mslammers wrote:
The one thing that is a bit awkward is moving from screen to screen in
the Menu. The mutli-button is a bit small for my fingers. Of course you
don't do it often, so it just takes a little getting used to.
You can also use the Jump button or the upper wheel to move between the screens/tabs.
Alek Komarnits wrote:
In my opinion, the 40D has close to a one stop improvement over the XTi - especially when comparing XTI(800) to 40D(1600) ... although there it varies depending on where you look - try clicking on the full-size crops as I tried to make it easy to compare stuff.
Edited by Alek Komarnits on Sep 08, 2007 at 11:01 AM GMT
I commend your effort Alek and it is appreciated. I have also looked at your results and I have to disagree with your conclusion. I don't see anything close to a 1 stop difference between the 40D and XTi images. To my eye, the differences are marginal at best.
thedigitalbean wrote:
I commend your effort Alek and it is appreciated. I have also looked at your results and I have to disagree with your conclusion. I don't see anything close to a 1 stop difference between the 40D and XTi images. To my eye, the differences are marginal at best.
Cheers.
I see the biggest difference in the shadow areas - again, I focused on the XTi(800) versus 40D(1600) be sure you are comparing with noise reduction.
But hey, that's just what my (old!) eyes suggest to me. Appreciate your review/opinion and it's been interesting/educational to see what folks have seen. There's certainly some subjectiveness in this area! ;-)
thedigitalbean wrote:
I commend your effort Alek and it is appreciated. I have also looked at your results and I have to disagree with your conclusion. I don't see anything close to a 1 stop difference between the 40D and XTi images. To my eye, the differences are marginal at best.
Cheers.
I'm comparing the 40D to a 1Ds2 - which is pretty difficult because of the crop factor because 85mm lens (1Ds2) gathers light differently than a 50mm lens (40D). Plus, there are lens differences too. With highlight tone priority enabled, the 40D can handle the same range as the 1Ds2 - maybe slightly better. But there's a price to this... Highlight tone priority's net effect is similar to shooting ~ -2/3 EC and then boosting the mid-tine levels in CS2 (maybe a value of 1.2 to 1.3). It's probably more than that, but that's how I would sum up the net result. The downside of the highlight tone priority is some color shifting (IMO) plus the added noise due to ISO 200. On top of that the 1Ds2 and 40D have different tones curves embedded into them (a-la Canon). I can't say that one camera is better than the other, they just handle the DR differently.
It's been over 3 years since I last had a 20D, so comparing the 40D's DR to the 20D is no where near scientific on my part. That said, the 40D does appear to blow fewer highlights than I remember experiencing with 20D, but I'm not 100% convinced on the 40D's color fidelity. WB between the 40D and 1Ds2 is markedly different, so that throws another curve into the comparison. I think the 1Ds2 is significantly better in this particular area. On its own the 40D produces a nice image, next to the 1Ds2 I prefer the 1Ds2's image. I've been shooting with the 1Ds2 for almost 2.5 years, so I'm very accustomed to its look. I hope Canon doesn't break the 1Ds3 with a whole new look to the image.
I am impressed at how well the 40D can handle extreme highlights with tone priority. With the custom style maker I'm hoping I can create my own tone curves, thus calibrating the 40D to my preferences. These were some first shots with the 40D, and was definitely impressive within this context -
Alek Komarnits wrote:
Some discussion about high ISO performance in this FM thread ... but in a nushell, I put up a web page that allows you to easily compare the High ISO performance of the Canon 40D versus the XTi. Using some Javascript, I allow you to easily flip between ISO 100/200/400/800/1600/3200 images re-sized and cropped ... plus you can also see the difference that the 40D CFII.2 noise reduction makes. I also provide the original images for those that want to look at those. Note that these are all using in-camera generated JPEG's to simplify the test - no RAW originals.
I've seen various comments that 40D is better than this, worse than that, or same-same ... so I wanted to see for myself ... with some help from Buzz Lightyear! ;-)
In my opinion, the 40D has close to a one stop improvement over the XTi - especially when comparing XTI(800) to 40D(1600) ... although there it varies depending on where you look - try clicking on the full-size crops as I tried to make it easy to compare stuff. Picture below was shot at ISO3200 (with NR) on the 40D - second one is full-size crop ... I'll add that the cleanup is considerable when you drop to 1600.
