so what do you think? 40d link

[jann1033]

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos40d/
i don't see the price anywhere but guess i might be saving my pennies for a little longer:lmao:

[Furgus]

I saw $1299 for the body. Nikon is suppose to announce something this week. I am not holding my breath though.

[YEKCIM]

I'd probably be salivating if I were a Canon guy.

~YEKCIM

[jann1033]

yeah, guess the 6.5 fps reeled me in as well as the different focus, bigger eyepiece due to my poor vision, sigh...to bad i forgot to see the giant scroll down box and other pages when i read the link the first time:rolleyes1

[Furgus]

I'd probably be salivating if I were a Canon guy.

~YEKCIM

yeah me too. The specs look great....but it is a canon :)

[gruZ]

I'm a Canon guy, so it looks like a great camera. Still not going to upgrade from my 20D, though, as it's still a great and more than capable camera for my purposes.

While the 20D (or 30D for that matter) is no slouch when it comes to higher ISO noise, the even better performance of the 40D (based on Digic III and examples from the 1DSMIII) would be very nice!

But, if I were purchasing another body, that would be it!

[pisco]

I have been waiting for Canon to some out with a camera with enough new features/enhancements to get me to upgrade from my original Digital Rebel. The 40D will definitely be the one.

Now I just need to come up with a spare $1299. :)

[Anewman]

It think I will be upgrading from the 20D, it is the extra speed and buffer that hooked me.

[boBQuincy]

I usually skip generations and didn't see enough upgrades to make me put away my 30D for now. The sensor cleaner has been pretty much shown to be worthless, all the other upgrades look nice, especially the Digic III.

[DVC Jen]

Looks nice - but I am not drooling over it.

I am quite happy with my 30D - now maybe in a few years with the next upgrade - I will probably be more than tempted.

[We-Luv-Disney]

AS my 20D has far surpassed the 50,000 shutter cycle mark, I will be upgrading as soon as possible. The 40D looks like an amazing camera, I'm just hoping all the bugs are worked out before I pick one up.

[mabas9395]

I told myself that I would devote my money to buying better glass rather than upgrading my body, and only buying a new body if my XT became lost or damaged. But after seeing the 40d, I think my XT will be taking a long walk off a short dock just shortly before Christmas.

[Master Mason]

I think I will be getting the 30D, the price has been dropping, and while there are some improvements that are nice, I don't see them as being $300 to $400 nicer to me.

[Magix]

I want one. I don't have the money, but I want one. May be time to trade in my old Elan 7E. I hate to give it up, but I haven't used it in years (since I got my 10D). I've been feeling the need to get a new camera for a couple years now... Got to get the credit card paid down a bit first.

[mabas9395]

Has anyone heard if the weather sealing on the 40d is for the whole body? I read somewhere that they were pretty vague in the wording because they only weather sealed the battery and CF card doors.

[Master Mason]

Has anyone heard if the weather sealing on the 40d is for the whole body? I read somewhere that they were pretty vague in the wording because they only weather sealed the battery and CF card doors.

that's what the canon site says

[Groucho]

At what point does the fps cease to matter?

If you're not going to be able to capture the shot at 5fps, do you think that you'd get it at 6.5? This seems to be one of those things that is very popular on paper, but I just can't believe that it makes that much of a real-world difference for your average person in everyday shooting. (Not talking about pro sports photographers here.) Heck, how often does your average photographer even use continuous shooting?

[MICKEY88]

At what point does the fps cease to matter?

If you're not going to be able to capture the shot at 5fps, do you think that you'd get it at 6.5? This seems to be one of those things that is very popular on paper, but I just can't believe that it makes that much of a real-world difference for your average person in everyday shooting. (Not talking about pro sports photographers here.) Heck, how often does your average photographer even use continuous shooting?


who knows, but look what Sony just announced

August 20, 2007 – Sony today announced it is commercializing a new CMOS sensor for upcoming digital SLRs. The 12.47-megapixel APS-C size CMOS promises improved noise reduction, better image quality, and faster speeds of up to 10.39 frames per second, according to a company press release.

[Master Mason]

groucho,

I shoot a lot of baseball, so it is important to me, If i can fire off 5 or more shots during a pitch, a play at the a base, or an at bat, one of them will usually be pretty good. The action happens pretty fast.

As your son gets bigger you'll start to see a greater value in it I am sure.

That being said, the increase from 5 to 6.5 doesn't justify the extra cost to me.

[jann1033]

same with me and birds, especially little ones, are so fast my rebel misses a lot of shots i want to take but i'm sure it does depend on what you shoot..ie a tree vs a chickadee:)

[AndrewWG]

same with me and birds, especially little ones, are so fast my rebel misses a lot of shots i want to take but i'm sure it does depend on what you shoot..ie a tree vs a chickadee:)

:lmao: I've found that a tree at 5fps is about the same as a tree using a Kodak disc camera from the 1980's. So 6.5 fps probably wouldn't be an upgrade there. Those chickadees are a tough bunch though. If I had waited a bit, I may have bought the 40D, but I'm sure I'll be MORE than happy with my 30D for years to come. That is, once I get those darned dust bunnies out of it!

Andy

[ukcatfan]

who knows, but look what Sony just announced

August 20, 2007 – Sony today announced it is commercializing a new CMOS sensor for upcoming digital SLRs. The 12.47-megapixel APS-C size CMOS promises improved noise reduction, better image quality, and faster speeds of up to 10.39 frames per second, according to a company press release.

I saw that also and am very interested in seeing where it leads. The real question is whether or not Sony will release a model with it first or if there is enough pressure from the likes of Nikon, Pentax, Samsung, etc. to allow them access to it at the same time.

