Normcar21 wrote:
[snip]....I would really be interested in seeing the same sort of shot with manual white balance, using a real grey card, to see what happens with the color red. Much appreciated
I don't think the problem in red display is with the white balance. Others may disagree, but I believe it has more to do with the picture styles output from the camera or RAW processing. I went back and performed different white balances on the raw file, and the white balance as shot choice looks the best to my eye. I went back into DPP and altered picture style output with better success in getting the stop sign closer to neutral red.
See here: http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/40D/styles/index.htm
What do you think? For those interested, I am willing to post all three RAW files from the three cameras.
Guys am I missing something or is this camera not yet supported by Adobe RAW?
Can't find it on their site and it's not listed on cameras they support.
Are you using Canon's software to open the files in RAW??
(I've never done that and certainly wouldn't venture to judge a camera on that basis.)
If I'm just not finding it, would be grateful for someone to point me to it.
jeff mandell wrote:
Guys am I missing something or is this camera not yet supported by Adobe RAW?
Can't find it on their site and it's not listed on cameras they support.
Are you using Canon's software to open the files in RAW??
(I've never done that and certainly wouldn't venture to judge a camera on that basis.)
If I'm just not finding it, would be grateful for someone to point me to it.
You will have to use Canon DPP until Adobe release support for 40D...... not released yet, sure someone will post on FM as soon as it is released.
If I remember, it was well over a month before Adobe got the RAW plug-in out for the 20D after it was realeased. DPP works quite well as a RAW converter, in fact I liked it better then CS2 RAW. You can then just "Convert and Save" in DPP as a 16 bit TIFF and it should open up ok in CS3 RAW.
If you open RAW file with DPP does it show grayed-out areas to the far right and to the far left of the RAW histogram? Pictures from older cameras should show grayed-out areas indicating smaller DR.
Could anyone try to take a comparison picture using say, 20D and 40D which has high dynamic range (window with some sun coming trough and some background inside the house which is dark, etc) using the same F/shutter/ISO setting and then try to rescue details in DPP do you see any difference?
Trying it with highlight priority on and off would be also interesting.
What may particularly cause a stir is his claim that:
"I find that the IQ of the 40D is on a par if not even slightly better than that of the Canon 5D, which up until now has been my benchmark for DSLR image quality both at low and at high ISO."
What may particularly cause a stir is his claim that:
"I find that the IQ of the 40D is on a par if not even slightly better than that of the Canon 5D, which up until now has been my benchmark for DSLR image quality both at low and at high ISO."
Hey thanks for the link. I find this a rather bold claim considering the numerous (high and low iso) samples I've seen so far, not to say that they are bad, but better than the 5D?. Maybe he had low expectations and was pleasantly surprised with the results.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Michael Reichmann just posted this hands on review on Luminous Landscape:
"I find that the IQ of the 40D is on a par if not even slightly better than that of the Canon 5D, which up until now has been my benchmark for DSLR image quality both at low and at high ISO."
You have to take anything Reichmann says with a grain of salt though. The man has a tendency to exagerrate because of his unbridled enthusiasm for the latest cameras.
Isn't he the same guy that proclaimed a 3 MP dSLR or somesuch was equivalent to 35mm film? Or was it the 6 MP dSLR > Medium Format. Or was he the guy that made the first batch of Leica M8's, warts and all, sound like the Second Coming? I forget which. Regardless, Reichmann's gear reviews have always been overwhelmingly positive --- emphasis on overwhelming.
jonbrach wrote:
I think he was referring to IQ not high ISO performance which he described as similar to the 30D...certainly a favorable review of and view of the 40D
He did not describe high ISO performance as similar to that of the 30D; the closest he comes in the article is to say that the 40D does not offer a breakthrough in high ISO performance. He later compares the 40D favorably with the 5D at ISO 800, calling the 40D's performance "exemplary".
What may particularly cause a stir is his claim that:
"I find that the IQ of the 40D is on a par if not even slightly better than that of the Canon 5D, which up until now has been my benchmark for DSLR image quality both at low and at high ISO."
