Wacom wrote:
But canon spys should have saw the specs on their LCD 922 million.
Don't multiply Nikon's marketing B..S..t. D3/300 LCDs are VGA with 307K pixels, just about 15% resolution gain. Still welcome, but color&gamma accuracy still to be checked.
dswiger wrote:
I think it means they have to change the small JPG size to be decent resolution when every you are fully zoomed on the LCD.
Dan
yeah, they really should just zoom into whatever jpg you take (unless, of course, you shot RAW only, then what can you do, although i bet digi III could even process that into a temp and let you look at it pretty fast, i mean it can create jpgs pretty fast).
at least when liveview can be used, focus can be assured ahead of time, with 10x zoom.
i got a bit of a scare too. wasn't use to 40D screen and thought I had a hideous case of backfocusing or something.
vyanush wrote:
Don't multiply Nikon's marketing B..S..t. D3/300 LCDs are VGA with 307K pixels, just about 15% resolution gain. Still welcome, but color&gamma accuracy still to be checked.
May I know where you got this info from? If it's true, then I am VERY disappointed. For that extra 15% resolution, they drop refresh rate from 30 to 15 fps? Sigh...
Today I succumbed to a case of "need it now" and bought the 40D after popping into a camera shop in Elizabeth Street (Melbourne's camera precinct) just to have a look and feel
Was offered a good price so I bought it on the spot. I have to say that I expect the 10D will sadly be relegated to the back of the cupboard or ebay shortly. Unfortunately (or not, perhaps) I have to wait until tomorrow when I head back home before I can try it out because I bought the body only and all the lenses are at home. So far, just reading the manual and playing with the menu and settings, this little beauty looks like a real winner. It feels lighter than the 10D and even nicer to hold, which probably shouldn't have been a surprise, but I wasn't expecting it. I love the 3 camera user settings accessible from the dial, and the "my menu" settings.
What I particularly like, though, is the ISO always in your face. I'm forever forgetting to readjust this, so it'll be great to have it always on display.
Also, the info panel so that I don't have to squint and keep shifting the camera to look at the LCD on the top of the camera. A boon for when the camera is on a tripod and will mean I don't have to keep putting on my glasses to see what the settings are.
Hopefully it won't be too long before Adobe gives us an update to Camera Raw and Lightroom.
Thanks to everyone here for posting info on the 40D. It helped me able to decide quickly to buy when the camera shop offered such a good price - no umm..ing and aah..ing necessary.
vyanush wrote:
Don't multiply Nikon's marketing B..S..t. D3/300 LCDs are VGA with 307K pixels, just about 15% resolution gain. Still welcome, but color&gamma accuracy still to be checked.
Actually, it's not just Nikon, it's Canon and the whole industry BS too. The 40D's LCD is really only 320x240 = 76,800 pixels resolution. Canon also multiplied it x 3 because of 3 individual R,G,B pixels making up one real pixel resolution to get the 230k pixels claim. Nikon's 3" LCD VGA resolution is still 4x the number of pixels in the Canon 3' LCD., not 15%
Face the facts, whatever the measure of LCD resolution you use, as Roland says the Nikon's are 4x the Canons, 640x480 vs 320x240 and anyone who thinks that's not much of a difference needs to alter their medication.
Canon took the easy path and offered 3 year old specs on a $4500 camera that was in most other areas completely redesigned from the 1D II. Sony have P&S cameras also offering VGA res on the LCD. Offering a 3" LCD and not increasing the res is pretty pathetic IMO. Hopefully, they'll quickly change the specs on the unreleased 1Ds III and ensure the 5D II also has improved specs.
Edited yet again - I'm still confused and can't figure the difference in Nikon vs Canon LCD, especially after reading this article and the response from Nikon.
It would seem there is more to the story, but the Nikon resolution is not twice that of Canon, but more like 15% better/sharper (in terms of just pixel count), and there may be other factors that make the LCD image look better as well (array type).