Edited by Alek Komarnits on Sep 08, 2007 at 11:01 AM GMT...Show more →
Thanks for more comparo material I'd say from your samples the 40D and 400D are pretty identical even though the 400D shots are a bit darker. I don't agree with your one stop improvement claim of the 40D over the 400 (maybe one to 1,3 stop over the 300D) So this would mean: noise of 5D = 40D = 400D, how about that?
Coming from a 300D (no regrets there) the 40D feels like its made to be in your hand. Weight for me is perfect!!
Will take me a while to get to the guts of it with all the extra features but exciting having so much flexibility & options. Love the instantaneous response time with EVERYTHING.
Here's a shot from this morning yes some PP but that is for my taste Woodman's Point Dunes
Maybe it's the lens, not sure, it's a great photo compositionally but the color saturation seems to me to be a bit pale. Great photo, though. John Black, thanks for those shots, excellent color and saturation. Nice to see
Edited by Normcar21 on Sep 08, 2007 at 05:58 PM GMT
Normcar21 wrote:
Maybe it's the lens, not sure, it's a great photo compositionally but the color saturation seems to me to be a bit pale.
Being a native of the Florida coast, I think it's about right for not being in direct sunlight. But I think know where you are coming from. Nice sky in that one.
Great saturation in the first shot and second shot, the last two are what I've seen with this camera, somewhat pastel like and less than saturated. I'm impressed with the first shot, but very unimpressed with the last shots here. The soldier and flower are excellent, why are the other two not? That's what I ask myself. The last shot is horrible as regards saturation. It is pale and dead
The 3rd and 4th I shot to analze how well I could do in low light conditions / ISO low and really made no atempt to shoot in camera as best I could. Im coming from XTi where I normally have allot of trouble in low light.
I obviouly need more time whith the 40D until im intuitive with working with the new unit,
To me, all of the shots are a bit shallow and are not even close to a 5D exposure, but that may simply be my mind rather than a visual reality. The 40D seems to be flat and lifeless even with the best exposures. That is my opinion only, thankfully to you who love that camera. I'd rather have 1 5D rather than 10 40D's. Wishing all of you 40D owners well, and glad that I don't own one. Think I'll buy a 5D since I closed off the Mark 3 shipping.
Normcar21 wrote:
To me, all of the shots are a bit shallow and are not even close to a 5D exposure, but that may simply be my mind rather than a visual reality. The 40D seems to be flat and lifeless even with the best exposures. That is my opinion only, thankfully to you who love that camera. I'd rather have 1 5D rather than 10 40D's. Wishing all of you 40D owners well, and glad that I don't own one. Think I'll buy a 5D since I closed off the Mark 3 shipping.
Ok I wont ask if you are jealous again.......> As it looks obvious.>
TEASER wrote:
Ok I wont ask if you are jealous again.......> As it looks obvious.>
Oh and thats my opinion.....>
VERY OBVIOUS, Sad if you ask me.....I also take it you have read the reviews 40D vrs 5D! What can I say, except the 5D is 2 yrs old, and now has a match under it for improvement.
nativeridge wrote:
Coming from a 300D (no regrets there) the 40D feels like its made to be in your hand. Weight for me is perfect!!
Will take me a while to get to the guts of it with all the extra features but exciting having so much flexibility & options. Love the instantaneous response time with EVERYTHING.
Here's a shot from this morning yes some PP but that is for my taste Woodman's Point Dunes
40D & Tokina 12-24
Beautiful shot nativeridge! I was going to head out this morning to shoot, but there was a thick blanket of fog where I was so decided not to go in the end.
I will take my 40D out tomorrow for a shoot though since it looks like a nice day.
BTW, I'd suggest you don't have to take on board comments from posters (unless you want to). Some people like highly saturated shots with lots of sharpening, totally noise free - some prefer a more natural style and some even like a little "graininess". It's a matter of taste. In any case, this is a hands on thread so a lot of post-processing may mask the actual performance of the camera.
BogongBreeze wrote:
[Some people like highly saturated shots with lots of sharpening, totally noise free - some prefer a more natural style and some even like a little "graininess". It's a matter of taste.
That was my first thought as well, it really does depend on a lot of factors on if the shot will be saturated. If you want to shoot a morning sky for saturation the exposure you would set would not be allowing for detail in the foreground - more likely nice silhouette of foreground edges.......
I wouldn't judge lack of saturation in an image as a flaw in the gear... so far I have no doubts the 40D can cover whatever result I am looking for, if I shoot for it
My problem was the 100-400 wouldn't focus close but after some ace detective work by my wife I found it was me so NEVER MIND!!
