BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tannin" data-source="post: 1468561" data-attributes="member: 2018">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.)</blockquote>

Verification