Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon 30D To 40D  (Read 15539 times)
Killer Angel
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« on: October 01, 2007, 08:56:14 AM »
ReplyReply

I am thinking of upgrading from my Canon 30D to the 40D.Anyway,for those of you who used to own or have any experiences with the Canon 30D and have upgraded or had any experiences with the Canon 40D,could you please describe to me the improvements of the 40D over the 30D?Were there any significant improvements?How does the image quality of the 30D as compare to that of  the 40D?Lastly,was it worth upgrading to the Canon 40D from the 30D?
Thanks.

Killer Angel
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 01, 2007, 12:01:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am thinking of upgrading from my Canon 30D to the 40D.Anyway,for those of you who used to own or have any experiences with the Canon 30D and have upgraded or had any experiences with the Canon 40D,could you please describe to me the improvements of the 40D over the 30D?Were there any significant improvements?How does the image quality of the 30D as compare to that of  the 40D?Lastly,was it worth upgrading to the Canon 40D from the 30D?
Thanks.

Killer Angel
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143144\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'd be interested to hear input, as well, since I'm in the same situation. I'm mostly interested in hearing whether 14-bit files make a real-life difference in prints, how the dynamic range is compared to 30D, and whether shadow-noise with low ISOs has been improved.
Logged

mahleu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 567


WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 01, 2007, 12:22:06 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm interested in the same upgrade, except from a 350D. I had my heart set on the 5d but with the 40d's 14 bit capability i'll probably go for that. I have access to a 5d anyway, just not mine.
Logged

______________________________________________________________________
Anyone selling a 1DSIII or 6D cheap?
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2826



WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 01, 2007, 04:39:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Are there any specific questions not answered by Michaels review here?

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...D-handson.shtml

As far as the 5d-40d, the difference is significant ... full size sensor.  Image quality is substantially better ... that being said, you often don't need it.

If you do a lot of wide angle, the 5d sensor size will give you far more options.
Logged

DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #4 on: October 01, 2007, 06:39:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Are there any specific questions not answered by Michaels review here?

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...D-handson.shtml

As far as the 5d-40d, the difference is significant ... full size sensor.  Image quality is substantially better ... that being said, you often don't need it.

If you do a lot of wide angle, the 5d sensor size will give you far more options.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143235\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You're opinion of the image quality differs from M. Reichmann's?  In that link he indicates that image quality is pretty comparable between the 5d and the 40d.

I disagree about the wide angle thing.  a 10-20 on a crop is pretty much a 16-35 on ff.  There are differences, sure, but field of view is about the same.
Logged
macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #5 on: October 01, 2007, 07:33:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I have both the 30d and the 40d.

-The AF on the 40d is much, MUCH, better than on the 30, especially the servo tracking.  That's probably been the best thing for me.
-The whole camera feels quicker than the 30.  I don't have any exact numbers (shutter lag, etc) but it simply feels more responsive.
-It feels better built.  My 30 squeaks and plays a little if you squeeze it hard but the 40 doesn't. The whole package just feels more solid. I really like how the 20/30/40's fit in my hand and the improved body just sweetens the deal that much more.
-Some controls have been slightly remapped, things like which button changes ISO, WB, ect.  For whatever reason I never really got used to the 30D in that respect but the 40D makes more sense to my mind.  The downside of this is that when I shoot with two bodies I get things mixed up.
-The faster frame rate on the 40 is nice for me (shooting sports) but nothing huge.
-I don't see any real differences between the two in image quality, they are both the same current Canon idiom of excellence.  That's not to say they aren't there but I don't notice them.
-The viewfinder is slightly better, not much be very slightly.  That plus the always visible ISO is nice.
-The hotshoe is silver, not black.  Just looks nicer and wont scuff.  
-The live view is suprisingly useful, especially in situations where stealth is needed.

