so what do you think? 40d link

[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?

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.