i am not upgrading to 40d

[photo.cavendish]

For the price, it is still fraction to the high-end. It is similar ratio pegged to those old 35mm days.

1.9k is steep but it is just like EOS5 compared to a 1V back then.

Reasonable pricing, but of course as consumer. I will love to see the price drop further.

 

[Kit]

While we are at that... anyone here remember or even heard of a $4.5k D30(no, not the 30D)? Look what $4.5k can get you now........

 

[shahrulesa]

anyway, your money, do what you want with it, think at the end of the day is can you justify the value to yourself.

 

[fWord]

While we are at that... anyone here remember or even heard of a $4.5k D30(no, not the 30D)? Look what $4.5k can get you now........

Or what about the 1D and 1Ds, which cost roughly $10K when initially released? :bsmilie:

 

[Gunbucker]

tried it for really quite a while at cathy today.

-3 inch LCD is huge, but it's not sharp!!

- The biggest would be upgrade feature for me will be the viewfinder and i am disappointed here. It seemed the same to me as the 20d, although a bit brighter. Things seemed a bit squeezed as i struggle to see edge to edge with my specs on. I like the D80 and my old EOS 50 one better though

- the AF is seriously very good. it can lock on to people very very well. But my stlye of shooting is to use the center AF point....

will i buy? Not really. At $1.9K, i think it is overpriced. The really big camera improvement canon made was in the 20d from the 10d. 30D was crap. 40D feels like an improvement from D30 to D60.

If I were a 10D user, or a 300D user, I'd jump on this one. But if a 20/30D is floating your boat, not much of an upgrade unless you're after fluff.

 

[Gunbucker]

40D is not a major upgrade... but there is a few good features
1) 3 Customs function (on the dial)
2) Button for quick access to Picture Style modes
3) Dust removal
4) Brighter Viewfinder
5) Bigger LCD, 3 inch!
6) Vertical grip with more features and connectivity

I guess Canon 5D user would wish to have....

The only interesting thing might be the 3 custom functions on the dial. Beats fiddling with the menu.

 

[kiwi2]

*Piangz* Why are some people complaining about Canon's LCD now? I think there are always limitations in the tool but the real test is how the photograher handles the equipment to produce beautiful pictures.

I always pride in what Canon can do for us consumers, not what it cannot or are limited in doing. For eg, it has arguably the best noise control at high ISOs. Why don't we constantly rejoice in this instead? IS, fast AF, etc etc.

About upgrading. Who is to say what is a suitable one? I've heard people saying, the move from 10D to 20D not worth it, 20D to 30D is kinda craps, and now some are even feeling after they tried the 40D that 30D to 40D is not worth it. So what is worth it?! :bsmilie:

As for the Canon LCD issue... has anyone ever pondered back in the days of film, who has the luxury to even see anything at the back of their cams?! How to check exposure then? It takes a a lot of understanding about photography to nail it right, especially when you are shooting slides.

Now with LCD, seems like consumers want 100% accurate colours, super sharp images, etc. Yet, we have seen literally thosands of solid images produced by pros and amateurs alike, in spite of whatever "lousy" LCD Canon has produced. So blaming the LCD is definitely not the solution.

For those who are not familiar with Canon's first consuner DSLR, the D30 when it first came out had only 3MP (I used one b4), 3 focusing points, much slower AF, etc. And the RRP was $4999! So now, some 7 years later, with 10MP, super huge 3" LCD, reponsive 9-point AF, loads of other features, costing only $1.9k, people are still not satisfied!

I think in life, everything has limitations. It's about working around them. Man will never be satisfied. I wonder if next someone will say, Canon should produce voice-activated DSLRs!

 

[Frijj]

With voice activation, someone will be sure to comment it's not accurate...

 

[Kit]

*Piangz* Why are some people complaining about Canon's LCD now? I think there are always limitations in the tool but the real test is how the photograher handles the equipment to produce beautiful pictures.

I always pride in what Canon can do for us consumers, not what it cannot or are limited in doing. For eg, it has arguably the best noise control at high ISOs. Why don't we constantly rejoice in this instead? IS, fast AF, etc etc.

About upgrading. Who is to say what is a suitable one? I've heard people saying, the move from 10D to 20D not worth it, 20D to 30D is kinda craps, and now some are even feeling after they tried the 40D that 30D to 40D is not worth it. So what is worth it?! :bsmilie:

As for the Canon LCD issue... has anyone ever pondered back in the days of film, who has the luxury to even see anything at the back of their cams?! How to check exposure then? It takes a a lot of understanding about photography to nail it right, especially when you are shooting slides.