Kevin

[MICKEY88]

I saw that also and am very interested in seeing where it leads. The real question is whether or not Sony will release a model with it first or if there is enough pressure from the likes of Nikon, Pentax, Samsung, etc. to allow them access to it at the same time.

Kevin

I just read another article this morning that stated that Sony spokesman would not answer the question as to whether one of the next 2 cameras will have that sensor{ andvanced amateur camera to be released this year and pro model by end of March '08}

I also read a very interesting article that said Canon is more concerned with Sony than they are Nikon

[0bli0]

my 1dmk3 shoots faster than the advertised 10.5 frames per second when manually metering. but i still use it in single shot mode (take one shot when button is pressed instead of bursting) even for sports. the only time i generally use bursting is skateboard comps.

it is interesting that they've only put weather sealing on the doors...

[ukcatfan]

I also read a very interesting article that said Canon is more concerned with Sony than they are Nikon

Given Canon's constant slandering of the in-body IS and how they just announced a relatively inexpensive IS enabled version of their kit lens, I believe they are seriously worried about IS enabled bodies. Sure, it seems like the in lens IS is a little better, but the cost is so much more and I am sure new consumers are noticing that. With the growing DSLR market, I think there is plenty of room for a handful of different systems though. I am not very heavily invested in the Pentax system (even though I am very happy with it), so I am happy to see Canon make this move. I think the average consumer wins no matter what. Who knows, over priced lenses might be on the dowturn.

Kevin

[0bli0]

... I think the average consumer wins no matter what...

i think this is the best possible outcome. in the end, everyone wins. of course Canon, Nikon, Sony (and all of the other manufacturers) win because consumers are spending way more than they used to on imaging. you would rarely upgrade your film body because they released a new one. you might change film stocks or buy new lenses. looking at the last few releases, it's clear that there are far fewer 'hot must-have' features being added lately. we seem to have stabilised around 10 megapixels. the next thing they need to work on is bringing down the price of full-frame sensors. the colour rendition in the digic iii is quite good so it feels less 'sterile' than previous Canon dslr images. i think they still have a way to go in this area, though...

[captaincrash]

I'm excited about the 40D. I recently had an "accident" with my 10D and it's not functional. So - conveniently Canon has brought out this new model. Considering that this is 3 generations distant from my 10D it's easy to see the functional gains I'll realize. Even though I was quite satisfied with the 10D... i would rather buy a new body then fix the old one. The only thing is I refuse to pay top dollar. I expect that this will again have an 18 month marketing life.... and there will eventually come a rebate or two - probably modeled after the prior campaigns where multiple purchases double or triple the value of the rebates. I see Canon as the heavy volume leader and very conservative in nature. I believe Canon still sells more DSLRs than all competitors combined. So, regretfully they'll continue to demand a premium for thier lenses and they're not going to put image stabilization in the body for a very very VERY long time. They've way too much strategicly invested in lense based IS designs.

So - that said - I want to say I am impressed with the competitive advances the other companies have made. I heard a Nikon 40Dx could be had for $700 this week at Staples. That's very very inexpensive compared to the Canon 40D at $1299. However, it does have many significant differences in specification. That said - lets not forget that Canon remains the only manufacturer to sell a full sized sensor DSLR. Many professionals cannot shoot with anythig but the best. And many say they cannot produce work with anything less than a Hasselblad digital back! Needless to say - Canon has nothing to compare against the Hasselblad digitals or thier glass. But then again - I think those are mostly studio rigs.

At any rate - I egarly await a sale or discount on the 40D. I won't say yet where my purchase point is - but for now I simply refuse to pay full price. I have spent a lot on digital photography in the last half decade so I have become a bit careful as to how much I am spending on an item that will be replaced and nominally obsolete in about 18-20 months.

I recently bought a discontinued notebook for 75% off which was just introduced by the manufacturer as a new model 9 months ago! Now THAT is pretty amazing to me. Cameras are very powerful today - especially compared to the 3MP Canon G1 I bought 6 years ago for $899. I still shake my head in amazement - and after a moments hesitation I reflect on the 10s of thousands of wonderful images I've captured with that G1 and the other digicams I've used since. And then I relax a bit over the money I've spent. ;)

[ukcatfan]

I believe Canon still sells more DSLRs than all competitors combined. So, regretfully they'll continue to demand a premium for thier lenses and they're not going to put image stabilization in the body for a very very VERY long time. They've way too much strategicly invested in lense based IS designs.



I feel like the new 18-55mm IS lens, at $199 retail, is a direct response to in-body IS. They even mention in-body IS in the press release. They would never have introduced this cheap of a lens with IS without pressure to do so. Also, it is clearly directed to the average consumer as it is not a USM motor. The street prce is likely going to be closer to $150-175 and possibly less if bundled in a kit. They are certainly not going to be making as much money on one of these compared to their typical IS offerings.

They are also offering a 55-250mm IS with a similar design, but no price was announced. Now if they would only offer a cheap 50mm wide aperture with IS.

Kevin

[MICKEY88]

.

That said - lets not forget that Canon remains the only manufacturer to sell a full sized sensor DSLR. . ;)


rumor has it that the sony pro level dslr due out by the end of march 08 will have a full size sensor, I think that's one of the reasons Canon is worried about Sony..

