CNET clearly gave the 40D a good review. But, I get the feeling their
hearts are with the Nikons--particularly the D80, although they did
mention the upcoming D300. It sounds like the kind of review a died
in the wool Nikonian would give after being instructed to be
completely objective. Know what I mean? ;-)
My sentiments exactly. Almost like the positive comments were forced ...and disingenuous.
One area of concern, though, is where they say there is a lag in AF
in low light that they expected Canon to do better with.
It was even worse than that in my opinion. That was listed at the top of the review as "The bad: Large spot size for spot meter; relatively sluggish low-light focus."
Rieviewer said: "Not so easy to ignore is the increased spot size for the spot meter, up to 3.8 percent of the viewfinder from the 30D's 3.5 percent. (Here's why that's bad.)"
...and links to this page:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4326-6501_7-6589479.html?tag=txt
This is where they try to 'prove' their point about the 'large' spot meter size with an 'example' photo using a picture that no self-respecting serious amateur would waste their time with! ....let alone a pro! ...certainly NOT a serious birder!
Here's the photo:
I have to question the experience and expertise of any photographer/reviewer that would take that photo thinking that anyone but 'grand-mom' would say it's a great shot! The composition is sheer amateuristic! Even slightly zooming in on the birds in the bird-bath, to change the composition, would allow the 3.8% spot meter to do it's job and to easily expose the shot correctly! ...or perhaps spot metering on another area of the viewable subject matter. This one point alone proves to me that they were bending over backwards to find fault with the 40D!
Anyone else have a problem with slow focus in low light with the 40D? Perhaps
this is somewhat lens-dependent as well?
...or reviewer-dependent .... or reviewer-biased!?
...and not only have I not had any problem with AF in low light. I have experienced the exact opposite! Low light AF acquisition is extremely good ...much faster and better than the 30D! All credibility goes out the window with this absurd analysis by the 'reviewer'!
Other reasons to disregard the reviewers criticisms:
These listed comments to name a few:
1. "As for performance, the 40D is reasonably speedy for its class, and roughly 20 percent faster overall than the 30D. But it still can't keep up with the faster, albeit lower-resolution, D80."
....IN HIS/HER DREAMS!
2. "However, the camera does hit one sour performance note: leisurely low-contrast focusing, which ratchets up low-light lag to 1.2 seconds."
Excuse me but maybe the 'reviewer' left out a critical element to his/her analysis ...such as the particular lens ...or lenses they used for this 'analysis'!
Also, maybe I missed it but did the reviewer even mention the fact that ALL 9 AF POINTS have cross type sensors ....or....that the center AF point has an enhanced AF ability with lenses that are ƒ2.8 or faster? Did they even bother to try the AF with such a Canon lens? We really don't know now do we...since they conveniently 'forgot' to mention what lens/lenses they used for their opinion!
3. "For more meat-and-potatoes changes, the 40D now supports Auto ISO in all modes beyond full Auto, which comes in handy every now and then."
Auto ISO is "meat and potatoes"? Not on 'my plate'! CLEARLY THIS MORON IS A VEGAN! ...and I bet he/she regularly shoots in the 'green box' metering zone.
4. "Despite its many attractions, the Canon EOS 40D doesn't clearly outshine the Nikon D80, which costs a lot less."
Me thinks the reviewer is using 'rose colored glasses' when looking at the D80!
