40D vs. 30D My ISO Performance Review

Ok, I was fortunate enough to have a co-worker let me borrow his wife's week-old 40D for a night, which I took the opportunity to collect thoughts on it and compare it versus my 30D for what I'm specifically looking for: in a camera- ISO performance. My humble "review" is as follows:

40D Initial impressions:
PROS:
- The camera is slightly larger than my 30D and fits a little more comfortably/ergonomica​lly in my hands which is nice.
- The 3" LCD was also a nice addition and plus for the camera, its also a bit brighter than my 30D's.
- The settings wheel on the top is also a little larger in diameter which is nice. - The view finder is also a little bit larger which makes composition a bit easier as well compared to my 30D.
- The constant ISO display I think, of any of these PROS IMO is the biggest plus for the non-performance aspects the camera offers.
- The shutter speed is also quieter as has been reported, and its not quite as silent as the 5D, but is noticeably not as loud as the 30D.

CONS:
- I did not like the button layout on the back of the camera at all, I more than once during my brief time using it made contact with the buttons and once actually hit the play button.
- I didn't like the split rubber seal that encloses the remote shutter port, USB port, etc, I liked the 30D's design a little bit better.
- Canon did nothing to enlarge the little tiny joystick button above the scroll wheen on the rear of the camera. Given that this "joystick" is used more now for navigating through the menus, I thought it would've had some enhancements ergonomically to it, I find it small and dinky.
- With the larger LCD, I'd be curious to see a scientific study as to battery life to see if the battery drains any faster with that monster LCD.

FYI'S:
- I did not have enough time with the camera to explore the Live View mode and can't comment on it.
- I didn't get home until late, consequently I did not evaluate its autofocus capability which might entice some folks to be attracted to the camera. Again, my main focus with the limited time I had it was "is the ISO performance improved, equal to, or inferior to the 30D?" Given that I am getting into wedding photography and looking to grab a 5D soon, ISO performance is important to me.

ISO Test Setup:
Both cameras were mounted on my Manfrotto 3021 tripod and the shutter was actuated with my Canon RS-80N3 remote switch. The lens used for both cameras was my 24-70 f/2.8L at an aperture of 2.8. I locked the focus point to the center point on both cameras and left the white balance to "Auto". The ISO for all the images taken for both cameras was constant at 1600. All closeups were shot at 70mm and the room shot was at 24mm (not factoring in the 1.6CF). I aimed to emphasize all my shooting under low-lighting conditions, as I've seen some people try to evalute the 40D's ISO performance under bright lighting, or even outdoors which isn't the environment I typically need to boost my ISO nor will you see much noise (those shooting high-speed motorsports I'm sure may need to boost it, but again this study was aimed specifically at indoor, low-lighting). All images were shot in JPEG high-quality (large). (Note: I originally shot both in RAW, but was unable to read the 40D's RAW images as I didn't have the software that came with the camera, consequently I had to go back and reshoot everything on both cameras in the highest quality JPEG setting and compare). When shooting the images, the meter reading for each compared image were identical (i.e. the close-up of the vase was the same for the 30D and 40D).

Results:
All the images taken, including the 100% crops can be viewed and downloaded from my new flickr site at:

http://www.flickr.com/​photos/83757848@N00/

I encourage anyone interested to go in and download any of the images they would like to compare side-by-side for themselves. Please note I seperated the two sets into a "40D" and "30D" folder.

I noticed the color tones were slightly different from the 30D vs 40D which led me to verify the white balance on both of the cameras were identical and set to AWB. BOTTOM LINE: I FOUND THE ISO PERFORMANCE OF THE 40d TO BE NO BETTER THAN THAT ON THE 30d. I DO NOT BELIEVE THE NOISE LEVELS ON EITHER CAMERA CAN EVEN BE CONSIDERED ON PAR WITH THE 5D AT IDENTICAL SETTINGS. It actually looks like Canon incorporated more in-camera noise processing to get the noise levels even close to the 30D. This was what I suspected given that Canon crammed small photocells onto the same sized sensor. For those 5D owners out there, you can breath easy as I still say the 5D, outside of maybe the 1D's, the ISO king and is a step above the XXD series.

CONCLUSIONS:
As I did this study, I had to ask myself as a current 30D owner, "would I want to buy this camera and dump my 30D?". Based upon what I evaluated, I would have to say NO* with an asterisk. Given that I didn't evaluate the susposed improved autofocus, that might sway some folks. I for one think the 30D's autofocus system has more than suited my personal needs, however depending on your shooting style and opinion, it may justify the switch. I don't feel that the $300.00 premium Canon is asking for this camera is worth it. Don't get me wrong, it is a fantastic camera. However, I really feel Canon should've and could've pushed the envelop further (ala Nikon), especially given that they didnt do much from the 20D->30D. I would've liked to have seen a higher fps improvement for one (something along the lines of 8fps, nothing to infringe on the Mk3, but more is needed to differentiate its frames per second from the 30D and I don't think 1.5 frames more is enough). I also would've liked to have seen improved noise control at higher ISOs. The resolution upgrade doesn't do much for me as I don't really blow up poster sized prints so it does nothing more than fill my cards up quicker with larger files. My note to others would be that you shouldn't expect any improvement in terms of noise with this 40D compared to the 30D. Again, there may be other reasons you personally may find justify the premium, I for one do not, and will be happily content to keeping my 30D.

If anyone has trouble downloading please let me know as this is my first time using Flickr.

Now... I'm going to go cook some popcorn, and sit back for the flames......

Hi. 40D has a NR function - did u turn this on or off?

C.Fn II = 2

sadowsk2 wrote in post #3917135
Ok, I was fortunate enough to have a co-worker let me borrow his wife's week-old 40D for a night, which I took the opportunity to collect thoughts on it and compare it versus my 30D for what I'm specifically looking for: in a camera- ISO performance. My humble "review" is as follows:

40D Initial impressions:
PROS:
- The camera is slightly larger than my 30D and fits a little more comfortably/ergonomica​lly in my hands which is nice.
- The 3" LCD was also a nice addition and plus for the camera, its also a bit brighter than my 30D's.
- The settings wheel on the top is also a little larger in diameter which is nice. - The view finder is also a little bit larger which makes composition a bit easier as well compared to my 30D.
- The constant ISO display I think, of any of these PROS IMO is the biggest plus for the non-performance aspects the camera offers.
- The shutter speed is also quieter as has been reported, and its not quite as silent as the 5D, but is noticeably not as loud as the 30D.

CONS:
- I did not like the button layout on the back of the camera at all, I more than once during my brief time using it made contact with the buttons and once actually hit the play button.
- I didn't like the split rubber seal that encloses the remote shutter port, USB port, etc, I liked the 30D's design a little bit better.
- Canon did nothing to enlarge the little tiny joystick button above the scroll wheen on the rear of the camera. Given that this "joystick" is used more now for navigating through the menus, I thought it would've had some enhancements ergonomically to it, I find it small and dinky.
- With the larger LCD, I'd be curious to see a scientific study as to battery life to see if the battery drains any faster with that monster LCD.

FYI'S:
- I did not have enough time with the camera to explore the Live View mode and can't comment on it.
- I didn't get home until late, consequently I did not evaluate its autofocus capability which might entice some folks to be attracted to the camera. Again, my main focus with the limited time I had it was "is the ISO performance improved, equal to, or inferior to the 30D?" Given that I am getting into wedding photography and looking to grab a 5D soon, ISO performance is important to me.

ISO Test Setup:
Both cameras were mounted on my Manfrotto 3021 tripod and the shutter was actuated with my Canon RS-80N3 remote switch. The lens used for both cameras was my 24-70 f/2.8L at an aperture of 2.8. I locked the focus point to the center point on both cameras and left the white balance to "Auto". The ISO for all the images taken for both cameras was constant at 1600. All closeups were shot at 70mm and the room shot was at 24mm (not factoring in the 1.6CF). I aimed to emphasize all my shooting under low-lighting conditions, as I've seen some people try to evalute the 40D's ISO performance under bright lighting, or even outdoors which isn't the environment I typically need to boost my ISO nor will you see much noise (those shooting high-speed motorsports I'm sure may need to boost it, but again this study was aimed specifically at indoor, low-lighting). All images were shot in JPEG high-quality (large). (Note: I originally shot both in RAW, but was unable to read the 40D's RAW images as I didn't have the software that came with the camera, consequently I had to go back and reshoot everything on both cameras in the highest quality JPEG setting and compare). When shooting the images, the meter reading for each compared image were identical (i.e. the close-up of the vase was the same for the 30D and 40D).

Results:
All the images taken, including the 100% crops can be viewed and downloaded from my new flickr site at:

http://www.flickr.com/​photos/83757848@N00/

I encourage anyone interested to go in and download any of the images they would like to compare side-by-side for themselves. Please note I seperated the two sets into a "40D" and "30D" folder.

I noticed the color tones were slightly different from the 30D vs 40D which led me to verify the white balance on both of the cameras were identical and set to AWB. BOTTOM LINE: I FOUND THE ISO PERFORMANCE OF THE 40d TO BE NO BETTER THAN THAT ON THE 30d. I DO NOT BELIEVE THE NOISE LEVELS ON EITHER CAMERA CAN EVEN BE CONSIDERED ON PAR WITH THE 5D AT IDENTICAL SETTINGS. It actually looks like Canon incorporated more in-camera noise processing to get the noise levels even close to the 30D. This was what I suspected given that Canon crammed small photocells onto the same sized sensor. For those 5D owners out there, you can breath easy as I still say the 5D, outside of maybe the 1D's, the ISO king and is a step above the XXD series.

CONCLUSIONS:
As I did this study, I had to ask myself as a current 30D owner, "would I want to buy this camera and dump my 30D?". Based upon what I evaluated, I would have to say NO* with an asterisk. Given that I didn't evaluate the susposed improved autofocus, that might sway some folks. I for one think the 30D's autofocus system has more than suited my personal needs, however depending on your shooting style and opinion, it may justify the switch. I don't feel that the $300.00 premium Canon is asking for this camera is worth it. Don't get me wrong, it is a fantastic camera. However, I really feel Canon should've and could've pushed the envelop further (ala Nikon), especially given that they didnt do much from the 20D->30D. I would've liked to have seen a higher fps improvement for one (something along the lines of 8fps, nothing to infringe on the Mk3, but more is needed to differentiate its frames per second from the 30D and I don't think 1.5 frames more is enough). I also would've liked to have seen improved noise control at higher ISOs. The resolution upgrade doesn't do much for me as I don't really blow up poster sized prints so it does nothing more than fill my cards up quicker with larger files. My note to others would be that you shouldn't expect any improvement in terms of noise with this 40D compared to the 30D. Again, there may be other reasons you personally may find justify the premium, I for one do not, and will be happily content to keeping my 30D.

If anyone has trouble downloading please let me know as this is my first time using Flickr.

Now... I'm going to go cook some popcorn, and sit back for the flames......

thank you for the review. you didn't say anything that i didn't already believe.

how does the IQ of the 30d compare to the 40d?

ed rader

Ed -

I found the IQ to be awfully close. I actually showed two pictures side by side to some folks and asked them to compare the images and they both thought they were identical, and one actually thought they were taken with the same camera in high-speed mode. I'm gonna bring all my images into the office tomorrow and asked some folks their for their opinion to see what they think. But I think its awfully close. I do think the color tones are smoother on the 40D, but not a whole lot. Again, I didn't shoot no more than maybe 50-60 shots on each... As I prefaced earlier I was mainly focused on noise as I have read on alot of threads here of people saying the 40D is every bit as good as the 5D noise wise.

Well you did not test the most improved parts of the 40D over the 30D,,,,,,,,, AF, Tracking, no mention of the VF either. Auto ISO

TBH you have sold yourself short as assuming you feel it is not worth the upgrade based on your test, missing out the most important parts, though as you state it may suit you, but if you read many of the other posts about AF and other points AF in the dark, everyone says quite an improvment

I also own both Camera's

As far as the LCD goes on the rear of the 30D you can turn the brightness up on it, which is all Canon did in its default setting on the 40D. It's the same 230,000 mp just spread thinner over 3 inches instead of 2 1/2.

You are correct about the noise control being more aggressive on the 40D. It appears Canon borrowed a page from Nikon (old CCD sensor) to suppress the noise the smaller sensor was generating. It gets the noise under control but detail is lost; translation, this is why so many people in the forums are complaining about soft pictures.

