Canon 40D-first impressions

Les McLean

Les McLean

In Memoriam
Messages
6,793
Name
Les
Edit My Images
Yes
Well I've had the camera for 2 days now, and although I've not explored all it has to offer, it's had a good run out.

It would be pointless making a direct comparison to my 1Ds MKII, they are completely different beasts, and most folk are aware of the differences anyway.

Firstly some positive and a couple of negatives
  • the frame burst rate is excellent 6 fps up to 17 raw, also because of the improved processor, the time taken to empty the buffer was very fast. Around twice as fast as the IDs MKII for roughly the same buffer size.
  • The images are very very clean at ISO800, comparable to ISO400 on my 1Ds MKII.
  • I'm pleased Canon have gone along the route'if it ain't broke-don't fix it' as although there are new function buttons/menu items , there are familiar items that are still there, the most used (for me) are the two quick control dials-changing aperture with one and exposure compensation with the other (in a/v), I don't have to think where they are when using, and I found the 40D fell comfortably in this mode.
  • Most commonly used functions are now accessed by buttons rather than scrolling through menus.
  • Viewfinder information is pretty comprehensive and easy to read.
  • the big 3 inch LCD screen is a big plus for checking composition etc-although are a couple of negatives (mentioned below)
Some negatives
  • WTF is a direct print button doing on the camera-does anybody use it, it would have been far better as a function button.
  • On continuous shooting, the shutter button is too sensitive, I'm used to being able to gently stroke the button to take individual shots, with the 40D I couldn't manage this, and took at least 2 shots every time, I even asked a neighbour to try in case I was a bit ham fisted, and he couldn't get single shots either.
  • The rear LCD screen, although big, is a bit soft , at first I thought the images were OOF, it wasn't till I brought them up on my computer that I realised it was the LCD, not the image.
  • Also, the colours are out on the screen, I noticed today, blue skies appear purplish, checked against the 1Ds screen, a significant difference, although the images were correct (i.e. only a cast on the screen)
  • Internal flash button , a couple of times today while using a big lens my left hand inadvertently brushed the button, causing the flash to pop up.
  • The provided canon strap is absolute garbage, and made me realise just what a superb bit of kit the Optech strap is. So if you haven't been along to the TP shop and ordered one, I suggest you do so now.
Generally, I'm very impressed with the camera, and although won't replace my 1Ds MKII, it will definitely come into it's own for sports, fast wildlife shooting.

It's well made, and feels solid enough, and feels comfortable with normal/medium zooms. It did feel unbalanced (handholding) using the big 120-300mm sigma, the 1Ds tends to counterbalance the lens when holding, with the 40D I found it front end heavy.

I also find I need to be a little more careful framing shots, with the huge file size of the 1D, I can crop quite extensively without any significant quality loss, with the 40D files, you haven't got so much leeway.

Finally, the shutter release feels a bit gay, I'm used to a big, brash, butch 'kerplunk' when shooting, the 40d shutter seems to be apologising for even making any sound at all.
 
Took me about a week of use before I can successfully shoot a single frame on high speed burst mode, call me lazy but it saves changing modes so often!

As to the shutter being a bit gay, I love the sound of the shutter, much quieter than my old 400D, you can click away in the street an a lot of people dont even notice, very nice touch.

Apart from that, good review, love mine, hope you enjoy yours as much. Still in 2 minds about getting the grip for mine, as coming from a 400D the camera is much more substantial in your hands, not sure if the grip will be needed.
 
See the blue words

Les McLean said:
  • WTF is a direct print button doing on the camera-does anybody use it, it would have been far better as a function button.
    VERY VERY Good question complete F waste of space
  • On continuous shooting, the shutter button is too sensitive, I'm used to being able to gently stroke the button to take individual shots, with the 40D I couldn't manage this, and took at least 2 shots every time, I even asked a neighbour to try in case I was a bit ham fisted, and he couldn't get single shots either.
    Takes a little practice, but its quite easy after a while, unless yours is much more sensitive than mine
  • The rear LCD screen, although big, is a bit soft , at first I thought the images were OOF, it wasn't till I brought them up on my computer that I realised it was the LCD, not the image.
    Upgrade to the latest Firmware 1.0.8 fixed the blurryness and colour for me
  • Also, the colours are out on the screen, I noticed today, blue skies appear purplish, checked against the 1Ds screen, a significant difference, although the images were correct (i.e. only a cast on the screen)
    ...ditto...
  • Internal flash button , a couple of times today while using a big lens my left hand inadvertently brushed the button, causing the flash to pop up.
    Turn it off .. custom function
  • The provided canon strap is absolute garbage, and made me realise just what a superb bit of kit the Optech strap is. So if you haven't been along to the TP shop and ordered one, I suggest you do so now.
Does me fine, but then who am I to talk .. maybe I should not be such a cheapskate

Generally, I'm very impressed with the camera, and although won't replace my 1Ds MKII
now there's a surprise (sarcasm)
Click to expand...
 