[PoohJen]

oh man, my xt is only a year old, and you guys have me jones'n for a new camera already!!!:love:

hmmm, I have a friend who's been salivating over my gear for a while, and wants to get an XT (xti) for Christmas...maybe I could sell mine for a down payment on the 40D???:rolleyes1

Rest assured though, everyone, that AS SOON as I buy the 40D, Canon will the very next day announce an in-body IS model!!!:headache: :rotfl2:

[Groucho]

I seem to recall one of the sensor manufacturers recently advertising their small PnS sensor was able to do, IIRC, HD (1920x1080) or even higher resolution at 60fps.

The issue with SLR speed is probably not the processing speed of the chips, but the sheer mechanical strain of the curtains moving that quickly, something the PnSs don't have to worry about.

[Anewman]

rumor has it that the sony pro level dslr due out by the end of march 08 will have a full size sensor, I think that's one of the reasons Canon is worried about Sony..


Oh I am sure there are many reasons to be concerned with SONY.

Remember when Nintendo was so worried about Sega, PS2 proceeded to out sell any console ever...

Sony became the number 3 DSLR company in less than one year, with only one model on the market:eek:

Nikon has already pretty much shown its hand, while Sony could pull anything out of their hat and catch everyone off guard.

The list can go on for days.

[Groucho]

Not having seen the Canon quote about Sony, I would guess that it's also got something to do with Sony providing sensors for other companies - especially Nikon.

Still, Sony has huge muscle and can put the cameras in big box stores everywhere. Just being there sells a lot of cameras. (Would anyone argue that ubiquity has a lot to do with Sandisk and Canon's top sales?) Then again, their PSP has been arguably a failure and the PS3 is off to a slow start... and this coming from a happy PSP owner and someone who plans to pick up a PS3 some day. :)

But really, if Sony comes out with a stellar sensor and Nikon starts putting it in their cameras, that will concern Canon... and if Sony produces a mediocre sensor that Nikon is stuck using, that'll make Canon pretty happy!

[handicap18]

Not having seen the Canon quote about Sony, I would guess that it's also got something to do with Sony providing sensors for other companies - especially Nikon.

This is what I thought as well. Canon makes their own sensor's but Nikon uses Sony's sensor's. Also Pentax uses them as well, correct? (along with Samsung {who? hehe} and Sony's own dSLR. So here is 1 company providing sensors for upwards of 4 different dSLR makers and Canon is only 1. Canon maybe big, but if all the others are doing the exact same thing its going to keep them looking over their shoulder.

With that new Sony sensor at 12.5MP in a Nikon high end body, that will give the 40D more than a run for its money. Especially if what they say is true and the noise issue at the 12.5MP isn't to bad.

But thats what keeps up going back for more toys. We certainly do win in the end. ::yes:: :thumbsup2 :cool1: :yay:

[MICKEY88]

[QUOTE=Groucho;20426145]Not having seen the Canon quote about Sony, I would guess that it's also got something to do with Sony providing sensors for other companies - especially Nikon.

QUOTE]



But Canon is more worried about the arrival of Sony, which quickly entered the SLR market by acquiring Konica Minolta's camera assets. Sony offers the A100 today, but two more models in its Alpha SLR line are due in coming months.

"I know Canon is always worried about Sony. Sony is a powerhouse in Japan," Glaz said. Sony makes its own image sensors and image processors, making them--like Canon--an integrated business. "They have a lot of technology in-house. They're very similar to Canon, except more diverse."

[fitzperry]

rumor has it that the sony pro level dslr due out by the end of march 08 will have a full size sensor, I think that's one of the reasons Canon is worried about Sony..

There are also rumors that Nikon will announce a full frame dslr this week. I've no idea as to the validity of those rumors as I will not be in the market for such a camera and have paid little attention to such things, but I suppose I'll go ahead and spread the rumors ;)

[dqpowell]

The 40D might make a nice companion to my 5D. I would use the 40D in situations where I needed more reach than I could get with my current glass on the 5D.

David

[ukcatfan]

This is what I thought as well. Canon makes their own sensor's but Nikon uses Sony's sensor's. Also Pentax uses them as well, correct? (along with Samsung {who? hehe} and Sony's own dSLR. So here is 1 company providing sensors for upwards of 4 different dSLR makers and Canon is only 1. Canon maybe big, but if all the others are doing the exact same thing its going to keep them looking over their shoulder.

With that new Sony sensor at 12.5MP in a Nikon high end body, that will give the 40D more than a run for its money. Especially if what they say is true and the noise issue at the 12.5MP isn't to bad.

But thats what keeps up going back for more toys. We certainly do win in the end. ::yes:: :thumbsup2 :cool1: :yay:

Speaking of Samsung who, I wonder why they do not market their DSLRs much in the US? I know that they are pretty much exact duplicates of Pentax models, but they are promoting them more in the rest of the world. Samsung even overtook Nikon for the number four spot in total digital camera units sold this past year, based on something I read on DPReview a few months ago.

With all of the speculation of what Hoya is going to do with the Pentax camera business, I still would not be surprised if they sold it off to Samsung.

For some reason I was thinking that Fuji also uses a Sony sensor in their DSLRs. Anyone know for sure? If so, there is another one. That basically means that there are only Canon, Sony, and 4/3 sensors in the consumer DSLR arena. Canon has the largest market share right now, but the entire DSLR business is only a handful of years old, so who knows where everything will be in 5-10 years.

Kevin

[MICKEY88]

There are also rumors that Nikon will announce a full frame dslr this week. I've no idea as to the validity of those rumors as I will not be in the market for such a camera and have paid little attention to such things, but I suppose I'll go ahead and spread the rumors ;)

the sony rumor is based on prototypes of the prolevel model that have been displayed at camera shows,


since nikon gets ther sensors from sony I'd guess sony's will be released first, to give them the edge..

[handicap18]

There are also rumors that Nikon will announce a full frame dslr this week. I've no idea as to the validity of those rumors as I will not be in the market for such a camera and have paid little attention to such things, but I suppose I'll go ahead and spread the rumors ;)

I've heard the opposite. With all the DX lenses Nikon has been coming out with in the last few years they might not want to go the full frame route.

Its been more than 18 months since the D200 came out (20 months actually as of this month). I've heard the new Nikon dSLR will be the next generation of the D200, either a D200x (or s) or a D300 depending on features. With the announcement of Sony's new APS-C sensor it could mean a D300. Nikon uses Sony sensors and a full frame dSLR would use a different type of sensor, correct?

But its all speculation at this point.

[woj68]

The 40D looks to have some nice new features. Such as a higher burst rate (6.5 fps), 10.1mp sensor, and the Digic III processor.

But I'm very happy with my year old 30D and can't justify upgrading to the 40.

However, I would love to upgrade to the EOS 1D Mark III next. :hyper:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/woj818/EOS-1D-Mark-III.jpghttp://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/woj818/homerdrool.gif

[Master Mason]

The 40D might make a nice companion to my 5D. I would use the 40D in situations where I needed more reach than I could get with my current glass on the 5D.

David

sorry, you do not get more reach on a crop sensor, you get a cropped portion of the same reach... That's why they call it a crop...

[dqpowell]

sorry, you do not get more reach on a crop sensor, you get a cropped portion of the same reach... That's why they call it a crop... You're wrong. The magnification of the lens is not increased, but the magnification of the system as a whole, from capture through printing/final output, is increased. The higher pixel density of the 20D/30D and especially 40D over the 5D means that the captured detail is considerably higher as well.

This thread may be instructive... at least the first two pages of it. It shows the greater detail and higher output magnification captured by the 20D over the 5D. The 40D, with its higher pixel density, would give even more reach than the 20D. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/494152/0

David

[Master Mason]

You're wrong. The magnification of the lens is not increased, but the magnification of the system as a whole, from capture through printing/final output, is increased. The higher pixel density of the 20D/30D and especially 40D over the 5D means that the captured detail is considerably higher as well.

This thread may be instructive... at least the first two pages of it. It shows the greater detail and higher output magnification captured by the 20D over the 5D. The 40D, with its higher pixel density, would give even more reach than the 20D. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/494152/0

David

No I am not see the picture from Oblio

http://photos.gregg-hall.com/photos/139342718-M.jpg

The round is what the lens sees, the yelllow is what is captured on the full frame, the pink is the capture on the crop. There is no maginification advantage on a crop period, the magification is all determined by the lens.

Would a picture taken on a 40d be clearer than a crop of a 5d shot to give you the same area, probably, but your gaining no magification advantage whatso ever.

Also the studies show that shoving more pixels in the same size area will increase the noise level as well, Plus you lose the advantage in Bokah that the Full Frame sensor gives you.

so everything is a trade off, but a crop camera simply doesn't give you more reach, as the magification is determined by the lens and not the body.

[dqpowell]

The round is what the lens sees, the yelllow is what is captured on the full frame, the pink is the capture on the crop. There is no maginification advantage on a crop period, the magification is all determined by the lens. I know all that. That's why I said the magnification of the system as a whole, from capture to final output, is greater with the 40D. Would a picture taken on a 40d be clearer than a crop of a 5d shot to give you the same area, probably, but your gaining no magification advantage whatso ever. It's clearer because it's capturing more detail. More captured detail means greater magnification in output is possible. Greater magnification means more reach.

This is a very practical observation. If I only have a lens of a particular focal length, and no longer, then I can get a better photo of a small, distant object with the 40D than I can with the 5D, using the same lens. That's "more reach," period. Also the studies show that shoving more pixels in the same size area will increase the noise level as well, All else being equal, that's true. That doesn't mean the advantage of greater reach doesn't more than compensate for the small increase in noise. Plus, the 40D sensor is better than previous generations in terms of noise, so it's probably a wash in this case. Plus you lose the advantage in Bokah that the Full Frame sensor gives you. Bokeh is a lens property, and has nothing to do with the sensor. You do get greater depth of field with a smaller sensor, so if you want to throw backgrounds out of focus, obviously you're better off with the larger sensor in the 5D. so everything is a trade off, but a crop camera simply doesn't give you more reach, as the magification is determined by the lens and not the body. Camera crop alone gives you more reach in terms of framing (though I admit that framing alone may not equal "reach" for some applications). However, camera crop and greater pixel density gives you more reach, period.

I'm not going to argue about this. Read the thread I linked to, examine the pictures, and you will understand.

David

[0bli0]

i'm going to stay out of the crop vs. 'reach' discussion other than to say to not forget the ability of a lens to resolve fine details. the better the lens, the clearer the small detail may become. you also have to remember the anti-alias filter and its affect on the ability to resolve fine detail.

Bokeh is a lens property, and has nothing to do with the sensor. You do get greater depth of field with a smaller sensor, so if you want to throw backgrounds out of focus, obviously you're better off with the larger sensor in the 5D.


actually bokeh has quite a bit to do with the size of the sensor, as well as the aperture, number of blades, and the size of the image viewed due to circle of confusion principals. the bokeh on my 135mm f/2 looks different on my 1dmk3 than it does on my dw's 10d when viewed printed on 4x6.

ok i return you to your normally scheduled discussion... :love:

[dqpowell]

i'm going to stay out of the crop vs. 'reach' discussion other than to say to not forget the ability of a lens to resolve fine details. Sure, if you're using a coke bottle lens that can't outresolve the 5D's sensor in the first place, then throwing that same image at the 20D or 40D's sensor won't have any practical advantage. But when the lens can outresolve the sensor, the higher pixel density sensors capture greater detail than the 5D. you also have to remember the anti-alias filter and its affect on the ability to resolve fine detail. Yes, and by all accounts the AA filter in the 5D is less aggressive (less destructive) to fine detail than the 20D's AA filter... which means that the photographic results shown in the thread I linked to are even more impressive for the 20D.