Canon could have done so many things right with this camera, but chose not too. They should have put a 12 mp larger size sensor in it for starters instead of the modified smaller XTi sensor. The all cross type sensors was a great improvement as was the brighter viewfinder. But it's still not 100%. And what's up with the cheap foam tape for weathersealing? It looks like the stuff you buy down at the autoparts store.

sadowsk2 wrote in post #3917330
Ed -

I found the IQ to be awfully close. I actually showed two pictures side by side to some folks and asked them to compare the images and they both thought they were identical, and one actually thought they were taken with the same camera in high-speed mode. I'm gonna bring all my images into the office tomorrow and asked some folks their for their opinion to see what they think. But I think its awfully close. I do think the color tones are smoother on the 40D, but not a whole lot. Again, I didn't shoot no more than maybe 50-60 shots on each... As I prefaced earlier I was mainly focused on noise as I have read on alot of threads here of people saying the 40D is every bit as good as the 5D noise wise.

thanx again. i recently bought a 30d and i'm really happy with it. i used it at a triathlon this weekend and my keeper rate was very high while shooting the bike leg...the year before i used the 20d and the year before that the 300d so i could see definitely an improvement .

the two things i don't like about the 40d are the cost and the control layout...my 30d cost me $825 and its controls are identical to the 5d .

ed rader

Interesting your experience with the button layout, kinda the way my thought process was going by looking at the layout.

Since overall IQ is my # 1 goal in photography the EOS 40D is most likely a body I'll pass on. With less than 4000 actuations on my EOS 30D I'll be quite content to keep it a while longer.

Thanks for the review

I actually own both right now, I've had my 40D about 48 hours now. I've only done a little bit of shooting. I've had my 30D about a year now.

But I would agree on the WB, the AWB appears different - cooler on the 40D slightly. But the manual settings appear to adjust close to the same. Still haven't played enough to figure this one out.

The rear buttons near the LCD are a bit of a let down vs. the 30D they are smaller and harder to use if you ask me. But I am adjusting.

Picture wise the 40D's over all colors seam softer but creamier if that can be a descriptions from what Iittle I have used it so far. Currently I've only shot JPEG's I'm anxious to see what the 3rd party RAW converters will reveal. But I'm not disappointed at all with the picture quality or noise. I'm fine with this results. I was going to buy a second 30D to use, but I have no regrets about paying a bit extra for the 40D.

The price premium will also fad over time as well, as all things do. I figure within a year to 6mo. 40D will be at 30D pricing, just as the 30D did for the 20D pricing.

I wear glasses, the viewfinder and better eye point alone help me, that was the biggest plus for me. The 40D is closer to the D200 in feel and viewfinder size, a big plus in my book as hands on I love my Nikon buddy's D200, which I personally rate as a fantastic advanced user/semi-pro DSLR in use.

The rubber flaps don't bother me either way, I've hated all versions - why not give us a second swing door like for the CF card but for the ports?

The LCD can be cranked much brigher, downside is that it makes checking exposure totally useless as the gamma appears way off then to me.

The new 1D mk3 menu system, I totally hate it. I've owned 3 other Canon DSLR's since the D30 era. I hate change I'm sure I'll adjust but I'm unhappy right now. Especially with the lack of erase all from the preview - maybe I just haven't found it yet. But it's a missed choice I loved on my 30D for some reason.

For everything I dislike however, I've found something better to like. So the 40D over all is a plus for me. I plan to use it side by side with my current 30D - so is the 40D a let down, not for me. I don't have to choose either, but that makes me one of a lucky few I guess.

I have little use for live view as well, but the auto ISO and sensor clean make me happy enough. Once I've had more time to play I'm sure I'll have greater input/opinions.

For now however, I can't say I'd recommend one over the other even including the price factor. Tough call if you ask me.

I'm still unhappy that Nikon has such a hum dinger coming as the D300, but I guess I don't hate Canon enough to switch yet. But I'm disappointed in the 40D vs. D300 debut as I too think Canon dropped the ball. None-the-less the 40D is an upgrade from the 30D if you ask me - actually it's what the 30D should have been, but about a year late.

sadowsk2 wrote in post #3917135
Ok, I was fortunate enough to have a co-worker let me borrow his wife's week-old 40D for a night, which I took the opportunity to collect thoughts on it and compare it versus my 30D for what I'm specifically looking for: in a camera- ISO performance. My humble "review" is as follows:

40D Initial impressions:
PROS:
- The camera is slightly larger than my 30D and fits a little more comfortably/ergonomica​lly in my hands which is nice.
- The 3" LCD was also a nice addition and plus for the camera, its also a bit brighter than my 30D's.
- The settings wheel on the top is also a little larger in diameter which is nice. - The view finder is also a little bit larger which makes composition a bit easier as well compared to my 30D.
- The constant ISO display I think, of any of these PROS IMO is the biggest plus for the non-performance aspects the camera offers.
- The shutter speed is also quieter as has been reported, and its not quite as silent as the 5D, but is noticeably not as loud as the 30D.

CONS:
- I did not like the button layout on the back of the camera at all, I more than once during my brief time using it made contact with the buttons and once actually hit the play button.
- I didn't like the split rubber seal that encloses the remote shutter port, USB port, etc, I liked the 30D's design a little bit better.
- Canon did nothing to enlarge the little tiny joystick button above the scroll wheen on the rear of the camera. Given that this "joystick" is used more now for navigating through the menus, I thought it would've had some enhancements ergonomically to it, I find it small and dinky.
- With the larger LCD, I'd be curious to see a scientific study as to battery life to see if the battery drains any faster with that monster LCD.

FYI'S:
- I did not have enough time with the camera to explore the Live View mode and can't comment on it.
- I didn't get home until late, consequently I did not evaluate its autofocus capability which might entice some folks to be attracted to the camera. Again, my main focus with the limited time I had it was "is the ISO performance improved, equal to, or inferior to the 30D?" Given that I am getting into wedding photography and looking to grab a 5D soon, ISO performance is important to me.

ISO Test Setup:
Both cameras were mounted on my Manfrotto 3021 tripod and the shutter was actuated with my Canon RS-80N3 remote switch. The lens used for both cameras was my 24-70 f/2.8L at an aperture of 2.8. I locked the focus point to the center point on both cameras and left the white balance to "Auto". The ISO for all the images taken for both cameras was constant at 1600. All closeups were shot at 70mm and the room shot was at 24mm (not factoring in the 1.6CF). I aimed to emphasize all my shooting under low-lighting conditions, as I've seen some people try to evalute the 40D's ISO performance under bright lighting, or even outdoors which isn't the environment I typically need to boost my ISO nor will you see much noise (those shooting high-speed motorsports I'm sure may need to boost it, but again this study was aimed specifically at indoor, low-lighting). All images were shot in JPEG high-quality (large). (Note: I originally shot both in RAW, but was unable to read the 40D's RAW images as I didn't have the software that came with the camera, consequently I had to go back and reshoot everything on both cameras in the highest quality JPEG setting and compare). When shooting the images, the meter reading for each compared image were identical (i.e. the close-up of the vase was the same for the 30D and 40D).

Results:
All the images taken, including the 100% crops can be viewed and downloaded from my new flickr site at:

http://www.flickr.com/​photos/83757848@N00/

I encourage anyone interested to go in and download any of the images they would like to compare side-by-side for themselves. Please note I seperated the two sets into a "40D" and "30D" folder.

I noticed the color tones were slightly different from the 30D vs 40D which led me to verify the white balance on both of the cameras were identical and set to AWB. BOTTOM LINE: I FOUND THE ISO PERFORMANCE OF THE 40d TO BE NO BETTER THAN THAT ON THE 30d. I DO NOT BELIEVE THE NOISE LEVELS ON EITHER CAMERA CAN EVEN BE CONSIDERED ON PAR WITH THE 5D AT IDENTICAL SETTINGS. It actually looks like Canon incorporated more in-camera noise processing to get the noise levels even close to the 30D. This was what I suspected given that Canon crammed small photocells onto the same sized sensor. For those 5D owners out there, you can breath easy as I still say the 5D, outside of maybe the 1D's, the ISO king and is a step above the XXD series.

