40D Af - is it really better? Couple of other questions too.

Been thru a lot of posts but would love to hear from people who have used both the 30 and the 40.

Is the AF way better?
Is the highlight tone priority worth having?
Is the high ISO way better?

I know these have been answered before but I really would like some more opinions.

My options are the 40D or wait for the 5D replacement. As I have a 30D I dont "need" a new body right away but preferable before Feb when I am planning an Italy trekking trip.

I can do without the crop/high frame rate of the 40D as I now hardly shoot wildlife and this will be mainly for vacation and home photography.
--
Regards,

Deepak
http://www.rnhinfo.com/Albums
http://www.bangalorephotographyclub.com/galleries/deepakvrao

--
Regards,

Deepak
http://www.rnhinfo.com/Albums
http://www.bangalorephotographyclub.com/galleries/deepakvrao

I don't own a 30D... I do own a 300D, and a 40D...

My best guess is that none of these things is "WAY BETTER" between the 30D and 40D...

From what I've seen of Highlight Priority... it's not really anything that I could not live without... If you shoot RAW with a 30D, you can probably do pretty much the same thing by simply making sure you don't over expose, and then tweaking the RAW to your liking, etc... I really see very little value to that feature... I'd be very happy if someone could show me what I'm missing with regard to this, if I am missing something.

AF... likely a little better, perhaps less then 30% improvement at best... but this is largely speculation since I've never ever seen anyone try to quantify the difference in performance...

Same for High ISO... probably no more then 10% better... maybe just equal to the 30D's... but then you have to also take into account they did at least equal the 30D's high ISO and added more pixels...

Bottom line... I think if you don't HAVE to upgrade now, I'd wait and see what Canon offers in the spring.

deepak rao said:

Been thru a lot of posts but would love to hear from people who have
used both the 30 and the 40.

Is the AF way better?
Is the highlight tone priority worth having?
Is the high ISO way better?

I know these have been answered before but I really would like some
more opinions.

My options are the 40D or wait for the 5D replacement. As I have a
30D I dont "need" a new body right away but preferable before Feb
when I am planning an Italy trekking trip.

I can do without the crop/high frame rate of the 40D as I now hardly
shoot wildlife and this will be mainly for vacation and home
photography.
--
Regards,

Deepak
http://www.rnhinfo.com/Albums
http://www.bangalorephotographyclub.com/galleries/deepakvrao

Click to expand...

Gene

deepak rao said:

Been thru a lot of posts but would love to hear from people who have
used both the 30 and the 40.

Is the AF way better?

Click to expand...

I think it is. I have no scientific way to quantify it. I shot over 10,000 frames on my 30D, and only have 500 on the 40D, but it feels to me that the focus just works better. It hits quick, and really consistently.

deepak rao said:

Is the highlight tone priority worth having?

Click to expand...

From what I've been reading, it is a useful feature. As the previous poster said, if you shoot RAW, you can achieve a similar result. I haven't played with it that much in stressing situations, but I can't see where it will hurt (unless you get into the games about how it is done, and highlight clipping, like we read on the ISO threads.

More so than the tone priority, I absolutely feel that the 40D exposes the scene better. I took some photos this weekend, and I was amazed. I'm sure the 30D would have blown highlights, or blacked-out the shadows. The 40D was excellent... it captures a larger dynamic range, and there was detail from bright to dark... I am impressed!

deepak rao said:

Is the high ISO way better?

Click to expand...

The technical reviews say "no," but I think the images come out nicer. They just seem smoother and cleaner. I still have my 30D (I'm working on a sale), so I'll try to do some direct comparisons. Overall, the 40D images just look better.

Also - the Live View feature is outstanding... it has all kinds of uses and applications, and can certainly help take better pictures!

deepak rao said:

I know these have been answered before but I really would like some
more opinions.

My options are the 40D or wait for the 5D replacement. As I have a
30D I dont "need" a new body right away but preferable before Feb
when I am planning an Italy trekking trip.

I can do without the crop/high frame rate of the 40D as I now hardly
shoot wildlife and this will be mainly for vacation and home
photography.

Click to expand...

I hit a deal at Circuit City, where I got the kit with the 28-135 lens for $1134+tax. After selling the printer and lens that came with it, I'm down to $829 for the body. After I sell my 30D, it will end up being a very cost-effective upgrade. The 30D was nice, but the 40D just feels like your favorite pair of jeans... it just fits.

deepak rao said:

--
Regards,

Deepak
http://www.rnhinfo.com/Albums
http://www.bangalorephotographyclub.com/galleries/deepakvrao

Click to expand...

--
Jonathan

'Photography is a money-sucking black hole, and I've crossed the event horizon'

I have a 40D, a 30D, and a 10D. The 40D is "way better" than the 30D in low light AI Servo. Shooting youth hockey, I get less than 50% keepers with the 30D and a 70-200 f/2.8. With the 40D, it's closer to 75% (assuming I don't screw up). To me that's "way better".

I wasn't happy with the 10D or 30D shooting motorsports. I expect the 40D to be "way better" there too, but I won't know until next season.

