| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/07/2007 04:33:14 PM · #1 |
If patience is a virtue, then I am not virtuous, but I am a 40D owner!
Local BestBuy had the kit (28-135) in stock, same price as online, and I can sell off my tamron 24-135SP ($275 incl PP and shipping - pm if interested)
Anyway, after 18 months of 30D useage and 45k+ exposures:
LCD is huge and there are more display options for info and review/play screens. Nice. Better visibility outdoors too.
The LCD on top has been rearranged, and so have the buttons! If you could blindly change AF mode or metering mode before, you have to retrain yourself now. Same on the Mode dial...and the back buttons have grown a brother, AF-ON (nice to have a third button, several Cfns exist to swicth them around). THere is also a direct access button to picture styles (why i have no clue)
Menu layout is back to tabs like on the 300D instead of one long menu. The custom functions are more and organized very differently and there are some new ones - high iso noise reduction (eats up buffer space BIG time), highlight tone priority, AND if you have a 580EX2 you can set it's function from the CAMERA! Like wireless and ratios and it's Cfns too. Cool (if you have a 580-II)
AF is tons better - all cross sensors make a HUGE difference, and teh faster drive mode is neat. The shutter sounds *COMPLETELY* different, like it's rubber mounted or something...kinda weird sounding.
Auto ISO? A joke IMO. It wants ISO 400. Go in the dark and it might go to 800 (nothing in between). Have a flash? Then it stays at 400. go outside...direct sun on white and it dropped to 250...at lease in Av mode it's kind of pointless. The shutter speed went to 1/8 of a second with the ISO at 400! Dumb.
Noise? Looks better to me I dont' care what the 'tests' show. I say images on line from 3 sources and have been shootin weddings at 800+ for a couple of years - I'll have a definite answer tomorrow as I will be using it at a wedding.
In the meantime I have to go buy more CF cards....that is one of the rather disappointing things I found out real quick. On my 30D i'd get 225-250 RAW images on a 2Gb card. The 40D (at ISO1600) makes 15Mb RAW files...130-150 is all that will fit. That's cutting it to close for my comfort..fortunately Staples has Sandisk UltraII 4Gb on sale..and in stock!
Yeah, live view works - kind of freaky to have a live moving image on the LCD!
I like the concept of sRAW, but the files are SMALL...under 3Mb, good for maybe 5x7 prints. A bit disappointing. |
|
|
|
09/07/2007 04:39:39 PM · #2 |
| So - All things considered, is it that much better than the 30D? or would you need more time to make that descision? |
|
|
|
09/07/2007 04:40:02 PM · #3 |
How does the High ISO noise reduction work? Pretty well?
|
|
|
|
09/07/2007 04:40:51 PM · #4 |
The improved AF is the only thing selling it to me based on your review. The HUGE RAW files is a major Bummer though... Would probably put me off...
Message edited by author 2007-09-07 16:41:13. |
|
|
|
09/07/2007 05:55:57 PM · #5 |
The RAW file size was bound to grow, given the 14-bit A to D conversion. More bits per channel, more data to store.
No surprise that the SRAW files are small either. They are essentially binned 2x2, meaning only 1/4 the data to store. The binning means noise will be reduced as well, further reducing file size. The images, however, should look somewhat better than the file size suggests. |
|
|
|
09/07/2007 06:49:23 PM · #6 |
Chris, are you sure there's not a custom option to open up the ISO settings?
An I thought that sRAW was just a compressed RAW file, shouldn't it contain all the same info, just in compressed form? |
|
|
|
09/07/2007 08:16:37 PM · #7 |
The only Cfn for ISO are the ones that were there before - full or 1/3 step and iso expansion on/off (H or 3200)
sRAW files are about 6mb to the 15mb full RAW file. The file dimensions are 1936x1288 vs a full res of 3888x2592. For comparison a Med JPG is 2816x1880 and a small JPG is 1936x1288. I'd have voted for the Med JPG as a sRAW...or perhaps all three! You can do all the JPG sizes with RAW or sRAW as well.
