantage will see them remain competitive but spec hungry types who are just getting into DSLRs will probably go for the D300.
The 40D is a good competitor for the D200 but my guess is that there will be a few people wiping their brows at Canon HQ.
I just don't see how anyone with a 5D would go and get a 40D. The 5D IQ blows away my XTI. Granted it's fps is slower than the 40D but it's low light abilities are superior and full frame lets L glass shine. The self cleaning senser is nice but not a big deal to me. Just take care and keep up on it and you will be fine. All the slr's will have it soon anyway. If Canon speeds up the 5D which I'm sure they will. I will go get two more.The wait will be well worth it. Just be patient the 5D upgrade is around the corner.A much better camera in my opinion. It's an industry standard SLR to me and I swear by my two.
the only reason i havent upgraded from my 400D is because the 30D and the 5D both are old technology.
The anti dust really is fantastic and the 40D seems to have everything i was looking for.
Im in hong kong right now and the 40D hit the shelves 3 days ago, i was just playing with one this afternoon and was impressed.
The LIVE VIEW FEATURE though i think really has been included just because competitors are doing it now and it seems a bit crappy. you can focus using any or the AF points when in live view and to auto focus at all you have to go into the custom fuctions and turn on "focus assist" - (what does this mean it helps you get close or actually does focus?) seeing as there is no AF focus pint in live view it seems to just take an average focus of the whole frame. maybe useful for shots at concerts from far off holding above a crowd but i wont be using it much i doubt. - i must add though that you can manual focus well in the live view if you can be bothered to.....
The new larger 3" screen is just AWESOME
when reviewing and zooming into a photo you taken, I really dont like the little jostick to move around to see the image close up, on the 400d the 4 button pad is much better
Playing around with an existing 14-bit image and trying to argue the merits of the extra 2-bits is NOT the same as generating a 14-bit image in camera vs. 12-bit.
Think of all of the possibilities for highlight recovery with extra bits *in camera*. Remember - while the shutter is open, the sensor is exposed to the incoming light. Nothing says that data has to be read from the sensor once - in fact it most certainly isn't read once. In a 1/60s exposure, one could theoretically scan the sensor multiple times and add the readings to get your final picture. Now, add algorithms that aren't simple addition...
Who says that the internals of the camera don't read multiple times and use the extra headroom of the 14-bit only for highlights that would normally be overexposed if the entire exposure time elapsed. For discussion let's propose that the sensor logic polls the pixels at 5x the shutter rate. If a particular pixel is 2/3 exposed after only 2 polls it's easy to conclude that this pixel will be blown out. The logic can then reduce the sensitivity or throw out every other poll from this pixel site to compress the highlights.
Doesn't anyone think it's interesting the "highlight priority" mode needs to be set when the picture is taken and that it affects both RAW and JPEG? If each exposure was nothing but a standard RAW but with 14-bits, why does a special mode need to be set on the camera? The whole point of RAW is that it is unprocessed... *something* is different about the way the camera operates when this mode is set.
While it may be true that data rates may not be sustainable to read the entire sensor several times etc... I think the concept is valid. This is the beauty of the Canon CMOS sensor over the CCD array used by other vendors. There can be, and is processing done on the sensor die before the image data is sent off of the sensor. It wouldn't shock me at all if the creative minds at Canon have started making the array adaptive and it's coming forth in the form of "highlight priority" and 14-bit RAW to support it. During the exposure time the array itself may do highlight compression if enabled.
My bottom line is that generating 14-bit data is not the same as manipulating data once it's out of the camera. Tone curves applied DURING the exposure cannot necessarily be replicated in post production.
Craig.
stanj wrote:
Yes, this is correct. However, the difference is less than one may think; typically you see a difference between 8 and 16 bit -- here we talk 12 and 14... Also, it's yet to be seen how much of the two bits is actual signal and not noise. Just as you can pack an 8 bit image into 16 bits without gaining anything, same can apply for 12 vs. 14.
J.D. wrote:
The 40D is a good competitor for the D200 but my guess is that there will be a few people wiping their brows at Canon HQ.