With soccer in bright sun, the difference isn't as great.

The jump in AF performance from the 30D to the 40D is greater than the jump from the 10D to the 30D.

Highlight tone priority is nice, but not worth the upgrade on it's own.

The 30D and the 40D noise is about the same. But if you enable in-camera noise reduction, the 40D is slightly better. I still run Neat Image, though (over iso 1600).

For me, the better AI Servo focus and 6.5 fps were worth the upgrade. The larger, better LCD is really nice. I plan to use the 40D for astrophotograpy, and there the Live View will be awesome. For some reason, the 40D "feels" better too. Even though the 30D is a better camera than the 10D, I always liked the 10D more. Not so with the 40D.

Hope this helps.

Mark

deepak rao said:

Been thru a lot of posts but would love to hear from people who have
used both the 30 and the 40.

Is the AF way better?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say way better, but it has proved more accurate in static shots for me. Not that I had a problem with my 20D, but now I have noticed after a few months with the 40D that things are much more dead on than in the past. Same with AIServo, but I've not used it as much in that mode yet.

deepak rao said:

Is the highlight tone priority worth having?

Click to expand...

Here, yes, definitely. Works as described. Read up on page 20 of the review Phil provided. As he states

"In this mode the camera must be applying slightly less gain than normal combined with a different tone curve to deliver almost a whole stop (0.9 EV) more highlight range, that's pretty impressive."

deepak rao said:

Is the high ISO way better?

Click to expand...

Again, not way better, but I do believe it's better. I think the images are more responsive to editing. They seem to clean up much better overall.

deepak rao said:

I know these have been answered before but I really would like some
more opinions.

My options are the 40D or wait for the 5D replacement. As I have a
30D I dont "need" a new body right away but preferable before Feb
when I am planning an Italy trekking trip.

Click to expand...

Like you I didn't need an upgrade from my 20D. However, I don't at all regret it. It is a new camera and not a soft upgrade as I would classify the 30D vs 20D was. The 40D is new and you'll notice it from the viewfinder to the LCD to the internals.

deepak rao said:

I can do without the crop/high frame rate of the 40D as I now hardly
shoot wildlife and this will be mainly for vacation and home
photography.
--
Regards,

Deepak
http://www.rnhinfo.com/Albums
http://www.bangalorephotographyclub.com/galleries/deepakvrao

Click to expand...

--
-tim
NW Columbus/Dublin, Ohio
http://www.pbase.com/pdqgp

I think AF is WAY better, but I shoot a lot of marginal light situations, and find I get a lot more keepers with the 40D. It's not perfect, and I suspect the 5D II will improve on it, but is still very noticeably improved.

Highlight Tone Priority is great for some things. I shoot weddings and find it very useful there. There is a lot of speculation on how Canon does it, and how it can be duplicated by underexposing RAW, and lifting the lower 2/3 of the tones, but if you are shooting fast that's more things to remember. And if you are shooting 1000 images, that takes too much time to sort through and adjust later. With Highlight Tone Priority, even if you leave it on all the time you'll still be okay. So I think it's a good feature, if not a great one.

Noise looks about the same when pixel peeping, but the high ISO images print nicer. It's a noticeable improvement, but it isn't WAY better.

But as others have said, the 40D is just a nicer camera to shoot with. It feels better, the menus are laid out better, the AF-ON button is nice, etc. I also like the Live View feature. The 40D is by far, a better camera than a 30D.

-- Just a personal opinion of course.

I didn't have a 30D, but was using a 20D before getting my 40D. I shoot alot of action sports (football etc) and I've notice much better results with the focus. I have a lot fewer unusable images due to missed focus. I usually use the center focus, but it seems to track the moving objects much better.

40D or wait for 5d replacement.

I am looking forward to a FF but if the 40D is so good I might just get that instead.
--
Regards,

Deepak
http://www.rnhinfo.com/Albums
http://www.bangalorephotographyclub.com/galleries/deepakvrao

I've shot about 25,000 images with my 30D. I was happy with the results. Much happier with the 40D results. I would compare the the two cameras by saying the 30D is in a AAA baseball league, while the 40D is in a major league. Everything about the 40D is at least a little bit better. Auto focus quicker and surer. Much higher keeper rate for moving subjects. Quicker auto focus in dim light. Better color. Live view very useful. Better menu system. Highlight tone priority very helpful. All in all, just a better camera.
--
http://photo.net/photos/Michael%20Eckstein
http://meckstein.com/home.html

AF - as compared to 20D. 24-104 F4L lens. Indoors in regular room lighting = couple 100 watt bulbs = yes. The AF is much faster and accurate and locks on instantly. Same with 3rd party lenses such as Tamron 28-75 which used to just drag under the same conditions.

Highlight Tone Priority does serve a purpose on JPG output from DIGIC III. If you are shooting RAW, then you do it yourself in the raw editor, others who have tested this have noted that it amounts to a set of processing parameters applied to jpg's "in camera" so as to not blow the highlights out - it is not a setting that changes anything at the actual hardware level - it's a software tweak for those shooting jpg only.

Have not had occassion to shoot high ISO