My very non-technical report after playing with a 40D

Hi,

The problem is that people see what they want to see. I state that I don't see it as an upgrade for ME (in each of my posts I specifically refer to myself and MY feelings) and everyone thinks I am writing some grand review of the product. I didn't use the word review and I intentionally used the word 'playing' as well as stating that I went to check out how it felt, not how it focused or any of the other new features. I didn't evaluate IQ but merely stated that from most of the initial reviews and commentary made, the IQ was considered similar and not better than that of the 30D. I never said that was my conclusion and I'm not debating with those that believe it is better.

The 40D is not worth it as an upgrade for ME. I don't understand why people think I am trying to impose my views on anyone when I am not.

My experience was based on playing with the camera for about an hour and there are many that would do the same, or even spend less time than that. Not everyone is going to buy the camera to make their decision. Many will do exactly as I did and get a feel for it as best as possible in a short time. Whether others agree or feel it's not enough time to know the camera is not the issue. We all know that if you spend time with any piece of gear you're going to have a different impression than if you just played with it but many consumers don't read forums or scrutinize as we do. They go to a store, pick up a camera and play. If they own a 30D and someone said "hey, check this out. It's the new camera from Canon", they would probably come to the same conclusion I did, liking some of what was superficial and obvious and drawing a conclusion based solely on that experience. Some will love it and some won't see what the big deal is all about. Some might put it down, pick up a 5D and absolutely love it.

Preference is a wonderful thing and we all have preferences. If I like chocolate ice cream and you love vanilla ice cream it doesn't mean that I hate vanilla ice cream or hate you. It's a preference.

petiot wrote in post #3961806
lol... i agree with you ... we ll have to wait for a while to have a WOW camera from canon. But nikon prooved that eventhough todays SLR are advanced, it is possible to release a body that has more than just incremental upgrade.

Doing incremental upgrade on each release is a politic specific to Canon. We have seen that with the D20-D30 transition. We have been waiting 2 releases to have spot metering (since the 10D) or to have ISO display in the VF. which are dead easy to implement from a technological point of view.

So i think that it is being naive to think that you need technological revolution to have a WOW factor camera. Just making thing the right way (e.g. weather seals, vertical grip etc) would be an improvement for Canon and a WOW factor for us.

regarding the op opinion, i agree: what has changed on the 40D? AF? it doesn't seem to be that much better. All we had so far is subjective opinion that yes, it could be slightly better. Sorry but look at the D300 AF system. that what i call an upgrade.

IQ?? well same here. People are still discussing whether IQ is better compared to 30D. high ISO ... same thing: not better. Body construction? not better (unless you think foam tape is an upgrade). Accessories? the 40D grip doesnt even integrate the AF-ON button.
ohhh yes . Print button. that is a massive upgrade, i agree !! lol.

you said "To me it sounds like you just was looking for an excuse not liking the 40D." well to me it is like if you were trying to convince yourself otherwise. I personally am on the op's side on this one and i am pretty sure that playing with the 40D for few minutes is enough to realize that the 40D is definitely not a MASSIVE upgrade (which is exactely what the op was saying).

That's the beauty of having choices. When the D300 finally comes out, many folks looking for that "wow" factor upgrade will have that opportunity when the D300 ships. Rest assured, I won't be protesting anyone switching from Canon to Nikon. What's funny is, despite the D300 announcement, the 40D is still flying off the shelves. And the ones that come up for sale on the forums (I don't know why they just don't return them) don't stay available very long. I consider the 20D to 30D (really a 20D N) a lateral "upgrade" if you really want to play that game. Yet, the 30D still did remarkably well as far as sales go and turned out to be quite a big hit for Canon, even though many complained about the incremental upgrades and how Nikon blew it away with the D200 (same dribble). So if the 30D was really just a 20D N, why did you folks spend more money for these incremental upgrades and not just stick with the 20D for less money? Because you see, this is what really boggles the mind. A lot of you claim that the 40D is not much better than the 30D, but yet you own and use a 30D as opposed to just sticking with the 20D. This is what gives folks the ammunition to say that you're just looking for a reason to justify keeping your 30D by finding fault or not seeing any real improvement in the 40D. Did that sound confusing?

