Canon EOS 40D - Full Review by Bob Atkins

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_eos_40D_review_1.html

 

Bob, I enjoy reading your reviews but I do have one small request. As 100% crop

is the 'De Facto' standard for detailed images, can you please follow it? I am

not referring to upscales and downscales because of resolution difference but

to the 200% and 400% examples.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

 

 

 

P.S. I am posting this because I looked and did not find a similar post. If

such exists, feel free to delete this one.

Well, that's interesting. I can't really see from his images that the 40D is significantly lower

noise than the 20D, despite all the hype to the contrary.

Its not. I did a comparison myself 2 days ago. The biggest difference is that at 3200, the 40D keeps more detail. The noise IMO is the same.

The picture seemed a little darker on the 40D. The AF is a hell of alot better though.

Re: darkened images. Maybe engineers at Canon are addressing instances where prior

cameras might tend to overexpose.

Good review Bob - thanks!

Canon cameras overexposing? Mine usually underexposes.

 

No word on whether the 14-bit ADC is actually useful or not? I was hoping to get an extra stop or two of usable dynamic range. But, I'm starting to lose hope.

Thanks Bob!

 

James

Ah . . .so there does not appear to be any real improvements in noise. That is too bad.

 

I wonder how the XTi would hold up in this comparision.

The same amount of noise with 25% more pixels seems like an impressive accomplishment to me.

"The same amount of noise with 25% more pixels seems like an impressive accomplishment to me."

 

Bingo!

I wasn't really bothered by the noise in the 20D. Even 13 x 19 prints look good with a little

care and skill. Now my 10D was really noisy at ISO 800 and actually showed in prints. So if

the 40D is the same as the 20D it's good indeed. The extra rez, 9 AF cross sensors, larger

and brighter VF and LCD make one fine camera. I haven't touched one yet but the grip looks

more comfy with the finger groove/dent (like the 5D grip).

"despite all the hype to the contrary."

 

Where have you seen all this hype, Jim? I've seen nothing like that, only people complaining that the 40D is "only" as good as the 30D, noise wise.

Oh, I was refering to a lot of the talk before it was actually in peoples hands...which now is

moot, of course. Atkins was the first review I've seen with a direct comparison, so it surprised

me a little. It would have been nice to see less noise, though, since 25% more pixels isn't

really significant in print. I think the 20d had plenty of pixels. I wish they would freeze the

pixel race and focus more on the noise since I shoot a lot of high ISO stuff (thus the 5D's I

use). I also have an XTi, which has plenty of pixels, but noise issues at higher ISO (at least it's

noisier than I like).

>> The same amount of noise with 25% more pixels seems like an impressive accomplishment to me.

 

I agree but personally I wish they went the other way around.

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

Bob used to post those reviews in photo.net too, any reason why this practice is stopped now?

To Jim Larson: I have an XTi and now a 40D. The 40D noise level at 3200 is virtually the same as XTi at 1600. Like getting a free stop in ISO. I used a tripod the other night and found some spots in the dark wooded area that the XTi would hunt focus and never achieve, then gently I removed the XTi from the tripod mounted Canon 70-200 2.8L IS and installed the 40D....LOCKED ON TARGET. BINGO, NO HUNT! Found several more areas like this through the test. Though the XTi did do better than I expected compared to the cross types. I had trouble finding somewhere the XTi wouldnt focus, so I could compare the 40D. If some would tell me how to upload pictures, I would do so.

I shot the XTi at 1600, then switched the 40D at 3200 with in camera high ISO noise reduction on and they looked the same as the XTi at 1600. I know it may not be fair that the XTi doesnt have this feature, but if the camera has it, then use it. The results were better.

"I think the 20d had plenty of pixels."

 

In my case (20D owner), I find myself resolution limited much more often than noise limited so I'm happy to see increased resolution even with the same level of noise. Not that this applies to every situation but usually when I end up with obtrusive noise it's because I made an exposure mistake. When I'm limited by resolution, it's because I'm unable to afford a 600mm or MPE-65 lens. Looking at Bob's resolution comparison, I can't help but think that many people pay a significant amount more for lenses that show similar resolution improvements.

 

I have a feeling that Canon ended up at 10MP instead of 12 because they had a hard requirement of noise no worse than 20D/30D. While not necessarily ideal for everyone, I think that was exactly the right thing to do and encouraging evidence that Canon isn't entirely resolution driven.

Did anyone notice the link to the 40D at Bestpricecamera.com for only $799? What's the catch?

Check reseller ratings on the web for the customer score on best price cameras. I bet the catch is they will offer you a battery for a few hundred, a charger for a few hundred, software for a few hundred, etc. until they get you to pay the $1300 and then some. All those things are normally in the box, but they separate the pieces and charge for them.

"Did anyone notice the link to the 40D at Bestpricecamera.com for only $799? What's the catch?"

 

The catch is it's a scam. See http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/photo_stores_2006.html