I eventually figured the 14 bit deal contributed to file size growth. Staples has 4Gb Sandisk UltraII on sale this week for $59.95, no rebate. Holds 310 or so full RAW files.
It was getting dark so I played with the higher ISO...will post something later if I can. |
|
|
|
09/07/2007 08:46:28 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
The only Cfn for ISO are the ones that were there before - full or 1/3 step and iso expansion on/off (H or 3200) |
What does "H" mean?
|
|
|
|
09/07/2007 08:56:31 PM · #9 |
Some ISO 3200 shots for you to look at...this is just about worst case and I don't think it's all that bad. Remember, NO PIXEL PEEPING! :D
click the thumbnail for full size file - 150-200k each
the little inset image was sharpened. the BG image is not.
here the BG image was sharpened. The inset is a 50% resize of a 100% crop, untouched.
Conclusion?
In-camera NR does little but eat the buffer (from 17 to 6 images!)
DPP's NR, at least with both set to med/med does little, perhaps makes it worse.
ISO 3200 on the 40D looks useable as-is. A big improvement over the 30D IMO where 1600 is mostly useable but looks worse than these at 3200.
AF? OUTSTANDING! These were shot after sundown, natural light. Granted, a wide ap lens, but the focus was spot on and fast with ALL focus points!
Message edited by author 2007-09-07 21:02:04. |
|
|
|
09/07/2007 08:58:28 PM · #10 |
| do I need to register to see the photo? |
|
|
|
09/07/2007 09:04:25 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
The only Cfn for ISO are the ones that were there before - full or 1/3 step and iso expansion on/off (H or 3200) |
What does "H" mean? |
The ISO readings only shot 100-1600. If you turn on 'ISO Expansion' then above 1600 is H on the LCD display on the camera. It shows in the EXIF as 3200, and does double the shutter speed in Av mode, so it's a full stop more sensitivity. |
|
|
|
09/07/2007 09:05:48 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by jdannels:
do I need to register to see the photo? |
DOn't know...didn't used to but the site was updated earlier this week...
 |
|
|
|
09/07/2007 09:07:09 PM · #13 |
| thanks, looks pretty good to me! |
|
|
|
09/07/2007 09:07:10 PM · #14 |
|
|
|
09/07/2007 09:10:49 PM · #15 |
| one more question, then I have to stop procrastinating... I like the fact you have raw at different image sizes, if you were to say shoot at the medium size then in theory the images would be even less noisy since its not trying to put in as much info onto the sensor, yes? |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 12:48:55 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by jdannels:
one more question, then I have to stop procrastinating... I like the fact you have raw at different image sizes, if you were to say shoot at the medium size then in theory the images would be even less noisy since its not trying to put in as much info onto the sensor, yes? |
In RAW you have the full 10mp and one that is like the small JPG - 2.5Mp roughly.
I suppose the noise would be less noticeable...a lot depends on what the subject is, how properly exposed (underexposure can make even ISO100 very noisy), and what your tolerance level is. I shoot a lot of weddings - ISO 800 is what I'm used to seeing...so I have a difference tolerance level on noise.
When Canon released the 1D mk3 they updated the RAW software (DPP) to improve the resolving power (apparent sharpness) of the 1D. This had an effect on my use of DPP - I had my camera settings to that I didn't have to do any sharpening for prints. The new DPP (ver 3) changed that - I had to dial back my in-camera sharpness levels quite a bit. Now I get to figure them out again for a new camera. Point being the software you use for conversion has a major impact on what the image may end up looking like - be that DPP, ACR, C1 or whatever.
You want low noise? Get a 1D mk3.
This was a RAW capture I converted in DPP -there is no NR at all, this is as shot. ISO3200.
