XTI and 40d image quality

[andy_goss1]

From reviews that I have the read to date there appears to be little

difference in image quality between the Xti and the new 40d.

 

I appreciate there are more fps and a host of new features in the 40d.

 

A work colleague brought in the XTI and I couldn't get over how small the xti

body was. I feel when you use a camera body that it should feel natural and

comfortable, which the xti didnt to me.

 

The two pieces of feedback I am looking for in relation for a camera that

would be used for landscapes & portraiture.

 

1)'Is' the image quality equal between the two bodies if same lenses and

lighting situations are applied?

 

2)Does a vertical grip 'beef' the XTI up enough to make it much more

comfortable to use and feel more natural in the hand?

 

I would appreciate any feedback from users that use 'both' the XTI and the 40D

please.

[gdanmitchell]

I'll give a sort of an answer, but based on the previous generation of these cameras - the 350D/XT and the

20D/30D.

 

The image quality of these cameras was essentially identical. If there was a difference (and I don't believe there

was really any in terms of "quality") it was so tiny that it could only be detected by some sort of astonishingly

sensitive test equipment - and not in actual photographs, electronic or prints. Put the same lenses on the cameras

and shoot the same scene the same way and there would be no differences you could discern based on which

body was used. (This was essentially the case with the earlier 10D and 300D as well.)

 

I do not know for certain that this is the case with the 400D v. the 40D, but I strongly believe that it will turn out

to be so. I don't have the quote handy, but I have read that the sensors are essentially the same in the two

cameras. There is talk about "14-bit" technology in the 40D but I doubt that this will make a significant (if even

visible) difference in any but the most marginal cases. (The added bits are apparently applied to finer gradations of

level in the three channels and not to greater dynamic range.)

 

There are other more significant differences between the cameras. If those are _critical_ to you then go for the

camera that provides features you actually need. Carefully ignore those "features" that may not be relevant to your

photography. For example, if you _need_ a higher speed burst mode because you regularly rely on this in your

photography, the 40D excels here. The 400D does have a burst mode and it is fast enough for most users, but the

difference may be enough for those who really push this feature.

 

There are other differences as well, but they are not really about the "quality" of the image captured by the body.

 

Regarding the size difference between the bodies... I used a 350D for two years. I currently use a 5D. I think this

suggests that I have some experience using (extensively) both the larger and smaller bodies. I'm over 6 feet tall

and I have fairly large hands. I _never_ was really even conscious of the "small body size" of the 350D while actually

using it. The controls became natural and intuitive for me after I learned the camera and I could operate it very

efficiently and effectively. I happen to be one of those who believe that a smaller camera body size is _not_ an

automatic liability. In fact, in some situations it is a distinct advantage to have a smaller camera. I do a lot of

landscape work while traveling on foot (backpacking, hiking, skiing) and the smaller lighter body is a Good Thing.

It is also advantageous for street photography.

 

I never added a grip to my XT since I could just as easily carry extra batteries without the extra weight/bulk of the

grip. However, I do hear from some users that the grip makes them feel like they are using a larger camera body.

 

Finally, unless you already own all of the lenses and other associated gear (bags, tripod, etc.) that you'll want, the

lower cost of the XTi can save you some significant money that can go towards more/better optics and so on.

 

Good luck with whatever camera you get.

[rayyeager]

The vertical grip definitely makes the XTI feel much better. I also have the 40D and haven't noticed any diference in quality. The 40D is more solid and has some weight behind it, especially for a longer lens. The reason I purchased the 40D was for the 6.5 frames a second for wildlife shots and the viewfinder is a little better. But, I have tons of fun and great quality photos with the XTI also. Put both in your hands before making a decision.

[anders_carlsson]

Ergonomics is a dear subject to me. I tried the 350D/XT -- same body as the 400D/XTi -- when it came and felt, comparing it with the 300D, that everything was too small for my hands. The battery grip did make a difference but I couldn't accept having to use it all the time. Eventually I got the 20D (which is similar to the 40D). With this camera I've never felt the need for a grip. I sometimes do wish for a better button layout though.

 

Now, this is not to say that I wouldn't use an XT/XTi if I had one. It could potentially even enable a different style of photography. I'd probably pair it with a really small prime, for instance the 35/2, and bring it to places where I normally only bring a compact. It's really small and "stealthy" and far from as visible and loud as the 20D. Among other things a great street camera, I'd say.

 

Bottom line: it all depends on your photographic style. And your hands. The best thing to do is to compare the cameras next to each other at your local dealer.

