40d LCD Screen SUCKS??

I hope I am asking this question in the right place. If not, sorry. (I'm new to the fourms )

I currently have a rebel xti and am planning on upgrading the 40d. I have heard many great things about the 40d. The only thing I have heard people talk bad about is the LCD screen. Is it truly that bad?? How does it compare to the screen on my xti? Thanks in advance for the help!

I've used one and didn't find it to be bad at all. Ditto that for the 20D, 30D, 1D III etc. etc... all are more than ample for the intended purpose.

it wasn't the lcd that sucked as much as the thumbnails if I remember correctly. The image that the 40d shows uses a different thumbnail than the active picture, and it appears your pictures aren't that sharp even if you go to 10x zoom.

That's what I remember from when I had a 40d a year and a half ago.

From using a 20D and a 30D I found the 40D screen to be really bad. It doesn't matter too much, it just gives you a weird preview of your image that doesn't look anything like the photo when you upload it to your computer.

trentchau wrote in post #8553543
it wasn't the lcd that sucked as much as the thumbnails if I remember correctly. The image that the 40d shows uses a different thumbnail than the active picture, and it appears your pictures aren't that sharp even if you go to 10x zoom.

That's what I remember from when I had a 40d a year and a half ago.

If you're shooting RAW in any camera body I've used you zoom in on the embedded thumbnail... which is of quite low resolution compared to the full image. Shooting .jpg should still give you a relatively sharp image even zoomed in a fair way.

IMHO, the lcd is very low on the list of reasons for buying or rejecting a camera. Most of the time I only use it for checking the histogram. It's useful for seeing whether the subject had his eyes open. What else would you need it for, impressing chicks?

Yeah, it sucks. Still a nice camera for the cost, but it sucks.

tzalman wrote in post #8553833
IMHO, the lcd is very low on the list of reasons for buying or rejecting a camera. Most of the time I only use it for checking the histogram. It's useful for seeing whether the subject had his eyes open. What else would you need it for, impressing chicks?

Don't underestimate the value of the latter

Other than viewing histograms and, composition and poses etc..., I could never tell if anything was actually in sharp focus on the 40D. Going to a 5D was not traumatic.

It's a larger size then your XTi screen, but the resolution is the same. The only LCDs that are actually nicer looking are on the new 5DmkII and 50D that have higher resolution. Still that wouldn't be a deciding factor for me (as long as they are at least 2.5" big so I can see them).

Thanks for the responses everyone. So will it be worse than the one on my xti? Its not a big problem, but I would hope its at least as good as the one on the xti.

yes, it sucks.

I went from a 20D to a 40D and I was happier with the 40D screen for size and clarity.

But hey, that's just me...

-Mario

it sucks but that doesn't make 40D a bad cam.

No, I don't think it sucks. Works great for chimping my manual focus macro shots with the MP-E 65

Compared to a 60-inch HDTV it sucks, yes.