Those are things that readily come to mind.  If you have any certain questions I can try to answer them.  When I bought the 40 I kept the 30 so I could have two bodies so I can't really comment on if its worth the upgrade alone.  Probably isn't, although I can't say enough how much I like the 40.
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2826



WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 01, 2007, 10:19:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You're opinion of the image quality differs from M. Reichmann's? In that link he indicates that image quality is pretty comparable between the 5d and the 40d.

I disagree about the wide angle thing. a 10-20 on a crop is pretty much a 16-35 on ff. There are differences, sure, but field of view is about the same.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143260\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I still think 13mp full frame vs 10mp 1.6 crop will still provide a far better image for SOME images ... i did qualify that statement in my original post.  Overall the 40d delivers good quality and for a great majority of images I doubt if there is any visually measurable difference.  However, I don't think the reverse is true, I do not think a 40d will provide a better image than a 5d. Judging what I've seen with our studio tests, the difference in the two cameras might very well be the AA filter on the 40d is less severe. I"ve asked a friend at Canon if this might be true.    Since I don't know what anyone shoots (heck I'm surprised this thread even started since the review has been on line for a while now), one can only decide based on what they intend to shoot.

As far as wide angle, I also said I thought the 5d offers more options. You even validated that statement ... yes you can buy a  10-20 so you can  equal a 16 to 35 on the 5d.  But I can still put the 10-20 on the 5d .. an option you don't have for the 40d.  I believe there are at least 5 24mm options for the 5d. Who knows if that's important ... to most probably not.  But to some it may be a consideration.

Hey, I'm just offering some thoughts.  As I said, based on the comments I have no clue what anyone plans on shooting.  It's pretty easy to compare the 40d to the 30d since they're the same basic camera.  But as nice as the 40d, and I've played with it some (a couple of hundred captures) , I personally wouldn't give up my 5d for it.  We will happily deploy it in our studios around the country as our 30d's wear out, and the most exciting feature to us is the increased shutter life and self cleaning sensor.   Jury is still out for us as far as live view, because of fear of sensor heat/noise.  We're testing that now, and have data coming from Canon ... who claimed that the live view will disable if the sensor heats to the point that it will increase noise. We'll see.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2007, 01:14:50 AM by Wayne Fox » Logged

santa
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 88


« Reply #7 on: October 01, 2007, 10:28:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am thinking of upgrading from my Canon 30D to the 40D.Anyway,for those of you who used to own or have any experiences with the Canon 30D and have upgraded or had any experiences with the Canon 40D,could you please describe to me the improvements of the 40D over the 30D?Were there any significant improvements?How does the image quality of the 30D as compare to that of  the 40D?Lastly,was it worth upgrading to the Canon 40D from the 30D?
Thanks.

Killer Angel
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143144\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

   I just got a 40D and have a 20D which, in IQ terms is pretty similar to the 30D. I've run maybe a thousand shots through the 40D. The handling is obviously quite similar. The Digic III with more pixels doesn't give a lot less high iso noise but it's at least as good as the 20D with more pixles which is a good thing. The larger lcd is something I thought I would care less about but it's quite nice. My upgrade was humorous.  My 20D was a backup for my MKII and I decided I'd get a second backup. My wife pooh pooh'd it but I did it anyway. I hadn't had the 40D for a week when the 20D died. Just won't fire. Then I got a wedding request for the following day. I would have turned it down had I not ordered the 40D so the 40D paid for itself in a week. I laughed.  So it was worth it to me but it also shows whether it is worth it to you is something only you can decide.  It will take marginally better photos if you need more resolution but truthfully most folks don't need more res than they have. The dust reduction technology will save some people a lot of time. The menu selection method is very nice. Worth it in my opinion.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7890



WWW
« Reply #8 on: October 02, 2007, 01:33:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I still think 13mp full frame vs 10mp 1.6 crop will still provide a far better image for SOME images ... i did qualify that statement in my original post.  [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143292\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

More limited DoF is the only factor that could make 5D images more appealing in some cases.