[andy_goss1]

Many thanks to Dan, Ray and Anders for taking the time.

[big kahuna1]

In Short, I have seen a bit better image from the 40D, mostly in color tone and saturation. These were easily fixed when I had the XTi. The battery grip should be standard for the XTi, but it still feels like PLASTIC. I think that the XTi is better suited for studio work, as I was always afraid I'd break it in the field.

[andy_goss1]

Thanks Charles for taking the time.

[andy_goss1]

I am new to digital photography but it just seems that every a camera that was cutting edge then fast forward 18 months later will be old school.

My old print cemera Canon EOS 100 (in the states was the Elan)which I have had for 13 years was a superb camera and build wise probably fits closer to the 40d. Ultimately what i need is a camera to be reliable and be able to withstand a slight knock as my old one did. I have invested in a canon 70-200 f4L but the difference in say buying the xti rather than the 40d would free up $$$ on an extra wide zoom and a few extras.But it needs to handle and feel right...

[jason_hall4]

The grip is a must for the XT or XTi. Would not be able to use it without it. Not a mojor difference in quality of image while the 40D does have larger photo lens on the sensor. Suppose to make it more sensitive and have less noise at high ISO. But there is sooo much more to consider than just IQ. The feature set and build are a world apart.

 

Check out this thread.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Mnb1

 

Jason

[jason_hall4]

While I like the feel of the 30D/40D better, the XTi is OK and rather useable with a vertical grip. After reading your last post Andy, I would say you know what you want to do you just want to make sure you can use the XTi comfortably. I beileve you will be ok with a grip on it. I was and I am very critical of the smallness of the XT/XTi. You can also save money and buy the 30D as it has droped in price. Seems like a nice compromise. :o)

 

Jason

[david_spencer3]

I have an XTI. I think the size can be mitigated a little by rotating your hand so your fingers fall on it a little higher, and then you stop noticing it.

 

The other solution is to get a set of $50 Camera Armor for it. It protects the camera well enough, but I don't drop it to test it out. It definitely makes it wider from front to back, and comfortable. When I pick up display copies of the camera in stores, they always feel surprisingly smaller. It also makes some of the buttons feel better and might muffle the already quiet body just a little more. Contrary to the worries people have posted on here, it has not held any grime against my camera nor did dirt work its way in to scratch up the surface. On top of that, the snug fit around the lens seems like a rubber weather seal, though I haven't gone out of my way to test that aspect out either.

 

The 40D has other features that can affect image quality. It focuses faster and more easily in low light. And it has a highlight priority mode that hopefully Bob Atkins is not done telling us about on here.

[KenPapai]

To summarize, the 40D is easily worth the extra money over a 400D:

 

14-bit Raw capture, much better viewfinder, larger body, metal body, QCD dial, better autofocus, better menus, quieter shutter, and is more attractive -- a better looking mate for your nice lenses. ;)

[andy_goss1]

David,Jason and Ken thanks very much for your time, I really appreciate it.

[omar_fernandez]

Being a longtime Canon user, several months ago I bought my first digital SLR, an XTI. I made this choice on the basis of all the positive testimonials, the low cost, and moreover, the camera, with an accessory grip felt pretty good. Even though the XTI appears to be everyone?s darling, to date the camera has not endeared itself to me. I have no problems with the image quality, but I cannot find use for the miniscule viewfinder image. I find the image to be so small that I cannot comfortably see the eyes of portrait subjects or when macro subjects are in precise focus. In such situations I find that a reasonably sized viewfinder image is critical. An Olympus accessory eyepiece magnifier (which fits perfectly on the XTI) provides only a little help. I'll be looking to dump my XTI soon and getting something with a reasonable and useable viewfinder.

[ellis_davison]

You might want to take a look at Philip Greenspun's review of the 40D on this very web site. He makes a brief comparison. He comes to a similar conclusion to many of the other responders - its not about image quality. I have an XTI and a D60 (now converted to infrared) which is the same series as the 40D and it boils down to two factors:

 

1. Focusing - The XTI viewfinder is OK for pointing the camera, but next to useless for manual focusing. I was with a group of potters (who were learning how to shoot their work) over the weekend and my XTI had the same problem their point-and-shoots had: Depth of field is critical, and the camera would tend to focus on the front and leave the back out of focus. Frustrating. If you are not in a situation where depth of field and focus control are issues, this will not be a problem.