The 40D can't do this, unfortunately. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 01:06:08 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
The only Cfn for ISO are the ones that were there before - full or 1/3 step and iso expansion on/off (H or 3200) |
What does "H" mean? |
The ISO readings only shot 100-1600. If you turn on 'ISO Expansion' then above 1600 is H on the LCD display on the camera. It shows in the EXIF as 3200, and does double the shutter speed in Av mode, so it's a full stop more sensitivity. |
Maybe I'm hard-headed, but if H simply means 3200 and if the EXIF indicates 3200, why use the "H" to signify it? Why not just show 3200 on the LCD display and be done with it? Am I missing something here? :-(
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 01:20:12 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
Maybe I'm hard-headed, but if H simply means 3200 and if the EXIF indicates 3200, why use the "H" to signify it? Why not just show 3200 on the LCD display and be done with it? Am I missing something here? :-( |
The irony of a Microsoft employee not recognizing the dirty leavings of some corporate marketing wonk makes me giggle. And I don't often giggle.
If they call it H and make you press a button to turn it on, it's an added feature and they can charge more. If it's just another number on the dial, who's going to upgrade?
Message edited by author 2007-09-08 01:21:21. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 01:29:36 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
Maybe I'm hard-headed, but if H simply means 3200 and if the EXIF indicates 3200, why use the "H" to signify it? Why not just show 3200 on the LCD display and be done with it? Am I missing something here? :-( |
The irony of a Microsoft employee not recognizing the dirty leavings of some corporate marketing wonk makes me giggle. And I don't often giggle.
If they call it H and make you press a button to turn it on, it's an added feature and they can charge more. If it's just another number on the dial, who's going to upgrade? |
AHHHHhhh, but the H was on the 30D too. I think they should have had a 'real' 3200 and then a J perhaps, a 'fake' 6400. Should be a simple firmware toggle they can add at any time, especially since Nikon has some wacked ISO of 25,600!
Still, 3200 is FAST. I remember in college shooting ISO400 film (and a 1.8 lens) and pushing it to 800 as no 800 film was around then. Man how things have changed! |
|
|
|
09/09/2007 01:25:51 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
Maybe I'm hard-headed, but if H simply means 3200 and if the EXIF indicates 3200, why use the "H" to signify it? Why not just show 3200 on the LCD display and be done with it? Am I missing something here? :-( |
The irony of a Microsoft employee not recognizing the dirty leavings of some corporate marketing wonk makes me giggle. And I don't often giggle.
If they call it H and make you press a button to turn it on, it's an added feature and they can charge more. If it's just another number on the dial, who's going to upgrade? |
Ha! Sounds like a company that I know of. ;-)
Message edited by author 2007-09-09 01:26:22.
|
|
|
|
09/09/2007 01:32:52 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
Maybe I'm hard-headed, but if H simply means 3200 and if the EXIF indicates 3200, why use the "H" to signify it? Why not just show 3200 on the LCD display and be done with it? Am I missing something here? :-( |
From what I understand, ISO 100-1600 are the real ISO values for image data coming off the sensor. But ISO 3200 is really ISO 1600 amplified "in software" (the in-camera software), so they call it H instead of 3200.
Likewise, ISO 50 is done in software.
|
|
|
|
09/09/2007 03:26:21 AM · #22 |
| I have read ISO "L" - 50 has significantly more noise than ISO 100 and should only be used when there is no other means of obtaining a slower shutter speed. Not an owner of any 1Ds so I don't know if true or untrue. |
|
|
|
09/09/2007 10:35:42 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
I have read ISO "L" - 50 has significantly more noise than ISO 100 and should only be used when there is no other means of obtaining a slower shutter speed. Not an owner of any 1Ds so I don't know if true or untrue. |
I would have to say this is a false statement. ISO 50 is as 100, I use it when using my strobes.
MattO
|
|
|
|
09/09/2007 01:58:42 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
I have read ISO "L" - 50 has significantly more noise than ISO 100 and should only be used when there is no other means of obtaining a slower shutter speed. Not an owner of any 1Ds so I don't know if true or untrue. |
I would have to say this is a false statement. ISO 50 is as 100, I use it when using my strobes.
MattO |
Could be, I think it depends on your own experience and which expert you happen to read.
some other interesting discussions of expanded ISO settings
Photonet discussion on expanded iso configurations
Luminous Landscape review of 1Ds
dpreview review of 1Ds
OpenPhotographyForums discussion of native ISO
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/31/2025 03:36:24 PM EST.
