i am not upgrading to 40d

[Singapore21]

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

Hahaha... No need to apologise lah.. this is a forum lor.. Anyway, I think there's really no fuss.. Some ppl just think that if a 3-incher is thrown in, wouldn't be great if the res was decent enuf to max further the 3-incher's potential. I see no harm/fuss in ranting (1) how Canon should be forgiven and not be expected too much from; or (2) how Canon could be more delightful.

For those in (1) camp, they are just happy with what Canon has packaged for them. Glad they're happy lor. For those in the other, they have some slightly raised hopes. Ok lor, unless you're from Canon and die die need defend your product, leave them with their dreams lor.

What i do think is that trivialising their hopes with over-exaggerated taunts about 'talking cameras' is pretty 'duh'. We used to buy handphones with 4096 colors. I recall hoping for thousand more colors and perhaps even more res (a QVGA screen would have been a dream!). That didn't stop me (or many others) from buying the Ericsson T68 (256 colors, 101 x 80 pixels), which was most importantly, and first and foremost, a phone. Of course the rest is history. Hoping is healthy, as consumers are the ones that spend the money. Some of us think we work harder per dollar, so if can get more per $ the better lor. Others are, well, just more concerned that the phone has good reception. Can there be only 1 kind of consumer? Haha.. maybe lah, but probably not on planet earth. Ridiculing/criticising etc one side will not result in a complete take-over... Hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!

Anyway, I don't think the issue here is about - "since the LCD is not that good, the Canon 40D isn't worth buying". It's just 1 feature that some thought could be improved further. Amusing man.... Hahaha.... :bsmilie:

 

[cantaresg]

On the other hand, a higher res LCD screen may mean a larger battery drain? So that will shorten the number of shots you are able to take per battery? But as I said, the only way to get around with fussy customers is to have customisable camera. Not happy with the LCD screen? WHen the higher res LCD screen comes out, upgrade the screen lor. Not happy with the sensor? Upgrade the sensor lor. Since now, we already have interchangeable lenses, flashes and viewfinder, no harm bringing it a step further?

 

[Singapore21]

Haha.. maybe in future, with engineering innovation, cameras could be modular and u could choose your own likes online, a la Dell...

 

[cantaresg]

Haha... That was something I had in mind too... Maybe the laptop style?

 

[rvxing]

You guys are a funny lot. :bsmilie:

I agree with the TS on the LCD, have tried/used/seen a 40D today. Even though the LCD is 3" wide, but the resolution is junk. :bsmilie: Very obvious jagged edges when zooming in pictures.

Agreed, LCD resolution is junk. When @ 2" with 85k pix or 2.5" with 115k pix, the resolution were very bad, can see rainbow colour on black line. Then they came out with 2.5" with 210k/230k pix, which is a great improvement. Now 40D gave us a 3" with 230k pix, a big step backward. A 44% increase in area but close to 0 added pix. Good luck to those who use such a LCD screen.

 

[rvxing]

We are all human, when we've nothing to compare, we will be satisfied with what we get, but once there is a better feature or function or ...., we will not want to be "short change".

Many said now LCD is nothing very useful, just to check what we take, but with live view, in no time, no one will take picture thru the viewfinder. Don't have to let the camera kiss your face. Just like PnS, when there is a viewfinder and a live view LCD, no one is using the viewfinder so much so the mfg took them away. So, DSLR may one day come without the viewfinder. No to forget, with live view one can take pic at an angle the normal viewfinder can't achieved.

Bottom line, buy what you need, if you think that 40D is not a great improvement to what you already had, then forget about it and wait for the next model ...... Remember, technology will keep improving; the next model will be the next standard and be out dated by the next next model.

Oh, if many think 40D is suck, then don't buy it. With Nikon D300 provide so much more features, the next release (50D?) from Canon will better it otherwise, Canon will loss market share, which they will not want it to happen.

 

[Photo Nuts]

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.

