Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon EOS 40D report  (Read 9028 times)
larsrc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 173


WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 09, 2007, 02:46:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
No.

"... In the post "Nikon D3 and D300," we reported about the Nikon D3 that "the new 3-inch LCD has almost a megapixel of resolution." This was the result of a somewhat disingenuous if not deliberately misleading specification by Nikon, but it turns out it's not true. As LCDs are usually specified, the D3's LCD has 307,000 pixels of resolution."

http://theonlinephotographer.com/the_onlin...blog_index.html

Sept 1 post.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you for digging this up! (The direct link is [a href=\"http://www.popphoto.com/popularphotographyfeatures/4555/mcnamara-report-confusion-over-dots-vs-pixels.html)]http://www.popphoto.com/popularphotography...vs-pixels.html)[/url]  I was getting my suspicions, as that kind of large-step tech advance is very rare and would have been touted much more by Nikon.  Just another shot in the marketing war, I guess.

-Lars
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7885



WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 09, 2007, 09:11:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
No.

"... In the post "Nikon D3 and D300," we reported about the Nikon D3 that "the new 3-inch LCD has almost a megapixel of resolution." This was the result of a somewhat disingenuous if not deliberately misleading specification by Nikon, but it turns out it's not true. As LCDs are usually specified, the D3's LCD has 307,000 pixels of resolution."

http://theonlinephotographer.com/the_onlin...blog_index.html

Sept 1 post.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138131\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Wrong I am afraid.

Check the DPreview hands on report of the D300 for more details.

Both nikon (900.000) and canon (230.000) use dots while they should be using pixels. Either way, the Nikon does indeed have 4 more dots (or 4 more pixels if you prefer), than the 40D.

Besides, the positioning of the dots of the D300 is also better which should result in a user experience even better than the 4 times pixels data suggest.

The 40D is an excellent camera, no doubt, but the screen of the D300 is simply in a totally different league. This will probably only be relevant for those users interested in the live view function. It appears that Nikon has once more tried to deliver a coherent sets of specification in order to deliver real world usefulness (live view + decent screen + AF ability) as opposed to a simple marketing gimmick.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #22 on: September 09, 2007, 11:06:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I can confirm the AF is MUCH better.  Shot Big college football with it this weekend, much better camera than the 30d.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2007, 11:22:16 PM by macgyver » Logged
dseelig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 444


« Reply #23 on: September 10, 2007, 12:14:03 AM »
ReplyReply

The one thing not talked about is the3 improved viewfinder. LCD are nice but lookng through the 30 d was a joke the 40d is very nice it looks like an slr inside a that makes a much improved shoooting experience.
Quote
I can confirm the AF is MUCH better.  Shot Big college football with it this weekend, much better camera than the 30d.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138320\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
larsrc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 173


WWW
« Reply #24 on: September 10, 2007, 01:59:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Wrong I am afraid.

Check the DPreview hands on report of the D300 for more details.

Both nikon (900.000) and canon (230.000) use dots while they should be using pixels. Either way, the Nikon does indeed have 4 more dots (or 4 more pixels if you prefer), than the 40D.

Besides, the positioning of the dots of the D300 is also better which should result in a user experience even better than the 4 times pixels data suggest.

The 40D is an excellent camera, no doubt, but the screen of the D300 is simply in a totally different league. This will probably only be relevant for those users interested in the live view function. It appears that Nikon has once more tried to deliver a coherent sets of specification in order to deliver real world usefulness (live view + decent screen + AF ability) as opposed to a simple marketing gimmick.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138307\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Indeed, the preview does clear this up.  I just wish they (Canon, Nikon, DPReview and all) would use the same definition for pixels everywhere -- or is the D300 really a 52.3 MP camera? :)

-Lars
Logged

GregW
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 305


WWW
« Reply #25 on: September 10, 2007, 09:38:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Straying even further from the original topic.  It's nice for once to see reality match the hype.  With that in mind I think it's fair to say the D3/300 screen is going to make image review, focus and sharpness checks easier and more relevant.  

I've also wondered if I could ditch my Epson P-5000 image viewer and lighten my bag in the field?  

I use the Epson 'backup' facility more than I do the image review feature so the smaller (1") screen of the Nikon would not be a big issue.  

With dual CF slots on the D3 I could simply use the camera to copy/backup the cards.

I'd be able to use just one battery type and charger (D3, D2x, and backup solution).  I'd much rather carry spare Nikon batteries than Epson's.

CF card prices are low enough to not be prohibitive.

I'd just need to check that I could use the D3 to copy a CF card formatted and written to by a D2X.

Maybe there are more uses for better quality screens after all.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2007, 09:39:33 AM by GregW » Logged
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1098



WWW
« Reply #26 on: September 10, 2007, 03:17:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Latest 10 September IQ update article - just the best, loved the bit about the cat photograph.  Michael, you just have to let rip (so to speak) more often    

Quentin
Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7885



WWW
« Reply #27 on: September 10, 2007, 03:36:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I've also wondered if I could ditch my Epson P-5000 image viewer and lighten my bag in the field? 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138409\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have been wondering too.

The D3 and P5000 have the same resolution, with the D3 screen being just .8 inch smaller.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 690


WWW
« Reply #28 on: September 10, 2007, 04:54:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Bud,  being a 20D owner myself, I'm debating the purchase and am glad to see your comments.  I was wondering if you'd noticed any improvement with the new auto focus configuration -- is the AF any faster/ more accurate?  Have fun shooting in FL!

Thanks,

Matt
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138183\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I just got back from Florida. I shot about 600 images with my new 40D and 24-105 f4 L IS lens, then only lens that I took with me. The camera handles beautifully and focuses very fast. I'm not sure that it focuses any faster than my 20D with the same lens, but the brighter viewfinder makes it seem that way.

I chased a few small birds on the beach that were running in and out with the waves, and the camera focusing was able to keep up. The faster motordrive and larger buffer all proved to be useful improvements.

I'm still sorting through the images with Canon DPP (Yuck!), so I have not made any prints yet.

Stay tuned.

Bud James
North Wales, PA
Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1905



WWW
« Reply #29 on: September 10, 2007, 05:21:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I just got back from Florida. I shot about 600 images with my new 40D and 24-105 f4 L IS lens, then only lens that I took with me. The camera handles beautifully and focuses very fast. I'm not sure that it focuses any faster than my 20D with the same lens, but the brighter viewfinder makes it seem that way.

I chased a few small birds on the beach that were running in and out with the waves, and the camera focusing was able to keep up. The faster motordrive and larger buffer all proved to be useful improvements.

I'm still sorting through the images with Canon DPP (Yuck!), so I have not made any prints yet.

Stay tuned.

Bud James
North Wales, PA
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138513\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

OT I know.. But I love DPP. I find its raw conversions far superior to LR or ACR - to get the same result in LR of ACR is a lot more work.

Just felt like going into bat for DPP as I feel its often villified for the wrong reasons.

-Back OT - Sounds like the 40D is very nice to use.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2007, 05:25:17 PM by JHolko » Logged

Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad