CANON U.S.A.’S HIGHLY ANTICIPATED EOS 40D DIGITAL SLR

Live view, IS kit lens, auto ISO, interchangeable focusing screens, GPS integration, and sensor cleaning are the new features that stand out to me.

Anyone want to buy a used Rebel XT?

 

If I didnt already have a 30D, I'd be waiting to pounce on this the moment it came out. Nice upgrade (unlike the change between the 20D and 30D, which was almost not worth the model designation change). I really like the Live Display addition, since there are so many times where trying to use the camera with the optical viewfinder pressed to my face makes a certain shot cumbersome or impossible. Such is the spoils of P&S digital photography.

I am wondering what is in the works for the 5D, since the 1Ds Mark III got some rather serious upgrades over the previous model.

 

The 5D's getting pretty old, isn't it? Is the 1Ds MkIII is the only other FF body on the market?

The bigger display on the XTi really got my attention, but not enough to upgrade. The Auto ISO function sounds *really* nice, as I often juggle the ISO setting when trying to get a shot in lowish light. A professional photographer friend of mine was encouraging me to upgrade to the XTi for the lower noise at higher ISOs (something I hadn't heard had been improved, myself) but just yesterday we were talking about the 40D. Ironic. I've been eyeing the Katz Eye and Haoda (sp?) focusing screens for the XT but didn't really want to go there, even though I really struggle with focusing at night in dark situations.

I am bummed that I'll have to swap out my existing accessories like cable release and 2nd battery, but at least they're staying with CF instead of SD. I nearly fell out of my chair when I saw what the existing wireless transmitter (with the appropriate model designation WTF) cost -- $1,500 list and $1,000 retail!! I'm guessing whatever allows GPS integration won't be cheap, which is a bummer; that's something I've wanted for a long time.

The AF points don't mean much to me since I use the center one 99.9% of the time. And I think the 40D still doesn't do real spot-metering, right?

The IS on the kit lens will be a nice-to-have, so I'll definitely go with the kit instead of keeping my existing 18-55. I've tossed around the idea of buying one of the higher-end Canon lenses in that focal length range (17-55 f/2.8 IS, maybe?) but have difficulty justifying a grand on a better version of a lens I already have... The kit lenses are so cheap and such a great value (even if they're not truly fantastic lenses in their own right) that I just can't see saving $100 (XT/XTi) or $200 (40D) to not get it.

 

The only thing missing would be an image-stabilized sensor. Has Canon spent too much money developing and marketing its IS lenses to just add IS to their cameras?

Also, the 40D has 3 resolution settings, going for 10MP to 5.3 to something lower that I forgot. I would want the medium to be more like 6.3 so it would be more usable. I got my 10D when it first came out, and I have never been excited about cameras with more megapixels on the same smallish sensors. Not that I'm looking to buy a new body anytime soon anyway.

 

I skipped over the 30D, having used my 20D's for a couple of years now. the 40D will almost certainly be on my shopping list when it is released (and the initial shipments are sold out - I hate buying 'on release').

The live preview I can live without, I am pretty adept at 'shooting blind' - I wonder however if the camera has the ability to disregard the light that comes in from the eye-piece in this situation and the photographer no longer has to hold his thumb over the viewfinder ?

That would be a useful addition !

 

Yeah, good point. That would be a really nice feature, one which Olympus has on their E-510 (and others?). I don't see Canon doing that, however, because they *have* spent so much on the IS lenses. :(

The megapixel myth is alive and well. I'd be interested to see if the lower resolution settings actually do anything to improve image quality, or if they're just downsampled versions of the original for smaller file sizes. 8MP has been just fine for me on my XT; I don't need larger images nor larger files!

 

They include an eyepiece cover in the box for just that purpose. Not that I've ever used mine...

 

I dont know offhand of any SLR that is not affected by light coming into the viewfinder. My old Canon A-1 has a shutter that closes off the viewfinder when conditions make it necessary. I am surprised the 20/30 did not have this. Looking at pictures of the 40D, I dont see any lever or other means to shut out backlight from the viewfinder, but since the live preview feature would inevitably mean the mirror is locked up to expose the sensor for the preview, the back light would no longer matter (just a guess).

 

Canon is not going to IS in the bodies. IS is the lens is supposed to be better (at least from reading the litererature)

The 1Ds is now 21 mp.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_1DS_MkIII.html

"Canon are very excited about a next generation CMOS sensors they are working on. Two full frame versions have 40M and 50M pixels at the -same- noise level as the current 1D series."

You think maybe Canon doesn't know what they are doing?

 

I was hoping this thread was about something entirely different. Oh well.

 

Interesting. Do you have a link to the literature? I'm not trying to 2nd-guess you: I'm genuinely interested. On the face of it, I would think in-body OIS would be the way to go.

Didn't say that. As far as I'm concerned, the "megapixel myth" says that more is better. That's simply not the case. A crappy, noisy sensor with 1.21 gigapixels will make really big, crappy, noisy prints. I'd rather have a 2MP sensor that's noise-free and sharp and have better 8x10" prints.

*sigh* Life's full of disappointments, isn't it?

 

I read that somewhere in the last month. Now I got to remember where. I will try to find it. It was in reference to that fact that Sony was internal so why wasn't Canon or Nikon internal on their DSLRs.

UPDATE: Although this wasn't the article I remember, this captures the essence of the discussion (paraphrasing):

• You can't see the stabilized image in the viewfinder
• You can't get as much F-stop stabilization (e.g., new Canon IS lens are the equivalent of 4 F-stops)
• Stabilizing a very wide angle lens is far different than say a 600mm. No doubt in the lens is optimized for the focal lengths.

I would further imagine that althought Sony bought Konica/Minolta, Canon and Nikon might have better insight into building camera "systems" for professionals and I think the last reason is probably a large part of it.

Oh yeah, I agree about the noise. But obviously Canon knows that as the quote said

"Two full frame versions have 40M and 50M pixels at the -same- noise level as the current 1D series."

 

We'd need a much bigger thread.

 

Re: Megapixels. I didn't mean to imply that the 40D's image quality would suffer from the additional megapixels. I just find additional megapixels to be more of an incentive to not upgrade than to upgrade.

I have three 20" x 30" prints in my apartment of images from my 10D. I took them with Canon's 28-135 lens and enlarged them with Fred Miranda's Photoshop plug-in. The print quality (from mpix.com) is beautiful. Since I can get those prints from 6.3 megapixels with a $400 lens, anything else is unnecessary for me and the increased file size is certainly negative.

I would like the weathersealing, self-cleaning sensor and 3" LCD, though.

 

...the nikon d300 will be in the same price range....personally i think it will eat this baby up...

 

Save the Nikon fanboyism for another thread, please.