dpreview 40D review! just posted :D

The review shows that the 40D has one critical image advantage. Dynamic range! Half a stop more usable shadow than the 30D. Nine full stops of total range without highlight tone priority. Ten stops with HTP! And it can be pushed to 11 stops (at the expense of highlight color accuracy.)

Somewhat useful and worthy of consideration in my opinion.

aLFaDaRK wrote in post #4182854
The 5D and 1D II have the largest pixels on the sensor, and coincedentally have the least noise, and most detail.

Wow!

Looks like nobody told the 1D Mk III about that!

Looks good

Great review teaching me about my own camera .

The reasons I might want to move to the 40D over the 30D I have currently are:
1) more dynamic range w/ability to not blow out highlights
2) 3 custom stored settings
3) slightly faster continuous shooting
4) constant ISO display on top lcd and viewfinder

Not yet convinced the dual h/v AF sensors is yet worth the upgrade, and the ISO looks pretty good, but not enough to overcome the fact that noiseware does a great job in removing ISO noise currently, which is part of my workflow.

Madweasel wrote in post #4184686
As Simon Cowell would say, "I don't mean to sound rude, but..." that's a load of rubbish. The camera doesn't 'invent pixels' the way you describe. And pixels do not have detail. They simply record a light level, which is ascribed a colour by the filter above that particular pixel. More pixels means more detail. Detail only exists when you have lots of pixels. What causes the noise is thermal noise in the amplifier at each pixel site. Denser pixels means more thermal noise generated. Noise is reduced in newer cameras by improving the amplifiers, plus cleverer image processing in the new Digic III processor.

Knowledge and logic to the rescue!

I guess if more pixels equals more noise and less detail, I should get a .3mp FF DSLR and shoot away!

slightly faster? another frame and a half per second is huge to me...

AdamLewis wrote in post #4186666
Knowledge and logic to the rescue!

I guess if more pixels equals more noise and less detail, I should get a .3mp FF DSLR and shoot away!

Well to me it means that I won't be "upgrading" from the 30 to the 40.

The improved dynamic range would be nice, but once one gets into HDR, the increased dynamic range becomes academic.

There is a "chap" on dpreview that keeps saying "give me more pixels or give me death". I could help him.

aLFaDaRK wrote in post #4182780
Same size sensor + more megapixels = more pixel density + less detail + more noise

How did you come with this equation? (References)

Can anyone confirm the above statement?

Great review! The 40D has brought some very significant improvements .

samsen wrote in post #4187375
How did you come with this equation? (References)

Can anyone confirm the above statement?

No, not possible to confirm the statement quoted because it isn't so - at least not the 'less detail' bit. See corrections by previous posters above. EDIT: ummm... on second thoughts, maybe you'd better be selective about which posts you read

In2Photos wrote in post #4183842
That is becasue the 1 series cameras are too advanced for DPR.

Agent69 wrote in post #4184312
I have to agree with you on that one. I rarely visit that site unless I'm in the market to buy a point- and-pray camera for someone.

Not quite. Every other 1 Series has a full review, except the Mark II N which isn't sufficiently different from the Mark II to justify the time it requires to perform and write such a review.

DPreview does very good reviews IMO. If anything, they give the best indepth look at the physical side and software side that lets you really understand the camera. They also have very well controlled comparison tests which do not have so many variables as some review sites have.

I really like how well rounded the reviews are.

Overall I am sticking with my 30D, nothing that I really NEED and the IQ is almost the same. There are some neat new features though on the 40D.

I also find it interesting looking at the roll over that the 40D is less roundy and modern compared to the 30D. It is almost taking a step back with harsher lines in the design. Interesting move by Canon, not huge, but subtle. I like both looks though

Grentz wrote in post #4187650
I also find it interesting looking at the roll over that the 40D is less roundy and modern compared to the 30D. It is almost taking a step back with harsher lines in the design. Interesting move by Canon, not huge, but subtle. I like both looks though

That's funny. First thing I thought when I checked out the rollover was "D30!"

cdifoto wrote in post #4187560
Not quite. Every other 1 Series has a full review, except the Mark II N which isn't sufficiently different from the Mark II to justify the time it requires to perform and write such a review.

IIRC, there was some story about a feud between Askey and Canon (UK) because they didn't give him a 1DMkIII for testing so he refused to review it.