Julian H
Well-known member
I just acquired a 40D as an upgrade to my 20D, which i loved. The files I got out of the 20D where relatively noise free at ISO 400 and i was looking forward to an increase in quality from the 40D.
It may be the fact that i haven't got used to the files from the 40D, but I shot some in-flight stuff, gulls etc and was disappointed in that many of them appeared to be soft and when sharpened didn't "pop" like the files from my 20D. I'm using the 400m 5.6 Canon lens for flight with a 1.4 x for non-flight stuff.
Also, I noticed that there seemd to be more noise at 320-400 ISO than I expected compared to the 20D. Is this what others have found?
I shot some gulls wings which seemed to come out Ok, but I still expected them to be sharper.
I need to do some focus tests on the lens, but I don't think that is the problem, since if that were the case, some parts of the image, in front of, or behind, would be razor sharp.
It may be just my expectation may be too high and that i need to change some of my processing to accommodate the larger files? Also, do people find much more noticeable difference in quality when making say 13 x 19 prints from the 40D compared with the 20D?
Any input from anyone else that has upgraded that may have felt the same would be appreciated, especially since it's driving me nuts.
Attached is a Snowy i shot with the 400mm and a 1.4x which, after a lot of processing came out nice, but, relatively speaking I feel it should've been slightly better quality.
Hypothetically speaking, let's say worst case scenario, the camera and lens needed calibrating, what is the process, do the lens and body go in?? What does that normally cost.
Julian
It may be the fact that i haven't got used to the files from the 40D, but I shot some in-flight stuff, gulls etc and was disappointed in that many of them appeared to be soft and when sharpened didn't "pop" like the files from my 20D. I'm using the 400m 5.6 Canon lens for flight with a 1.4 x for non-flight stuff.
Also, I noticed that there seemd to be more noise at 320-400 ISO than I expected compared to the 20D. Is this what others have found?
I shot some gulls wings which seemed to come out Ok, but I still expected them to be sharper.
I need to do some focus tests on the lens, but I don't think that is the problem, since if that were the case, some parts of the image, in front of, or behind, would be razor sharp.
It may be just my expectation may be too high and that i need to change some of my processing to accommodate the larger files? Also, do people find much more noticeable difference in quality when making say 13 x 19 prints from the 40D compared with the 20D?
Any input from anyone else that has upgraded that may have felt the same would be appreciated, especially since it's driving me nuts.
Attached is a Snowy i shot with the 400mm and a 1.4x which, after a lot of processing came out nice, but, relatively speaking I feel it should've been slightly better quality.
Hypothetically speaking, let's say worst case scenario, the camera and lens needed calibrating, what is the process, do the lens and body go in?? What does that normally cost.
Julian