I know what people want. They want a 1D series camera in a nice little convenient package and don't want to take out a second mortgage to have to pay for it. Hell, who doesn't? And you will have such a camera soon! And most likely, Canon will meet its top competitor head-to-head and introduce something as equally mind-blowing or better, and will price it aggressively. And that is not beneficial for the consumer why?

And why do some people seem so preoccupied with finding any and every little thing not to like about a certain camera? It's the same group of guys in every thread making the same points over and over again. Really, you all should get over it. Canon didn't make you go "wow" (not a direct attack on you, Robert, just using your term as an example). Sorry to hear that. Better luck next time. I don't think you've convinced anyone (except maybe those who cannot think for themselves and need internet forum people they've never met for their approval) who owns a 40D or plans to own a 40D that the camera isn't a worthy investment. We all purchased a great tool that we are completely happy with, and we're out there making beautiful images with them. Judging by some of the galleries I've seen (farrukh immediately comes to mind) you all seem to be doing just fine with the tool you have chosen to create your work, which is simply stunning. So do us all a favor and contribute your lovely examples to the POTN archives, which is more beneficial to the community than constant sh!tting on parades, nitpicking and whining.

Hi Lord_Malone,

Good posts and great input.


Perhaps 'wow' is too strong a word but sometimes little things can be that WOW factor. As an example, when I was originally looking for a camera about a year ago I tried a Nikon and didn't like many things about it after shooting with it for a day. When I picked up the Canon 30D I felt that wow factor and loved the camera and feel. I wasn't comparing features head to head and didn't compare image quality, as I believe that cameras from both companies are excellent. I went strictly by how the camera felt in my hand and it fit like a glove. I didn't expect that same wow with a 40D since it is so similar to the 30D but I wanted there to be something that made me say "I've got to have one of these". Unfortunately that didn't happen. When cameras at this level of technology are available I'm not really concerned about pixel peeping and the numbers on paper. I just want to like, if not love the toys I use. I currently like and love my 30D and have mentioned a few times that I think a more appropriate upgrade for me will be a 5D or equivalent.

Robert, I understand your intent behind the thread and understand that it wasn't meant to be a comprehensive review. I just find it funny how people always use threads like this as a platform to launch their attacks.

TMR Design - I came to the same conclusion- it wasn't worth upgrading from my 30D... So I'm going to continue holding on until the 5D goes on rebate later this fall (assuming so that is)... Furthermore, I DID show IMO, that the 1600 ISO is no better than the 30D... I posted the pics for people to see themselves and its quite obvious the ISO is equivalent to the 30D which is what people would expect... To say its equivalent to a 5D is not something I would buy into.

As has been stated, if you are completely happy with you present camera body why look around at all. The 40D was not an upgrade for me, just a backup to take to Africa. I was at BestBuy to get more CF cards. They had just one in stock and I snagged it on a whim. After playing with it some, I did get the WOW factor. The IQ was much better than I expected and as Lord Malone said, had an intangible 5D quality to them.
Maybe I was wowed because I had no expectations at all and was very impressed. As far as incremental changes are concerned and Nikon's sudden leap, Nikon had a large jump to make to get back in the game. Now they will be stuck with incremental changes as well. There will always be a button here or feature there that someone wants and or not.

MaDProFF wrote in post #3962358
What I saw was a few people anti 40D used your post as to say the 40D is not wort it, not an upgrade etc. comparing it with other camera's etc. and that was what I was not to happy with.

err.. i think i recognize myself here!! lol I am cool with you madproff, so i wont be offended .

more seriously. I think that is what we do here: assessing gear! am i right? what do we need to assess? well we do need some reference. That is partially why i am mentioning "other camera" (ohhh the nikomunism taboo lol). And that is what has changed lately. competition is getting dangerously close to set a new benchmark.

Anyway. I am sure that in the absolute, the 40D is an very good product. In the actual context ... hum some things could be (and have been) criticized. what pisses me off is canon's commercial approach (small upgrade, time taken to integrate simple things, feature half implemented etc etc), which explains why i still have a 10D.