I remember when I first saw the first CD-R writer (2x speed) made by HP long ago. It was selling for ~ S$1.2k. So, I agree, technology progresses and we should not stand still. Reminds me of Sunset Boulevard.

 

[Singapore21]

Many said now LCD is nothing very useful, just to check what we take, but with live view, in no time, no one will take picture thru the viewfinder. Don't have to let the camera kiss your face.

I'd still use the viewfinder to take pics, esp if the camera/lens is on the heavy side. More stable, can use the nose to prop the body up and remove camera shake.. ie. NAIS™ - Nose Assisted Image Stabiliser.. heh...

 

[calebk]

...
Many said now LCD is nothing very useful, just to check what we take, but with live view, in no time, no one will take picture thru the viewfinder. Don't have to let the camera kiss your face. Just like PnS, when there is a viewfinder and a live view LCD, no one is using the viewfinder so much so the mfg took them away. So, DSLR may one day come without the viewfinder. No to forget, with live view one can take pic at an angle the normal viewfinder can't achieved.
...

The viewfinder on any P&S is nowhere as accurate as the viewfinder on any SLR. That comparison is not a valid one.

 

[photo.cavendish]

The viewfinder on any P&S is nowhere as accurate as the viewfinder on any SLR. That comparison is not a valid one.

Agree with you.. besides, how many spare battery do you need to bring if you are going to shoot 300-400 pictures in an event. BTW, consider the fact it is a SLR, see how long the arms can tahan the weight.

Personally feel wait long long when the day liveview is to be used the main view to shoot picture.

 

[Bluesteel]

Personally feel wait long long when the day liveview is to be used the main view to shoot picture.

Hi photo.cavendish

Actually it is oredi on the 40D , in the Live view mode the LCD show the actual image the CMOS sees and one can use it to focus accurately for macro shots . I particularly like the function of moving the [Focus Bracket] with the toggle button and zooming in all the way to 10 times on the selected area of interest. However , as you put it it will not be the main view to shoot, it is of limited application unless the cam is tripod mounted or the Lens is Image Stabilized.

In fact on the 40D the live view feature is more functional than its elder brother the 1D3 , in that you can now focus in live mode. You can either focus manually or by hitting the "AF On" button to focuses on the subject within the Focus Bracket.


No idea how long the battery will last too but must be draining the Battery fast from this cautionary Note.


Manufacturer's Caution on Live View Shooting.

In prolong period of use of the live view shooting mode , the camera may become hot. Although this is not a malfunction, holding the hot camera for a long period can cause slight skin burns.

:cheers:

 

[photo.cavendish]

Thanks Bluesteel,

But if you have followed my threads, i meant i dun need LIVEVIEW. i am an old-school photographer. I rather have Canon offered me a cheaper camera without LIveview or even without a LCD. Shooting films for 10-15, i dun need a LCD to tell me what i am going to get, or using it to do angle-finding.. just need a angle-finder will address most problem.

i literally means that if liveview is not going to be the mainstream and it can't replace the conventional vtiewfinder. Currently, the LCD is still flawed as it can't accurate illustrate colours and tones. it will takes ages for the LCD to reach the stage of a see-through.

Hope my explainations helps.

 

[wind30]

I have an E330 and I use the live view 90% of the time.

The adv. is that it makes new composition much easier, example waist height, or looking down at the subject, etc. new ways to look at the subject which I think is the single MOST IMPT point in photography, where you place your camera......

ya you can squat, you can lie down, you can join the ladder gang, but I think it is simpler to get live view.

The disadv, is that the LCD is still pretty small and hard to make out details in the subject.

But technology moves so fast, I think live view is here to stay and will be mainstream in the next few years.

 

[sriram]

I wonder how many of you here used to shoot film. Anyone remember the size of the LCD back then? And how long we had to wait before we got our chromes back? You have enough more than choice at any price point today. Life is far far more convenient. Get the one you like and stop complaining. At the end of the day, it's the photo that counts.