Otherwise, I don't see any objective factor coming into play.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 8878


« Reply #9 on: October 02, 2007, 02:56:26 AM »
ReplyReply

The difficulty here arises from conflicting reports about the significance of image quality improvements of the 40D. It makes an upgrade decision difficult. Most of us are not in a position whereby we automatically buy the latest upgrade because money is not an issue and we want a new toy.

I didn't buy Canon's first DSLR, the D30, because I thought it had too few pixels for too much money. However, the D60 with double the pixel count and a lower price was irresistable.

The 10D offered some improvement in the noise department but not a sufficient over all improvement to interest me.

The 20D was a different ball game. Spectacularly lower noise than the D60. Better image quality at ISO 1600 than the D60 at ISO 400 but only a very marginal increase in resolution. Nevertheless, a marginal increase in resolution is better than no increase.

Unfortunately, the 20D quickly became semi-redundant for me; just a back-up camera and for occasional use when I wanted maximum telephoto reach. After using the camera mainly for just one holiday in Italy, the 5D was announced and that became my main camera. This is an expensive hobby.

Can the 40D replace the 5D? Is the 40D a worthy replacement for a back-up camera such as the 20D? I think not. If my main camera was the 20D or 30D, would I want to upgrade to the 40D? I'm not sure.

There are two comments in this thread so far, from Macqyver and Santa, that indicate image quality improvement of the 40D, over the 20D and 30D, is not noticeable. What we seem to have is a bunch of nice-feel ergonomic features and a liveview screen.

I suppose if you have a focussing problem with your 20D or 30D, that is, many shots have been ruined because the camera didn't focuss where it was supposed to, then the claimed more accurate and quicker focussing of the 40D really could translate into better image quality.

However, what annoys me is the fact that the better, more sensitive focussing of the 40D does not enable one to autofocus at f8 as the 1 series cameras can. If it did, I would consider that a real plus factor. I could then use my 100-400 IS with 1.4x extender, get the benefit of extra telephoto reach (compared with my 5D) as well as autofocussing capability.

When I upgrade a camera, I want to see some positive, definite, fundamental and clearly defined improvement that I know I'm going to find useful in a real sense, like "if only I had a 40D I could have got that shot". I'm not particularly motivated by wish-washy, feel-good ergonomic factors in themselves, although of course I'd rather have them than not.
Logged
gingerbaker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32



« Reply #10 on: October 02, 2007, 07:38:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I just got done looking at some posted shots from 40D users over at FM.  I am a 5D user, and I must say that many of the shots from the 40D were very impressive!

The DR; color vibrancy, accuracy, and smoothness; and the focusing capability of the 40D at least matches the 5D, IMO.  A big improvement over the 30D, which to me had color that was just plain wrong.

I think Canon got it right with this one.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #11 on: October 03, 2007, 01:35:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The DR; color vibrancy, accuracy, and smoothness; and the focusing capability of the 40D at least matches the 5D, IMO.  A big improvement over the 30D, which to me had color that was just plain wrong.

I think Canon got it right with this one.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143477\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've not seen any reports that would indicate the DR of the 40D is anything more than very marginally greater than that of the 30D.
 
Color accuracy, vibrancy and smoothness can all be changed to taste in post-processing. ACR has a calibration feature if you want to be really anal about such matters, but there is something to be said for pleasing results straight out of the box, so to speak.
Logged
gingerbaker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32



« Reply #12 on: October 03, 2007, 11:57:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
     I've not seen any reports that would indicate the DR of the 40D is anything more than very marginally greater than that of the 30D.

Nor have I.  My criticism of the 30D had to do with its color.
 
Quote
  Color accuracy, vibrancy and smoothness can all be changed to taste in post-processing. ACR has a calibration feature if you want to be really anal about such matters, but there is something to be said for pleasing results straight out of the box, so to speak.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143522\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The colors I saw coming from pix from 30D owners when the camera first came out were dreadful, I thought, and the owners were complaining that it was very difficult, if not impossible to correct them in PP.