My earlier expressed desire for a 40D relates solely to its obvious advantages when using long glass. As I said before, it's a very practical observation... for photographing small, distant objects (or even very large, but very distant objects, like the moon), there's simply no question that I will get a better photograph with more detail and greater output (print, screen) magnification. Unless, of course, I can afford to just keep buying longer and longer glass to use on the 5D. actually bokeh has quite a bit to do with the size of the sensor, as well as the aperture, number of blades, and the size of the image viewed due to circle of confusion principals. Bokeh is a function of aperture, the number of blades, and the optical formula of the lens. Out of focus highlights are cast with harder or softer edges dependent on the optical formula of the lens, and the shape of those highlights is influenced by the number and shape of the aperture blades.

The circle of confusion varies depending on output magnification, and has nothing at all to do with the lens or the appearance of bokeh. The only effect the sensor size has on bokeh is that individual OOF highlights are smaller or larger depending on the final output magnification. the bokeh on my 135mm f/2 looks different on my 1dmk3 than it does on my dw's 10d when viewed printed on 4x6. It might look different due to differing amounts of enlargement necessary to make a 4x6 print from the two cameras, but the visual qualities of bokeh do not vary according to the sensor. My 135/2L's bokeh looks the same on my film cameras as it does on my 5D, because bokeh is a property of the lens.

David

[0bli0]

if they release a 5dmk2 with an identical pixel density to that of the 40d, would agree there is no difference in what you are calling 'reach'?

would you also agree good glass wins over resolution?

there are quite a few canon (90-300, for example) and of course third party lenses that are very very poor at resolving fine detail. i'd say you'd definitely struggle to capture fine detail using lenses such as these.

the 5d sensor is the same size as a piece of 35mm film. the AA filter's influence aside, the rendering of the edges of both the out of focus specular and direct highlights will look roughly the same for both of those medium using the same lens. output magnification has a great deal to do with the appearance of bokeh as more of these areas will become visible the larger you print. it is also more noticeable with specular highlights that are particularly large. (doh! - don't you hate it when you see a previous post you've made that has a spelling mistake (principles...)) as an example, take a medium format camera. take a photo of a well lit car, filling the frame. now scan the image. taking the same camera load it with 35mm film and take a picture of the same car from the same angle filling the film's frame. if you then scan the image on the same scanner using the same settings. you will definitely notice the difference in the rendering of the oof areas and the highlights.

at the end of the day, i just want to take pictures and use the most appropriate tool for the situation. i think the 40d has quite a few features that will make many consumers happy. so does the new d300 and mamiya zd.

[Master Mason]

I think we will just agree to disagree and leave it at that. As for the bokah, I'll go with Oblio, I have a high degree of confidence in what he says.

[dqpowell]

if they release a 5dmk2 with an identical pixel density to that of the 40d, would agree there is no difference in what you are calling 'reach'? For the most part, yes. I never said the smaller sensor was why the 40D has more reach than my 5D. Again, my desire for a 40D is a practical one... for taking pictures of birds or other small and/or distant objects, the 40D is superior with the glass I currently own. Frankly, I have neither the desire nor the money to buy a 500/4L to attach to my 5D when I can get professional results with a 300/4L and a 40D. would you also agree good glass wins over resolution? Not sure exactly what you mean here. If you mean, "Does having longer glass on a 5D provide better images than having shorter glass on a 40D," then yes -- I agree. That's evident in the sample photos on page 2 of the thread I linked to. But what is equally evident in those photos is that the 20D provides more reach than the 5D when used with the same lens and focal length.

If you mean something else, then you'll have to clarify before I can say whether I agree or not. there are quite a few canon (90-300, for example) and of course third party lenses that are very very poor at resolving fine detail. i'd say you'd definitely struggle to capture fine detail using lenses such as these. The only way to know is to try it and see. Of course, it's quite unlikely that somebody trying to pick between a 5D and longer glass vs. a 40D and shorter glass would ever consider a lens like the 90-300. Almost all Canon prime lenses and many L-class zoom lenses easily outresolve all of Canon's DSLR sensors. output magnification has a great deal to do with the appearance of bokeh as more of these areas will become visible the larger you print. Yes, that's exactly what I said. But "bigger" due to greater output enlargement does not mean the qualitative aspects of the bokeh are any different. The lens renders the bokeh to be smooth- or hard-edged, diffuse or distinct, etc. Your example (not quoted here) about taking a picture of a car with a medium format camera and then with a 35mm camera doesn't negate the point -- you're using a different lens on both cameras in 99% of those cases, and different lenses will render bokeh differently.

A bigger sensor means less enlargement to achieve the same output size, so of course OOF backgrounds look different depending on sensor size. But bokeh, as I understand the term, does not generically mean "out of focus area." It's a particular attribute of the OOF areas - the way OOF specular and non-specular highlights are rendered.

The more I think about this, the more convinced I am that we're just using the term 'bokeh' differently. There's no question that you get less DOF with larger sensors than smaller sensors. If that's what you're getting at, then I agree completely.

