Digital Camera Information

Here is a positive review of the Canon 40D by www.e-fotografija.si with some of the pictures taken in a nightclub by Žiga Intihar as the reviewer. The low light performance was taken in a nightclub and looks like everyone was having a great time.

His writes: “To summarize – Canon made a big step forward in just about every area - image quality, usability, ergonomics and features. The only thing that’s lacking, compared to the Canon EOS 5D, is a full frame sensor. In every other respect, the 40D is as good or better than the 5D.”

For the full review click here.

Here is an interesting review by Prophotohome.com where the review is interactive based. They review different features of the camera with each entry.

The first entry is the AI Servo Autofocus performance where they write:

“From the very first time we saw the specs for this camera we were impressed by what was being offered for the money. Just a few years ago 6.5 fps would have been considered more than enough for serious sports photography. It is weather sealed to boot. Could we really have a serious sports camera for $1,299? It immediately occurred to us that we would indeed have to do the running test on this camera to see how it compares to the 1D MKIII and 1D MKII.”

For the full review, it can be found here

Although reviews of the Canon 40D are still in development - Roland Lim in his blog called “The World According to Roland” has already published his.

In his review, he compares the new Canon 40D to his old Canon 20D. The Canon 20D is almost identical to the 30D and does give a fair comparison.

He writes: “Personally, I think Canon has done a good job with the 40D and has upgraded and added many new useful features. Image quality wise, I don’t think there is any significant differences between the 40D and 30D/20D. There is little difference in real resolution between a 10MP and 8MP sensor. In my opinion, Canon has managed to maintain the high ISO noise level while increasing the mega pixel count. However, there was no major breakthrough in technology and the 40D is not lower in high ISO noise than the 20D or 30D. I have previously done some high ISO test comparing the 40D to 20D.

Overall, I think the 40D provide a nice feature upgrade over the 20D and 30D and at an attractive price. Whether it is worthwhile for you to upgrade to the 40D is something only you can decide for yourself. For me, I am really happy with the 40D. However, my 20D is still working fine and can still take great photos. So I will be keeping my 20D as a 2nd and spare body.”

In summary, the Canon 40D is a great camera and has maintained its silky smooth noise free high ISO images whilst increasing its resolution from 8 to 10 mega pixel.

Source

Photozone.de has an excellent review on the Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC lens which is one of many standard zooms available for Nikon DSLR users. Compared to the rest of the gang it offers a relatively long zoom range (~ 4 x ratios) combined with a relatively large max. aperture at 17mm.

They write: “The Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC is a very good standard zoom and a viable alternative to the Nikon offerings in this range. Generally it is capable to produce very sharp results although the corner performance leaves a bit to be desired at 17mm at large aperture settings. The vignetting level could also be a bit better here but most competitors don’t offer an f/2.8 settings anyway and from f/4 it follows the mainstream. The level of distortions is about typical for a standard zoom whereas chromatic aberrations (color shadows) are comparatively low. The build quality is very fine for a lens in this price league.”

Source

It seems that Canon is the only camera manufacturer to really push the advantages of a full framed sensor. They have two DSLR, the EOS-1Ds Mark II and the EOS 5D which incorporates the full-frame CMOS (Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor) image sensors. As Nikon and other top camera manufacturers have yet to enter the full frame market, Canon has really started to push the advantages with the release of the 30 pages White Paper on their Full Frame CMOS sensor. Interestingly they also explain why it is more expensive which in their own terms, is their justification to charge more for these camera. Here what they say:

.. “For now, appreciate that a full-frame sensor costs not three or four times, but ten, twenty or more times as much as an APS-C sensor. Here, then, is the greatest disadvantage of full-frame sensors and the greatest advantage of small sensors. Regardless of future technological developments, cameras with full frame sensors will always cost much more than cameras with smaller sensors. That’s why the EOS Digital Rebel XT, EOS 20D and EOS 30D are such excellent values, and it is also why the EOS 5D and the EOS-1Ds Mark II must come with a substantial price differential. (Interestingly, the APS-H sensor of the EOS-1D Mark II N is the largest size that can be imaged in one shot onto a wafer. Extended through the whole sensor production process, the difference in price between the 1D Mark II N and the 1Ds Mark II can be readily understood.)”

The White Paper on Canon Full frame CMOS sensor can be download here.

www.DigitalCamerainfo.com has an excellent head on comparison between the Nikon D200 and the Canon EOS 5D. Although they did not give their own recommended conclusion, they did highlight the advantages and disadvantage of each camera.

