40D vs. 30D My ISO Performance Review

John B - I should be able to post some 5D images this weekend to compare with the 40D. Looking at those images I liken the 40D to having as much noise as a 30D. I have used a 5D plenty of times, shooting several thousand images with it and am very comfortable in knowing how it compares to my 30D, hence thats why I feel the 40D doesn't compete with the 5D ISO-wise- it really competes with the 30D and I feel my images show that. I'm sorry if you disagree.

Wow....I'm just happy to have a camera that is as good as it gets for the price range and is reasonably comparable to a camera costing twice as much. Some would call the 30D/40D owners...well...Lucky

-jm2c

Ehh well interesting review. not going to say it's "faulty" however if you take 2 camera's put them through the absolute worst case scenario. You will get "worst case scenario" meaning that the maximum amount of noise these 2 camera's put out are going to be similar. I do not have a 30D to compare I did have an XTi I still play with so I know for gauranteed this is a stronger camera than the XTi. I don't compare 5D to 40D because you don't compare bread knifes and steak knives. 2 different job which one cuts wood better? I didn't read if you had the in camera NR activated or not but I've had low light 3200 ISO pictures on my 40Dcome out looking better than any of the ISO 1600 pictures you took.

so all the junk aside I'd say you didn't have enough time to figure out where the 40D will shine which is properly exposed pictures. That doesn't mean mid day at f11 and 1/8000 shutter speeds but it does mean overall proper exposure.

Disclaimer. I very well may be wrong on this however this is just what I know most equipment review companies do when they look at ISO performance. It's not that they aren't working in low light high ISO it is just they are making damn sure they expose the image +- 1/2 stop proper

That being said thank you for taking the time to do the write up. Perhaps you will get some more time behind the 40D and enjoy or realize it's an over promised paper weight. I can email you some iso 3200 shots taken at 9pm out doors to review as well if you like.

John_B wrote in post #3917816
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.

john, i read your post as well and you did a GREAT job.
I'm wondering if it is possible to do an iso3200 comparison with your 5d too?

btw, thanks to OP for his tests as well... (you didnt answer my question though )

John_B wrote in post #3917816
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.

I find it hard to compare your shots. They are not the same FOV due to the sensor cropping factor so that my brain gets too distracted to focus on the noise aspect. Also some of the 5D shots are out of focus, or less sharp. Though I'm no expert, I think that affects the eyes' subjective sensitivity to noise as well.

While your post is very well written sadowsk2... as mentioned by some others, there are additional comparisons for both these cameras, worthy of evaluation... Wish you had more time to do more with this review...

sadowsk2 wrote in post #3917135
I don't feel that the $300.00 premium Canon is asking for this camera is worth it.

While that statement may be true now, remember that the 30D MSRP was $1399 (body only) when it was first introduced as opposed the $1299 introductory price of the 40D.

Not sure how much better you expected it to get at high ISO. They do damn fine to begin with. Aside from the fact that most people probably don't even shoot above 400 very often, it's nothing good NR software can't handle if it bugs anyone that bad. The 40D improvements may be trivial to some, or a godsend to others. I think 30D owners might want to wait for the next gen, while pre-30D owners have a more compelling reason to upgrade.

Wait. All this has been said before!

"Potna let me upgade ya..."

ed rader wrote in post #3917377
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

That's cool. But I'm betting the 5D successor will have a similar layout to the 40D. Change is good, Ed.

Johnstoy- I do to, I would've like to have evaluated the AF and what not... However for the limited time I had, I wanted to evaluate the key issue for me PERSONALLY... Others may have found the feature set enough for them, I didn't... It is a great camera as the 20D is and 30D is.

I'm sticking with my 30D... It's a year old and has about 28,000 clicks... I often shoot "bracketed" in very low, rapidly changing light environments... By the time I'm ready for a new camera, the 40D and 5D will probably be upgraded to newer models... It will also be time for a backup camera by then too... No need to rush into anything yet. Cheers.

MaDProFF wrote in post #3917356
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

The thread was called "40D vs. 30D My ISO Performance Review " and he gave it

Having just read through all the replies I can come to one absolutely certain conclusion.

There are some people out there a little peeved that the 40D was not the miracle cure to noise, and that it is only fractionally better than a 30D which costs half the price now.

I for one am very I went for a 30D, saved me a fortune for a almost no difference in 90% of situations.

ed rader wrote in post #3917377
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

ed - was that for a *new* 30D???? if so, spill the beans, that's a fantastic deal.

McMadCat-

I would've been in the same boat as you, as I am happy with the AF system on my 30D.... Is the 40D's AF better? I'm sure it is... But I haven't seen myself very often thinking about how I missed a shot because of the AF... I (and this is MYSELF thinking only) was hoping the 40D would've been on par with the 5D from a low-light noise perspective so I could've saved some cash and gotten the 40D as opposed to waiting for the rebates and getting the 5D... If the 5Dmk2 is incrementally better as the 40D to the 30D is, I'll be ecstatic I bagged the 5D for what its priced at currently... Again, some people may need that 1.5 extra frames/sec, or the improved AF... For my shooting needs, I dont.