David

[Groucho]

popcorn::

I will say, good grief, of course a larger sensor doesn't give you more true reach. The crop thing is absolutely true, and look at fisheyes (especially a circular fisheye) if you want to claim otherwise. (That's a very easy way to demonstrate that it's merely a crop.

Going to a full-frame doesn't technically increase reach any more than going from a 5mp to a 7mp sensor.

[dqpowell]

I think we will just agree to disagree and leave it at that. You deny the obvious advantage in reach the 20D demonstrated over the 5D at the same focal length on the linked thread? Okay... then yes, we'll have to agree to disagree. As for the bokah, I'll go with Oblio, I have a high degree of confidence in what he says. You can trust whomever you want to trust, but I'll note here that I'm pretty sure he and I are just using the term 'bokeh' differently. If it matters to you, I've been doing photography for 28 years now both as a hobby and occasionally as a paid freelancer. Of course, I know lots of old-timer pro photographers who are misinformed about some of the more arcane aspects, so age and/or experience alone don't necessarily make me right.

David

[Master Mason]

You deny the obvious advantage in reach the 20D demonstrated over the 5D at the same focal length on the linked thread? Okay... then yes, we'll have to agree to disagree. You can trust whomever you want to trust, but I'll note here that I'm pretty sure he and I are just using the term 'bokeh' differently. If it matters to you, I've been doing photography for 28 years now both as a hobby and occasionally as a paid freelancer. Of course, I know lots of old-timer pro photographers who are misinformed about some of the more arcane aspects, so age and/or experience alone don't necessarily make me right.

David

I think we actually all agree in the principles, we are just arguing over the symantecs. I think it is a terrible thing to tell somone that doesn't understand that they get more "reach" with a crop camera, because they don't get anymore reach. But again, we both know what the effect is, it is just in the words we choose to use that we disagree.

[handicap18]

If you have 5x7 picture and then crop it to 4x6, does that 4x6 print now give the lens you took the picture with more reach? Or is it just cropped.

A 300mm lens on a digital SLR does not become a 450mm or 480mm lens. It doesn't get any more reach. It is still a 300mm lens. Its still looking at the same distance. Its just taking the final image and croping it.

Now if you take say a 50-500mm lens and zoom from 300mm to 450mm or 480mm then your getting more reach.

Will you not get the same image from your 5D as you would from a 40D if you take the 5D image then crop it on the computer 1.6 times (or take 40% off or what ever the proper mathamatical term/equasion is).

I think its the way you have appearded to define the word "reach" that has caused a stir here.

[jann1033]

uhhmm(clearing my throat to get attention)..so anyway, what do you think of the 40d?;)

[mabas9395]

uhhmm(clearing my throat to get attention)..so anyway, what do you think of the 40d?;)

Way to go Jan, look at what you started.

[jann1033]

Way to go Jan, look at what you started.

i've just got this knack.....:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[dqpowell]

I think it is a terrible thing to tell somone that doesn't understand that they get more "reach" with a crop camera, because they don't get anymore reach. I didn't say a crop camera provided more reach. I said the 40D provides more reach than my 5D. This is not because of the smaller sensor, but because of the pixel density of the sensor. You wrote in to object that a crop doesn't provide more reach, and we got off on a long tangent.

The fact remains that focal-length-limited users will indeed get more reach out of a 20D or 40D than they will out of a 5D. The images on the linked thread clearly demonstrate this.

handicap18 - Your analogy does not hold. Cropping a print is not the same thing as comparing one camera sensor to another, when their physical sizes and (especially) pixel densities are not the same.A 300mm lens on a digital SLR does not become a 450mm or 480mm lens. *Sigh.* I never said it did. It doesn't get any more reach. It is still a 300mm lens. Yes, it's still a 300mm lens. But the sensor capturing the image in the 40D captures much finer detail due to its higher pixel density. That detail allows for bigger enlargements. More detail and bigger enlargements is absolutely the same practical result as if you used a longer lens on the 5D. Will you not get the same image from your 5D as you would from a 40D if you take the 5D image then crop it on the computer 1.6 times (or take 40% off or what ever the proper mathamatical term/equasion is). No, absolutely not. A 5d image cropped to the same framing as a 40D image is only about 5 megapixels. Are you trying to say a 5 megapixel image will contain anywhere near the same detail as a 10 megapixel image with the same framing? Are you trying to imply that a 5 megapixel image can be enlarged to the same final output size as a 10 megapixel image?

Again, I did not say that the smaller sensor provides additional reach (other than the framing advantage). It is the fact that the 40D's pixel density is much higher than the 5D's pixel density that means images captured with it really do provide more reach than images captured with the same focal length lens on a 5D.

Please, read the thread I linked to and examine the images. This is not a matter of opinion... it is a simple fact. The 20D provides more reach with the same lens than the 5D. The 40D will provide an even bigger advantage than the 20D.

I'm just repeating myself now, so I would advise anybody who still objects to read back through what I've already written and to read and understand the other thread I linked to.

David

[Master Mason]

Again, I did not say that the smaller sensor provides additional reach (other than the framing advantage). It is the fact that the 40D's pixel density is much higher than the 5D's pixel density that means images captured with it really do provide more reach than images captured with the same focal length lens on a 5D.

David

Again, it is symantical, but it DOES NOT provide more reach, it provides more pixels of a smaller portion of the total image. This will give you more detail of the smaller portion of the image, but it will not provide REACH. REACH is a function of the magification of a lens period. The lens is not magnified in anyway on a crop body.

We understand what your saying, we are just trying to tell you your saying it wrong.

[handicap18]

So we're changing the field of view. You want the 40D to provide a closer field of view so you don't loose image quality. Rather than croping on the computer, your using another camera to crop. Or change the field of view.