I just think it will be in our benefit to shake canon up a bit (if they are not too deeply asleep LOL). someone has to do it, so i am doing it. am i alone? ....

ok so now i have to go and buy a 40D ... lol.

A 3" Screen can make a huge difference. The focussing is a big difference. The color appears to be a little different, the feel of the 40d is a lot nicer it's self. The live view is a pointless feature to me, but anyhow. I upgraded from a 20d and I actually want to buy another 40d. Its just that good for a camera for what I do.

Az2Africa- I would hardly say Nikon up until now "needed a large jump to get back in the game"... That is completely ridiculous... Aside from noise performance, alot of reviews for the current Nikon models have garnered higher ratings than Canons, especially for IQ... I suggest you research the Nikon products before slamming them like that... I'm a Canon guy and always will be, but I have a healthy respect for the Nikon product line.

Upgraded from 20D and LOVING it!
Ability to manualy focus macro and landscaping with ZOOM live view along worth upgrading...
Plus extra 2Mp...
Plus better AF in servo...
Plus compatibility with 20D grip...
Interchangable VF...

petiot wrote in post #3962808
err.. i think i recognize myself here!! lol I am cool with you madproff, so i wont be offended .

..

ok so now i have to go and buy a 40D ... lol.

Well my post was not directed right at you, in fact it was more some other poster in this thread in this instance.
If you have issues with Canon for what ever reasons, then I am sorry for you, but the majority think the 40D is worthy of being called a good upgrade. Some don't need some of the major changes, hence they feel it better to wait.
Canon, well we don't really know what is behind the closed doors, why they have tried to maybe lower their quality on certain accessories, to make more profit, I do think they can see quite well what is happening in the market today, and perhaps they need to invest a lot more money into the next generation of Digtial Cameras, maybe they have come as far with in reason as they can with their existing technology. I personally soon see a body that is pretty well standard for all with one or 2 variations, with an interchangeable digital back to suit different formats ETC. to fit the body, and ofc the digi back is the different from bottom end, prosumer to pro, price reflected. (i might add this was told to me by someone selling Canon Cameras, if it ever happens who knows, but I ca nsee it logically)

I might add though, if you used a 40D for a few weeks, I bet you would feel different, assuming you use it for what it was upgraded for.

sadowsk2 wrote in post #3962866
Az2Africa- I would hardly say Nikon up until now "needed a large jump to get back in the game"... That is completely ridiculous... Aside from noise performance, alot of reviews for the current Nikon models have garnered higher ratings than Canons, especially for IQ... I suggest you research the Nikon products before slamming them like that... I'm a Canon guy and always will be, but I have a healthy respect for the Nikon product line.

If it wasn't a big jump, then why all the sudden excitement?

Well for one, I'd say they've added more features than Canon has for one... Umm if you haven't read the forums, thats pretty much been agreed by most everyone here... There is even talk of "converting to the dark side" now... Nikon has put out some solid products recently, the D200 is an awesome camera to the D40x...

ed rader wrote in post #3958296
wow! a couple of weeks ago a whole bunch of guys were claiming that the 40d was the new IQ and iso king and that it focussed better than the quirky mark III.

and now today we're saying the 40d is comparable to the 30d in IQ, iso and AF?

well i guess i was wrong about six months...maybe the 40d pink cloud will lift sooner and we'll know the truth !

ed rader

Hype maybe?

sadowsk2 wrote in post #3962538
TMR Design - I came to the same conclusion- it wasn't worth upgrading from my 30D... So I'm going to continue holding on until the 5D goes on rebate later this fall (assuming so that is)... Furthermore, I DID show IMO, that the 1600 ISO is no better than the 30D... I posted the pics for people to see themselves and its quite obvious the ISO is equivalent to the 30D which is what people would expect... To say its equivalent to a 5D is not something I would buy into.

I thought the same, except I bypassed both 30D & 40D & went straight to the 5D, havent regretted it not once, I can now manually focus with presicion! something I always found harder with the smaller viewfinders.