Anyone with a Canon 40D

[RobSutton]

Originally Posted by glsammy

I could do with one! One of my many failings is getting landscape images level.

You, me and the rest of the world I suspect - thank god for Photoshop.

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by RobSutton

You, me and the rest of the world I suspect - thank god for Photoshop.

Thinking about it, a level wouldn't help me much, even if it showed through the eye piece! The number of times I don't bother to look at the settings I'm using before I shoot. I'll never learn!

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Jim Ford

This was take with a 1Mp Nikon E700, when the camera was pretty much state of the art - and it's a crop of the original. I suspect most people wouldn't suspect it was taken with such a low Mp count camera:



It really just goes to show how relatively unimportant Mps are, nowadays.

Jim

To be fair the reason that doesnt look much different to one taken on a higher MP camera is that on here all pics are resized 800 x600 pix , which equates to just under 0.5mp so for web display even very low mp is fine

if you tried to print it to A3 or even just to A4 you would notice a big difference in quality however

That said however I agree with graham that above about 8mp it is irrelevant unless you are a pro who is either submitting to a major agency or printing your pics very large. (interestingly for press work mp isnt as important due to the poor quality of the print process, hence why nikon got away with on 4mp in the H2 for so long.)

Likewise quality of image at high ISO isnt likely to matter to the average amateur but it does matter to pros who are shooting under canopy but still require action freezing high speed (for example see andy rouses pic's in rwanda taken with a nikon D3)

as a semi pro i may well buy the 50D rather than the 40D (I am currently working with a 20D but need another body to replace my venerable 300D) but it will be the iso and AF performance that sways me rather than the increased mega pixelage.

[Lancashire Lad]

Some very sensible advice on this thread.

I think that Badllarma and eeyore have hit the nail on the head with their comments.

The vast majority of amateur enthusiasts continually upgrade because they have convinced themselves (or more likely fallen for the manufacturer's hype) that they will benefit from the new camera, when in real terms they will not notice one iota of difference on the finished print.

To my way of thinking, there is more than a little of the "I've got a newer, better, all singing all dancing camera than you" attitude, and many people show off their kit much in the same way as those who absolutely must have the latest mobile phone. It has been the same scenario ever since I started with photography some 30 odd years ago. (Zenit B ).

I recently bought my first digital DSLR. My choice was made on basis of specification, a thorough research of customer & trade reviews, and greatly reduced price compared to when it was first released. (Nikon D80).

It delivers everything I could want in terms of handling & quality. I will definitely never contemplate upgrading, and will only replace the camera if it ever becomes inoperable / uneconomic to repair.

Any funds that might become available for photography, will be much better spent with suitably considered additions in the lens department.

Regards
Mike.

[DanJeffery]

Originally Posted by canny

I've got to admit to not understanding how to work out the equivalent lens sizes of old SLR's and the digital SLR lens sizes. ie I read a 17-85mm is equivalent to something like a 28-135mm in old money.

With the Canon 40D the crop factor is 1.6. So simply multiply the lens focal lengths by 1.6

So yes, a 17mm lens on a 40D would give the angle of view of a 1.6 x 17 = 27.2mm lens on a 35mm SLR or full frame digital SLR.

[cybershot]

I've just replaced my 'old' 10D (b.e.r.) with a 40 and am finding it does give me slightly more control but I agree that it's the glass on the front that counts and had my body not been u/s then I would have spent the money on a macro lens. I am initially very pleased with it though.

David

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by eeyore

as a semi pro i may well buy the 50D rather than the 40D (I am currently working with a 20D but need another body to replace my venerable 300D) but it will be the iso and AF performance that sways me rather than the increased mega pixelage.

Reading the reviews Pete, I wouldn't bother. The 50D doesn't seem to be any better performing, and possibly even worse, especially at the higher ISO settings.

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by glsammy

Reading the reviews Pete, I wouldn't bother. The 50D doesn't seem to be any better performing, and possibly even worse, especially at the higher ISO settings.

As I've posted previously, it looks like they may have sacrificed image quality for more 'bells and whistles'!

I've also seen it posted elsewhere that maybe Canon have pushed the APS format too far with the 50D.

Jim

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by glsammy

Reading the reviews Pete, I wouldn't bother. The 50D doesn't seem to be any better performing, and possibly even worse, especially at the higher ISO settings.

yeah - you could have a point there

if i could afford it i'd swap to the nikon system - the low light performance of the D3 is supposed to be in a class of its own. sadly however i can't.

I might just pick up another 20 or 30, or may be a 5 second hand to replace the 300 for the time being as there isnt a lot in the 40 or 50 to encourage me to splash the cash , even if i had it.

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by eeyore

if i could afford it i'd swap to the nikon system - the low light performance of the D3 is supposed to be in a class of its own. sadly however i can't.

Do you really want to be hauling such a big beast plus lenses around the countryside?
;^)

Jim