I'll also support the view that it takes a while to get used to single shots but is something you'll get used to (y)
 
oldgit said:
See the blue words
Click to expand...

Thanks Paul, I'll certainly check out the disabling the flash pop up.

Updated the firmware to 1.08 last night, still appears soft/colour cast-I think it's because even though they have increased the LCD size significantly, I think it still has the same number of pixels as the smaller screens?. Don't know about the cast?, I'm not really too bothered about them, now I know they are there and not affecting the images.
 
Nice summary - I was a bit disapointed with the screen too - yeah it has the same pixel count as the 30D I think which is a fair bit smaller screen. I also noticed the colour cast when I first used it...must admit I have just got use to it now though. I very rarely manage to take a single shot in high speed continuous, can manage it in normal continuous speed though :p
 
pxl8 said:
I'll also support the view that it takes a while to get used to single shots but is something you'll get used to (y)
Click to expand...


Although it does get difficult in icy cold conditions, you should see my 75 identical shots of a snowman in the recent snowy weather we had.:LOL:

Dean:)
 
LEs, im stuck like 99% of everyone deciding over the 40D to the 5D.
With your experiences, would a 40D with a 70-200 F4 L lens deliver a brilliant photo that could rival a 1DS II or 5D ?
 
atp_image said:
LEs, im stuck like 99% of everyone deciding over the 40D to the 5D.
With your experiences, would a 40D with a 70-200 F4 L lens deliver a brilliant photo that could rival a 1DS II or 5D ?
Click to expand...


Yes and no (sorry)

10mp is loads of pixels, and is capable of reproducing first class images, the problem (IMO) is firstly if you need to crop quite significantly-with the 1Ds or 5D filesize-you have a fair bit of lee-way to crop.

Secondly-noise-although the 40D produces very clean images at high ISO, I find you can't push them like I can with 1DsII files, as an example-I took a shot this morning of a white horse, with a dark blanket over him, I exposed for the whites, expecting to pull back the dark tones in PS-with the 1Ds files-it would have been possible-I struggled with the smaller 40D files see here :-

noise.jpg


Don't get me wrong, the 40D is a great camera-especially for fast moving activities, as long as you don't expect too much-i.e don't push it too hard.

At the end of the day-it's boils down to what you mainly shoot-if landscapes or suchlike the FF camera would be the choice-for sports/wildlife-the 40D.
 
I shoot on a 40D. Its an awesome camera to have. I think it also boils down to how much you have to play with ££. FF cameras cost an awful lot more. Value for money wise... in my opinion, you get more with a 40D. Thats not to say i wouldn't mind a 1Ds
 
Les McLean said:
Yes and no (sorry)

10mp is loads of pixels, and is capable of reproducing first class images, the problem (IMO) is firstly if you need to crop quite significantly-with the 1Ds or 5D filesize-you have a fair bit of lee-way to crop.
Click to expand...

Be interested to see an example. Given that the 40D has already cropped 1.6x to start with it has a head start on the 5D when cropping a shot.

5D image width is 4368
40D image width is 3888

A 5D image cropped to 40D size ends up 2730x1820 or about 5 megapixels.

If the image needed cropping on the 40D then the 5D is way behind and I seriously doubt the 5D's better sensor would compensate for that. It would be interesting to see some examples. Stick any lens that has a collar on a tripod and take the same shot with a 5D and 40D. Let's say the shots needs cropping 20% on the 40D so the final width would be around 3110 pixels and 2232 (4368 /1.6 less 20%) on the 5D which is throwing away nearly half the pixels. In terms of megapixels the 5D shot ends up being 4, the 40D shot 8.