But what happens when you print the picture with the lower pixel density of the 40D? The 5d will undoubtedly look better when printed. So his IQ judgement may have been gained by looking at the screen of a pc, and that doesn't carry much weight in the end. You would have to have a pretty bad FF camera to be beat by a 1.6 one.
geniousc wrote:
But what happens when you print the picture with the lower pixel density of the 40D? The 5d will undoubtedly look better when printed. So his IQ judgement may have been gained by looking at the screen of a pc, and that doesn't carry much weight in the end. You would have to have a pretty bad FF camera to be beat by a 1.6 one.
Using the same(!) lens, the higher pixel density(on the sensor) of the 40D (approximately 43% higher than the 5D), for a given lens-delivered subject size will contain more actual info (feather-detail in the bird, say). 40D PPI (sensor) about 175, 5D about 122.
If THE BIRD, rather than the whole frame is printed at the same size, the 40D should give a better bird. [If as MR Implies, the IQ of the images is similar,...and assuming the bird-on-sensor does not exceed the frame-limits of the 40D (a frequent situation in tele-wildlife photography where the adage is "You never have enough reach").]
I know, ...a should-be-dead horse, ... but not! :-)
L. H. Smith wrote:
Using the same(!) lens, the higher pixel density(on the sensor) of the 40D (approximately 43% higher than the 5D), for a given lens-delivered subject size will contain more actual info (feather-detail in the bird, say). 40D PPI (sensor) about 175, 5D about 122.
If THE BIRD, rather than the whole frame is printed at the same size, the 40D should give a better bird. [If as MR Implies, the IQ of the images is similar,...and assuming the bird-on-sensor does not exceed the frame-limits of the 40D (a frequent situation in tele-wildlife photography where the adage is "You never have enough reach").]
I know, ...a should-be-dead horse, ... but not! :-)
geniousc wrote:
But what happens when you print the picture with the lower pixel density of the 40D? The 5d will undoubtedly look better when printed.
No. That's the point... the review says that the image quality is perhaps even better than that of the 5D. Why would you think that higher image quality translates to lower printed image quality? A full frame sensor is not magic, just larger. I'll take a properly framed, focused and exposed 30D shot over a 1D shot. Sensors of a particular format are not all created equal.
You would have to have a pretty bad FF camera to be beat by a 1.6 one.
No. Not if the 1.6 one were good enough to overcome limitations of the sensor size (some limitations existing of course for FF as well).
I am curious to know what the reviewer meant by this statement, in particular. Would he be at least as happy with a large print from a 40D as from a 5D? If so, that seems to imply roughly equivalent resolution, which seems strange at first glance. Of course, the fact that the lower-res edges are discarded using FF lenses on a crop camera may have been part of his judgment. I don't think that EF-S lenses on a crop sensor must offer much resolution advantage, if any, over pro lenses on a FF sensor, including at the edges (although shots I've seen from the 10-22 looked very good in the edges stopped down).
I notice that he seems to have shot many or all of his shots using the 70-300 DO, not the sharpest lens in the world. So if he thinks that those were equivalent in quality to shots from a 5D (or better), one wonders what he would have thought after using a better lens.
In the end the comparison isn't very scientific-- but someone who has used a lot of cameras certainly seems to like the 40D, and that's something.
if you look on page 11 or 12 you will see my first post from friday when i picked up the 40D..Now it is sunday and I have shot 2 weedings with itg over 1000 exposures... I use a 28-79 "L"2.8 for most of the shots..here is what I found.. Using the 580ex and the cazmera set too 6000 K with a +2m offset Ai servo and iso 640 the 40D is great The exposure for the most part were good and the fleshtones were very smooth and creamy... Now my pet peeves.. the LCD is hugh and bright and you can see it in the sunlight..But it is low in resolution.. Reviewing my first images I said "Here we go again another out of foucus camera like my 10D "what a dog"..But putting the images on the computer proved me wrong sharp and crisp.."I had to put the sharpness up to 6" but they are great.. The LCD is big and the menus are are easy to navigate but for gods sake why didn't canon bump up the pixel bundle... Lets not start that Nikon vs Canon debate again with the D3 vs the world...Canon has 7 years of CMOS under their belt nikon has 2 days...But canon spys should have saw the specs on their LCD 922 million ..Other than this the 40D is solid and a good perfomer my poor 20 is now in the bottom of the case..
. Same angle of view.