First full review of the 400D with sample pictures

[foxbat]

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon400D/index.shtml

Enjoy!

[evandavies]

Thanks but thats well known already ;)

We're waiting for the real review by dpreview:rolleyes:

[nitsch]

Thanks but thats well known already ;)

We're waiting for the real review by dpreview:rolleyes:

Really? First review of the new 10 megapix sensor that I've seen with such detailed resolution tests. Cheers for posting the link Foxbat! :)

[evandavies]

From this thread 6 days ago..
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=210568&highlight=cameralabs

You gotta be quick here ;)

[sandro9mm]

I'm not happy with the results, it seems 2 megapixel advantage doesn't give any considerable advantage, since details are lost and per pixel sharpness is so damn bad on 400D, its obviouse that sensor cannot take more mpx's

[chris clements]

it seems 2 megapixel advantage doesn't give any considerable advantage
No reason it should. The days when a few extra pixels alone made much difference to the image are long gone - back around when 6mp was reached

[grego]

I'm not happy with the results, it seems 2 megapixel advantage doesn't give any considerable advantage, since details are lost and per pixel sharpness is so damn bad on 400D, its obviouse that sensor cannot take more mpx's

2MP's would make a difference if it was a bigger sensor(but its pretty much the same size), but the DIGIC II sensor is pretty much tapped out.

[evandavies]

I'm not paying much attention to their resolution test as you can't do that properly with the kit lens.

Their outdoor ISO test are pretty useless as well.

[grego]

I'm not paying much attention to their resolution test as you can't do that properly with the kit lens.

Their outdoor ISO test are pretty useless as well.

In past tests, it showed more noise at 800 and 1600, compared to 30D, but much less than the Alpha(which would probably look like the Nikon D80 as well-and defintely is the same as D200)

[nitsch]

From this thread 6 days ago..
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=210568&highlight=cameralabs

You gotta be quick here ;)

LOL this place moves too quick for me! Cheers Evan. Still a good link though for those that missed it first time I guess though! :o

Can't say I'm blown away myself by the new sensor, seems to me they have pushed the pixel density too far but I think I'll wait for the in depth review on DPReview before drawing too many conclusions.

[evandavies]

Hehehe, yeah old posts get buried so fast...

I think the 400D noise may be a touch higher than 350D but thats still better than any other cam in its price range.

More full res examples but duno if they are from full production 400D (anyone read Japanese?)
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/dslr/2006/08/28/4486.html

[grego]

I think the 400D noise may be a touch higher than 350D but thats still better than any other cam in its price range.



If the 350D matches the 30D, then yes, its higher. The price you pay for 2 extra megapixels, that won't make much of a difference. But then, its more marketing than anything to lure in new customers since it is the entry line camera. (of course none of this means its a bad camera, but that's the primary target market for this body).

[ichuan]

This new sensor cleaning on the 400D would be handy to have.

[evandavies]

Grego, I'm not sure what you are saying there sorry.

Canon added the 10mp for marketing reasons of course and it was necessary.

They must be seen to "keep up" with the rivals Sony and Nikon.

Yes, the 400D is entry level and aimed at the new (probably a bit clueless) buyer into D-SLR who will have a list of possible products within their price range. If the 400D had 8mp it would more likely get crossed off the list as the competition in this price range now has 10mp.
We know it means little but they had to include it for the mega pixel shopper.

Canon haven't reduced the size of the photo sites which would have been a disaster. They have reduced the space between them and improved the design of the micro lenses on top to gather more light. So its possible that they could have added 2mp without compromising noise too much.

[grego]

Grego, I'm not sure what you are saying there sorry.

Canon added the 10mp for marketing reasons of course and it was necessary.

They must be seen to "keep up" with the rivals Sony and Nikon.

A new (probably a bit clueless) buyer into D-SLR will have a list of possible products within their price range. If the 400D had 8mp it would more likely get crossed off the list.

Guess I do need sleep? Basically the 350D's noise should match the 30D's, if the same sensor is used. So if the 30D did better in noise than the 400D, than the 350D should do better.

Yep, and agreed. Got to keep up with Alpha 10mp and D80 10mp's.

[Chris Potts]

Evan Davies :- More full res examples but duno if they are from full production 400D (anyone read Japanese?)
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/ds...8/28/4486.html

Here try Fish babel :- Babel Fish Translation › Translated Web Page

www.babelfish.altavista.com

Use Highlight webpage address then copy this & Paste into Bable Fish web box and which country translation you want then click go ...that is it..Simple isn't

[evandavies]

Hey cool, I can read Japanese ;)

Thanks, its now in favourites ;)

It says that those photos are with a beta, non production camera...

[Tom W]

Guess I do need sleep? Basically the 350D's noise should match the 30D's, if the same sensor is used. So if the 30D did better in noise than the 400D, than the 350D should do better.

Yep, and agreed. Got to keep up with Alpha 10mp and D80 10mp's.

IIRC, the 350D uses a different sensor than that of the 20D or 30D, or at least it's manufactured on a different line. I seem to recall that statement being made in the early 350D literature. Popular Photography magazine repeatedly claimed (wrongly IMHO) that the 350D had considerably more high-ISO noise than did the 20D, though I believe that they were quite close to being the same.

I also believe that the 350D's sensor production has been retooled for the new 10.1 mpx sensor for use with the Digic II processor, while the 30D's production capacity awaits the next generation of sensor & processing circuitry.

Like others, I await a more controlled review of the 400D vs. the 350D. I think that the review in the OP's link was somewhat hampered by a less-than-stellar copy of the kit lens, and I believe that resulted in slightly soft images. Now it may be that the 400D gives up a bit of sharpness at high-ISO settings to hide noise (a bit like Nikon's NR scheme), but I'd like to see them place a good prime on those cameras and test again in a controlled, familiar environment.

[farrukh]

I'm not happy with the results, it seems 2 megapixel advantage doesn't give any considerable advantage, since details are lost and per pixel sharpness is so damn bad on 400D, its obviouse that sensor cannot take more mpx's

17-85mm wide open, they are fine. its not a super lens. dont worry about sharpness