...and the winner is...the consumer!
They should given the lack of good technical support, their inferior focusing system, a pathetic IR on flash units, poor low light focusing on lesser expensive dslr's and I could go on. A D300 for a few hundered more makes far better sense. I know I've not been happy with Canon for some time now and am definately making the jump now. Canon has completely destroyed my faith in them as a company reguarding any kind of decent support besides "lip service" Just has been my experience with them.
Sorry to be negative but I believe others have the right to know either side
IL76 wrote:
Question for American members here...
I'm coming to visit the USA (California) end-october. From experience of the release of previous models, do you think the 40D will be readily available in the shops by then, or is Canon fairly slow in the first months? I can imagine that in the first few months demand will be higher than supply. If so, I'd better start ordering!
Thanks!
Eduard
Welcome. This is a difficult thing to predict. I guess that you will probably be able to find this camera somewhere here at the end of October. It will likely be sold out at the larger retail stores that offer the best return policies e.g. Best Buy, Target, Comp USA. The 40D may be on the shelves of the smaller camera or eletronics stores that sell above retail prices or don't offer refunds or exchanges.
As a follow up to my previous post about the 40D images on dpreview, note there are two images that include London Bridge. Both are consistent with my observation, but the one I was referring to, which features red river boats in the foreground, even more so.
That one features red river boats in the foreground, with the bridge a good way behind. Since the exposure was made at f/8, the bridge is presumably out of focus to some extent, yet still whomps the 30D.
The other is an image of the bridge alone, but it's a different section of the bridge, showing only an expanse to the left of the suspension portion. This doesn't match up to the section in the 30D portfolio. Even so, it's quite instructive, since at lest some portion of the bridge is in focus. I say some portion because looking at it, I can't tell where the focus point is. More importantly, time of day, bridge portion or otherwise, neither 30D shot renders the bridge with the same detail and three dimensionality as the 5D.
Now I'll certainly concur with the notion that if one shot is taken at noon and the other in late afternoon with a favorable angle, etc., it could explain a lot, but in looking at the entire 30D portfolio on the pdreview site and comparing it with the entire 5D portfolio, there's just an enormous difference to my eye.
And shouldn't there be? One is full frame and costs three times the price of the other.
My only point was to question my own increasing enthusiasm that the 40D was a magic bullet.
That said, I'll stop commenting on every post.
Jeff
calemon wrote:
Playing around with an existing 14-bit image and trying to argue the merits of the extra 2-bits is NOT the same as generating a 14-bit image in camera vs. 12-bit.
Think of all of the possibilities for highlight recovery with extra bits *in camera*. Remember - while the shutter is open, the sensor is exposed to the incoming light. Nothing says that data has to be read from the sensor once - in fact it most certainly isn't read once. In a 1/60s exposure, one could theoretically scan the sensor multiple times and add the readings to get your final picture. Now, add algorithms that aren't simple addition... ...Show more →
You are missing the point. The 14 bits don't mean that you got two bits of extra dynamic range. It's more like you take a ruler that has both inches and millimeters on it; it's still the same length, but the side in millimeters will be "more accurate" if you are limited to using integer values and no fractions, simply because there are more millimeters in a meter than there are inches. The mm side of the ruler isn't any longer.
And the banter goes on...so, time for another 2 ˘ from the peanut gallery.
FWIW, as a Canon XT owner, it isnt really a question of whether I should upgrade to the 40D, but when. I actually compiled some numbers on a few of the more readily apparent and identifiable factors and when it comes down to it, for the XT and the XTi, the upgrade just makes sense. On the 20D/30D...not as evident...check out the comparison here:
stanj wrote:
You are missing the point. The 14 bits don't mean that you got two bits of extra dynamic range. It's more like you take a ruler that has both inches and millimeters on it; it's still the same length, but the side in millimeters will be "more accurate" if you are limited to using integer values and no fractions, simply because there are more millimeters in a meter than there are inches. The mm side of the ruler isn't any longer.
Stan, then the result will be a smoother tonal instead of higher DR. Rite?
