mo_athar

<p>Hello Philip<br>

This is going to sound silly but perhaps it might be worth repeating the same experiment between your and another 40D (if possible), it could be some fault on the unit that you bought.<br>

Good luck.<br>

m</p>

<p> </p>

Hi Colm

 

Hope the calibration fixed your camera. More importantly I hope you find the motivation to carry on using it!

 

Regarding the other issue, you are correct. I remember seeing the strange filenames once or twice (obviously when I transferred the photos directly from the camera) but I at the time I didn't realize there was an issue. I use a card reader most of the time and see the correct filenames and extensions. Surprised that Canon haven't sorted it. Looks like an obvious bug.

 

m

Hi Colm

 

Don't despair! I am in the same boat. 40D is my first DSLR and I mostly use the same lenses as you do.

 

My other camera is a compact Sony DSC H2.

 

When looking at the JPEGs from the two, the Sony images are generally brighter and sharper. Clearely in the absence of a RAW, they are doing as much processing on the images as they can. The JPEGs from the Sony are of pretty decent quality.

 

The JPEGs from the 40D appear to be more compressed. For example you get an file size between 2-3MB for a 10 MP image. Converting a RAW to JPEG at full quality produces a much bigger file (around 7 or 8 MB).

 

So in order to get decent results from the 40D, get used to working with the RAW images.

 

On the plus side, I have been able to take so many photos (in particular sea/landscapes in very low light) where the little compact would've simply fallen over.

 

40D is a very capable camera but it will require a bit of effort to get the results you want. Furthermore, also keep in mind the limitations imposed by the lenses. 17-85, in particular, has certain shortcomings, I am sure you will find a lot said about those on photo.net!

 

good luck :-)

 

mo

I have a humble collection to go with my 40D comprising:

 

EF-S 17-85 IS

EF 70-300 IS

Sigma 50mm DG Macro

 

Spoiled by the IS of the Canon lenses, I often curse the little Sigma when I try stupid things with it that it

doesn’t like doing, otherwise it's a very capable lens. 17-85 has some annoying optical quality issues but it's

such a versatile lens that I wouldn't want to part with it. 70-300 is ok but a bit slow at the full zoom end,

instead of shooting wild animals, I mostly use it to make flower portraits now.

A late entry into this discussion but thought I'd still leave a comment here after a similar experience during a holiday in Turkey where I didn't have the means to review my photos on a proper monitor. I had been using a 17-85 on a 40D and took lots of night shots on a tripod in relatively calm conditions. It was pure coincidence that one of the shots appeard so bad (on the camera LCD) that I noticed something wasn't right. At that point I turned off the IS and retook the shots. The quality improved considerably.

Hello

 

I've just started a big long discussion on this topic within the members of a photoclub at my work place. I haven't had the chance to consolidate the replies but some useful sources of information have been pointed out, including:

 

 

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php/2004/11/19/uk_photographers_rights_guide

 

And the following comments in particular:

 

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php/2004/11/19/uk_photographers_rights_guide#c324

I have also jsut bought this lens and so far have mixed thoughts. I have certainly felt that the working distance can be an issue, especially if your subjects are small insects who can get uneasy (even if they don't run away).

 

Getting the light on to the subject when very close to it is another issue.

 

Regarding colours, I have found these to be ok.

 

Finally, for close ups, I normally use manual focus so not fussed about the noisy motor driving the AF.

Hello

 

I also ended up with a marked/scratched focussing screen while attempting to get rid of something that looked like a hair in the viewfinder. Wish I had looked at your page before attempting this (I had no idea how delicate the screen material was).

 

Anyway, this nice chap has an illustrated guide on how to change the focussing screen.

 

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=417029