Check out Ken Rockwell's 40D review. . .

... from 30 September. Is this guy for real?

Im really lazy and dont feel like looking for a link. -.- Consequence of it being 2AM

Yeah, gimme a link.

http://www.kenrockwell​.com/canon/40d.htm

Well there's an odd fact - he says that the 40D can display and show the info for D200 shots. Who'dathunkit?

So...

He likes it and speaks from practical experience rather than pixel peeping?

Sounds pretty spot on to me.

Id argue about how he downplays the IQ of it, but other than that I agree with everything I skimmed over.

I wonder how much money ken makes from links posted on POTN?

Perhaps Peka should send him an invoice?

wow...that is the most over-the-top "review" i've ever read. i have no doubt the 40d is a great camera...but this review is just ridiculous.

quote:
"...run, don't walk, and go get one or two 40Ds. It's soooooo obvious when you get the 40D and one of the other cameras together to compare..."

bologna.

KR owns a 5D and actually now has a 40D? Wow......

All the time we thought he was from the Other Side

I think it's very amusing that in his latest "update" (which is at the top), he states:

4.) Hugely improved LCD. Whoops? Did I forget the 40D's great LCD monitor? The monitor of my 5D and the 30D are the worst in SLR photography because they are worthless and weak. The old LCDs are dim, have low contrast and have hideous color accuracy. The 3" LCD of the 40D is two or three classes above the crappy LCDs in the 5D and 30D. (The LCD of the 20D was better than the 30D, but it's only half the size of the 40D, so the 20D feels like 1999 all over again.)

but in his chronologically first part of the writeup (which is at the bottom) he states:

The LCD monitor is a disappointment, much worse that the Nikon LCDs. It's bigger, but not better than before. Resolution isn't very good, so text appears upscaled and smeared compared to even a $400 Nikon D40. The full LCD cannot be used to see the image: the top band is always data on black, not image. (I hope I'm missing a trick here.) Images seen on the monitor are not as sharp as the monitors on my current Nikons. That's not just the LCD screen's fault; the Nikons sharpen the image in firmware before display, the Canon 40D appears not to.

So, Ken, is the LCD a disappointment or is it great?

To be fair, it seems he uses the LCD for color assessment of his resulting images and has found that the 40D's LCD has good color rendition, something he has complained about with respect to the 30D and 5D. So his answer to my question may simply be "yes"!

Jim G wrote in post #4047749
Well there's an odd fact - he says that the 40D can display and show the info for D200 shots. Who'dathunkit?

if the mkiii can view raw files for every camera that came before it (xt at least), then i don't see why 40d and a jpg should be any different

What an absolute load of crap. One second he likes it, next he hates.

Get back to your Nikons and let us shoot in peace.

mcmadkat wrote in post #4048291
What an absolute load of crap. One second he likes it, next he hates.

Get back to your Nikons and let us shoot in peace.

This pretty much sums it up ,I think.
I am not going to comment on the 40D, but his review is just mumble.
Now where did I put that business card from that another schizophrenic photography!

Wow, never knew about the C1, C2 and C3 setting savers, great now I really want a 40D!

I will not click on that link, Ken Rockwell isn't worth 1/10th of a penny.