dpreview 40D review! just posted :D

BogongBreeze wrote in post #4187466
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

Meh, something I had read somewhere... apparently it was wrong, my bad.

DP Review: Canon 40D Review Finally Here...

For those of you that haven't already found out, DP Review released their review of the 40D yesterday. Below is the link. Enjoy.

http://www.dpreview.co​m …2402canoneos40d​review.asp

*lol*

I was reading it this morning and thought I was late

Great review by DP Review, basically confirming everything I already knew. After reading more threads under this topic and similar other ones, I've realized that all the 30D owners are splitting hairs because it appears they're TRYING to convince themselves NOT to spend the extra $$$ to upgrade...

30D Owners: I was a 30D owner before, and the 40D is well worth the upgrade in all facets of the camera, i.e. image quality, high-iso noise performance, etc. I took me a while to realize I was in denial, but fact is, 40D is awesome. Don't get me wrong, the 30D is still an amazing camera, but the 40D is better IMHO.

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.

Well said . . .

Man this internet connection stinks!

tom s wrote in post #4182561
it's because 30d (and 350d) has higher sensitivity than indicated.

Ummm...the ISO calibration point is true, but it's reverse logic as an explaination of the performance variance. The higher sensitivity miss-calibration on the 8MP cameras would support them being slightly noisier, not the other way around. That statement actually provides amplification of the variance in ISO performance!

If you look at the bob atkins review, it provides a comparison of 20D/40D performance side-by-side of the same target. I would say the variance in performance is not that noticeable either way, though if pressed I'd call the 20D's cmos the less noisy sensor. However, the Hi-ISO NR seems to do a pretty nice job, when turned on, based on the sample images shown. It reduces the "splotchiness" of the noise pattern --- a trait I greatly dislike, and a reason why I shoot most things as RAW and then do some chroma-noise reduction in software. Here is a good quote from bob atkins' review:

The HTP feature appears quite useful and is shown off in an over-exposed image (HTP feature segment) and then in adjusted the exposure in software afterward. It also seems to apply to RAW files too, which is nice. The added highlight detail will be nice for people doing tone-mapping (single exposure fake-HDR images) to their shots as will the expanded lower range too. The only DSLR with a broader dynamic response, according to phil askey, is the fujifilm S5pro.

The 40D is a pretty impressive looking camera.

Seems like a pretty good review.

9 stops of dynamic range and even more in RAW. Pretty awesome. I wonder what the MkIII measures at?...

One thing I noticed as a 30D user was the changes Canon made to the buttons for AF, Drive, WB etc.. in front of the top LCD. They juggled the location of them all over the place from where they are on the 30D. I don't see any benefit, and it will just make things confusing for people moving up who have those locations down to memeory.

Minor I know, but still annoying...

No Bugster wrote in post #4192813
did anyone realize that on the first page of this review, they list the grips for the 40D as BP and not BG

I cannot find my posts right now, but I was wondering about the same thing, BP vs BG, a while ago..

That's a pretty exhaustive review! I wish they did the same, or even compared it to the 1D Mark III. Still can't bring myself to justify it.

No Bugster wrote in post #4193542
Justify what?

Sorry, I presumed you were a mind-reader I'm trying to justify one over a 1D III.

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

I figure the 5D will have the best overall noise performance for any digital SLR even after the 5D successor is released, because it will likely have more megapixels than the 5D, giving it slightly worse noise performance.

If you want to salivate over something check out canon's announcement description of the upcoming IDs Mk III -- I couldn't find the description I read a few days ago but the important point re: IQ is that they found a way to pack pixels more efficiently, with greater density but not sacrificing well size, which means that the noise-free quality of the 5D should be matched, but with greater detail. Plus, 5 fps with a full-frame 21 mp camera, with bursts of 12 RAW files...

At only $8k, hey that second mortgage sound like a winner! Sell everything! This is the Holy Grail!

Tony

BogongBreeze wrote in post #4187466
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

I sure wouldn't say "less detail" as a generalization. In low-light/shadow situations noise of course blocks out detail but then the 30D has its own noise as well, so I'd agree that the "less detail" part is unsupported. It would be interesting to see how noticeable the detail quality difference is between the 40D and the 30D, 100% crops of a high-detail subject both in good lighting and in low "noisy" lighting. Showing a significant advantage to the 40D just might swing some of us who are holding onto our 30, but who do frequently crop and print/post at enlarged viewing proportions.

Tony