Now with LCD, seems like consumers want 100% accurate colours, super sharp images, etc. Yet, we have seen literally thosands of solid images produced by pros and amateurs alike, in spite of whatever "lousy" LCD Canon has produced. So blaming the LCD is definitely not the solution.

For those who are not familiar with Canon's first consuner DSLR, the D30 when it first came out had only 3MP (I used one b4), 3 focusing points, much slower AF, etc. And the RRP was $4999! So now, some 7 years later, with 10MP, super huge 3" LCD, reponsive 9-point AF, loads of other features, costing only $1.9k, people are still not satisfied!

I think in life, everything has limitations. It's about working around them. Man will never be satisfied. I wonder if next someone will say, Canon should produce voice-activated DSLRs!

Guy walks into the shop.
Guy buys a camera.
Guy stares at the camera for 5 mins.
Guy asks... "how come it hasn't started taking photos for me yet???"

 

[oeyvind]

Guy walks into the shop.
Guy buys a camera.
Guy stares at the camera for 5 mins.
Guy asks... "how come it hasn't started taking photos for me yet???"

good one... :cheers::dent:

 

[dan_1337]

the thing is that the technology is marketed toward us saying that we need to have this, we need to have that.

in the end we, as the consumer, need to decide whether it is a 'need' or a 'nice to have'.

as others said, the upgrade from a D30, D60 or 10D is probably worth justifying, but going from a 20D/30D to 40D is probably not worth the 'upgrade' (unless you really need the new features).

my 2c.

 

[lightning]

I think time has changed and technology has improved. Do we need fast computer? I remember spending $6K on a computer 4 years ago. Now a better computer cost about $1.5K. I think it is not about need and want, but rather what can we get with the money we have. Would you still want to spend tons of money on an outdated technology. We all know that there are high res LCD, why do you want to settle for something less? If I spend $6K - $7K on a body(1DM3) or $2K(40D) body, I sure would like to have a high res LCD(VGA LCD don't cost that much). Wouldn't you want it too? Just my opinion, anyone can disagree.

 

[Bluesteel]

What we are seeing on the LCD when reviewing the shot (for most digital camera and perhaps all DSLRs, please correct me if I am wrong) is actually the embedded low resolution JPEG thumbnail. So no matter what definition your screen is , when you zoom in all the way on any image the LCD view will always looks fuzzy. ...... you are just magnifying the pixels of the low res. JPEG thumbnail.

It is the same on the 40D, except now you are magnifying it on a 3 " LCD so it will be that much more fuzzy or a bigger fuzziness as compare to viewing the same image on a a 20D 2 inch or a 30D 2.5 in screens.

Until the day they implement full resolution review, the only way to judge critical focus can only be done accurately on the PC screen. So for the time being Big LCD will means big fuzziness for most DSLR . I have no idea and would not even hazard a guess on how the Nikon D300 LCD with 4X the resolution of the Canon 3 " LCD is gonna be like on review pictures ... but if it uses the embedded JPEG thumbnail for reviewing, then the 300D cannot be an exception to this basic law of physics.

For the 40D I have checked this out in the last few days , images when zoom in 10 times on the LCD screen will always appear fuzzy , but when downloaded to the PC they are well focused shots!


Perhaps a 52 inches Full HD plasma screen with a DSLR attached could be a solution to those wanting more definition and need it for checking their focus..... that will be real

 

[Singapore21]

Guy walks into the shop.
Guy buys a camera.
Guy stares at the camera for 5 mins.
Guy asks... "how come it hasn't started taking photos for me yet???"

Hahaha... wait wait, it doesn't end there...

- Guy is stumped. The camera just sits there.
- Storekeeper says "um.. actually this set doesn't come with auto-photog function, but it does come with a decently res LCD that looks good & functional for a 3-inch screen".
- Guy buys the camera because (1) in reality he doesn't wish for the moon, but (2) is delighted that the manufacturer has given a feature that makes the product a whole lot sweeter. Afterall, the LCD isn't free (hence one cannot complain if it were) but was 'bundled' in with the camera which he had to pay from his own pocket.

 

[photo.cavendish]

Old heck like me will tell you that DSLR do not need a LCD.

We used to shoot 35mm and sometimes we have no bloody ideas what we are going to get for our photo.. Or easily for newbies that doesn't what is FM2, we have using 35mm shooting with no liveview or LCD preview.