I'm happy to be proved wrong but I do have serious doubts that the 5D at 4 megapixels is better than the 40D at 8...
 
pxl8. i do a lot of photos where i stitch several portraits together to make one large landscape. Im assuming the 40D will do the job fine ?
 
pxl8 said:
Be interested to see an example. Given that the 40D has already cropped 1.6x to start with it has a head start on the 5D when cropping a shot.

5D image width is 4368
40D image width is 3888

A 5D image cropped to 40D size ends up 2730x1820 or about 5 megapixels.

If the image needed cropping on the 40D then the 5D is way behind and I seriously doubt the 5D's better sensor would compensate for that. It would be interesting to see some examples. Stick any lens that has a collar on a tripod and take the same shot with a 5D and 40D. Let's say the shots needs cropping 20% on the 40D so the final width would be around 3110 pixels and 2232 (4368 /1.6 less 20%) on the 5D which is throwing away nearly half the pixels. In terms of megapixels the 5D shot ends up being 4, the 40D shot 8.

I'm happy to be proved wrong but I do have serious doubts that the 5D at 4 megapixels is better than the 40D at 8...
Click to expand...

I haven't a 5d but I know that with my IDs MKII it can take some cropping-the 40D just can't take, no matter which way you look at, the file size of the 1Ds wins-hands down.

The example image above illustrates a similar point, there is so much noise, a Ids image file would be able to take the processing the 40D file can't.

You can throw as many theories as you want at it , but you can't beat real world hands on experience.

I'm not saying the 40D is a bad camera, it's not, for the price it's an excellent bit of kit, as long are you aware of it's limitations, and work within those parameters.
 
atp, yes all things being equal stitching is increasing quality rather than reducing it so any camera should, in theory, see an increase in quality.

Les, for the 1DsmkII the situation is a little better at 4992 wide but would still end up 2496 after adjusting for the 1.6 and a further 20%. I think you need to bear in mind that when you're cropping shots from the 1Ds you're not first cropping it to 40D sensor size. I think it's probably more descriptive to say 1Ds has a lot of room for cropping whereas the 40D has already cropped a lot to start with :shrug:
 
Cheers,

I think what Les is saying is correct and that mathematical theory on pixels is incorrect when trying to determine image quality. For example, look at the 400D and the 40D. Both have the same MP and sensor size yet the 40D still produces a FAR BETTER image. This is like saying a PC with the same specs as a Mac will perform equally. We all know they dont :)
 
pxl8 said:
Les, for the 1DsmkII the situation is a little better at 4992 wide but would still end up 2496 after adjusting for the 1.6 and a further 20%. I think you need to bear in mind that when you're cropping shots from the 1Ds you're not first cropping it to 40D sensor size. I think it's probably more descriptive to say 1Ds has a lot of room for cropping whereas the 40D has already cropped a lot to start with :shrug:
Click to expand...


Again-going back to real life situations-say you were in a park with a 5D/40d in your kit bag, and you wanted to take a picture of a statue, and you want it to fill the frame. You wouldn't take a shot with the 40D, and then take the same shot from the same place, same focal length etc with the 5D -saying to yourself ' I'll need to crop this in PS to make the statue fill the frame'-no you zoom in, change lens, or move closer to the statue-resulting in similar images of the statue.

When you are sitting viewing the images on you computer screen, you realise for the image to work-only head and shoulders of the original image is needed, therefore possibly 75% of the original image is lost-this is where the 40D pixel count starts to struggle a bit.


I have some empathy in respect atp_image, in his dilemma regarding which camera-if I didn't have a FF camera already, I would have been going through the same agonies of choice, unfortunately, there is never a clear cut answer.

Fortunately for me, the 40D filled a gap that the now ageing 1Ds MKII couldn't meet. And it does it exceptionally well.
 
Les McLean said:
Again-going back to real life situations-say you were in a park with a 5D/40d in your kit bag, and you wanted to take a picture of a statue, and you want it to fill the frame. You wouldn't take a shot with the 40D, and then take the same shot from the same place, same focal length etc with the 5D -saying to yourself ' I'll need to crop this in PS to make the statue fill the frame'-no you zoom in, change lens, or move closer to the statue-resulting in similar images of the statue.
Click to expand...

True but I was thinking of cropping in situations where you need more reach - sports or wildlife for example. The 1.6x clearly has the advantage in those situations.
 
With the 5D you can crop and still have a reasonable shot, with the 40D you will never take a wide 13mega pixel shot....but it is horses for courses, the 40D is faster , the 5D is slower....
 
