Interesting 40D "Review"

Not concerned at all.
And in fact even after 2 years, the 5D still doesn't have competition.
FF sensor in a Crop body? Doesn't exist.
Compared to the 40D's 6.5fps, the 5D is pretty "slow", but it was never meant for that type of shooting. (there's the MKIII for that!)

That said, I am very excited about the 40D. I should get it this week!

The Hardcard wrote in post #3854328
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.

MaDProFF wrote in post #3854347
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

We'll need to wait for the evidence on that one!

looks like on M mode-manual....iso autos at 400. Hmmm
if I read that correct on those threads over there.

Though when the MK 3 DS comes out be interesting to see how many move over to that from a MK 3 and use it for sports as 5fps I would guess for a good photography it be plenty, and people use the 40D for the extra reach over the MK3 as a 2nd body to the MK 3DS

MaDProFF wrote in post #3854292
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

The reason why I asked is that I've not read the 40D specs in depth so was not sure if the ISO expansion was 3200 or 6400 like the ID III. I shoot sports at 1600 ISO quite frequently with decent, clean results from my 20D, so anything below that doesn't excite me a whole lot.

liza wrote in post #3854384
The reason why I asked is that I've not read the 40D specs in depth so was not sure if the ISO expansion was 3200 or 6400 like the ID III. I shoot sports at 1600 ISO quite frequently with decent, clean results from my 20D, so anything below that doesn't excite me a whole lot.

no 3200 is max still, H mode

nicksan wrote in post #3854202
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.

If you can safely make that conclusion, fine. I can't. I don't have either. I haven't shot with either. I can say while I have seen many stunning high ISO 5D samples, I have not yet seen one with better noise control than the green bottle pic in the dpreview.com samples. I am not saying they don't exist, but...

Again, I would like to see a 5D/40D comparo by someone who can take impressive high ISO pics.

he put an additional note on the bottom of the review to show what he meant by IQ being better or slightly better than 5d..... but too bad he didnt show a comparison with a 5d

MaDProFF wrote in post #3854371
Though when the MK 3 DS comes out be interesting to see how many move over to that from a MK 3 and use it for sports as 5fps I would guess for a good photography it be plenty, and people use the 40D for the extra reach over the MK3 as a 2nd body to the MK 3DS

If you had a 1Ds Mk III, you wouldn't need a 40D for extra reach, the photosite size is nearly the same. For most sports shooting, 21 MP is way more resolution than you need.

The Hardcard wrote in post #3854433
If you had a 1Ds Mk III, you wouldn't need a 40D for extra reach, the photosite size is nearly the same. For most sports shooting, 21 MP is way more resolution than you need.

I understand what you are saying, but to have to work with those size files all the time, gotta be a nitemare, that alone might mean they use a MK3 or even a 40D, as the reviewer said, 4 40Ds for a MK 3... makes you think

MaDProFF wrote in post #3854448
I understand what you are saying, but to have to work with those size files all the time, gotta be a nitemare, that alone might mean they use a MK3 or even a 40D, as the reviewer said, 4 40Ds for a MK 3... makes you think

I think one so far underrated addition to all Canon cameras is small RAW. I would use it at lot even on the 40D if the main RAW converters can handle them. Less so if I have to use DPP to deal with them.

The Hardcard wrote in post #3854479
I think one so far underrated addition to all Canon cameras is small RAW. I would use it at lot even on the 40D if the main RAW converters can handle them. Less so if I have to use DPP to deal with them.

Well everyone so far has slated Sraw, and no one really went overboard with it on MK3, I got to say I hate DPP, and if I save a tif and load into CS3, the quality is poor compared to the original Raw in DPP, so much so I not doing any photos atm and praying Adobe update there camara raw real soon

JWright wrote in post #3854074
.....Excuse me, but the 350D hasn't been Canon's entry level DSLR since last September when the 10.1 megapixel XTi was introduced.....

Actually, the 350D is still sold new, and is still listed (as the XT) on Canon's USA web site.

And he says that AF isn't available in Canon's Live View implementation. Ok then. And didn't he claim a 1-2 stop noise performance improvement from the 1DIII compared to all other Canon cameras, including the 5D? Can we go ahead and stop holding him up as some kind of expert and just treat his reviews like we do some-dude-who's-posting-his-experiences-with-a-camera? Because obviously, he just says things to say them. I enjoy reading his "reviews" but always take them with a big ol' grain of salt.

"...I find that the IQ of the 40D is on a par if not even slightly better than that of the Canon 5D........ "

and people make fun of Ken Rockwell for making idiotic statements.