Canon 400D - "leaked" specs

[Keith Reeder]

http://www.patyuen.com/digital/400dleak.htm
http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/23/canons-400d-10-1-megapixel-dslr/

The megapixel race continues...

Interesting to see (assuming this isn't all eyewash - doubtless much of it is, even thouht he original was on a Canon China web page) how Canon's 10mp sensor fares against the Sony and Nikon competition.

[gmax]

http://www.patyuen.com/digital/400dleak.htm
http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/23/canons-400d-10-1-megapixel-dslr/

The megapixel race continues...

Interesting to see (assuming this isn't all eyewash - doubtless much of it is, even thouht he original was on a Canon China web page) how Canon's 10mp sensor fares against the Sony and Nikon competition.

Weird how Chinese news spread so quickly ... dust removal system should really be a winning plus for Canon.

PS I found technically relevant that "Dan Fan for digital camera lens can be an important advantage" and that "EOS 400D Performance closer to the professional level digital cameras Shanfan also have higher Xingjiebi." |:P|

[Keith Reeder]

Yep, I can't wait for a firmware Dan Fan for the 30D!

;)

Personally I see in-camera dust removal as just another thing to go wrong - keeping the sensor clean is really easy without ultrasonic gadgetry inside the camera.

[paul goode]

I see 'they' 'think' its full frame. That'll move it straight to my not remotely interested folder.

[Roy C]

I see 'they' 'think' its full frame. That'll move it straight to my not remotely interested folder.

The first link says it is a APS-C sensor (22.2x14.8mm) with a 1.6 conversion factor. Like Paul says the second link talk about full frame.

[nigelblake]

http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eosdigital3/index.html

Official Canon release data here

[Adey Baker]

Obviously an upgrade for the 350D. I suppose the 30D is too recent for the next model in the 'middle' range to appear just yet, but it'll be interesting to see how sales of the 30D are affected by the thought that a 40D is only 'just around the corner.'

[nigelblake]

I'm not surprisised that the 350D is the body that has been superceded, 350D being the best selling Canon DSLR to date. and also its in line budget-wise to compete with Nikons latest offering, D80 and the Sony Alpha, all being 10.1 Mp, sensor cleaning had to be in there too as these other DSLRs have this function.
I was hoping for an update to the EOS 1Ds MkII as its now nearly 2 years old, there are rumours of a 22Mp body due up, but its time that it was bought in line, 1Ds MkII n perhaps with a bigger preview screen, better buffer capacity, faster fps rate etc would be good.

[hollis_f]

Obviously an upgrade for the 350D. I suppose the 30D is too recent for the next model in the 'middle' range to appear just yet, but it'll be interesting to see how sales of the 30D are affected by the thought that a 40D is only 'just around the corner.'

Yup, I'm sure we'll see the same sensor in a 30D replacement. What I want to see is the amount of noise at high ISO. I like using my 20D at ISO800 quite a bit of the time.

[Keith Reeder]

Me too, F - having had my fingers badly burned by a 10mp DSLR before I bought my 30D, I'm rather disillusioned about "more pixels at any price" - but if Canon get it right, that's something else again...

[rjb25073]

Yup, I'm sure we'll see the same sensor in a 30D replacement. What I want to see is the amount of noise at high ISO. I like using my 20D at ISO800 quite a bit of the time.

I'd guess they will announce the 40D at the big Feb show next year (Photokina ?). By then we (and Canon) should have a good idea of how good the sensor is both in terms of quality and reliability. Like you I use 800 quite a lot and although I don't usually upgrade for a few years I would be tempted with a 40D if it was 10mp, better on noise, dust cleaner on the sensor, spot metering, 1/3 point ISO and larger LCD (30D has the latter 4 points). I'd also like to see the AF improved to a smaller central point but that's just wishing. If this turns out to be the case then the marketing guys did a good job on the 30D and revitalised sales of an existing sensor by adding some nice extras whilst buying time to finish development of the new sensor. The extra megapixels will tempt those who always upgrade and the whole package would be a genuine upgrade for anyone using the 20D.

All just wild speculation of course !

cheers,
Richard

[nigelblake]

I'd guess they will announce the 40D at the big Feb show next year (Photokina cheers,
Richard

Check link in post 6, its announced already. My guess is that we'll see it available in the UK in good time for Christmas.

[nigelblake]

The real issue that will drive DSLR manufacturers is the rate that bridge cameras are catching up with them on specifications, granted these have smaller sensors, so will have less performance in their noise and dynamic range, but they do offer good zoom range on fixed lenses, a sealed unit with no sensor dust problems, look at new Fuji 9Mp

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082412fujis9600.asp

With a 2x theses will have 21.4X magnification, soon these camera types will be a real option for bird photography.
Maybe in not many years time a couple of small portable units with good zoom range and high res will be a better option than the 50Lb of kit, heavy lenses etc that I often take out with me!

[Keith Reeder]

Check link in post 6, its announced already.
Confused, Nigel - that's the 400D, not the 40D...

[nigelblake]

Confused, Nigel - that's the 400D, not the 40D...

Oh yes so it is, misreading the 0's

[Keith Reeder]

It's a confusing naming strategy, Nigel - I've had to double-check once or twice too.

[macshark]

Here is some more info about the 400D, direct from Canon:

http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/rebelxti/index.html

I do like the fact that the new 400D got the 9-point AF system from the 20D/30D, a 2.5" LCD and an improved grip. If the high-ISO performance of the new sensor is not worse than the previous 8MP one, I will be upgrading once the "triple-rebate" season arrives...

[Fountainhead]

new 400D Body only Availible september £649.99 from Walters photograghy

Main Features
• 10.1 Mega pixel CMOS sensor
• Digic II imagine engine
• 2.5" LCD
• User Interface
• 9-point AF
• Continuous Shooting
• EOS Integrated Cleaning System
• Self Cleaning Sensor Unit
• Picture Style
• Direct Printing and Data Transfer
• Software and Accessories

[Adey Baker]

Yup, I'm sure we'll see the same sensor in a 30D replacement. What I want to see is the amount of noise at high ISO. I like using my 20D at ISO800 quite a bit of the time.

The 350D uses a different sensor to the 20/30D so when the 40D arrives it may use a different 10Mp sensor to the 400D. There's more noise-reduction built into the 350D (than 20/30D) which may continue in the 400D.

[Leif]

Canon claim the same noise levels in the 400D as in the 350D, due to improvements in the sensor, especially the microlenses. I suppose it is only to be expected that technology advances at breakneck speed.

I think this one will sell well. (Not the most risky of predictions.)

I see Keith has made yet another remark critical of the Nikon D200. Now there's a surprise. Has he made his century yet? :)

Leif

[macshark]

Here's a white paper on the 400D/XTi that explains various changes/improvements:

EOS Digital Rebel XTi White Paper (http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/Canon_Rebel_XTi_White_Paper.pdf)

Here is the most interesting bit from this whitepaper:
The image sensor in the Digital Rebel XTi measures 22.2 by 14.8 mm. Each of its 10.1 million pixels measures 5.7 μm square. Its predecessor, the Digital Rebel XT, had 8.0 megapixels, each measuring 6.4 μm square. Several improved technologies help the XTi to continue the Canon tradition of offering a wide range of ISO settings (100-1600), all of which are highly usable and characterized by very low noise despite the smaller pixel size that is a function of higher resolution. First, the spacing between the on-chip microlenses is now about half of the Digital Rebel XT’s. This new configuration gathers light much more effectively, loses less light between the microlenses, and improves light convergence. Second, a higher percentage of each pixel’s surface area is sensitive to light. Third, the output amplifiers have been optimized, lowering noise. Last, the second-generation, on-chip noise reduction circuit minimizes random noise and removes fixed-pattern noise. As a result, the XT and the XTi have the same signal-to-noise ratio and equivalent dynamic ranges despite the smaller pixels of the XTi.

[Keith Reeder]

Well done Leif. This time I didn't mention the D200 by name. You know which camera I meant, and now so does everyone else on the thread.

You can have this one, then..!

;)

I'm also unimpressed with much that I've seen at higher ISOs from the Sony, and early shots from the D80 don't do much for me either (though I note with some amusement that it might actually be better than the D200 at high ISOs).

The fact remains that stuffing more pixels into a sensor than it can cope with, purely as a marketing ploy, is a bad idea regardless of the manufacturer.

If Canon's effort falls flat, I'll say the same about the Canon.

6 or 8 million good pixels are better than 10 million not-so-good ones, and the more pictures I see from 10mp cameras, the more convinced I am of that.

[Fritz73]

Here is another webpage:

http://www.canon-europe.com/eos400d/index.asp

[rjb25073]

The 350D uses a different sensor to the 20/30D so when the 40D arrives it may use a different 10Mp sensor to the 400D. There's more noise-reduction built into the 350D (than 20/30D) which may continue in the 400D.

yep sorry you're right. I was under a misapprehension.

thanks for pointing that out :-)

Richard

[Hirundapus]

The Canon USA 'White Paper' says the D400 'Focusing performance under low light has been improved by 1 stop and is now possible from EV -0.5 to EV 18.' I don't know what this means, but could it mean that a lens that would autofocus only with a 1.4x converter on a 350D will now autofocus with a 2x converter on a 400D ?

[Kite]

The fact remains that stuffing more pixels into a sensor than it can cope with, purely as a marketing ploy, is a bad idea regardless of the manufacturer.

If Canon's effort falls flat, I'll say the same about the Canon.

6 or 8 million good pixels are better than 10 million not-so-good ones, and the more pictures I see from 10mp cameras, the more convinced I am of that.

Absolutely Keith, let's hope Canon make a better job of it B (:

[tjsimonsen]

6 or 8 million good pixels are better than 10 million not-so-good ones, and the more pictures I see from 10mp cameras, the more convinced I am of that.
While I definitly agree (10.1 mp gives you the possibility to do a 300dpi outprint that's 22*33cm as opposed to 19.5*29.5cm from a 8mp censor), I'm also convinced that the extra 2mp WILL be a major point for a lot of potential buyers, especially P&S owners who wish to go dSLR, regardles of the fact that only a few lenses actually have the resolution powers to match the censor.
To me, the larger censor isn't a reason to upgrade from Rebel XT. Some of the other features could have justified and upgrade if Canon had trown in spot-metering as well.

Cheers,

/Thomas

[Keith Reeder]

Hi Thomas,

yeah, I don't really see the ability to print about an inch bigger each way as a huge benefit - especially if it's at the price of image quality.

True that P&S users might get conned into "the more pixels the better" line, but interestingly there's quite a bit of discussion on DPRview suggesting that even P&S customers are realising that more pixels usually come at the price of IQ.

[macshark]

I am sure those users with Canon L telephoto primes will appreciate the extra pixels. It basically gives you a 1.12x TC with no f-stop loss if your lens can outresolve the sensor.

[Leif]

Keith, to be blunt, I have read your review, and some of your negative comments (which seem very numerous), on the D200, and I think you talk complete and utter nonsense. It's easy to take poor images if you don't know how to use a camera which I assume was your case. Sadly there are many brand fanatics who push one brand and denigrate another. There are those who harp on (unfairly) about Nikon ergonomics, and build, or about Canon noise reduction and so on.

I'm taken aback by the quality of images produced by tbe D200. I'm sure I'd say the same about the 30D given that it has a similar resolution, dynamic range etc. I feel that in both cases the camera is not the limitation and that the quality of the images depends mainly on the skill of the photographer.

Leif

[Keith Reeder]

Ah - just the fanboy nonsense I've been anticipating, Leif.

I really couldn't care less about what you think, and you won't stop me from expressing my honestly-held opinions.

Are you really saying that because you like the D200, everybody else should?

Jeez!

All I'm saying is that regardless of the theoretical capabilities of the camera, there's much not to like in certain circumstances - and I can point at a wealth of evidence to support my opinion.

I've had no less than six folk on this forum alone PM me recently to tell me that they agree with my opinion of that camera, and that they have either dumped it for Canon, intend to do so, or have decided not to go down the D200 route in the first place - most of these being regular contributors to the BF gallery.

Oh - and loads of Canon users going "ooh - that's not very nice in response to typical D200 pictures...

"Don't know how to use the camera"? Christ, just how arrogant is that?

Indeed it is precisely because of that blind, knee-jerk gainsaying of any criticism of the D200 (which invariably carries with it an insult or two about the ability of the photographer along the way - thanks for reverting to fanboy "type" ) that I find myself continually inclined to "balance the books" by saying what I think about the D200.

Tell you what. Just go into the gallery on this site, do a search for "D200" and then take a good long look at the pictures presented (I invite anyone else wondering about the D200 to do the same).

If you don't see a massive preponderance of fuzzy, low detail, noisy, badly focussed, grotty pictures then you're either not looking, or you're fooling yourself, or you have much lower expectations than I have, of what a £1300 "flagship" camera should be capable of.

Go on - tell me that all of those photographers are as incompetent as you consider me to be...

There surely are good D200 pictures - I've taken some myself (even though apparently I don't know how to use it, which is a conundrum, isn't it?) - but if you show me a good D200 picture I'll show you a picture that was taken in decent light.

Even the odd good ISO 800 shot (some of Avi Meir's work springs to mind) is in good, even, low light - not "poor" light, with shadows - and they're fine: but for much of the real world shooting that we encounter in the UK, we're in poor light, and the D200 just can't hack it as a bird photography camera.

Oh - and I'm not talking about a higher ISO simply to maintain a high shutter speed incidentally. That isn't a "real" high ISO situation. I'm talking about the kind of real world low light/high ISO situation where available light is at a premium - a different thing altogether.

I guess if I was routinely in a position to use super-fast lenses it might improve what comes out of the D200 - but is anybody seriously going to tell me that we should be expected to remortgage the house in order to be able to buy the lenses that allow the D200 to work adequately in situations that the competition can handle without missing a beat with unremarkable glass?

Oh - hang on - I've had fanboys say just that...

Even the best D200 pictures I've seen have a harsh, raggy quality to them when looked at closely (not "pixel peeping", just a good look at the picture as presented) which is ugly to my eyes. That's on a range of CRT and TFT monitors.

Maybe I'm just fussy.

I'm actually happy that you think the D200 does it for you - can we see some of your 400+ ISO, typically crappy light, telephoto bird shots, please?

And let's not touch on the grim life of D200 batteries.

The 30D has the same sized LCD as the D200 (the big LCD was often quoted the "obvious" reason the D200 chewed through batteries like a fat bloke at an "eat your own weight in Big Macs" promotion), and yet mine drives an image stabilised lens and the battery life in the 30D is still comparable to that of my Nikon D70.

To be clear though, I'm absolutely not anti Nikon.

I love my D70 to bits, and remain as impressed by the image quality I get from that camera now as I was the day I bought it, even at 1600 ISO (see attached, which is a 1600 ISO straight from NEF to jpeg to here via Irfanview, for God's sake, with no PP whatsoever except slight cropping/resizing, using an "average" lens at 400mm (Sigma 80-400mm OS) handheld).

I'm not even anti D200 per se.

It takes great pictures in some circumstances, and ergonomically it's a delight (though I guess I'd need to know how to use it to fully appreciate that aspect, eh?)

But to be as blunt as you've chosen to be, I'm going to say - hand on heart - that the D200, using my Sigma lens, could not have produced the attached picture, and that it is the blind, pompous defence of the D200 at all costs regardless of all the evidence out there that it is far from being the perfect camera, that provokes me.

More to the point, for typical UK bird photography situations the D200 really is woefully under-equipped (the evidence is there to support that view), and I really think that needs to be said.

The following, in addition to reflecting my experience, are well documented D200 issues: it is unpredictable; focussing and exposure metering are apparently applied randomly; the noise/detail trade-off is unacceptable, and the in-camera NR is far too aggressive - and on all the time in my opinion, regardless of what the manual says.

You can see incontrovertible proof of all of these concerns in the BF gallery, and much more in the wider online world.

For instance, one of Nikonians' main contributors is a guy called Albert Valentino - I've posted links to his staggeringly good D70 raptor and owl galleries here before now.

Well, he also has a gallery of bald eagles photographed in Alaska with his D200 - and it is blatantly apparent that he's had to NR the crap out of many of these pictures - so much so that any semblance of fine detail is just gone.

Great photos, but in spite of his camera, rather than because of it - many of them look like plastic models.

http://www.pbase.com/alvalentino/baldeaglesofalaska

Have a look at his non D200 stuff too.

I could do this forever, Leif...

So you're welcome to your opinion Leif, but - amazingly - just because you see things a certain way, that doesn't mean there is no other valid opinion... So lets just agree to differ, eh?

You might as well, because for every picture you might point at proving how good the D200's IQ is, I'll be able to point out more that prove how bad it can be: and that's the point - even Lomos can produce good pictures in the right hands, but that doesn't mean they're good cameras...

Just think about this.

Supposing it is my incompetence that explains the poor results I got with the D200, I made the same "mistakes" with the D70, and I'm making the same "mistakes" with the 30D - yet I've had far, far better results with each of those cameras than I ever got with the D200, in exactly the same shooting situations.

Given that (despite what some people would have us believe) using a camera isn't exactly rocket science, this is quite hard to explain, isn't it?

So you keep telling people that the D200 is wonderful (as you do), and I'll keep saying that in some situations it isn't, and we can let the pictures out there show which one of us is right.

[paul goode]

Keith, to be blunt, I have read your review, and some of your negative comments (which seem very numerous), on the D200, and I think you talk complete and utter nonsense. It's easy to take poor images if you don't know how to use a camera which I assume was your case. Sadly there are many brand fanatics who push one brand and denigrate another. There are those who harp on (unfairly) about Nikon ergonomics, and build, or about Canon noise reduction and so on.

I'm taken aback by the quality of images produced by tbe D200. I'm sure I'd say the same about the 30D given that it has a similar resolution, dynamic range etc. I feel that in both cases the camera is not the limitation and that the quality of the images depends mainly on the skill of the photographer.

Leif

Utterly unjustified and incorrect comments on someone who, if you had checked, doesn't possess blind brand loyalty and from what I have gathered has worked damn hard to fully understand the equipment he uses.
The proof of his ability can clearly be seen in his gallery and a website with plenty of excellent NIKON images.
I've looked in your gallery but there isn't much in there. I'd enjoy seeing your top class images.

Paul

[Leif]

Keith:

Several other people on BF have indicated to you (indirectly) that your problems were due to inexperience. I expect the comments passed over your head.

There are numerous reviews and coments on the internet - some from professionals - who use both Canon and Nikon equipment and they do not bear out your view that the D200 is poor.

You say that the D200 is unsuitable for bird photography. That statement is laughable.

You say that I am an uncritical Nikon fan boy. I could quote postings in which I recommend someone buy a Canon, or where I criticise Nikon. For example, I recently criticised Nikon for not including a proper mirror lock up in the D80, whereas all Canon cameras have MLU. Both marques have strengths and weaknesses.

The problem I have with your comments is not your right to express an opinion but that they give a grossly unfair and unbalanced view of the D200 and that you regularly make such statements as if you are on a personal crusade to trash it. Your comment that the D200 is unsuitable for bird photography does not merit comment.

When I try to explain why you come out with such grossly biased nonsense, the only answer I can think of is user error.

As for your posting above, it is a long winded emotional rant.

Paul: I have photographs on the World Photography Forum. Feel free to make unpleasant comments if it makes you feel good. It really does not bother me. I have made no judgement on Keith's photographs, which I have not seen anyway.

Keith said:

"Just go into the gallery on this site, do a search for "D200" and then take a good long look at the pictures presented [snip] If you don't see a massive preponderance of fuzzy, low detail, noisy, badly focussed, grotty pictures then you're either not looking, or you're fooling yourself, or you have much lower expectations than I have, of what a £1300 "flagship" camera should be capable of."

I could understand you insulting me, but I am astonished at the arrogance and rudeness of the above statement. I suspect that you have made numerous BF users feel unwelcome.

[AMM]

I see 'they' 'think' its full frame. That'll move it straight to my not remotely interested folder.

Paul,

Why are you not interested in full frame? It seems like a good thing to me.

Tony

[macshark]

This Japanese site has a comparison of images from the 400D and 350D including some ISO800 and ISO1600 shots.

Link to 350D vs 400D comparison (http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/dslr/2006/08/28/4486.html)

Based on these samples, the sensor on the 400D does not appear to be any noisier than the 350D despite the increased pixel density.

[paul goode]

Paul,

Why are you not interested in full frame? It seems like a good thing to me.

Tony

Hi Tony,

The reason for that, admittedly glib, statement was that in Bird photography its very unusual to get too close to a bird. Therefore the crop factor helps massively in obtaining frame filling shots. To go back to a full frame camera would put my 'pseudo' 800mm lens back to its genuine 500mm. Because I'm not sure I could often get closer to my subjects than I do, within my hobby timescales, the amount of cropping necessary in post processing would degrade the image and certainly wipe out any advantages of an increased pixel count.

For landscape and more 'normal' photographers then I'm sure full frame is great, so long as your lenses can stand up to the edges being scrutinised! (some of mine wouldn't.)


All the best & welcome to BirdForum

Paul

[Roy C]

IF The new 10.1mp sensor gives as little noise as the 8mp ones (esp at high ISO) then it must be an advantage to the bird photographer as it would give more reach (via more cropability) as Macshark pointed out earlier in this thread.
I will wait and see how it performs before knocking the increased pixels as a marketing ploy.

[Tannin]

For bird photography, there is no substitute for low-noise at high ISO - and I'm talking about native low noise here, as any fool can noise-reduce a picture into a plastic smear. For other purposes, I'm sure that the high detail at low ISO and many other excellent qualities of the D200 make it an excellent choice. But for bird work, there is ample published evidence to indicate that it's a non-starter.

All of this, in other words, is to agree with Keith. On the other hand, I disagree firmly with his claim that dust removal is a simple and easy task. Perhaps this is a reflection of our different environments - Australia is a dusty place, by and large - but I find sensor dust on my 20Ds a constant pain in the A. I've found ways to deal with it, but I'd leap at a self-cleaning 20D with credit card extended.

8MP vs 10MP? Who cares?

Better auto-focus for the 400D? Excellent. The 20D/30D AF is pretty good, and it's nice to see that working its way down to the entry level. It's nicer still to take that as an implication that the 30D replacement, when it arrives, will have better AF again - it will need to, as otherwise there would be little reason to buy a 40D.

I'll stay with my 20Ds for now: neither the 30D nor the 400D offers me a compelling reason to upgrade/crossgrade. I'll wait and see what Canon replace the 30D with, and also await the 1D and 1Ds replacement(s) with interest. In the meantime, just so it doesn't get rusty, I imagine my credit card will walk down the aisle with another lens or two. So don't worry, Mr Canon, you will still be getting richer at my expense!

[postcardcv]

I have photographs on the World Photography Forum. Feel free to make unpleasant comments if it makes you feel good. It really does not bother me. I have made no judgement on Keith's photographs, which I have not seen anyway.

Hi Leif

I've just had a look at your gallery at WPF, some truely stuiing shots in there... however none of the D200 shots are taken at high ISO, most are ISO200 with a couple of ISO400. From what I've read I Keith's issue with the D200 is it's performance at high ISO, andy chance of posting a couple of high ISO shots so we can see what it's like.

[Leif]

Hi Leif

I've just had a look at your gallery at WPF, some truely stuiing shots in there... however none of the D200 shots are taken at high ISO, most are ISO200 with a couple of ISO400. From what I've read I Keith's issue with the D200 is it's performance at high ISO, andy chance of posting a couple of high ISO shots so we can see what it's like.


Postcardcv: Firstly thanks for the compliments.

Secondly, you might be misinterpreting my standpoint. I do not dispute that Canon leads the pack when it comes to high ISO noise reduction. That is well known, and well documented. If someone really wants the class leading high ISO performance, then Canon is the logical choice.

In fact I tend to think that the 30D is the best choice for a semi-professional camera for someone who does not already have investment in a given brand. Especially since the D200 is £350 more expensive. Well, actually it is £450 more expensive as Nikon Capture is ~£100 extra. (See what a rabid Nikon fanboy I am? There's no point reasoning with someone with my in-built bias.)

What I object to is the hysterical trashing of a camera by Keith (or anyone for that matter). I get a bit fed with statements such as "not suitable for bird photography". Is the D2x (which has more high ISO noise) also no good for bird photography? IMO these statements are nonsense. And Keith's statements are not just about high ISO performance.

In his review of the D200, he completely trashes the D200 image quality. He even slams the image quality at ISO 100. Now do you really think that goodness knows how many respected magazines and online sites would give the thumbs up to the D200 if it really behaved as described by KR? Is there some sort of conspiracy to cover up the truth? The D200 is really crap but everyone except our hero is lying? Perhaps he does wear his underpants outside of his trousers, but that does not make him a superhero. (Apologies if that is a gross slur on Keith's sartorial sensibilities.)

Let me go into detail. He says "The camera simply will not function well in less than ideal light, or so many of us have concluded." Well I routinely photograph in dark forests and around dawn on overcast days. The results are superb. The bluebell wood photo on the WPF was opened up by between 1 and 2 stops to lighten it. And he says "as soon as you venture beyond about 400 ISO, the D200 turns even your best efforts into a ridiculously noisy, smeared, over-processed mush..." That is complete and utter nonsense. ISO 800 is useable. ISO 1600 is useable as is but with a film like grain. ISO 3200 is really horrible IMO. (These are subjective judgements of course. But I will give example. See later.)

Keith says:

"There are also known focussing issues with the D200. "

It surprises me that numerous journalists and professional photographers have not discovered this flaw.

And Keith also says:

"It also appears that there is an metering issue with the D200. Simply put, it would seem that the meter sees less light than (say) my D70 in a given situation, using the same lens and camera settings, as far as I can match them (I shoot in Manual mode all the time, incidentally)."

Again why has no-one else noticed this? The meter behaves as expected. On a white subject it underexposes and on a black subject it over exposes. All meters do that. Even Canon dare I say. I certainly have had no problems.

Keith says the D70 was better. Oh, really? Well the D70 has many faults.

a) It tends to clip highlights which must be maddening for white birds. It was awful for white fungi.
b) The histogram is not accurate as (I think) it only displays one channel.
c) The viewfinder is awful, by which I mean dim. Focussing in low light is very hard.
d) IMO the D70 has worse noise than the D200. When I looked through Photo Net I found several owners of both cameras who agree. (I have not looked at the techno babble sites. That is my subjective opinion.)

So IMO the idea that the D70 is better is not in accordance with the facts. And why did Keith not notice these failings of the D70 if he is as he says such an astute judge?

The final aspect which seems to obsess some people is high ISO noise. IMO this is obsessed over far too much. Part of the problem is that people pixel peep, and complain about artifacts barely noticeable on prints.

So how does the D200 perform? IMO noise is not objectionable up to about ISO 800, though some claim ISO 1200 (not tested by me). At ISO 1600 there is a film like grain that is okay in an A4 print. It is mainly luminance noise with little chroma noise, which IMO is preferable. IMO ISO 3200 is awful.

However the in-camera noise reduction, and the Nikon Capture NR, are not good. They do remove noise, but they also soften the image more than I would like and are best turned off. Note that at ISO 800 and above in camera NR is always on, so it should be set to the minimum. (This might the source of some of Keith's unhappiness, though there does seem to be some existential angst in his review.)

The better alternative to Nikon NR is to use Neat Image or similar third party software.

I am too lazy to do loads of pixel peeping, and anyway it bores me rigid. However, for the hopeless cases among you - - here is an example from the D2x (which is more noisy than the D200):

http://www.pbase.com/image/65888265/original.jpg

Thanks to Mark aka wilkman on dpreview who owns the above image.

The above is taken at ISO 800 and shoved through Neat Image. It is a crop at 100%. I think the image is fine. Hardly the mushy mess that Keith would have us believe.

Since the above might not convince you, given that it is a D2x image, I have taken some test images at ISO 100 and ISO 1600, and also shoved that latter through a noise mill, namely Neat Image. In each case I used a top grade lens, cable release, tripod and MLU to get maximum sharpness.

The images are:

a) ISO 100, full image.
b) ISO 100, 100% crop.
c) ISO 1600, 100% crop.
d) as c) but passed through a gentle Neat Image run.
e) Another ISO 1600, 100% crop.

I am sorry that the crops are so small, but that is the limitation of Bird FOrum, not me. In each case I applied a gentle USM (which will increase the visible noise).

IMO the ISO 1600 results are fine, but there is a slight but definite drop in sharpness and contrast, and the Neat Image does remove noise, but at the expense of some low contrast detail (look in the shadows). Of course others might disagree.

INcidentally I have seen some 400D examples taken at ISO 1600 and I see the same slight softening of the image.

Perhaps the main advantage (IMO) of the 30D is that it offers better results straight out of the camera, with no need for post processing. Whereas at ISO 1600, the D200 image probably needs some post processing. So as I have said at the start, Canon is king in the NR department, and if people want the best out of the camera results, then Canon is the choise, no ifs and buts. But the difference is not as great as some people would have us believe. (Blimey, I really am a rabid Nikon fanboy.)

One last point. Most of my photos were taken at exposures of ~1/20 second, even though the weather was rarely calm. Many people would ramp up the ISO, but I managed to use slow shutter speeds by using simple techniques, which amount to little more than a little patience and a bit of thought, including basic fieldcraft. It's not rocket science.

It is my opinion that people have become obsessed with pixel peeping and analysing artifacts that often do not show in prints, even at A4 and above. I am surprised that they do not marvel that people used to take photos of nature subjects, including birds, with slide film, usually rated at ISO 100, but sometimes ISO 200, or even ISO 400.

IMO to dismiss the D200 as being poor is unjust and grossly biased. That is not to say that there are not valid criticisms to be made (such as price when compared to the 30D, or the need to buy Nikon Capture software, which IMO is essential). But there are very real stengths of the D200. Excellent image quality, excellent build and excellent ergonomics come to mind.

Re-reading Keith's review, I can understand his anger at Nikon, as I see that he had two samples, both with banding. That is unacceptable. However, Canon have also had problems with banding (in the 5D and 1Ds), and they too fixed them. They have also recalled several lenses. This seems to be the unfortunate case with new products.

