1. Loads of interesting details and examples - well worth reading for anyone contemplating the purchase of a crop sensor DSLR.
2. In my view, the review occasionally repeats some "common wisdom" without questioning it or verifying it. For example - some of the comparisons of the durability of metal vs. "plastic" bodies reflect "what everyone says" more than objective fact. (I've used both in difficult environments, so I think I have some basis for this.)
3. Given the number of people trying to decide whether to get the "entry level" DSLRs or the "prosumer" DSLRs, I thought that this comment was key: "It’s hard to see any significant difference between the pictures taken by the Canon EOS 40D and those taken by the cheaper 400D model..."
Given that the image quality from Canon's mid-level DSLRs with a particular sensor (the 6MP of the 10D and the 300D, the 8MP of the 20D/30D and the 350D, and now the 10MP of the 40D and the 400D) has consistently been both excellent, there is essentially NO basis for getting the more expensive model out of a hope for "better image quality."
The real question has to do with the value to the buyer of the objective features supplied by the more expensive body - faster burst mode for example. Quite a few people "over buy," essentially thinking that the more expensive must be better. Maybe, but maybe or maybe not in ways that make a difference to _their_ particular usage.
Thanks for your contibution to sharing info about these cameras.
EB-1 wrote:
How can one judge image quality from jpegs? Does most everyone use jpegs with this level of camera now?
Two points...
Not everyone shooting with such a camera uses only jpg. I shot with an XT for two years and only shot RAW. However, I'm surprised to find that quite a large percentage of DSLR purchasers do shoot jpg - and not only at the XT/XTi level. I encounter folks using 20D/30D/40D or even 5D bodies and shooting in jpg. Strange, but true.
That said, there is actually quite a bit you can say about the image quality that the camera produces based on evaluating jpgs. One of the advantages of RAW is that you can take this starting point and apply more significant post processing. In fact, you typically must post process RAW files.
The real question has to do with the value to the buyer of the objective features supplied by the more expensive body - faster burst mode for example. Quite a few people "over buy," essentially thinking that the more expensive must be better. Maybe, but maybe or maybe not in ways that make a difference to _their_ particular usage.
Actually that's not the real question. The real question is which one pleases you most. Sheesh, not many guys choose toys or girlfriends based on an an objective assessment of better value. I drive a BMW Z4. A Honda Civic is certainly a better value is every sense of the word. However that didn't stop me from spending my hard earned greenbacks on something I liked better. Many of us simply prefer owning and using better gear.
Personally I found the 400D/XTi awkward to hold and difficult to compose with due to the small VF. Somebody with tiny hands and keen eyesight might be in hog heaven (my GF).
By using jpegs multiple variables are combined, so the results are of limited applicability (only to jpeg users). Some people, including yours truly, are not capable and in control enough of the situation to use the jpeg.
danmitchell wrote:
Given that the image quality from Canon's mid-level DSLRs with a particular sensor (the 6MP of the 10D and the 300D, the 8MP of the 20D/30D and the 350D, and now the 10MP of the 40D and the 400D) has consistently been both excellent, there is essentially NO basis for getting the more expensive model out of a hope for "better image quality."
Dan, I think this might not quite be the whole story (although I might be nitpicking). But just sticking to the optimal shooting range/circumstances for the 400D, the 40D might not produce better image quality. On the other hand the reverse probably won't apply. The 400D image quality will likely not match the 40D in all situations where the 40D can excel. Also, I expect that the 40D sensor design will allow for a slightly better image quality over the 400D.
Whether it is worth the upgrade from the 400D or not is up to the person and how/where they want to use the camera etc. Several people on other forums seem to think it's been a worthwhile upgrade for them even from the 400D. But those people maybe are ready to move to the xxD series from the xxxd in any case