CONCLUSIONS:
As I did this study, I had to ask myself as a current 30D owner, "would I want to buy this camera and dump my 30D?". Based upon what I evaluated, I would have to say NO* with an asterisk. Given that I didn't evaluate the susposed improved autofocus, that might sway some folks. I for one think the 30D's autofocus system has more than suited my personal needs, however depending on your shooting style and opinion, it may justify the switch. I don't feel that the $300.00 premium Canon is asking for this camera is worth it. Don't get me wrong, it is a fantastic camera. However, I really feel Canon should've and could've pushed the envelop further (ala Nikon), especially given that they didnt do much from the 20D->30D. I would've liked to have seen a higher fps improvement for one (something along the lines of 8fps, nothing to infringe on the Mk3, but more is needed to differentiate its frames per second from the 30D and I don't think 1.5 frames more is enough). I also would've liked to have seen improved noise control at higher ISOs. The resolution upgrade doesn't do much for me as I don't really blow up poster sized prints so it does nothing more than fill my cards up quicker with larger files. My note to others would be that you shouldn't expect any improvement in terms of noise with this 40D compared to the 30D. Again, there may be other reasons you personally may find justify the premium, I for one do not, and will be happily content to keeping my 30D.

If anyone has trouble downloading please let me know as this is my first time using Flickr.

Now... I'm going to go cook some popcorn, and sit back for the flames......

Hmmmmm.....the guy doing the study of 30D vs 40D is a 30D owner and I guess the bias has been removed?

I think it is called Cognative Dissonance. When get my 40D tomorrow I will be sure to compare it to my D60. I am reasonably sure there will be a difference.

I believe Canon has gone as far as it can in terms of high ISO performance in relation to megapixels on APS-C sensors at 8 mp. Even with Digic III, 40D's high ISO performance just can't deliver more improvement as compared to the upgrade from, say, 10D to 20D/30D. Buyers of 40D are more likely to look at improved AF performance, 3" LCD, bigger viewfinders, etc. when considering 40D.

Michael116-

TBH, I don't think I had any bias, I was actually really hoping and pulling for the 40D to be improved enough noise-wise from my 30D to warrant me purchasing it instead of the 5D for my wedding work and relegate my 30D to backup work. I also left all the images I took for other people to view, as I've ready on some postings here people claiming the 40D had ISO performance on par with the 5D. It got me excited and thinking I could save $1k and get a 40D instead. Unfortunately, for what I want it for, its not worth it for me. I'm not dissing the camera, I simply think my 30D is still the better buy for what I'm looking for. As I mentioned in my 2nd posting, I'm going to (for my own personal "study") ask some co-workers tomorrow if they can ascertain which camera had the greater megapixels and if they saw a difference...

I prefaced my report upfront that I am strictly looking at this study with noise being paramount. The IQ I'm sure is good enough (hey, its not like the 40D, 30D, or any of Canon's new DSLRs puts out a crappy image). If I worked on doing motorsports, or airshows or something along those lines, my whole report might have been slanted towards the 40D.

Redbird_xo wrote in post #3917733
I believe Canon has gone as far as it can in terms of high ISO performance in relation to megapixels on APS-C sensors at 8 mp.

That certainly seems to be the case so far.

Regardless of how fond you are of your 40D, you aren't being intellectually honest if you say the high ISO performance is much better.

But, that's just one of many things to look for in a camera.

Redbird- I agree with you. I was skeptical when i was reading on here people saying their 40D's high-ISO performance was on par with a 5D. Too bad it isn't, it would save me some coin! And I agree, if you're in the market, and you find the AF not up to your needs, definately consider the 40D!! All I said was that I was more than happy with the AF on my 30D... When I look back at my images I don't really see any that made me say "man, my focus sucked" or I wish that extra 1 frame would've bagged that shot... For some people though, in their line of work or shooting desires, they may need it and warrant the premium over the 30D... I'd rather put that $300 bucks towards a 5D instead... but thats just me for what I look to do... If AF was a major issue for me, I'd pay a premium on the new 5D when it comes out, with the current 5D being on par or better than my 30D I'm happy with what I'll be getting with the current 5D.

sadowsk2,
I took a look at your pictures on flickr and honestly your test really doesn't show the comparison (did I miss it?). I also don't agree with your statement

As I have a 5D for two years and in my comparison (with some low light and long exposure photos) they came very close to each other as far as noise at ISO 1600 <-- click here to see. I guess I just got a lucky?
Luckily there are many models to choose from, keep what you like/can afford and sell or return what you don't like.