Canon 40D - Sept 20 !!!

[Kelly Grannell]

10.2 MP (whoop dee doo :rolleyes: )
sensor cleaning mechanism
more dust and moisture proof
better AF (will be as good as my 5D)
3 Custom Settings
Auto ISO (possibly)
Live Preview (for low light framing, or extreme angle framings)
6.5 fps continuous shot (:rolleyes: yeah, the most I ever use is 3 fps)
cleaner high ISO by at least 1 stop (so ISO 3200 will look like ISO 1600 !!)
3" LCD
replacable view finder screen :woot:

price? only $1,300 :woot: !!!!!! Now I need to find buyers for my new-ish two 30D bodies (replaced both of my 30D backn in March '07) :yikes:

[Robin]

I hate my dinky camera. :(

[Photographer]

I hate my dinky camera. :(

:hug: Maybe instead of socks and underwear, Hanukah Harry will bring you a new camera this year.

[Robin]

No HH for me this year. :(

One problem with digitals, is like all technology they become outdated quickly. My old Minolta was manual, and the only reason I stopped using it was because it was too heavy to carry around on vacation.

It had a through the lens metering system and that was all I needed.

[Robb]

I used to sell digital cameras, back when the Kodak DCS 460 body was $25,000. Evolution in chips is similar to CPUs, and we all will have 10mp+ cameras. Will we really need that 20, 30 or 40mps of data?

Film cameras has the same technology evolution, except for the chip. We all scrambled from one system to another to get the best metering, AF, whatever...

[Ursulinda]

I know what you mean, Robin. I LOVE the convenience of digital but my photos were WAY better with my old manual film loaded Nikon.

[Kelly Grannell]

I also hate the MP race. What's the point of having that much resolution? most people won't actually use the additional pixel count for two reasons: they don't have good-enough lens to use the extra count, they don't enlarge the pic large enough to utilize the larger filesize.

I can only imagine how much lower the digital noise would be if they stick with 8 MP.

[Robin]

Apparently you lose quality you go too low or too high.

What levels would you rate as minimum, very good, excellent, too much?

[Kelly Grannell]

it really depends on the quality of the lens and the quality and size of the sensor. A pocket camera with tiny-sized sensor, regardless how good the lens is (for a point and shoot) will have little to no benefit when you go beyond 4 to 6 MP. A dSLR will not have any benefit when you go beyond 12 MP. (both based on current technology, of course)

Put it this way. I've printed 20"x30" size from a 6 MP camera, 40"x60" from an 8 MP camera. Why would Joe and Jane Q Public (myself included) need anything more than 8 MP?

When I need larger print, I take the pictures using cameras with larger sensor size such as Canon 1D series or Phase One (22 MP but the sensor size is HUGE).

[roodad]

I also hate the MP race. What's the point of having that much resolution? most people won't actually use the additional pixel count for two reasons: they don't have good-enough lens to use the extra count, they don't enlarge the pic large enough to utilize the larger filesize.

I can only imagine how much lower the digital noise would be if they stick with 8 MP.

Amen. I am intrigued by the 40D. OK, drooling, but I really need to make a serious investment in lenses.

[Robin]

Thanks Kelly, often when looking to buy a new camera, we automatically presume more MP, the sharper the photos.

So, when someone is comparing hobby cameras, they shouldn't give too much weight to MP over the 4-6 range, over other desirable features.

[WillCAD]

Yeah, I think I'll stick with my 300D for the moment.

$1300 is more than I have spent on my entire current setup, including lenses, filters, flash, and accessories.

[Robb]

Yeah, I think I'll stick with my 300D for the moment.

$1300 is more than I have spent on my entire current setup, including lenses, filters, flash, and accessories.

:oops:

[Kelly Grannell]

Yeah, I think I'll stick with my 300D for the moment.

$1300 is more than I have spent on my entire current setup, including lenses, filters, flash, and accessories.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 300D. If I don't take a lot of fast(er) moving objects, if I don't take picture (virtually) in the dark. I'll still be using my 300D. The AF, cleaner high ISO, 3200 ISO capability (I know, everybody is tired about my high-ISO rant :p ), the capability to use WiFi to transfer files, auto ISO, and the ability to use (supposedly) any CD burner and/or HDD to backup your files (via USB port connected directly to the camera), there is no use of the 40D.

Heck, considering my number of shots to highly paid shot ratio, I still make more money from my 300D with Sigma 18-125 lens! :mrgreen::shock::peri::razz::woot::blink:

[WillCAD]

Heck, considering my number of shots to highly paid shot ratio, I still make more money from my 300D with Sigma 18-125 lens! :mrgreen::shock::peri::razz::woot::blink:

Do you find that you have a sharpness or front-focusing problem with your Sigma 18-125? Mine is just not as sharp as the Canon kit lens, which some of the articles I've read suggest might be a front-focus problem rather than true lens softness.

[Kelly Grannell]

You've seen my pics. I don't find my lens to be soft. It's very sharp, actually. Not as sharp as my Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS, mind you, but it's only a third of the price. The only "bad" thing about this lens is that in low-light, the focus isn't always accurate.

When I upgraded to 20D, the focus became better. I still have that 18-125 to test with 40D (I don't use it anymore since I've replaced its function with Sigma 18-200 OS) and I'm curious to see how much better the AF will become when coupled with the 40D (cross-hair AF for ALL 9 points, effective even on f/5.6 lenses!!).

PS: if it is front focus, just send it back to Sigma and ask for calibration.