Side-by-side LCD screen brightness comparison 20D/30D/40D/1Ds mkIII

This is mostly in response to posts about how the current canon LCD screens suck.

First of all, I know the canon LCD screens could definitely be improved, especially in the resolution department (alongside high-res thumbnails). But I know for a fact that they definitely HAVE improved in the current models, despite the complaints of many POTN users. I first realized this when shooting the 5D and 40D side by side outside in the sun. It was MUCH easier to chimp on the 40D screen.

So here is a very unscientific comparison of a few popular LCD screens.... the canon 1.8", 2.5", and 3.0" screens, which will be represented by the 20D, 30D, and 40D/1Ds3.

Here are some individual shots under ideal conditions. All cameras show the exact same image, and all are set to default LCD brightness (right in the middle), and all shot with the same exposure and white balance.

20D

Interesting to see this comparison, especially since I have seen so many complaints about the 40D LCD rendering things off colored. If anything, the comparison shows the 40D and 1Ds to be both similarly neutral, and the 30D is the guilty party at being greenish or a bit cyan, and the 20D is a bit magenta!

Here's one thread: https://photography-on-the.net …482439&highligh​t=tint+40D

And another thread, with similar gripe: https://photography-on-the.net …15&highlight=40​D+tint+LCD

Nice job Lloyd. Thanks for taking the time and posting this .

Nice comparison. Thanks for posting this. But just wait until all the naysayers come on about how un-scientific this test is.......

I agree. However compared to Nikon's latest offerings, the LCD's still suck. Not that it matters...

Unscientific or not, it’s a nice comparison. Ditto the Nikon LCD thing though. I’m just hoping that the next crop of Canon cameras one up Nikon and put out a xga screen.

nicksan wrote in post #5962602
Not that it matters...

Concur. Aside from the menus, the most the LCD ever really does for me is show the histogram and gross composition. The bigger LCD on the 40D/1D3 is kind of underwealming to me, but I would like to see better daylight performance.

That said, now that the MP war is smoldering, I think we're seeing the trenches being dug for an LCD skirmish. Imagine in 5-7 years time when the flagship cameras start having mature LCDs that are (finally) useful for checking fine detail with calibrated/corrected color in broad daylight. Even then it doesn't do a whole lot in and of itself, but it does lay the foundation for eventually replacing the penteprism with a miniaturized LCD showing a true-color feed right off the sensor at HD resolution. That means no more mirror, maybe easier to shoot in lower light, maybe no more shutter...fewer parts to wear out and break...so on....

So....go team go...

Imaginos wrote in post #5962748
Concur. Aside from the menus, the most the LCD ever really does for me is show the histogram and gross composition. .....

I have been using the lcd for live view focusing as well and I don’t know what Canon did, but it looks even worse in live view when zoomed in. The 10x live view pic is horrible.

Even though you didn't show the 5D's LCD Reminds me how much I hate my 5D's LCD - its worthless, except indoors. I wish I could fit my 40's LCD into my 5D.

Imaginos wrote in post #5962748
Concur. Aside from the menus, the most the LCD ever really does for me is show the histogram and gross composition. The bigger LCD on the 40D/1D3 is kind of underwealming to me, but I would like to see better daylight performance.
...

Personally, I find the crappy LCD of my 5D very frustrating. I was taking some outdoor portraits last week and I could not use the LCD to check focus, which is something I would have no problem doing with the 40D.

Also, when using ND grads for landscapes (which I do frequently) I really need a decent LCD to check for proper placement and I get a better "feel" for the exposure with the LCD than the histogram when using such filters.

picturecrazy wrote in post #5961838
I first realized this when shooting the 5D and 40D side by side outside in the sun. It was MUCH easier to chimp on the 40D screen.

My experience has been different with shooting a 5D and 40D side by side. Even though the 40D's screen is a bit brighter, I find the 5D's screen to be much more accurate and easy to read, and therefore much more useful.

With the 40D, I have to force myself not to consider what the photo on the LCD of the 40D looks like because I'll second guess that the shot is screwed up. The exposure looks bad, the white balance looks bad and its soft.

Just my experience.

(slightly...okay, VERY off topic)

it might be just me, but i was in complete AWE while looking at the picture where all 4 are side by side; not because of the lcd screens, but because i'd kill to have all 4 of those cameras side by side sitting somewhere on a desk at my house! and he has another 1 series to actually take that picture! damn you lloyd! hhahaha...

static808 wrote in post #5962939
(slightly...okay, VERY off topic)

it might be just me, but i was in complete AWE while looking at the picture where all 4 are side by side; not because of the lcd screens, but because i'd kill to have all 4 of those cameras side by side sitting somewhere on a desk at my house! and he has another 1 series to actually take that picture! damn you lloyd! hhahaha...

Just think...he does NOT own a 5D, so there!

Wow great idea for a thread! Awesome job OP!!!

arg245 wrote in post #5962526
Nice comparison. Thanks for posting this. But just wait until all the naysayers come on about how un-scientific this test is.......

yup, very unscientific, and I fully admit it. But it does show the differences with a somewhat reasonable amount of controlled variables.

versedmb wrote in post #5962852
Even though you didn't show the 5D's LCD Reminds me how much I hate my 5D's LCD - its worthless, except indoors. I wish I could fit my 40's LCD into my 5D.

yeah, I found the 30D and 5D LCD to be exactly to same so I felt no need to find one for this quick test.

static808 wrote in post #5962939
(slightly...okay, VERY off topic)

it might be just me, but i was in complete AWE while looking at the picture where all 4 are side by side; not because of the lcd screens, but because i'd kill to have all 4 of those cameras side by side sitting somewhere on a desk at my house! and he has another 1 series to actually take that picture! damn you lloyd! hhahaha...

trust me, if photography wasn't how i put food on the table then I'd be happy as a clam with just my 20D, 17-55, 10-22, and 75-300. It saps all the fun out of getting new gear when it's a tool rather than a toy.

Wilt wrote in post #5962951
Just think...he does NOT own a 5D, so there!

LOL... the 5D was the poorest value to me when I was looking. It was $3500 (in canada) at the time and functionally no better than the 30D. Couldn't justify having a 30D with a larger sensor for $3500. The 1 series is a VERY DEFINITE step up... a BIG step up, which warrants the price. But to pay an extra $2300 just for a sensor? No way. And now that the 5D is lower in price, it's way behind in all the other features. It just never fit into the puzzle.

ben_r_ wrote in post #5963141
Wow great idea for a thread! Awesome job OP!!!

thanks dood. Not really my idea, just a result of a bunch of discussion and arguments...