 

[Antzzz]

I can't wait to see pns upgraders holding the 40D like a pns.. shooting by looking at the LCD instead of thru the view finder. kek.

If Canon and Nikon wants to target the new tech savvy "prosumers", they should start thinking about integrating mobile phone (preferably broadband for skype users), video camera, or at least a mp3 player! duh!

 

[lightning]

If film is so good, why Nikon stop producing Flim camera? Canon also reduced the flim camera production. Why? Time has changed either you move with it or you get left behind. Why do you want to buy 40D when D30 can still produce good photo? D30 is so much cheaper, why spend the extra money? Just like anyone who likes to save money on LCD.

 

[photo.cavendish]

What people want is simple.. An photographic output. A very nice output that we called a photo. We just need to click on the shuttle and arrive the output. Very funny leh if someone pointing elsewhere to reach that objective. of course technology helps to save time lah. and that is why a 40D is 1.9k whereas a EOS 5 back then was only $960.

$1000 is charge to save processing time. Of course output is free but if you starting printing again.. cost goes up again.

Film and Digital.. Both are good.. Film decline because p&s digital is much easier to process. it is nothing to do with what is good.. it is the effect of the increased velcoity in life.

As long as we see DSLR as an IT commodity, the game never ends.

 

[photo.cavendish]

I can't wait to see pns upgraders holding the 40D like a pns.. shooting by looking at the LCD instead of thru the view finder. kek.

If Canon and Nikon wants to target the new tech savvy "prosumers", they should start thinking about integrating mobile phone (preferably broadband for skype users), video camera, or at least a mp3 player! duh!

Yea lor.. photographer carry a cannon pointing here and there.. imagine using 1D with 300mm 2.8... wah pianz. the photographer must have popeye arms.

 

[unseen]

wow I didnt know you have managed to handle the Nikon D300 and D3. If you are quoting from specs, it wont be fair taking into account factors like colors, brightness accuracy etc.

upgrade only if you need the specs provided by the camera. if not, doesnt matter what camera it is.

first and foremost, I'm a canon user.

About the Nikon D300 and the D3, I've this comment to make:
Thus far, there hasn't been any Nikon dSLR that was seriously disappointing. The only dSLR manufacturer to release any "disappointing" dSLRs so far would be Canon (Think: joke called 30D). I'm somewhat inclined to believe that the Nikon dSLR wouldn't be too far off. in handling and colours department. As for brightness accuracy... I'm lost, I don't know how to comment on that.

 

[rvxing]

Thanks Bluesteel,

But if you have followed my threads, i meant i dun need LIVEVIEW. i am an old-school photographer. I rather have Canon offered me a cheaper camera without LIveview or even without a LCD. Shooting films for 10-15, i dun need a LCD to tell me what i am going to get, or using it to do angle-finding.. just need a angle-finder will address most problem.

i literally means that if liveview is not going to be the mainstream and it can't replace the conventional vtiewfinder. Currently, the LCD is still flawed as it can't accurate illustrate colours and tones. it will takes ages for the LCD to reach the stage of a see-through.

Hope my explainations helps.

I hope what you are saying is for now, technology will change what you do in the future. That is why you are using LCD/Plasma TV/monitor instead of CRT TV/monitor and computer instead of abacus. At present no technology will replace human, but we still use technology in our everyday life. Without technology we will be living in stone age. LCD may be with some flaws now, but then you still use you LCD monitor (PC) to process your pictures. What you see with your eyes, I would said nothing today can reproduce it, not print, display, etc, etc can do it, so, we just live with it. By the way, what you see may not be what I see, our eyes are analog, so we see them a bit differently.

What I mentioned earlier post is that eventually, not today or tomorrow or next year, live view will replace view finder, don't worry about battery capacity, LCD screen size (may be OLED by then), heat, etc, etc, technology will overcome all these, may be within a decade.