Thanks for the advice. Funny you didn't mention the other three improvements I added to your list. And re: LCD, you obviously don't have a body with live view.
Obviously, I disagree. Rebel to XXD transition should never be described as minor. Perhaps only by a Rebel owner.
That's the only part that I would use DPR now. They do have the advantage of having the info and access of new cameras earlier than everyone else. The part that I had problem with is their intepretatin of the cameras' performance in the field for the users.
How good is good for you? Canon service only calibrate cameras or lenses to "within spec" of one DOF which is 8 units on the MFA. You can do much better to fine tune your lenses, expecially for fast prime or long lelephoto lenese, to a higher level of sharpness. That has been my experience when I first calibrated my lenes on 50D.
--There is no significant difference in terms of image quality. Even 50d has 15MP it doesn't capture much more details than 40d. It is more like 12 MP vs. 10 MP.
40d dors better job in shadow area, and little better noise at high ISO. But little.
Focus MA is nice fieature for those with problematic lenses. I dont use it cause have good calibrated lenses. Also, FMA is not so good for zoom lenses.
LCD is better on 50d.
Other than that...no difference.
For 100 usd I would go with 50d, but not for more.
Just my 2 cents.
--
Boris
De gustibus non disputandum est!
http://www.boriszulj.com
--Boris.... where did you get all this misinformation from? It's all wrong! When the 50D came out dpreview was clueless on how to judge image quality on such a camera with so many megapixels. So being clueless they judged it at 100%, not realizing that when viewing pictures at 100% they were viewing images at different magnifications depending on how many megapixels it had. This still isn't understood by a lot of people today. Almost every other review site was smarted than that and compared the 50D to the 40D at the IMAGE level. They all found the 50D to be better than the 40D with resolution and even with noise. I used to post links and quotes to like 15-20 review sites stating that the 50D was superior. There were a few idiots like this MAC guy that just couldn't handle Canon releasing a newer better model than his beloved 40D so he went on a relentless jihad putting down the 50D. Were you by any chance involved in some of those arguments? So anyway some people got this ingrained in their head and started repeating this lower mp is better mantra over and over to the extent that this notion still hasn't been totally stamped out on this forum.
Also Carl is right, there is no such thing as per pixel sharpness. At the time I searched high and low on the internet and couldn't find any definition or reference to this term except from dpreview. But it was too late some goofy people on this site took this term and ran with it. You can still see some people saying it to this day, it's nonsense.
Bottom line is the 50D is the better camera in every way!
--There is no significant difference in terms of image quality. Even 50d has 15MP it doesn't capture much more details than 40d. It is more like 12 MP vs. 10 MP.
40d dors better job in shadow area, and little better noise at high ISO. But little.
Focus MA is nice fieature for those with problematic lenses. I dont use it cause have good calibrated lenses. Also, FMA is not so good for zoom lenses.
LCD is better on 50d.
Other than that...no difference.
For 100 usd I would go with 50d, but not for more.
Just my 2 cents.
--
Boris
De gustibus non disputandum est!
http://www.boriszulj.com
'The truth is rarely pure and never simple' Oscar Wilde
--
I understand it but I think you don't. It's a made up word and most of the knowledgeable photographic community is aware of it.
You would have bought a second 40D? Oh well that's your prerogative, I'm glad you enjoy using it.
