My 40D review
09-04-2007, 05:10 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Motor City
Posts: 1,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My 40D review
It all depends on what your expectations are.
If one expects a Mark III Jr. for $1200, one would be disappointed. If the 350D is more than enough for the type of pictures you take, you will be disappointed.
So for me it is a nice upgrade from my XTi as far as features are concerned. Picture quality from a single shot outdoor average picture are the same. But for that matter so is my 4 year old S70. The metering is better than the XTi and the AF ability to lock in tricky lighting situations is better. The AF lock is noticeably faster as well. I've use the 30D a few times and it "seems" better and faster but not enough to make this the only reason to upgrade. I have not had the camera long enough to test the AF tracking so I will not comment. The AF on/off button is a welcomed feature as well.
To start with I'm not a pixel peeper, but the high ISO test shots with my 50mm 1.4 and EF-S 17-55 show a clear advantage to the 40D over the XTi. They are about the same up until 800, but from there on out the 40D has an advantage. (too my eyes at least). As far as is compares to the 30D....I don't have enough experience with the 30D to comment. The AUTO ISO feature is welcomed for me. Also 3200 is very usable. I haven't had a chance to really compare the in camera NR function either so I can't really comment on this.
6.5 fps works and is a nice feature. It's not really something I will use for the type of photography I enjoy, but it's nice to know it's there.
Live view works, is easy to use and focus manually. For me it's a "gimmick" because I don't have a real need for it. I could see using if for tripod mounted MACRO work. Again, nice to have but I doubt few see this as the reason to upgrade or 1st time buy.
The viewfinder is a SERIOUS upgrade for me. As a glasses wearer, the XTi or for that matter all but the Pro Canon products were lacking. Nikon was always been easier for me to use. The 40D's viewfinder is a welcomed upgrade. The viewfinder info is also easier to view while composing a shot with glasses on. I don't have to angle my head to look at both subject and info.
Ergonomics clearly goes to the 40D over the XTi (about the same as the 30D). The XTi is small without the grip. With the 40D I don't need the grip unless I want the extra battery capacity. The trade off is weight. While on the subject I won't be getting the WIFI grip unless the price comes down by 1/2. I don't really have a use for it other than bragg'n rights.
3" screen is a nice upgrade. I don't edit from the camera so it's more than enough for me to understand if the shot is right. It's the same screen setup as the Mark III's I've played with.
MENUS and features are easy to understand and navigate. It's the same thought process as the XTi so I was use to it.
Button layout and control is easy if you come from Canon's world. It's similar to the 30D (Elan series, or for than matter any Canon Semi Pro layout).
SUMMARY IMHO
If you are a REBEL/Kiss owner it's a "no brainer" if you can use the features and have the cash.
If you are a 20/30D owner it is a tougher decision. The photo quality for 80% (my made up number for augment sakes) of real world shots is going to look the same on prints. The only real advantages I see are tricky situation shots, but then for the most part it's the photographer's ability to understand the light and composition more than it's the gear. (jm2c) The 40D real benefits (again...imho) are in it's updated ergonomics and easy of use features. If you are a white paper buyer is a clear upgrade.
If you need a second body, the 30D would work just as well for less money. UNLESS you needed 6.5 fps in a smaller body.
Would I recommend this camera, so far with my limited us of it....YES. Would I wait for the next model...it's up to the user. You can always wait for the next model. But since there is NEVER going to be and "end model", you are ALWAYS going to be using the penultimate camera.
If anybody has any questions they want to ask about it, I will attempt to give you my best answer. (assuming I know an answer and most times I won't..)
If one expects a Mark III Jr. for $1200, one would be disappointed. If the 350D is more than enough for the type of pictures you take, you will be disappointed.
So for me it is a nice upgrade from my XTi as far as features are concerned. Picture quality from a single shot outdoor average picture are the same. But for that matter so is my 4 year old S70. The metering is better than the XTi and the AF ability to lock in tricky lighting situations is better. The AF lock is noticeably faster as well. I've use the 30D a few times and it "seems" better and faster but not enough to make this the only reason to upgrade. I have not had the camera long enough to test the AF tracking so I will not comment. The AF on/off button is a welcomed feature as well.
