LCD screen on 5D/30D/40D

[hjoseph7]

I heard allot of complaints about the LCD screen on the 5D and 30D cameras. Some say they have a crappy

yellowish/greenish tint that does not reflect the true colors of a scene. Some say the resolution is not high enough.

Yesterday I got to work with a 40D on my job and I was surprised by the resolution on the LCD screen. Actually I

was not surprised, but shocked by the oversaturated, Technicolor look of this screen. It's not the first time I worked

with a 40D, but since I recently heard all of these complaints on the web about the 5D and 30D LCD, I payed

closer attention. Tell you the truth I never had any complaints about the LCD on the 30D when it came to chimping,

but the 5D did have a yellowish tint that bothered me. I noticed that this yellowish tint translated to the actual image

as well. So today, I bumped up the color temparture on my 5D from 5200K to 5600K and voila, the yellowish tint

was gone.

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>To me the 40D has the worst LCD ever. It makes me think my shots are all horrible till I transfer the CF card. One of the reason why I sold mine. v/r Buffdr</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>In general, as the OP has discovered, the parameters of the jpeg created by the camera can be altered considerably. It is the jpg that is displayed, I think with the variables set by the user. Even if you are shooting in RAW, what you see is the jpg.</p>

<p>Selling a camera because of its LCD display is like selling a car because the ashtray is full. Customize the jpg to what you like to see.</p>

<p>Why are you wasting your time chimping on the LCD anyhow? It has very little, even in the best versions, to do with what the image you will get is going to be like. It's for composition, sometimes focus in the newer versions, and the graphs can tell you about exposure--not (except in the coarsest way) for a final image.</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>I actually found the screen on our 30Ds to be horrible. They both had that greenish tint that looked unnatural and made it hard to determine how the pictures might actually look. The screen on our 40D seems to be a lot better.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I also have to say that extrapolating some of the odd complaints (and, especially, their intensity) about these displays is a mistake. I'm sure that some people really did have some problems with their cameras, but I'm convinced that quite a few of the complaint were really the result of improper camera settings and unrealistic expectations. About the latter, the display really isn't going to give a perfect result in all conditions and it is not going to be a perfect predictor of colors and so forth. Considering how difficult it is to get you computer screen to come close, even with regular calibration and under controlled conditions, it is unreasonable to expect the inexpensive little display on the back of the camera do do as well or better in far more challenging conditions.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[mr._b]

<p>I recently "upgraded" from a 30D to a 40D. The 30D screen was quite deceptive although I find the 40D screen is an improvement. Even so, I have been forced to learn and trust the histogram because the actual image isn't much help judging exposure</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Yes, the histogram is a much more accurate indication of what you have captured.</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>This is not the first post the OP has commented on the LCD of his 5D. I don't rely on the LCD of any camera for colour. Like JDM said, the 5D's LCD is for composition only (and not for checking critical focus). The histogram is a closer indication of the acceptable initial exposure of the image. Otherwise, shoot tethered to a computer with an acceptable monitor.</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>If you are adjusting the color temp just to get a better image on your cameras LCD there may be a problem - unless your final product is going to be viewing your images on the back of your camera.</p>

<p>The camera's LCD is a great tool, but at best it has it's limitations and at worst, it can be deceptive and ruin your images if you trust it for preview. A common problem is that people tend to crank the brightness up to the maximum so they have a nice bright image indoors and can actually still see the LCD in bright sunlight. The problem here is that if you judge the exposure from the preview image (as opposed to the histogram) you will end up underexposing your images due to the overly bright LCD. </p>

<p>I would tend to trust the histogram for exposure and the preview for composition - but make a point of checking the final results to the histogram. Was that flashing highlight really clipping - or was it just the JPG preview and was there some headroom available from the RAW file? How does the color temp of the LCD relate to the final captured image (relevant only to jpgs, not RAW obviously)? After a while you will get a better understanding of how to read the histogram and not worry too much about the way the preview images may appear.</p>

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>I guess I might be the only person that uses his LCD differently than most. I don't rely on it to check my exposure. That's what my light meter does. I use my LCD to make sure my clients eyes are open during the shoot. I make sure they weren't making a face or licking their lips during the shoot. When your shooting a party that is 10 people, you must make sure everyone looks ok. If the LCD is not used for anything, like some people suggest, then why did every manufacture upgrade theirs? They are better and one should use it to it's full potential and not just a histogram check. v/r Buffdr</p>

[jim_krupnik]

<p>They are all different, and they are all fine for what they are designed for. I owned two 30D's, and I loved the additional LCD real estate they offer compared to the 20D. The 40D was an improvement over the 30D in my opinion, yet both are just fine for composition and review of captured images in the end, as their LCD's are tools, and not final display screens. In either case, their screens are far better at rendering images than the many cameras that hit the market before them.</p>

<p>The 50D began the Canon era of LCD specs that took things to a whole new level. That display is just beyond comparison to previous versions. Again, all of them do what they were designed to do without major issues, but if you are looking for the first Canon APS-C camera from the "post puberty" age of DSLR's, where most of the little tweaks demanded by the xxD user base were answered, it all starts with the 50D.</p>

<p>Buy what suits you budget, and if you can afford to start newer, do so. Meanwhile, they are all capable of wonderful imaging service, and few people actually do PP on their camera screen anyway..... You do shoot RAW, don't you? There are far more reasonable excuses for still shooting with a 20D than there are valid reasons for not shooting in RAW format in this day and age. Even the G9 that I use to illustrate many posts here is always recording in RAW mode. Memory cards are cheap. RAW is forever, and always gets better as the software improves...</p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3247/2933773108_ef936099ac.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></p>

<p> </p>

[havanai]

<p>In order to get the LCD display look as close to possible to the RAW image you are capturing, should you make some particular selections in "Picture Style"? I am concerned with burned out highlights blinking in the JPG representation on the LCD, when in the RAW capture I actually have detail there in the highlights. I have been looking at the blinking highlight-warnings and compensating down 1/3, 2/3, or even a full stop when I haven't had to. Maybe I am under-exposing my images when I need not make an adjustment?</p>