40D Review on CNET

[DiveDr]

The reviews I have read on CNet are well at bes general. They are not a Photo review site and review things from PDAs to full computer systems. Most of their reviews are trite and cursory. I would not rely on a CNet review of a high end camera body as accurate or informative. I doubt the person reviewing the equipment is a professional photographer. Wait for a professional and specific reviews before you begin to evaluate and balance that with what you see on forums like this before you make a decision.

Just my 2 cents!

 

[Judy Howle]

I've seen some of Lori's cnet video product previews and was not impressed.
--
Judy Howle
FortyD, TwentyD, S Three IS

Southern Exposures
http://southern-eposures.net

Digital Photo Class - Tips, techinques, Photoshop tutorials
http://digitalphotographyclass.net

 

[subdoodle]

no text

 

[subdoodle]

=> Basically. When Phil's review comes out I'm sure that will be noted. It will most likely still get a Highly Reccomended unless a big flaw is found which is unlikely. If you have Canon stuff and like it then go with it.

As will the D300 and D3 when they come out, Highly Recc'd.

My suggestion to people is that there is more to a camera than ISO-ISO-ISO. That might be a good thing to keep in mind.

 

[robust]

no text

 

[robust]

My suggestion to people is that there is more to a camera than
ISO-ISO-ISO. That might be a good thing to keep in mind.

Of course, but ISO-ISO-ISO is hugely important and an area Canon is clearly got a lead.

 

[allnak]

Who's talking about ISO-ISO-ISO here?

BTW, was wondering how you know the review is "correct" since you don't have a 40d? Are you talking out of your....again?

=> Basically. When Phil's review comes out I'm sure that will be
noted. It will most likely still get a Highly Reccomended unless a
big flaw is found which is unlikely. If you have Canon stuff and
like it then go with it.

As will the D300 and D3 when they come out.

My suggestion to people is that there is more to a camera than
ISO-ISO-ISO. That might be a good thing to keep in mind.

 

[subdoodle]

=> it appears. Any dslr you can buy right now does not have overwhelming noise issues. I know that 10 years from now some will instacrank their ISO as their sole, only, major, most important and single consideration. But most don't or won't. It not such a real world issue as some seem to think.

I mean some are like ISO 6400 at poster size is a tiny bit better on brand N or brand C. Poster size? You can only see a small portion of such an image on screen at a time and seldom are posters printed out from every single XXD camera. Please!

These forums do people a disservice. I can't tell you how many people moving from point-n-shoots to dslrs ask me why dslrs have so much noise compared to what they have now, per forum reading it's such a big issue. The answer is that they don't have such crippling noise, it's just forum hype from fanboys. Canon started the ISO-ISO-ISO thing years back. It's nearly or is out of date. Look at the worst noise offenders these days - they are better than the Canon ISO-ISO-ISO champs of not too long ago. How come what was incredible not long ago is now awful? Well...it isn't awful. It's time to consider other things beside high iso noise as the sole measure of a camera.

Some have pointed out things like Ergonomics, Exposure, AF, White Balance also matter, especially in batches.

High "keeper" percents are nice! Having the camera get out of the way is nice!

 

[subdoodle]

Owning a Canon 40D does not make you a better lover, person, photographer, reviewer or anything else like that.

 

[allnak]

It must be tough trying to convert the blind. Good luck with the mission. I don't know what the hell you're going on and on about but I guess everyone's got a need to be heard right?

=> it appears. Any dslr you can buy right now does not have
overwhelming noise issues. I know that 10 years from now some will
instacrank their ISO as their sole, only, major, most important and
single consideration. But most don't or won't. It not such a real
world issue as some seem to think.

I mean some are like ISO 6400 at poster size is a tiny bit better on
brand N or brand C. Poster size? You can only see a small portion
of such an image on screen at a time and seldom are posters printed
out from every single XXD camera. Please!

These forums do people a disservice. I can't tell you how many
people moving from point-n-shoots to dslrs ask me why dslrs have so
much noise compared to what they have now, per forum reading it's
such a big issue. The answer is that they don't have such crippling
noise, it's just forum hype from fanboys. Canon started the
ISO-ISO-ISO thing years back. It's nearly or is out of date. Look
at the worst noise offenders these days - they are better than the
Canon ISO-ISO-ISO champs of not too long ago. How come what was
incredible not long ago is now awful? Well...it isn't awful. It's
time to consider other things beside high iso noise as the sole
measure of a camera.

Some have pointed out things like Ergonomics, Exposure, AF, White
Balance also matter, especially in batches.

High "keeper" percents are nice! Having the camera get out of the
way is nice!

 

[allnak]

What are you talking about?

Owning a Canon 40D does not make you a better lover, person,
photographer, reviewer or anything else like that.

 

[robust]

It must be tough trying to convert the blind. Good luck with the
mission.

That's good, because one has to be blind to not see noise differences.

I don't know what the hell you're going on and on about
but I guess everyone's got a need to be heard right?

subdoodle's on a never ending quest to convince folks that noise and ISO aren't important, mostly because Nikon suffers by comparison in this regard.

 

[robust]

in order to review it.

What are you talking about?

It's called rambling and floundering.

Owning a Canon 40D does not make you a better lover, person,
photographer, reviewer or anything else like that.