As far as smoothness, the 40D has 14 bit convertors which seem to make a real difference over the 30D, not to mention the 20D or the 5D.  At least to my eyes.

It also has a different DIGIC processor, as well as a new sensor.  I really believe these things make a noticeable difference. Check out the thread at FM.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2007, 11:57:51 AM by gingerbaker » Logged
macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #13 on: October 03, 2007, 03:14:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Truely folks, there difference in quality (whatever it may be) was the least of any reasons for me to buy one and the last thing I have given any thought to using the camera.  I know this is a landscape site and all, but when you can't get a clear aggrement on if the IQ is different in any one way then that is probably a good indicator that it isn't.

Other than the viewfinder and sheer file size the 40d is much nicer than the 5d.  If you are looking for some ultimate in IQ but want the features offered by this camera what for whatever replaces the 5d.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #14 on: October 03, 2007, 11:08:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Truely folks, there difference in quality (whatever it may be) was the least of any reasons for me to buy one and the last thing I have given any thought to using the camera.  I know this is a landscape site and all, but when you can't get a clear aggrement on if the IQ is different in any one way then that is probably a good indicator that it isn't.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143652\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My sentiments exactly!

As for comparisons with the 5D, I could accept that for all purposes other than wide angle, the 40D is as good or better, without splitting hairs. But where is the EF-S equivalent of FF 12-24mm? Where is the equivalent of the new Canon 14mm prime?
Logged
santa
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 88


« Reply #15 on: October 04, 2007, 02:28:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My sentiments exactly!

As for comparisons with the 5D, I could accept that for all purposes other than wide angle, the 40D is as good or better, without splitting hairs. But where is the EF-S equivalent of FF 12-24mm? Where is the equivalent of the new Canon 14mm prime?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143735\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The 10-22 is by all accounts a good lens, if not a super fast lens.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #16 on: October 04, 2007, 03:31:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The 10-22 is by all accounts a good lens, if not a super fast lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143757\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've compared my 20D using Canon's 10-22 at 10mm with my 5D using the Sigma 15-30 at 15mm.

The 5D image is clearly more detailed by a significant and obvious margin. Also, I had to move back by a surprising distance with the 20D for the same FoV. I don't know how accurate these focal lengths are. However, if the Sigma really is 15mm, the EF-S 10-22 at 10mm seems like 16 to 17mm full frame equivalent, at least 16mm anyway. It's surprising how much difference there is in just 1mm at those short focal lengths.

I would expect the gap would widen further using a 14mm prime on the 5D, both in terms of angle width and image quality. Also, to get the ultra-wide angle of a Sigma 12-24, you'd need something like a 7.5mm EF-S lens.
Logged
steeliejim
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #17 on: November 20, 2007, 02:24:03 PM »
ReplyReply

"However, what annoys me is the fact that the better, more sensitive focussing of the 40D does not enable one to autofocus at f8 as the 1 series cameras can. If it did, I would consider that a real plus factor. I could then use my 100-400 IS with 1.4x extender, get the benefit of extra telephoto reach (compared with my 5D) as well as autofocussing capability.

When I upgrade a camera, I want to see some positive, definite, fundamental and clearly defined improvement that I know I'm going to find useful in a real sense, like "if only I had a 40D I could have got that shot". I'm not particularly motivated by wish-washy, feel-good ergonomic factors in themselves, although of course I'd rather have them than not." --Ray

Hi Ray,

I need positive, definite, fundamental...improvement.  Me, too, and the 40 is all of that.  There have been multiple in-depth reviews on the net of the 40d by credible experts not just guys taking pictures of their cats (or, when I clicked on a link of someone who was slamming the 40d--but of course, had never seen one--as being inferior to the as-yet unreleased d300, I found that the example of his own work he was so proud of was a poorly composed group grip-and-grin shot of guys with dead fish.).  They've concluded that the 40d is very, very close to the 5d in IQ. FWIW.

