Interesting 40D "Review"

Canon makes three distinct DSLR lines for three separate markets. The Digital Rebels for the entry level photographer, the XXD series for the serious amateur/semi-pro photographers and the Series 1 cameras for high-end professionals. Why do reviewers continue to make comparisons across product lines? Comparing the 40D to the 1DMkIII is like comparing a Corvette and a Jeep Wrangler... They're not in the same class.

I love the erroneous statement the reviewer makes right off the bat:

"The 40D is 10 MP while the 30D and 20D before it were 8 MP. The difference isn't that great, but at least Canon's mid-range prosumer camera no longer has the same resolution as their entry level 350D / XT."

Excuse me, but the 350D hasn't been Canon's entry level DSLR since last September when the 10.1 megapixel XTi was introduced. Where's this guy been? On the moon?

Hmmmm.....

Just found this one over there:

http://rolandlim.wordp​ress.com …/02/canon-eos-40d-review/

gooble wrote in post #3854027
"...I find that the IQ of the 40D is on a par if not even slightly better than that of the Canon 5D, which up until now has been my benchmark for DSLR image quality both at low and at high ISO. "

Wow. I can't wait to see other opinions on this comparison or the upcoming reviews. I chuckle at the various other threads here where people are commenting on the few 40D images that users have posted. Many say how the image quality is no better than the 20D/30D and noise is worse than the Rebel etc. Firstly, most of these images are snapshots of the camera box and the images are not 100% crops or they're compressed and of dubious comparative quality. I guess I'll wait until some experts get a lot of hands-on time with the 40D before I make rash judgments about the 40D's IQ.

There has been quite a few good quality photos full image posted for people to look at, and download, I suppose most who have the 40D don't have a 5D to compare with, 40D is good, but I can imagine if it was as good as a 5D, (I doubt though, though getting pretty close now), gonna be a lot of unhappy 5D owners

liza wrote in post #3854115
Hmmmm.....

Just found this one over there:

http://rolandlim.wordp​ress.com …/02/canon-eos-40d-review/

that has been posted on these forums, and has a thread going

He updated his page...
"As sometimes happens, something that I write in all innocence is challenged by those who say it simply can't be so. In this case it's my claim, above, that "...the IQ of the 40D is on a par if not even slightly better than that of the Canon 5D". Several emails arrived right after publication challenging this claim. The fact that these people may not yet have had an opportunity to try a 40D for themselves (and may not even own or have shot with a 5D) has nothing to do with it. Their sacred cow has been pricked."

Then he posts a pic of a woman shot at ISO 800 and says...

"So, just for the fun of it, here is a candid portrait of a woman taken at ISO 800. The rest of the shooting specs are shown. This web version has not had any noise reduction applied. If you want to see a section at 100% magnification click here or on the small version above. This is exemplary high ISO performance."

Funny how most of the reviews pretty much agree that the 40D is "on par" with the 30D. As such, I think we can safely conclude that 40D < 5D since 5D > 30D.

Excuse me, but the 350D hasn't been Canon's entry level DSLR since last September when the 10.1 megapixel XTi was introduced. Where's this guy been? On the moon?

Erm... I think you'll find it's still available and for less than the 400D. Which in my book makes it Canon's entry level DSLR.

Mr B Snappy wrote in post #3854204
Excuse me, but the 350D hasn't been Canon's entry level DSLR since last September when the 10.1 megapixel XTi was introduced. Where's this guy been? On the moon?

Erm... I think you'll find it's still available and for less than the 400D. Which in my book makes it Canon's entry level DSLR.

I think the review was probably referring to the Digital Rebel line as a whole...
350D, 400D...whatever...that line is Canon's Entry Level. (Nothing entry level about them IMO!)

His reviews lost a lot of credibility with me after the Leica M8 fiasco in which he kept some serious problems out of his review at the request of Leica.

I'm extremely happy with my 40D, but as they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...

MaDProFF wrote in post #3854197
that has been posted on these forums, and has a thread going

Thanks for pointing that out.

There's also a hands on review thread on FM for new 40D users that's rather enlightening, if anyone is interested.

I took a shot by mistake at 640 ISO, of a mate on Sunday, and got to say was pretty impressed with it, considering it was with my 100-400L

it has had some PP done, not a great deal.

was at 100mm f4.5 I know it is not the full image so no pixel peeping, but take my word for it, it is pretty good

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

liza wrote in post #3854254
Thanks for pointing that out.

There's also a hands on review thread on FM for new 40D users that's rather enlightening, if anyone is interested.

Thanks I will go peek.

MaDProFF wrote in post #3854268
I took a shot by mistake at 640 ISO, of a mate on Sunday, and got to say was pretty impressed with it, considering it was with my 100-400L

it has had some PP done, not a great deal.

was at 100mm f4.5 I know it is not the full image so no pixel peeping, but take my word for it, it is pretty good

640 or 6400?

liza wrote in post #3854284
640 or 6400?

LOL, 640, the compressed jpg does not look no where nr as good as the original raw, I just liked the colors, was nice and warm compared to my 30D

gooble wrote in post #3854027
"...I find that the IQ of the 40D is on a par if not even slightly better than that of the Canon 5D, which up until now has been my benchmark for DSLR image quality both at low and at high ISO. "

Wow. I can't wait to see other opinions on this comparison or the upcoming reviews. I chuckle at the various other threads here where people are commenting on the few 40D images that users have posted. Many say how the image quality is no better than the 20D/30D and noise is worse than the Rebel etc. Firstly, most of these images are snapshots of the camera box and the images are not 100% crops or they're compressed and of dubious comparative quality. I guess I'll wait until some experts get a lot of hands-on time with the 40D before I make rash judgments about the 40D's IQ.

Also, I don't know if it was haste or other issues, many 40D images, especially the high ISO samples, are very poor quality. Some argue that because the comparison samples were also of very poor quality that they were useful. But I feel different. I think if you want to compare you need to look between 2 good shots. Fortunately, there are some of those on the net.

That said, maybe this will inspire someone to do a comparison of good 5D and good 40D images at various ISOs.

There is no reason for 5D owners to be upset regardless of outcome. The 5D was a true masterpiece, but it is a 2-year-old masterpiece. Digital imagery is a moving target like many other semiconductor-based technologies.

I am not saying the 40D makes better images than the 5D. We need a lot more evidence. But, if it turns out to be true, it would make sense. No one should be shocked.

Funny that most people (ones not with a 40D prob) say that the IQ is same as a 30D, and we all know the 30D is quite a bit short of a 5D, seems odd now another is trying to say it is better than a 5D