Owning a 40D certainly does make someone a better 40D reviewer. You seem to like to review based on selective osmosis.

 

[subdoodle]

is the point. Every single dslr you can buy today has practically insignificant noise levels for anything close to typical use. On this forum I note folks go berserk over ISO noise and the cameras they call junk aren't. Look at the guy who justed posted about his Canon D60. That camera has worse ISO-ISO-ISO performance than any dslr you can buy today.

Remember that as megapixels increased and increased, when you do your 100% / 200% / 1000% pixel peeping that you are looking at the same scene as before from closer and closer in.

That is why things like viewing distance, printed output size and so forth matter.

If you want to print posters for close up inspection medium format digital holds up much, much, much, much better than any of these 35mm or APS based cameras.

 

[allnak]

In other related news, my hair grew a little bit today.

is the point. Every single dslr you can buy today has practically
insignificant noise levels for anything close to typical use. On
this forum I note folks go berserk over ISO noise and the cameras
they call junk aren't. Look at the guy who justed posted about his
Canon D60. That camera has worse ISO-ISO-ISO performance than any
dslr you can buy today.

Remember that as megapixels increased and increased, when you do your
100% / 200% / 1000% pixel peeping that you are looking at the same
scene as before from closer and closer in.

That is why things like viewing distance, printed output size and so
forth matter.

If you want to print posters for close up inspection medium format
digital holds up much, much, much, much better than any of these 35mm
or APS based cameras.

 

[robust]

is the point.

Yes, it is different and significant.

Every single dslr you can buy today has practically
insignificant noise levels for anything close to typical use.

Wrong.

Low light, high ISO, low noise, fast shutter is extremely important in modern digital photography.

 

[photogbil56]

What are you talking about?

It's called rambling and floundering.

Owning a Canon 40D does not make you a better lover, person,
photographer, reviewer or anything else like that.

Owning a 40D certainly does make someone a better 40D reviewer. You
seem to like to review based on selective osmosis.

He knows everything there is to know about the 40D from what he reads ...or what he imagines! And besides....you have to remember that .....ISO...ISO...ISO... isn't everything!

....look ...he probably can't win arguments with his wife if he's married ...so this is the only place he can get people to put up with him! )

 

[photogbil56]

is the point. Every single dslr you can buy today has practically
insignificant noise levels for anything close to typical use. On
this forum I note folks go berserk over ISO noise and the cameras
they call junk aren't. Look at the guy who justed posted about his
Canon D60. That camera has worse ISO-ISO-ISO performance than any
dslr you can buy today.

Remember that as megapixels increased and increased, when you do your
100% / 200% / 1000% pixel peeping that you are looking at the same
scene as before from closer and closer in.

That is why things like viewing distance, printed output size and so
forth matter.

If you want to print posters for close up inspection medium format
digital holds up much, much, much, much better than any of these 35mm
or APS based cameras.

ROFL with allnak! Hair ...hair ...hair ..isn't everything. Women like men for more than how much hair they have on their head!....lol

 

[photogbil56]

is the point.

Yes, it is different and significant.

Every single dslr you can buy today has practically
insignificant noise levels for anything close to typical use.

Wrong.

Low light, high ISO, low noise, fast shutter is extremely important
in modern digital photography.

Realize that this is the same idiot that was arguing awhile back that no one needs to be able to shoot at ISOs higher than 400!

 

[severoon]

The reaction to subdoodle's post does not reflect well on this forum. I'm a hard-core Canonite (20D -> 30D -> 40D), but keep in mind that if reviewers (even evil Nikon reviewers) didn't point out the negative aspects of everything they could find, they wouldn't really be doing us any favors when the 50D comes around, now would they?

Let's assume the reviewer was a dyed-in-the-wool Nikon guy. Wouldn't that be exactly the kind of guy you'd want reviewing the Canon you're looking at? Wouldn't he be the least likely to gloss over the problems? Presuming he doesn't make anything up out of thin air and maintains a sense of proportionality, I think it's kind of dumb to dismiss his negative comments.

I think subdoodle's point was: even if we assume he's predisposed to like Nikon (which we don't really know anyway), does that mean he's wrong?

To provide context, I can say that when I initially bought into Canon, at the time the 20D had just come out and Nikon was still playing catch-up in the digital world. In my opinion, at that time, if you bought a Nikon you were paying a whole lot of money for a Nikon emblem and not much else (though they did have a few advantages here and there, Canon was far and away the better system). Now I own a Canon system and it would be too costly and time-consuming to switch (besides I'm happy with the gear). But this kind of customer lock-in always makes me nervous--it would be very easy for Canon to continue making money on me for quite some time due to this lock-in if they reduced their standards. So I'm all for people being critical of Canon--I want to make sure the system I'm locked into will remain world-class! (Aren't you???)

I've helped a few friends buy dSLRs, and after Nikon more or less caught up with Canon about a year after the 20D was introduced, I've been recommending that people look around at everything that's out there. I've gotten a few shocked responses from the people I'm helping as well as other dSLR owners who presume I'd push Canon since that's what I like.

It seems to me the closer the major manufacturers get in their offerings, the more vehement these kind of equipment-based discussions become. Nikon improving their body is not a cause for insecurity--quite the opposite--formidable competition means your rig is going to stay high quality and low price as you continue to upgrade! Who wouldn't want that?!