I just returned from Africa (second trip to Zambia in a year), and I can tell you I did get "that shot" and hundreds more with the 40d that I didn't get--couldn't get--last year with film.  For my "long" lens I used a f/4 300L IS with 1.4 tc, and I was able to focus on pretty incredible night time predator/prey/predator--long story--interactions at night under only a spotlight.  

I'm a digital SLR newbie having switched from EOS 3's which I used last year, with the same lenses (T-90's and F1n's before that), to digital for the first time, so can't comment on whether the 5d or 30d, 400d or d300, or..., would have focused under similar low light conditions, but I can tell you first hand my EOS's never would have been able to.  Of course the shots would have been impossible anyway because of film ISO limitations.  There may "only" be 9 sensors, but Canon did something amazing to get those things to lock on in low light and in spite of foreground clutter (like branches).  

As for the 100-400, lots of safari-goers--even pro's--love it, and I did do quite a bit of lens switching with my fixed focal length, so a long zoom would be attractive.  But, with the 1.6 crop combined with the 420 mm total focal length, I had plenty of reach--and good enough quality on many shots that I could even do some judicious cropping and still have a really nice, sharp image.  

And, yes, I was very happy for the in-sensor cleaning (It works!).  In fact, that's a major reason I waited for the 40d.

I should think that the 5d and 100-400 mm without a tc should produce really nice images that could handle cropping.  And, that's the difference between getting a shot that might not be perfect but plenty good vs. no shot if you can't get focus on a rapidly changing scene.

I was going to buy an EF-S wide angle lens for the 40d (my widest is 20mm, because I do like to do wide angle, close focus landscapes, but I've decided to hold out for the 5d follow-on, which I'll bet has sensor cleaning (I really do not like the idea of mucking around inside my camera to clean the sensor).  So, I'll have the best of both worlds, IMO, when I go back to Africa (and Alaska, and...) next year.  One thing I do miss in the 40d is the lack multi-spot metering.  I loved being able to keep my eye to the viewfinder and average several spots around a scene to get the exact exposure effect I wanted.  Just the way I got used to shooting with my beloved t90.  

I'm brand new to the forum, but when I have a chance I'll provide a link to a few pix.  BTW, I LOVE IS.  Cannot believe how sharp my pix are (when I do my end of the job right), even handholding in a canoe.  And, I'm a guy who alway shot transparancy film, Velvia 50/100--rarely 200--and, going way back, Koda 64. exclusively).
Cheers,

Jim
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #18 on: November 21, 2007, 07:39:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I just returned from Africa (second trip to Zambia in a year), and I can tell you I did get "that shot" and hundreds more with the 40d that I didn't get--couldn't get--last year with film.  For my "long" lens I used a f/4 300L IS with 1.4 tc, and I was able to focus on pretty incredible night time predator/prey/predator--long story--interactions at night under only a spotlight. 

I'm a digital SLR newbie having switched from EOS 3's which I used last year, with the same lenses (T-90's and F1n's before that), to digital for the first time, so can't comment on whether the 5d or 30d, 400d or d300, or..., would have focused under similar low light conditions, but I can tell you first hand my EOS's never would have been able to.  Of course the shots would have been impossible anyway because of film ISO limitations.  There may "only" be 9 sensors, but Canon did something amazing to get those things to lock on in low light and in spite of foreground clutter (like branches).   
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154468\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Jim,
You've just made the switch from 35mm film to digital and the 40D is your first DSLR? Wow! I envy you. What joy!    I can almost guarantee you'll never put another film in that old EOS 3 camera   .

Although I might appear to be a 40D basher on this forum, I'm really just trying to get things into perspective; my perspective of course. However, I can see from your perspective the 40D would beat an EOS 3 series film camera in every department. I just can't understand how you resisted the switch for so long, unless the reason is you've realised that all the major improvements to the current CMOS based digital system have now been made and we can expect little further improvement at a fundamental level till some radical breakthrough takes place or a new approach becomes possible with advances in other fields.