Back then, we got lots of joy and FUN with that sort of photography. The real understanding of photography technique counts.

Maybe someone can petition to Canon to take that LCD away from user like me .. as confirmed that we are very comfortable with no LCD. and of course that will help to produce cheaper camera body too.

So solve money problem, solve LCD problem. No upgrade problem..

 

[Russ]

Old heck like me will tell you that DSLR do not need a LCD.

We used to shoot 35mm and sometimes we have no bloody ideas what we are going to get for our photo.. Or easily for newbies that doesn't what is FM2, we have using 35mm shooting with no liveview or LCD preview.

I was just going to say that ... did any of us complain there was no LCD 10 years ago with our Film SLRs? How many of use complained about 1.5" and 1.8" LCDs just 3 years ago?

 

[cantaresg]

Well, whether the LCD screen is a necessity or gimmick, or just a matter of convenience, leaves much to be debated. The marketing department should just come out with a camera body with just an empty shell, and let the customers decide on the feature included in his camera. So the camera shops will be filled with arrays of lcd screens, digic processors, AF sensors etc. You just go to the shop, customise, and no more complaints.

 

[tanjk]

Actually, whether or not you want to upgrade to the 40D is dependent on what you currently have, what you want in terms of feature set, and the amount of moolah you can spare. However, I feel that to base your purchasing decision (or otherwise worthiness of the cam) on the resolution and size of the LCD is absurd. That is just IMHO. Many of us who used to shoot film do not put LCD very high up in our priority list, at least not me.

I just purchased the 40D and finally able to put my 300D to rest after 3 years. And now I finally am able to get back the feel of my old EOS33 (with all the dials in their familiar places). The LCD is a plus at 3" (compared to the you'll say puny 300D 1.8). And the 40D exceed the 300D is almost every aspect and that is what the 2k that I paid for is about. If you already have the 30D, then the 40D may not be what you want.

Lastly, the LCD is a nice feature no matter what size and resolution to me simply because I only used that to check my histogram (infinity times better than the film days). If your pictures are not sharp, it means that your equipment has problems, in which case you can't do anything about it except to send it back or you, as the photog has a technique problem. And both cases, you could download your pictures to a big calibrated monitor and pixel peeped all you want. Why do it on a puny 3" 'low' resolution screen?

Regards,
JK

PS: sorry for the rant, but I just don't quite get it about the fuss around the LCD screen

 

[photo.cavendish]

Well, whether the LCD screen is a necessity or gimmick, or just a matter of convenience, leaves much to be debated. The marketing department should just come out with a camera body with just an empty shell, and let the customers decide on the feature included in his camera. So the camera shops will be filled with arrays of lcd screens, digic processors, AF sensors etc. You just go to the shop, customise, and no more complaints.

Like that also can mah .. Customised Body. :bsmilie:
Can you please join Canon can... all the ah-lau will embrace you.. kiss you. :heart:

:angel:

 

[photo.cavendish]

Actually, whether or not you want to upgrade to the 40D is dependent on what you currently have, what you want in terms of feature set, and the amount of moolah you can spare. However, I feel that to base your purchasing decision (or otherwise worthiness of the cam) on the resolution and size of the LCD is absurd. That is just IMHO. Many of us who used to shoot film do not put LCD very high up in our priority list, at least not me.

I just purchased the 40D and finally able to put my 300D to rest after 3 years. And now I finally am able to get back the feel of my old EOS33 (with all the dials in their familiar places). The LCD is a plus at 3" (compared to the you'll say puny 300D 1.8). And the 40D exceed the 300D is almost every aspect and that is what the 2k that I paid for is about. If you already have the 30D, then the 40D may not be what you want.

Lastly, the LCD is a nice feature no matter what size and resolution to me simply because I only used that to check my histogram (infinity times better than the film days). If your pictures are not sharp, it means that your equipment has problems, in which case you can't do anything about it except to send it back or you, as the photog has a technique problem. And both cases, you could download your pictures to a big calibrated monitor and pixel peeped all you want. Why do it on a puny 3" 'low' resolution screen?

Regards,
JK

PS: sorry for the rant, but I just don't quite get it about the fuss around the LCD screen

Concur.

As long as upgrade already song :angel:.. then that is good already. 3" LCD come on.. hyet longkang. I understand the professional connects to Big big LCD to view when they do liveshoot at studio. If ones' need precision, a big LCD make sense anything else... only glimmick. But if future, LCD touchscreen and takes many function, then that will another thing.