Here is the their conclusion

“We elected to debut our Head-to-Head review format with a comparison of the Nikon D200 and Canon EOS 5D - the latest designs by the two premiere DSLR manufacturers. Again, we chose the Canon EOS 5D and not the EOS 30D because the 30D internals are over a year and a half old, while the 5D much more accurately illustrates where Canon is in their developmental progression. In comparing these cameras, many core differences between Nikon and Canon’s approach becomes apparent. Canon has directed their efforts towards developing and engineering the camera’s internal components – manufacturing most of their own parts, particularly their sensors, and concentrating on high ISO performance, dynamic range, and obviously high resolution. Nikon on the other hand, has focused more on furthering the general design of the camera – engineering fast, reliable autofocus, flexible metering, logical control layout, and advanced flash capabilities. Both the D200 and EOS 5D have a lot to offer consumers: high resolution, strong dynamic range, fast internal processors, and extensive control at price points that would have been impossible just a year or two ago. However, neither presents a perfect camera.

These two models stand to represent the leading DSLR manufacturers and indicate that professional-level quality is now accessible to general consumers. Nikon has voiced that they will remain with APS-sized sensors, alluding to less expensive models than Canons counterparts; while Canon will continue to develop their full-frame designs and at least for the time being, offer an advantage at high sensitivities. Although there is a significant degree of differentiation in these two particular models and each manufacturer’s current design ideology, both represent remarkable breakthroughs in their own right that continue to force the rest of the industry to play catch-up.”

My bet is the more affordable Nikon D200. Click here for the full review

Jeff Keller from Dcresource has an excellent review on the much anticipated Canon 30D. Although the Canon 30D is an upgraded 20D, the improvements are not as large as the Nikon D200 is to the Nikon D100. Beside the softer images and a less bright LCD, the Canon 30D still gets a top rating from Jeff. Here’s a conclusion of his review.

“The Canon EOS-30D is an excellent midrange digital SLR. While it’s new features aren’t exciting enough to get this 20D owner to run out and upgrade, those who are moving up from point-and-shoot or entry-level D-SLRs should definitely give the 30D a look.

As always, I strongly recommend trying the EOS-30D and its competitors before you drop the big bucks on a digital SLR! “

Click here for the full review.

It seems the banding issue is not just related to the Nikon D200 but also with Canon, Especially the 5D. This is the comment on the Canon 5D banding issue by Chuck Westfall, Director/Media & Customer Relationship Camera Marketing Group/Canon U.S.A., Inc.

“Hi, Folks:

That is all the information we have at present. If there is anything else, we will pass it along.”

It’s great to see Canon admitting to the problem.

Source

There are numerous talks about the quality of noise on the Nikon D200 at the high ISO end of the range and whether it will match the low noise level of the Canon 20D or even the Canon 5D. With a few pictures circulating around, the high ISO at 3200 taken at the Sinjuku Nikon Center using the Nikon D200 seems impressive. The only problem is the camera has not been released yet.

The Canon 5D on the otherhand has been released and is already out in the market. Below are images taken using the Canon 5D at the high ISO 3200 range using a 17-40L @ 17mm lens at f4. 1/13 second. The picture used for the test was shot in RAW and converted using Canon DPP… resized to fit.

Below is a pictures of the Canon 5D shot at ISO 3200 and for all purposes it seems very impressive as well. Judge for yourself.

The picture is unprocessed and further below are 7 pictures of the same image shown above at 100% crop.

Crop 1: Canon 5D - ISO 3200

Crop 2: Canon 5D - ISO 3200

Crop 3: Canon 5D - ISO 3200

Crop 4: Canon 5D - ISO 3200

Crop 5: Canon 5D - ISO 3200

Crop 6: Canon 5D - ISO 3200

Crop 7: Canon 5D - ISO 3200

Many people think that a full frame sensor is the way to go in digital photography; however there are many disadvantages that are not apparent. If you plan to buy a full frame digital camera, then you have to buy new digital full frame lenses as you cannot use the smaller “digital” lenses currently in the market. Just look at the test of the Canon EOS 5D as evidence.

Normal to wide angle lenses has “light fall off” (or “vignetting”) at wide apertures, this is only normal. Vignetting is exaggerated by the full frame digital sensors because the sensors needs the light entering straight on instead of at an angle and thus the edge sharpness gets poorer. Therefore the edge of the image will experience softness and chromatic aberration unless good quality lens are used.

The truth is that Full Frame is not the answer to the perfect digital camera. With so much development with nornal APS or cropped sensors, the advantages of full frame aren’t as attractive as they may have been. The current APS sensors already exceed most users’ needs for 90% of shooting and can produce fabulous large prints up to A1 or even A30 for half the price or less.

I suspect manufacturers will continue to produce APS or cropped sensor SLRs for the foreseeable future with decent resolution from 8-12 megapixels and reasonable noise performance up to ISO 3200.

The smaller image circle relative to the lens mount will make lenses of all kinds easier and cheaper to build and more economical to buy without major sacrifices in performance. Canon may forge on, but whether Nikon (smaller lens mount), Minota (need room for anti-shake within image circle) or Pentax (dont make pro SLRs - have MF for that) follow suit is another issue.

Olympus have already decided that 4/3 is the optimum sensor size for a standard 35mm lens mount (their 4/3 mount is almost identical to Canon in size terms) and looking at the E500 shots I can understand their point.

The advantages of full framed are nice on paper, but you will always pay a price premium in glass if not in the body.