To start with I'm not a pixel peeper, but the high ISO test shots with my 50mm 1.4 and EF-S 17-55 show a clear advantage to the 40D over the XTi. They are about the same up until 800, but from there on out the 40D has an advantage. (too my eyes at least). As far as is compares to the 30D....I don't have enough experience with the 30D to comment. The AUTO ISO feature is welcomed for me. Also 3200 is very usable. I haven't had a chance to really compare the in camera NR function either so I can't really comment on this.
6.5 fps works and is a nice feature. It's not really something I will use for the type of photography I enjoy, but it's nice to know it's there.
Live view works, is easy to use and focus manually. For me it's a "gimmick" because I don't have a real need for it. I could see using if for tripod mounted MACRO work. Again, nice to have but I doubt few see this as the reason to upgrade or 1st time buy.
The viewfinder is a SERIOUS upgrade for me. As a glasses wearer, the XTi or for that matter all but the Pro Canon products were lacking. Nikon was always been easier for me to use. The 40D's viewfinder is a welcomed upgrade. The viewfinder info is also easier to view while composing a shot with glasses on. I don't have to angle my head to look at both subject and info.
Ergonomics clearly goes to the 40D over the XTi (about the same as the 30D). The XTi is small without the grip. With the 40D I don't need the grip unless I want the extra battery capacity. The trade off is weight. While on the subject I won't be getting the WIFI grip unless the price comes down by 1/2. I don't really have a use for it other than bragg'n rights.
3" screen is a nice upgrade. I don't edit from the camera so it's more than enough for me to understand if the shot is right. It's the same screen setup as the Mark III's I've played with.
MENUS and features are easy to understand and navigate. It's the same thought process as the XTi so I was use to it.
Button layout and control is easy if you come from Canon's world. It's similar to the 30D (Elan series, or for than matter any Canon Semi Pro layout).
SUMMARY IMHO
If you are a REBEL/Kiss owner it's a "no brainer" if you can use the features and have the cash.
If you are a 20/30D owner it is a tougher decision. The photo quality for 80% (my made up number for augment sakes) of real world shots is going to look the same on prints. The only real advantages I see are tricky situation shots, but then for the most part it's the photographer's ability to understand the light and composition more than it's the gear. (jm2c) The 40D real benefits (again...imho) are in it's updated ergonomics and easy of use features. If you are a white paper buyer is a clear upgrade.
If you need a second body, the 30D would work just as well for less money. UNLESS you needed 6.5 fps in a smaller body.
Would I recommend this camera, so far with my limited us of it....YES. Would I wait for the next model...it's up to the user. You can always wait for the next model. But since there is NEVER going to be and "end model", you are ALWAYS going to be using the penultimate camera.
If anybody has any questions they want to ask about it, I will attempt to give you my best answer. (assuming I know an answer and most times I won't..)
Trending Topics
09-05-2007, 02:22 AM
#8
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Motor City
Posts: 1,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Kremlin,Sep 4 2007, 09:53 PM
So the only obvious image quality difference you see (vs. XTi) is at high ISO?
09-05-2007, 02:24 AM
#9
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Motor City
Posts: 1,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bkw,Sep 4 2007, 09:50 PM
Could you take some low light pics @ 1.4 @ 3200iso and shoot over the raw? Would like to see if the 40D handles noise as well as the 5D.
09-05-2007, 04:51 AM
#10
Former Moderator
This is the harshest review I've seen on the 40D yet - which isn't that harsh. Everything else seems to be full of absolute praise.
Picture quality might be slightly better with a different body, but it is really the lens that has all the magic. ISO and features are where bodies are usually compared. I'm hearing this body being compared to the 5D for ISO control.
For an extra $200 to $300 I'd jump on the 40D. I think you may have had different expectations of the 40D brushman - give it a little time, I think it will grow on you.
Picture quality might be slightly better with a different body, but it is really the lens that has all the magic. ISO and features are where bodies are usually compared. I'm hearing this body being compared to the 5D for ISO control.
For an extra $200 to $300 I'd jump on the 40D. I think you may have had different expectations of the 40D brushman - give it a little time, I think it will grow on you.