There are a few posts comparing 40D & 5D, has anyone compared the 40D & 1D mkIII with it's 1.3 crop?

I know it's a lot more pennies but I would like to know.
 
admirable said:
There are a few posts comparing 40D & 5D, has anyone compared the 40D & 1D mkIII with it's 1.3 crop?

I know it's a lot more pennies but I would like to know.
Click to expand...


Check out this comparison test I did.

CLICK

While the test compares the 20D and 1DMK2n which put out identical 1:1 file sizes, the situation will be proportionally the same with the 40D and 1DMK3, which both put out a larger file but both the same size.
 
Thanks for that.
 
One comparison I can make between the 40D I have tested and my new 1D IIn is that the AF is uncomparable, worth the pennies in my book just to make the 100-400 a real mans lens instead of the juddering, misfocussing mess that it was with lesser bodies.
 
I've upgraded my 40D but haven't tested it yet. The latest firmware upgrade for the 40D apparently fixes, amongst other things, "a phenomenon in which a part of the image looks unnatural when reviewed on the LCD".
 
Further thoughts on the 40D

I've had the camera a few weeks, and have had time to give it a good run out, generally very pleased .

Highlight tone priority

I'm having a love/hate relationship with this function-it was a dream to use when shooting cricket in bright sunlight, with the MKII I'd need to constantly monitor/tweak exposure to keep the bright whites under control, with the 40D, left it on evaluative metering with HTP and let the camera take the strain, which it did exceptionally well.
However, it can produce a lot of noise particularly in the shadows, the other day I was shooting heron and had HTP switched on (to manage the white flashes on the bird), I noticed a mandarin duck in flight (something on my list of 'must have shots') so I swung the camera round, and managed one shot that was in focus/good composition etc, unfortunately, the shadow area under the wing, there was so much noise that the image was unusable, a big disappointment.
So now I have two of the personal user settings on the camera (C2 and C3) set exactly the same except one has the HTP switched on, the other off, so I can switch quickly between the two.


Battery life

Is excellent, I can only really compare it against a 10D, and is light years improved in respect of energy efficiency, I went through an 8 gig card (shooting cricket) the other day on one battery charge.

Sensor Cleaning

Another dream function-works well, although one or two stubborn dust bunnies remain, but can be easily sorted in PS.

Live View

Only played with this, and it's one of those things that looks brilliant, and must be eminently useful, but not sure what for (yet), although I have 'tethered' the camera to my laptop, and being able to adjust almost all the camera functions remotely alongside a live view on screen is way cool.

Menu settings

Took a bit of getting used to, but once I did, the actual using was a piece of cake, and an improvement on the two button menu operation of the MKII, and found it quite intuitive.

Personal User Settings

Something I'm beginning to use more and more (see above), and find them very useful and dead easy to set-up/register, however the slight downside is that if you adjust one of the settings during a shoot and the camera 'auto powers off' after the set time (e.g. 4 minutes) when it auto-powers on again it defaults to the original personal user setting. I'd rather it retained the tweaked setting on autopower off/on and original settings for switch on/off.


Comfort

Although easier to carry around than the MKII (as it's a lot lighter), it isn't as comfortable over the shoulder. I find if I have anything but a light lens on, it rests at an angle against my body, with the bottom edge rubbing against my hip, which is uncomfortable after a while, the MKII being heavier and bigger rests flat against my side. Hopefully, with the arrival of a battery pack for the 40D, it will alleviate the problem.


Focus speed/tracking

The only camera I can really compare it against is a MKII (s), and it's nowhere near as good or as fast , but this isn't a niggle/complaint or disappointment, I didn't expect it to be in the same ball park.


All in all I'm very pleased with the 40D, it does exactly as it says on the tin (mainly) and more in a number of cases, one or two weaknesses (but hasn't every camera), and at a price of around 1/4 of the cheapest canon pro body, it's an absolute steal.
 
I'll have had my 400D 2 years in Dec this year, and i was thinking of upgrading when I get to that point. Allthough the 450D looks and has been said to be a great camera, it's still only entry level, I think I'd be hoping to move up a notch if I upgraded.

I was thinking of getting the 40D, which looks absolutely awesome, and from what has been said in this thread, it is. But, with the 50D coming out sometime next year, would it be silly to go for the 40D in December ish time, instead of waiting to see what the 50D brings?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top