We need to get rid of the word 'reach'. 400mm has a longer "reach" than 300mm. 400mm on a FF body has the same "reach" as a 400mm on a DX body. Though the DX shows a different 'field of view'.

So what you want is a closer "field of view".

[dqpowell]

Again, it is symantical, but it DOES NOT provide more reach, it provides more pixels of a smaller portion of the total image. This will give you more detail of the smaller portion of the image, but it will not provide REACH. Please consider this carefully. What do you think, in real terms, a longer lens gives you when you use one? Answer: It provides more detail of a smaller portion of the scene in front of you than a shorter lens. Whether that additional detail in the smaller portion of the image is achieved through use of a longer lens or through use of a higher-density sensor does not matter. The effect is the same -- they both allow you to capture the same amount of detail for small and/or distant subject.

Imagine a few ducks sitting in the water some distance away. I have a long lens (say, 300mm) but the ducks are still small in the frame with my 5D; there are too few "pixels per duck." I want the ducks to fill more of the frame; I want to capture more "pixels per duck." I can solve this problem two ways:

1. If I have access to one, I can use a longer lens. Maybe I have a 400mm lens that I can attach to my 5D. The increased lens magnification over the 300mm lens will allow me to capture more pixels per duck; each duck will occupy a larger percentage of the frame.

2. Alternately, if I don't have a longer lens, I might use the same 300mm lens on my 40D instead. Of course the lens magnification has not changed, but the pixel density of the 40D sensor is much higher. I'm getting many more pixels per duck with the 40D than with the 5D. The ducks fill a larger portion of the frame.

What I'm trying to make clear here is that both solutions have the same result. Contrary to what you've been implying, "reach" does not equal "lens magnification." Reach is the magnification of the system as a whole. No, the lens magnification didn't change, but the output of the 40D plus lens is more highly magnified than the output of the 5D plus the same lens.

Now one more hypothetical for you. I assume you have, or at least have used a camcorder before. Most modern camcorders have a ton of "reach," meaning they can capture a very small portion of the scene in front of you with considerable detail, by zooming in as far as the lens will allow. If you and I stand next to each other, and you point your Sony DCR-HC38 camcorder at a distant duck and zoom all the way in, and I point my EOS 5D and 85mm lens at the same duck, we will capture very different images. The duck will be but a speck in my photo. Meanwhile, your camcorder is zoomed all the way in, and the duck fills the frame. Clearly you have a lot more reach than I do.

But wait! It turns out that my lens magnification is actually higher than yours. I have an 85mm lens. You have a 75mm lens when the camcorder is zoomed all the way to its maximum extension. How is it that I have higher lens magnification, yet the duck is tiny in my photo and fills the frame in yours?

The answer is because you have a much smaller sensor with a much higher pixel density. Nobody could reasonably say the camcorder doesn't have more reach than my 5D with an 85mm lens, despite this fact. "Reach" is clearly a measure of how well the system as a whole captures distant objects, and not simply a measure of lens magnification.

David

[Master Mason]

Again,

we agree on what the results are, we compleatly disagree on the proper termanology for the effect. I'll leave it at that.

It is kind of like adds that say "save money", the only way to save money is to put it in a bank, with the add, you'll simply spend less than you would have otherwise. I know it is symantecs, but it is how my brain works.

Anyway back to the 40D, looks like a great camera, but I don't think that the upgrades warrent the cost difference from the 30D to me. So when I pull the trigger in the next little bit, it will be for the 30D. At least I got to see what was going to be availible before I had to make a decision on the 30D.

[Anewman]

But the sensor capturing the image in the 40D captures much finer detail due to its higher pixel density. That detail allows for bigger enlargements. More detail and bigger enlargements is absolutely the same practical result as if you used a longer lens on the 5D. No, absolutely not. A 5d image cropped to the same framing as a 40D image is only about 5 megapixels. Are you trying to say a 5 megapixel image will contain anywhere near the same detail as a 10 megapixel image with the same framing? Are you trying to imply that a 5 megapixel image can be enlarged to the same final output size as a 10 megapixel image?


Point and shoot cameras have super high pixel density, I would take detail from a 6mp DSLR over a 12mp P&S camera(with the same framing) any day... regardless of pixel density.

Yes camera makers have gotten better at packing pixels onto a sensor, but we do not yet know if the 40D is at the current sweet spot or if it will in fact yield better detail than the 5d(or 20d even). Some of your comments make it seem like higher pixel density always equals "BETTER" detail, IMO this is not always true.

Sure the 40d will likely be an improvement over the current Canon APS-C sensored cameras, but IMO there is a reason Canon did not just jump to 12 or 14mp and part of the reason might be that if pixel density gets too high IQ starts to suffer.

And one comparison test on an internet forum does not convince me that a 20d captures more detail than a 5d, and this is coming from a 20d owner.