There was a lot of contention that early DSLRs such as the Nikon D1, Canon D30, 1D, D60, 10D, could not quite match the resolution of the finest grain films. With the 40D, I think you should have no concern about that, although I still think that an 8,000 dpi drum scan of a B&W film like T-Max 100 could, theoretically, beat it in terms of absolute discernible detail. But I can't think of any good reason why anyone should try to prove the point since 8000 dpi scans are expensive and going out of fashion and T-Max 100 is a film type which has probably already been discontinued.

Good luck with your new photographic tool.  
Logged
steeliejim
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #19 on: November 21, 2007, 10:23:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi Jim,
You've just made the switch from 35mm film to digital and the 40D is your first DSLR? Wow! I envy you. What joy!    I can almost guarantee you'll never put another film in that old EOS 3 camera   .

Good luck with your new photographic tool. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154666\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for the comments, Ray.  You are looking to be right about that film thing.  I did take one of my EOS 3's to Africa as a backup, but ended giving my unopened film--all of it--to one of the guides at the end of the trip.

You might call me a "late adopter."  I hadn't even made the switch to the EOS/EF series until a few years ago.  I was so comfortable with my old T-90 and F1N's, and with only 36 shots per roll, rarely used the multi-shot feature.  So, I didn't attempt much real action photography, therefore didn't really need autofocus, or so I thought.  However, I got really good at reacting to a changing situations, focusing quickly, and pulling the trigger when it needed to be pulled.   Plus I had/have some super glass, inc. the fabulous 500mm 4.5L that I used to cart around everywhere.  It was hard to let go.

One of the big things that held me back, beside such rapid improvements being made in IM and features (kind of like portable computers in the first 15 years was lack of in-camera sensor cleaning.  I shoot in lots of lousy environments, and Africa in the dry season is really dusty.  The XTi looked intriguing, but lacks spot metering (and, yes I know the 40d's is only 3.5 percent, bigger than I'd like).  And, even though the 40d chip starts from the same place as the XTi's, they've supoposedly "filled in the spaces" with larger pixels.  Dunno all the technical details, but, as I said, it does capture some mighty sharp images.  I haven't printed to large scale yet, but when I do 100 percent crops on shots where I've held up my end, and I see a marble sharp eyeball peering at me, I have no doubt, I could print as large comfortably as I ever did with my slow transparency film.  

Two things I do not like about the 40d, and supposedly are present in the d300.

One is the LCD.  Yes, it's bigger than in the 30d, and usable, but it's not as bright as I'd like, certainly not as bright as some P&S screens I've used and seen, such as Panasonic's Lumix.    

I shoot a lot in wet environments, eg on boats in saltwater, and I wish the 40d had real weather resistant sealing.  As I have found out the hard way, it's esp. important under the buttons.  

One other thing I do like is Live View.  I used it in dreamy, pastel first and last light, where I needed  long exposures and to rest my camera on something stable like a log or beanbag (wasn't using a tripod).  It was great, because I didn't have to contort to get my eye to the viewfinder to compose--which would have been dark anyway.   I even got a cool shot (to me anyway) of a sliver of the  moon just fooling around.

A final word on cost comparisons.  I find fascinating all the discussion about the 40d being so much cheaper than the d300.  I think the comparison  is bogus, even when the talk is of adding in the cost of accessories which supporsedly make the bodies more equivalent.  The comparisons ought to be with cost of the lenses (plural) added in that one plans to use with the body.  If the person is satisfied with a kit lens, well, yes, there is still a difference that might make a difference to some.  But start adding in a suite of lenses that anyone who is serious about photography is going to buy eventually, the percentage difference diminishes very quickly.

I'm really looking forward to the release of the 5d follow-on, and I think the combination of the 40d and it will, hopefully be all the camera bodies I need for a long, long time.  I'll have it all covered.  As for lenses...  

Cheers, Jim
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad