Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Canon 40D full review posted

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

New PortraitPro 12 SALE + 10% OFF code EPZROS814
Duncan_E
Duncan_E  7200 forum posts United Kingdom2 Constructive Critique Points
25 Sep 2007 - 11:33 AM

On your super soaraway daily ePHOTOzine. The review is here.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
25 Sep 2007 - 11:33 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

jondf
jondf  82475 forum posts
25 Sep 2007 - 12:53 PM

Thanks for that, Duncan. No doubt an excellent camera in many respects but still dogged with the 30d tendency to image softness. Not too bothered about that now though as I just took delivery of a 5d and it is quite wonderful Smile
(lol - well he would say that, wouldn't he!)

Last Modified By jondf at 25 Sep 2007 - 12:59 PM
strawman
strawman  1022006 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
25 Sep 2007 - 1:37 PM

A good review Duncan. the softness intrigues me. I found the JPEG to be very soft but RAW files a lot better. How does it stck up against existing 10mp cameras such as the D200 and K10D? I thought the D200 also produced a low sharpening image. is it the same? I was under the impression it was an anti-alias thing not the use of CMOS.

My though from looking at files from 5D and 40D etc is that I wonder if the smaller sensors have stronger requirements on the anti-alias filters? As both are CMOS it is not that? also is it that as you pack the pixels in you are more likely to see any softness in the projected image.

ahollowa
ahollowa  101070 forum posts England
25 Sep 2007 - 1:58 PM

The ergonomics of the camera are as far as I can see standard Canon. You either like it or don't. I actually like the two control wheel setting and the joystick is an improvement for focus point selection over the earlier do it through the control wheel mwthod. My only gripe over the later camera's (my 5D vs my 10D) is the rear dial switch is now part of the on switch so if you don't turn it far enough then the dial isn't active. I think this is a case which is crying out for a custom function. I want it always on.

cheers

Al.

elowes
elowes  102832 forum posts United Kingdom
25 Sep 2007 - 3:00 PM

Agree with the last bit about the wheel, pain in the bum.

I was a bit concerned I might have wasted money on the 5D when I saw the 40D specs but having read the review I have stopped worrying as it does not hold up to be as impressive as I thought it might.

I'll stick with the 20D and 5D for a while yet.

Thincat
Thincat  7616 forum posts
25 Sep 2007 - 3:26 PM

Strange review.

The LCD is "excellent", despite the fact that it's got half the resolution of the D300 and A700.

The pictures are "soft" which is attributed to "a lack of great sharpness in scenery shots, which is indicative of using CMOS chips rather than CCD". This is nonsense. It's indicative of the JPEG implementation being poor.

"It will be interesting to put the Sony a700 up against it because it offers a similar spec, though not quite as fast". Faster in FPS maybe. We'll see about focusing later. The review goes on to recommend the D300. Actually the D300 is nearer the A700 than the 40D is - the D300 and A700 share the same sensor. Why not compare the A700 with the D300, which is implied to be better than the 40D?

So basically the 40D is fast but soft. If that's actually true then it's not worth having. Looks like the Sony isn't over-priced after all.

Last Modified By Thincat at 25 Sep 2007 - 3:32 PM
IanA
IanA  103048 forum posts England12 Constructive Critique Points
25 Sep 2007 - 3:31 PM


Quote: This is nonsense

You'll have to excuse Duncan, he has great difficulty working out anything to do with how sensors work! Wink

strawman
strawman  1022006 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
25 Sep 2007 - 3:38 PM


Quote: So basically the 40D is fast but soft. If that's actually true then it's not worth having. Looks like the Sony isn't over-priced after all.

I would say the 40D in manufacturing default set up is fast and produces soft JPEG's. Alter the picture styles and that could well alter. Go RAW and apply a standard sharpening process that APS Canon's have needed since the 10D and it is fine.

Oh and if the pixel peepers over at DPREVIEW are correct, the Sony Jpeg is even worse, big and lacking in detail.

jondf
jondf  82475 forum posts
25 Sep 2007 - 3:40 PM


Quote: Characterboats wrote: You'll have to excuse Duncan, he has great difficulty working out anything to do with how sensors work!

No, it doesn't make sensor rhyme or reason Wink

Last Modified By jondf at 25 Sep 2007 - 3:45 PM
Duncan_E
Duncan_E  7200 forum posts United Kingdom2 Constructive Critique Points
25 Sep 2007 - 4:25 PM


Quote: The pictures are "soft" which is attributed to "a lack of great sharpness in scenery shots, which is indicative of using CMOS chips rather than CCD". This is nonsense. It's indicative of the JPEG implementation being poor.

Landscape images were shot in RAW and JPEG and they were all soft. It had nothing to do with the JPEG implementation being poor.

Duncan_E
Duncan_E  7200 forum posts United Kingdom2 Constructive Critique Points
25 Sep 2007 - 4:35 PM


Quote: The LCD is "excellent", despite the fact that it's got half the resolution of the D300 and A700.

I said it offers an excellent viewing platform - because it's large (3in.) and bright. I didn't say it was simply "excellent". It has 230k pixels, as opposed to 300K+ for the other two, so isn't as detailed. But then I never said it was.

strawman
strawman  1022006 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
25 Sep 2007 - 7:00 PM


Quote: images were shot in RAW and JPEG and they were all soft.

That is interesting as the one I tried produced much better RAW images, I even posted an example in my portfolio.

Mind you I would still sharpen them prior to printing, so in that light they must still be soft. Smile

theorderingone
25 Sep 2007 - 10:53 PM


Quote: Landscape images were shot in RAW and JPEG and they were all soft. It had nothing to do with the JPEG implementation being poor.

They were all shot at f/22 though.

Most lenses are at their best between f/8 and f/11, as diffraction limits resolution at smaller apertures. I'm sure wider apertures would yield sharper shots. All the shorter focal length lenses I own are pretty lacklustre at f/22 compared with f/16 even.

I don't mean to nitpick, but I do believe it may be worth trying a couple of shots at a wider aperture setting if you still have the camera knocking about the office.

P.S. A couple of the image links are a bit squiffy and could do with correction. I'm sure Rebecca wouldn't appreciate being referred to as "a 100% view of the stonework" Wink The large version of the 'Landscape scene mode' shot appears to have been taken in Aperture priority also.

mattw
mattw  105189 forum posts United Kingdom10 Constructive Critique Points
26 Sep 2007 - 8:53 AM


Quote: Landscape images were shot in RAW and JPEG and they were all soft. It had nothing to do with the JPEG implementation being poor.

And when you had sharpened them? Were they OK then?

Thincat
Thincat  7616 forum posts
26 Sep 2007 - 9:07 AM


Quote: The LCD has 230k pixels, as opposed to 300K+ for the other two, so isn't as detailed.

I think you're wrong about this. Dpreview says the 40D has 230k pixels and the A700 and D300 have 922k pixels - i.e. exactly 4 times the number of the 40D and therefore double the resolution. This would make a significant difference to the LCD quality whereas a change from 230k to 307k would probably not be very noticeable.

Obviously you think that the Canon's 230k pixels are 230k groups of red/green/blue sites, while the Sony's is 922k of all the sites, so you have divided by 3. I suspect that you actually need to divide the Canon's 230k pixels by 3 instead because they're also specifying the total of red/green/blue sites.

I could be wrong, but it seems perverse if Nikon and Sony have suddenly started using a different standard for specifying their LCDs. It's possible of course.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.