[dqpowell]

Point and shoot cameras have super high pixel density, I would take detail from a 6mp DSLR over a 12mp P&S camera(with the same framing) any day... regardless of pixel density. Do the test -- don't just assume. Just guessing, but I believe the DSLR would produce a noticeably better image at mid/high ISOs and/or in low light. On a bright day with enough light to allow the P&S sensor to work at its best (at ISO 100 or lower), I'd put my money on the 12 megapixel point & shoot image over a 6 megapixel DSLR image with the same framing in terms of captured detail. Yes camera makers have gotten better at packing pixels onto a sensor, but we do not yet know if the 40D is at the current sweet spot or if it will in fact yield better detail than the 5d(or 20d even). It's a safe enough bet, based on the sample images posted at the Canon website. Of course we'll know more once they get into end-user hands.Some of your comments make it seem like higher pixel density always equals "BETTER" detail, IMO this is not always true. Then do the test yourself, and see whether it is true or not. In any case I did not say or imply that higher pixel density is always better. In fact I was very careful to frame the issue clearly: Higher pixel density is better when you are focal-length limited and want to get an image of small and/or distant subjects. I even specified that I was talking about when using prime lenses or good-quality (usually L) zooms. Sure the 40d will likely be an improvement over the current Canon APS-C sensored cameras, but IMO there is a reason Canon did not just jump to 12 or 14mp and part of the reason might be that if pixel density gets too high IQ starts to suffer. I agree. They obviously make a big effort to improve noise characteristics with each new generation of sensor so the higher pixel densities won't also result in significantly greater noise. And one comparison test on an internet forum does not convince me that a 20d captures more detail than a 5d, and this is coming from a 20d owner. Rent or borrow a 5D, and see for yourself. I don't know what it is about the comparison you're referring to that would make you suspicious, though.

David

[Anewman]

Do the test -- don't just assume. Just guessing, but I believe the DSLR would produce a noticeably better image at mid/high ISOs and/or in low light. On a bright day with enough light to allow the P&S sensor to work at its best (at ISO 100 or lower), I'd put my money on the 12 megapixel point & shoot image over a 6 megapixel DSLR image with the same framing in terms of captured detail.


I have owned many point and shoot cameras and a 6mp DSLR, I have compared plenty of images...

When it comes to pixel density most Point and shoot cameras have a pixel density about 10x greater than a DSLR with the same mp count, and i have yet to see one capture detail to even match. But I am sure you have done the tests yourself, or are you just assuming too?:thumbsup2


Then do the test yourself, and see whether it is true or not. In any case I did not say or imply that higher pixel density is always better. In fact I was very careful to frame the issue clearly: Higher pixel density is better when you are focal-length limited and want to get an image of small and/or distant subjects. I even specified that I was talking about when using prime lenses or good-quality (usually L) zooms.

IMO you have implied it numerous times in this thread, opinions may vary.

Rent or borrow a 5D, and see for yourself. I don't know what it is about the comparison you're referring to that would make you suspicious, though.
Nothing suspicious, I just do not feel one set of comparison shots on a chat board is the final word. Again opinions vary.

And while I understand that you were trying to compare a FULL size 20D image with a 5/6mp CROP from a 5d, your posts make it sound like the 20d captures more detail PERIOD(because of the higher density).

Originally Posted by dqpowell View Post
You're wrong. The magnification of the lens is not increased, but the magnification of the system as a whole, from capture through printing/final output, is increased. The higher pixel density of the 20D/30D and especially 40D over the 5D means that the captured detail is considerably higher as well.

This thread may be instructive... at least the first two pages of it. It shows the greater detail and higher output magnification captured by the 20D over the 5D. The 40D, with its higher pixel density, would give even more reach than the 20D. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/494152/0

David

[DueyDooDah]

"... Because this sensor covers a smaller area (small-format sensor) than a 35mm film frame, it records a narrower field of view than a 35mm film camera." "...Remember, the focal length doesn't change, just the view seen by the 30D's sensor." from Canon EOS 30D by Rob Sheppard

Sounds like cropping to me.

And, as OP says, what's this got to do with the new 40D, which everyone has overlooked the most important new feature. They have added 3 new languages, one of them being Greek of which I am truly happy.

[Shutterbug]

These parts are cool!

For longer shoots, the WFT-E3 can connect directly to external hard disk drives (HDDs). And if connected to a portable GPS device, the location and time of capture is automatically added to each image as EXIF data. A convenient grip design features a main dial and shutter controls for vertical shooting, while weather resistant seals protect the unit.

Also launched today is the Wireless File Transmitter WFT-E3. Built to work with the EOS 40D, the WFT-E3 enables rapid wireless image transfer to remote FTP servers, along with two-way communication through PTP and HTTP. In HTTP mode, remote users can trigger the shutter button or download images from the camera via an internet browser window. PTP mode is used for wireless remote shooting with the EOS 40D and supplied EOS Utility software.

I can imagine setting up the camera on a tripod or up in a tree then sitting in the car where the wildlife wont see me. Then using the laptop to take pics.

[MarkBarbieri]

I think we actually all agree in the principles, we are just arguing over the symantecs.

I agree with this, except that it's "semantics". Unless, of course, you are talking about the software company "Symantec". If that's the case, I don't agree at all.

I think the 40D, the 1DsM3, and D300, and the D3 all look really, really cool. I'm tempted to get a 40D as a second body to replace my 10D, but it'll probably have to wait in line behind a bunch of other stuff. I'm glad that the 1DsM3 is $8K. At that price, I don't feel tempted.

BTW, I'm back from vacation. Now I've got 3 weeks worth of shots to go through along with catching up from missing 3 weeks worth of work.

[ukcatfan]

BTW, I'm back from vacation. Now I've got 3 weeks worth of shots to go through along with catching up from missing 3 weeks worth of work.

I totally feel you on that one and I was only gone for one week. I came back to tons of E-mails and meeting requests filling up my inbox. On top of all of that, the DDs started school a day after we got back. Thankfully, WDW is only a 2.5 hour drive away, so the travel time was not tiring.

Kevin

[steery1]

BTW, I'm back from vacation. Now I've got 3 weeks worth of shots to go through along with catching up from missing 3 weeks worth of work.

Welcome back Mark. I'm looking forward to seeing some of your new photos. :)