 

2. Control. I shoot in manual exposure control about 90% of the time, and, after the D60 (and 1N film camera) the lack of the rear control dial is really annoying. If you shoot in one of the automatic modes and are happy with the camera's exposure choices it would be less of an issue.

 

I must admit that at the price (about half what I spent on the D60) I toy with the idea of a 40D just because of these issues, but am not likely to make the move because there is functionally no increase in image quality.

[alan_rockwood]

Is anybody here old enough to remember when the Olympus OM series of 35mm SLR cameras was introduced? It was a marvel of the age and widely admired because it was small. Back then "small" was considered "cool." This does not seem to be the case today.

 

Of course, the OM was also widely admired because it had great ergonomics and great optics.

[andy_goss1]

Thanks To Alan, Ellis and Omar for giving your time to my query.

[david_amberson1]

I Had both the XTi and now have the 40D. The grip helped me alot on the XTi. I have the 40D with a grip now and still feels better. Just fits good in your hands. There is slight differences in IQ but hardly noticable. I noticed the 40D retains more detail at high ISO's than the XTi. My 40D with the in camera noise reduction on is like 800 on the xti. The XTi doesnt have that feature. I can use 1600 ISO without hesitating on the 40D. Also, the major differences were 6.5fps and the better AF system. This was a big difference in the field. I used a tripod and mounted my 70-200 2.8L IS and swapped between cameras. Pointed into the woods at night, the XTi would just hunt for focus. Swap the 40D on and bang, locked on target. Thanks to the cross types. I love the better view finder and the 3" screen is nice too. Highlight Tone Priority is nice. For just a little more money, buy the body only 40D. You wont regret it.

[andy_goss1]

Thanks very much David, sounds like the 40D is fast in low light situations. Andy.

[gdanmitchell]

<p>Again, in the spirit of exploring other sides of these issues...

 

<blockquote><i>". Focusing - The XTI viewfinder is OK for pointing the camera, but next to useless for manual focusing. I was with a group of

potters (who were learning how to shoot their work) over the weekend and my XTI had the same problem their point-and-shoots had: Depth of field is

critical, and the camera would tend to focus on the front and leave the back out of focus. Frustrating. If you are not in a situation where depth of field

and focus control are issues, this will not be a problem.</i></blockquote>

 

<p>True, but it generally remains a problem with crop-sensor cameras as a breed. The 40D is reportedly "better," but if manual focusing is a major

issue for a photographer, going to a larger sensor (and the consequently much brighter image) and/or adding a magnifier will be necessary to make a

significant difference.

 

<p>What I'm saying is that, yes, the 400D viewfinder is smaller and not as bright as full frame - but that this is true of crop sensor cameras in general

- and while a "better" full frame body will be "less bad" in this regard, it will still fall short of "good."

 

<blockquote><i>"2. Control. I shoot in manual exposure control about 90% of the time, and, after the D60 (and 1N film camera) the lack of the rear

control dial is really annoying. If you shoot in one of the automatic modes and are happy with the camera's exposure choices it would be less of an

issue"</i></blockquote>

 

<p>Yes and no. After using a control-button-equipped 350D for two years, I actually found that the specific tactile feedback of button pushes

allowed my to make certain changes more quickly and accurately with less attention. I'm definitely not a pure automatic mode shooter. (I currently

shoot a 5D, often in full manual mode, on the tripod, with MLU and remote release. Yes, I even focus manually sometimes... ;-)

 

<p>I used to also point out that the rear-display-only 350D/400D also held an advantage over the two-display Canon models for those who shoot

from a tripod. Ever tried to see the top display of a 5D with the tripod at eye-level or higher? The rear displays of the cheaper cameras that don't

have a top display provide all the information on the back where it <i>can</i> be seen in this situation. And this is a Good Thing. (I understand that

the 40D has adopted this from the 400D.)

 

<p>Finally, a reminder. The OP asked specifically:

 

<ul>

<li>1)'Is' the image quality equal between the two bodies if same lenses and lighting situations are applied?

<li>2)Does a vertical grip 'beef' the XTI up enough to make it much more comfortable to use and feel more natural in the hand?

</ul>

 

<p>To go back to that for a moment, while there are some theories about better image quality from a 40D, there are also some observations that this

is either not the case or that the differences are inconsequential. Some people feel that the addition of the grip makes the camera feel more like the

40D and other large cameras, while others prefer the smaller body as is. (And still others want a <i>really big</i> body and get a 40D <i>plus</i> a

grip. :-)

 

<p>Take care,

 

<p>Dan