Normcar21 wrote: 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.
i'm not sure why someone would feel compelled to post a comment such as this...talk about zero value added.
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.
I'd rather have one 40D than one 5D, all else being equal. Otherwise, I'd take the 5D, sell it, and have a 40D and a nice new lens or two. I can't see spending the extra money for 2.8 extra MP, a slower frame rate, and probably less-accurate focusing for the type of shooting I do. Horses for courses.
Apples to Oranges here guys. What do you guys think about getting back to the subject of this thread, 40D Hands On reports before a moderator has to step in.
I was reading through the manual, and on page 79 it mentions that the extra sensitive AF point is available with f/2.8 and faster lenses except the 28-80 f/2.8-f/4 and 50mm f/2.5 compact macro. I wonder why?
EOS20 wrote:
I was reading through the manual, and on page 79 it mentions that the extra sensitive AF point is available with f/2.8 and faster lenses except the 28-80 f/2.8-f/4 and 50mm f/2.5 compact macro. I wonder why?
I am no lens expert.
The 28-80 is obvious that at the long end it isn't 2.8, so I guess that's not what you were asking.
As for the 50 could it be that at close focusing distance, the effective aperture decreases to a point it is less than 2.8? If it isn't so, perhaps it is taking onto the account of the life size converter (which would decrease effective aperture) that is mated with it.
Why doesn't it applies to the 60, 100, 180 macro? They are all internal focusing lenses (whereas the 50 is not) and at close focusing distance their effective focal length decreases. My wild ass guess is that the effective aperture is maintained by reducing the effective focal length.
The 28-80 is obvious that at the long end it isn't 2.8, so I guess that's not what you were asking.
As for the 50 could it be that at close focusing distance, the effective aperture decreases to a point it is less than 2.8? If it isn't so, perhaps it is taking onto the account of the life size converter (which would decrease effective aperture) that is mated with it.
Why doesn't it applies to the 60, 100, 180 macro? They are all internal focusing lenses (whereas the 50 is not) and at close focusing distance their effective focal length decreases. My wild ass guess is that the effective aperture is maintained by reducing the effective focal length....Show more →
Good thoughts. (BTW I am under the impression that the 180 has a max aperture of f/3.5.)
I'm not a pixel peeper - I just want to be able to get acceptable results either in the print, or on screen. This is an acceptable result for me - not the greatest shot, but I chose it for the amount of detail it contained. I bumped saturation, contrast, and applied some usm. Resized for display and exif is attached. This is a full frame shot and I used my Sigma 80-400mm.
Jim Schemel wrote:
I think the shot by teaser just needed a little bit of PP. Nothing to do with the camera.I spent 1 minute in DPP and here it is .
-Jim
therock wrote:
Apples to Oranges here guys. What do you guys think about getting back to the subject of this thread, 40D Hands On reports before a moderator has to step in.
Thanks
ditto...I keep coming back for info and I'm seeing snaps that don't relate to the subject...
Heres some surf shots I was thrilled with. The vote is still out for birding. I seem to have gotten alot more keepers with my 20D and cleaner shots.
I do hope canon can do something with that. Could be the larger autofocus area, and I expect to either figure out a new style to make it work or the camera goes to canon for calibrating. This worrys me. I use the 300f4 alot.
However the two worked outstanding for surf and sports.
Heres a link to my post. I'm selling my photos now. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=24758413
The color is much improved of the 20D, more saturated but not so great for birding because you lose fine detail. Thats probably workable in custom functions.
SLgdfella wrote:
how is the new sensor cleaning on the 40D? I have a 30D and it frustrates me with the dust problem it has...
I just got a 40D on Friday, but so far so good. I was out a very dusty high desert site all day yesterday. Normally it fills my cameras with dust, but both the 40D and the 1D Mark III came back clean, not a speck to be found.
jchin wrote:
For those of you who got your 40D with manuals, where did you buy from?
Did the 40D come with DPP?
The 40D comes with a printed Instruction Manual and a CD with all of the software, including DPP. That is a standard USA product. I bought mine at onecall.com.
Yes, came with the latest version of DPP, ver. 3.1
Its really nice. I am not sure if that is the same version for the MKIII.
I would like to know that question, because it is supposed to be very compatible with the canon color, etc..
I bought from Samys.
About the sensor cleaning:
Yes, so far it has worked well and I have had it at the beach 4 times, walked thru dirt and sand, and slat air by the waves. I'd say thats a pretty goos test to check.
Otherwise, I'd take the 5D, sell it, and have a 40D and a nice new lens or two. I can't see spending the extra money for 2.8 extra MP, a slower frame rate, and probably less-accurate focusing for the type of shooting I do. Horses for courses.