Leif

[Leif]

IF The new 10.1mp sensor gives as little noise as the 8mp ones (esp at high ISO) then it must be an advantage to the bird photographer as it would give more reach (via more cropability) as Macshark pointed out earlier in this thread.
I will wait and see how it performs before knocking the increased pixels as a marketing ploy.

The examples doing the round suggest that noise is kept in check. However, whether or not 10 MP offers any real advantage will need testing. By all accounts the D200 does not offer as much resolution as expected because of an aggressive Moire filter. So in practive the sensor is not the only factor in the equation. (I expect the 400D will be a little bit sharper than the D200 but that's cos I is a rabid Nikon fanboy innit.)

Leif

[postcardcv]

Thanks for posting the comparison shots for ISO100 and ISO1600 they make interesting viewing.

I had noticed that a lot of your WPF shots were taken at relatively slow shutter speeds thus allowing yoru to keep the ISO low. As I'm sure you are aware this is often not an option for birds, fast shutter speeds are often vital.

[Leif]

Thanks for posting the comparison shots for ISO100 and ISO1600 they make interesting viewing.

I had noticed that a lot of your WPF shots were taken at relatively slow shutter speeds thus allowing yoru to keep the ISO low. As I'm sure you are aware this is often not an option for birds, fast shutter speeds are often vital.

I thought that for many of my pictures, slow shutter speeds were not an option due to wind and the creatures moving, but I consistently find that I can get sharp results at surprisingly slow speeds. I am a bit obsessive about sharpness, and do not want the slight softening that comes from using higher ISO values.

Back on the ranch, there is a 400D review on www.cameralabs.com. However, IMO the review is poor and biased in favour of the D200, for reasons that I will let others discover. Still, there is some information of value in the review. Take a look at the crops of the girls face on the final page taken using a quality lens to see what the 400D can do when let off the leash. I'm sure we will enjoy the usual round of "are my pixels as good as they should be" discussions when the camera is released.

I really do think that with the latest cameras we are limited more by our skill than the tools available.

Leif

[AMM]

Hi Tony,

The reason for that, admittedly glib, statement was that in Bird photography its very unusual to get too close to a bird. Therefore the crop factor helps massively in obtaining frame filling shots. To go back to a full frame camera would put my 'pseudo' 800mm lens back to its genuine 500mm. Because I'm not sure I could often get closer to my subjects than I do, within my hobby timescales, the amount of cropping necessary in post processing would degrade the image and certainly wipe out any advantages of an increased pixel count.

For landscape and more 'normal' photographers then I'm sure full frame is great, so long as your lenses can stand up to the edges being scrutinised! (some of mine wouldn't.)


All the best & welcome to BirdForum

Paul

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your thoughts. I am interested in this particularly because I am finally getting round to converting to digital. I have been doing bird photography mainly in my garden with film and with my hide (garden shed) I can actually get pretty close (the frame fairly well filled with a Starling), although as you say that is not normally the case in the field. I was trying to decide between the EOS 30D and EOS 5D and wanted opinions (which I can see there will be plenty of) about that choice. However I think I will post a new topic on this subject as it not really related to this thread.

Thanks for the welcome.

Tony

[eastwood]

That seems not the case, Hirundsapus.
I just acquired a 400D (Rebel XTi in N. America). I put on the Canon 1.4X Extender with my 100-400 L F4.5-5.6. It does not Austofocus.

[macshark]

That seems not the case, Hirundsapus.
I just acquired a 400D (Rebel XTi in N. America). I put on the Canon 1.4X Extender with my 100-400 L F4.5-5.6. It does not Austofocus.

It will AF if you tape the leftmost 3 pins (when looking at the lens side of the 1.4x).

The low light performance of the AF system is somewhat independent of the minimum "max aperture" required on the lens.

[Cashie]

If the 400D offers a dust removal system where does the dust go to ???
It must still be there inside somewhere!!

3:-)

[Leif]

If the 400D offers a dust removal system where does the dust go to ???
It must still be there inside somewhere!!

3:-)

It's vaporised and exits through an exhaust on the top plate, so you have to be careful not to get singed eyebrows.

Serious answer: There are sticky pads in the sensor chamber which act to collect the dust. I guess you could have the pads replaced as and when they become saturated, but we're only talking about little bits of dust.

It's a clever idea and with luck such mechanisms will become standard in Nikon cameras too.

Leif