So, I read some 40D reviews...

I have the capability to purchase a 40D with the 28-135 kit lens for $1274 until Oct 1. Well, I almost did it when I decided that maybe I should read a few more reviews.

I understand that it is an outstanding camera. I am definitely not denying that. But, for me, high ISO performance is a big issue for me (well, at least as big of an issue as it can be for a prosumer camera). In reading several reviews, they are claiming the 40D to be slightly worse in high ISO performance versus the 20D/30D. And, of the test shots that I saw on those reviews, I would tend to agree.

Is this the general consensus? Is this what most of you are finding whom own both? I would love to have all of the new features of the 40D, but I don't think that I can downgrade, even slightly, in the high ISO performance department, as I am already not ecstatic about the performance of my 30D.

safehaven wrote in post #3999754
And, of the test shots that I saw on those reviews, I would tend to agree.

but I don't think that I can downgrade, even slightly, in the high ISO performance department, as I am already not ecstatic about the performance of my 30D.

Well it seems that you have answered your own question.

From what I have seen I am quite happy with my 20D, let alone my 30D!

Good exposure deals with noise nicely.

Considering the 30D beats the 400D, and the 40D is basically a larger 400D, then it figures that the 30D beats the 40D in noise performance.

Oh and go and buy a 5D.

FWIW there is this thread that "talks" about noise http://forums.dpreview​.com …rum=1019&messag​e=24951742

I haven't read any reviews or seen any pictures. But consider this:

Assuming identical technology, a larger photocell will gather more light and generate a better signal:noise ratio than a smaller photocell. With 10MP instead of 8MP on the same size sensor, the photocells of the 40D need to be slightly smaller so it stands to reason that they might generate a bit more noise.

But the best noise killer is downsizing (resampling) of a digital image. The more you downsize, the more you reduce the noise. With more megapixels to start with, you can downsize to a greater degree and still maintain optimum resolution for printing.

The result, theoretically, is that the 8MP and 10MP cameras will produce identical image quality when all is said and done.

Now I don't know if this theory holds up when you crunch the numbers, but I don't think I would shy away from the 40D for the reason you referred to. And at low ISO you should get clean images with greater resolution.

mcmadkat wrote in post #3999789
Considering the 30D beats the 400D, and the 40D is basically a larger 400D, then it figures that the 30D beats the 40D in noise performance.

And since the 1D MKIII is basically a bigger 40D, and the 30D beats the 40D, then we should all buy Sony Alpha's?

safehaven wrote in post #3999754
I have the capability to purchase a 40D with the 28-135 kit lens for $1274 until Oct 1. Well, I almost did it when I decided that maybe I should read a few more reviews.

I understand that it is an outstanding camera. I am definitely not denying that. But, for me, high ISO performance is a big issue for me (well, at least as big of an issue as it can be for a prosumer camera). In reading several reviews, they are claiming the 40D to be slightly worse in high ISO performance versus the 20D/30D. And, of the test shots that I saw on those reviews, I would tend to agree.

Is this the general consensus? Is this what most of you are finding whom own both? I would love to have all of the new features of the 40D, but I don't think that I can downgrade, even slightly, in the high ISO performance department, as I am already not ecstatic about the performance of my 30D.

honestly i don't for the life of me understand how anyone can ever tell these very subjective and slight differences via the web on a web browser that isn't color managed and on everyones different monitor.

while we can gather info image differences that aren't drastic to me at least seem impossible to decipher.

and correct me if i am wrong while the same "basic" sensor was used in 400/40d canon claims there are differences so i tend to believe them.

From the controlled tests I've seen, the 40D has lower chroma noise but more luma noise than the 20D/30D. So it's not so straightforward to say whether it has more or less noise, although I generally find chroma noise more bothersome than luma noise, so would probably prefer the noise characteristics of the 40D over the 20D/30D.

The proper tests I've seen has shown the 40D has the same noise as the 20/30D.

Here are a couple of reviews that I found with high iso tests:

http://www.bobatkins.c​om …40D_review_3.ht​ml#update1

and

http://rolandlim.wordp​ress.com …40d-vs-20d-high-iso-test/


Has anyone here been seeing similar results with high iso's?

In one of the links, the commentors make remarks about the 40D test shots being under exposed. In a few other reviews and posts I have read state that the 40D tends to underexpose. Anyone find this to be true as well?