A strange move by Canon (1 Viewer)

macshark said:

40D was the first non-pro Canon DSLR to actually improve the image quality since 20D. At the time it was introduced, the 40D had much lower noise, much better dynamic range and colors and a better AF system and faster burst rate compared to any previous non-pro Canon camera. All of these were fundamental improvements IMHO.

Click to expand...

Compared to what? A 300D? Any image quality improvement the 40D provided over the 20D/30D was marginal. Not much difference in the AF system, inferior colour, not a lot in it for noise, but about 1/3rd to 2/3rds of a stop behind the 20D. All in all, a lack-lustre camera, considering the superb standard set by the 20D. The biggest differences between the 20D and 40D were the self-cleaning sensor (at last!) and the bigger raw buffer (but I understand that the 30D already had provided this, though I've never owned a 30D to try it for myself).

The 50D, some would argue, continues this trend of ever-smaller image quality improvements. If the 15MP sensor was all there was to it, that woiuld be a fair enough point. Nevertheless, the 50D does provide noticable IQ improvements over the 40D, and is the first mid-range Canon to be clearly superior to the old benchmark model (as opposed to the 40D, which may or may not have been superior to the 20D - opinions differ - but certainly wasn't clearly and unambiguously superior.)

The 50D, however, combines this gain with an across-the-board refinement of almost every feature, even the things that stay essentially the same (like the menu system) have been fine-tuned. Taken as a whole, it is a much more satisfying camera than the 40D. And where the light is decent and your lens is better than poor, it provides more detail.

What's not to like?

Jaff said:

We buy DSLR's to take photographs not movies.

Click to expand...

Just don't take any movies...simple as that. The price of these things are not enhanced that much by the movie option so you are going to pay a chunk one way or another, with or without the option. Who knows, perhaps in a few years you will want to experiment with the movie option.

Tannin said:

Not much difference in the AF system

Click to expand...

Well, apart from the addition of the cross-type sensors and the super-duper AF sensor for lenses of f2.8 and faster. From DPReview -

The EOS 40D has the same nine focus points we first saw introduced on the EOS 20D however now all points are cross-type (meaning they are sensitive to both horizontal and vertical detail) with lenses of F5.6 or faster. Additionally the center point is now twice as sensitive as any other point with lenses of F2.8 or faster and has cross-type sensors set at forty-five degrees.

Click to expand...

Now I thought that was quite an improvement and was one of the main reasons I went from 20D to 40D (having skipped the 20Dn, otherwise known as the 40D).

Jaff said:

We buy DSLR's to take photographs not movies. If movies are your thing then get a good video camera, it's really that simple.

Click to expand...

That certainly is simple. I think you've overlooked the fact that previously you would need to spend very high amounts to get video with telephoto lens. The Red body costs $17,500US and a 300mm lens for it costs another $7,500. Add a computer screen, pull focus system, rods, specialty tripod etc,, and you're looking at over $30,000

I can get HD 1080 and use a lens I already have like my 500mm.

Or a 180mm macro, or a tilt/shift, or a fisheye.

You may buy a DSLR to take photographs but a lot of people are seeing the possibilities of taking photographs and a lot more.

I'm sure that when Autofocus or in camera metering first were offered there were people who insisted that "we" didn't need those things but a lot others saw the opportunities that these features offered.

Tannin said:

Compared to what? A 300D? Any image quality improvement the 40D provided over the 20D/30D was marginal.

Click to expand...

Well, I have never used a 20/30D. But I went from 350D to 40D, and from what I have read the 350D is very similar to the 20D in image quality. In my uninformed opinion the 40D is head and shoulders above the 350D in terms of IQ: the colors are much, much better, the pictures seems smoother, and the high ISO is much better on the 40D, with the noise levels of 800 ISO being comparable to 400 ISO on the 350D. Interestingly, when the 40D arrived and a lot of people went from 30D to 40D, I saw almost exactly the same comments here on BF - if you replace 350D with 30D in my comments above...

Thomas

Now you raise an interesting point, Thomas!

I've never owned a 350D (played with a friend's one a bit though) but I have owned a 400D, which by rights ought to be the same as the 40D (of which I still own two). But I don't think the 400D does as good a job as the 40Ds. (Or hte 20D for that matter.) I'm not talking detail and sharpness here, obviously, I'm looking at the more subtle stuff: colour, exposure accuracy, just the overall impact that the image has. And while the 400D can produce a lovely image right out of the camera, it seems less likely to. My assumption is that Canon try harder with their imaging processing firmware, metering system, and so on, in the more expensive models.

I too thought the 40D was pretty good stuff when I first got one, but the longer I've owned them, the more I realise that they really don't achive anything much in the image quality department that the 20D doesn't do. I certainly wouldn't say that the 40D is a bad camera (it is excellent), simply that it didn't advance matters in any substantial way over the 20D. (Strictly from an IQ point of view, I mean. It added a lot of other useful features, such as the self-cleaning sensor and various other goodies that are useful.) The 50D isn't a huge IQ leap over the 40D either, but (to me) it is enough of a jump to finally start seeing a genuine IQ benefit over the old benchmark camera, the 20D.)

Moving along to Hollis' point about the AF systems, I have to say that I really don't notice much difference between 20D, 40D, and 50D. On paper there have been pretty major changes, but in actual practice they are much of a muchness. Bear it in mind that I also own a 1D III, so I'm unlikely to really notice any small differences between those three mid-range cameras because they all seem pretty ordinary after using the Mark III.

In any case, adding extra cross type AF points really makes very little difference to bird photography: most bird photographers are using the centre point only most of the time, and the abilities of an AF point you practically never use are irrelevant. I would jump at a 50D with no extra AF points at all (just the centre point) if, in return, that centre AF point was the same as the one in the Mark III. (Not that they will ever do that, of course.)