I imagine the 3" LCD is 3" on the diagonal, making its dimensions about 2.5x1.7". With 320 pixels on the long side, you get about 125 pixels per inch, which is better than most computer monitors. Sure, if you have excellent eyesight and scrutinize the screen from very close, you can see those individual pixels, but this is not an issue I'm going to fret about.
abqnmusa wrote:
The 40D LCD screen is 230,000 pixels if you bother to read the Canon specifications.
And the Nikon LCD screen is 921,600 dots / 3 = 307,200 pixels by my calculations which I believe means that the resolution difference is a factor of around 15% in favour of Nikon. But as Nikon says in the link above, the type of array is different but what that means for quality of LCD image I do not know. I expect we'll have to wait till November or whenever to find out .
BTW - I can't imagine one will notice the difference unless perhaps looking at the 10x zoom - but who knows.
Instead of focusing on something of substance, we are quibbling about an LCD screen. Either the 40D screen is good enough or it isn't-- the differences are surely not enough to sway one to one camera make over another. This whole niggling argument seems ridiculous to me.
EDIT: Can someone PLEEEEASE test the 40D against the 400D and/or 30D regarding the sensor sensitivity issue?
Edited by jvarszegi on Sep 04, 2007 at 04:06 PM GMT
Can we argue about pixels/subpixels in the general 40D discussion thread? As Jeff tried to point out several times, this thread is intended to share real-world user experiences not spec debates or "where to buy" questions. Let's seperate the wheat from the chaff, gentlemen.
It sounds like many of the participants here aren't really interested in the images from the camera, as opposed to the electronic tricks it will do.
The whole idea of "well, if the info screen isn't reproduced on the read LCD, I'm not gonna buy it", really has me puzzled.
In 30+ years of shooting with many cameras, I've never had one with perfect controls/features, but I have had a couple that made superb pictures and that's all I ultimately cared about.
I was initially concerned when I downloaded images from the 40D, but have, since buying one myself, become cautiously quite enthused. I haven't shot enough yet to make a permanent decision (and have another 11 days to do so), but subjectively, I think the images I'm getting are a substantial improvement over the 30D in detail, contrast and the elusive continuous-tone.
The image on Luminous-Landscape shows that well.
I also love the new screen.
The idea that one would buy another brand for the same size screen because it has more pixels, however, is to put the cart before the horse. Unless viewing the images on that screen is your final use of those pictures, the only purpose of the camera screen is to decide if what you have is enough to warrant moving on. The Canon screen is fine.
I'm also a scuba diver. On a number of boards, all people talk about is regulators and wet suits, instead of where to go diving.
I think I have enough to make my own decision now, but I merely note that if you're counting dots on the camera's screen, you might be getting a little too close to the trees in the forest.
I've only had mine for 2 days, but compared to my 20D, the 40D ISO400 is a bit noisier. I will work on that, and so far reducing it to ISO320 and stopping up the exposure a couple notches instead makes up for it. More later.
Netgarden wrote:
I've only had mine for 2 days, but compared to my 20D, the 40D ISO400 is a bit noisier. I will work on that, and so far reducing it to ISO320 and stopping up the exposure a couple notches instead makes up for it. More later.
Can you test the sensor sensitivity versus the 20D? Put them both on a tripod in manual mode, under controlled lighting conditions, and see what settings are necessary for each to get the same exposure (i.e. compare histograms). Thanks a LOT.
Hi, yes I will try to squeeze a few tests into my day. I will try with some accuracy. But it really takes alot of tests to really nail any real problems when mixed with new user. Thats why I am cautious in judgement. But I may have to adjust my style of shooting a little.
Beautiful set up tho. Love it and hope I can figure it out for birding. I was pretty confident with the 20D, but not used to the 40D yet. So far I do not have any more keepers or notice much change in color or clarity. Need more time with it, and probably will make a few shooting changes. With the 20D and the 300f4 I am used to some sweet shots, so I will be maybe too critical at this stage.
.