File :-(, x, )
Question about going from XTi to 40D Anonymous
I have amassed enough funds to upgrade to a 40D if I sell my current camera, the XTi.

My question is will I see an appreciable difference in ISO performance? Inb4pixelpeepingfaglololol

I do alot of natural light and my go-to lens is my 24mm f/1.4. But once stopped down, I usually have to go to 1600 all the time to get good speeds. And I'm really not too fond of using high ISO on the XTi.

So pretty much, I just want to know if there will be a nice upgrade in control over noise?

Picture related to show how XBOX HUEG the 40D is compared to the XTi. I won't need the battery grip anymore to hold it correctly.
>> hekrob !NpuBFNCrvo
from what i've heard, and from samples i've seen, the 40D offers a minimal improvement in noise performance, if at all.
instead i would recommend waiting until the 5D successor comes out, and then getting a 5D since the price will be significantly lower then
>> Anonymous
Think you should save your money instead, even though I use Nikons (D3, D300s...) as workhorses, I have a 40D for a toy, with the 50mm f1.4, it's good but don't think it's worth the upgrade from your position.
>> Anonymous
Oh well, I can't spend over $2,000 for a 5D. :/

I'm fine with the XTi for everything else. I just want better ISO performance but looks like that can't be had with a 40D.
>> Anonymous
The 40D is probably half a stop better in high iso noise performance, but since it's a toy, I'm not exactly sure how it compareds to the 400D.

I know my Nikons though of course.
>> Anonymous
Sorry, I'm not technical enough to know half a stop for shutter speed. I know 2.8 to 4.0 is one stop though, I use that chart on Wikipedia.

Does that mean instead of 1/60, I would get 1/80? And from 1/60 to 1/100 would be a full stop?

I get 1/60 right now and it's not enough, 1/100 would be great.
>> Anonymous
No, the exposure stops have nothing to do with it at all.

Ok, look at my photo, this one here:>>244939, it's shot at 400iso, and it's with the D300, on the D3, the noise levels at 1600iso would be similar to that of the D300 at 400iso (i think it's in between though but for comparison's sake), so I'd say the D3 is 2 stops better in iso performance than the D300.

So what I said about the 40D would be about half a stop better noise performance than the 400D.
>> Anonymous
40d will magically make your bland pictures more exciting.

keep your body and buy glass
>> hekrob !NpuBFNCrvo
>>244947
expanding on this: the 40D and the XTi share the same sensor, so any noise performance is probably much more related to software noise reduction than to any physical advantage
>> Anonymous
>>244959

I have no idea what you just said. I just want faster shutter speeds without going to 1600.

>>244961

That's what I've been doing... That's why I have the 24/1.4.
>> Anonymous
>>244973

No, it's not.

The XTi uses the AF sensor from the 30D. The 20D, 30D and 40D are using the same CMOS sensor.

The Rebel, the Rebel XT and the Rebel XTi use the same CMOS sensor, which is not the one found in the 40D et al.
>> Anonymous
>>244974
shutter speed at iso 1600 is shutter speed at iso 1600
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>244973
>the 40D and the XTi share the same sensor, so any noise performance is probably much more related to software noise reduction than to any physical advantage
Canon has claimed improved microlenses on the 40D's sensor, which gives you a few more photons. If nothing else, the 40D has the advantage that you can shoot at speeds like ISO640 if, say, you need a little bit more than ISO400 but don't want the noise of ISO800.

>>244975
I think you're confusing autofocus sensors and the camera's main imaging sensor. The Rebel, XT, and XTi can't be using the same sensor since they're 6mp, 8mp, and 10mp respectively. Same for the two digit line (though I think the 20D and 30D really did have the same sensor in 'em)

Though even then, the 40D has better AF sensors than the 30D did. All of the 40D's AF points are cross-sensors, whereas the 30D only had the center AF point cross. So I really don't know what you're talking about.
>> Anonymous
>>245098If nothing else, the 40D has the advantage that you can shoot at speeds like ISO640 if, say, you need a little bit more than ISO400 but don't want the noise of ISO800.

Those speeds are interpolated and even worse than pushing and pulling yourself in Photoshop later on.

>>245098I think you're confusing autofocus sensors and the camera's main imaging sensor.

Uh, no I'm not.

See>>244975for sensor breakdown.

>> The Rebel, XT, and XTi can't be using the same sensor since they're 6mp, 8mp, and 10mp respectively.

Newsflash, they are using the same sensor, through and through. Second newsflash, you can keep the same sensor and increase resolution.

>> Though even then, the 40D has better AF sensors than the 30D did. All of the 40D's AF points are cross-sensors, whereas the 30D only had the center AF point cross.

Hey, you know how to read my post in>>245086. Congrats, man.

>> So I really don't know what you're talking about.

No, _you_ don't know what you're talking about.
>> Anonymous
>>245287
I don't know what definition of 'same' you're using, but mine doesn't cover sensors with varying pixel densities.
>> Anonymous
>>244940
To OP:

I sold my 400D to get a 40D. Noisewise, there really isnt much difference. But I do appreciate having the option of ISO 3200 if needed. Its noisy as fuck, but it has turned out to be useful.

Was it worth it? Fuck yeah. (inb4 get good glass)
1. AF is noticeably faster
2. Brighter viewfinder. I do a lot of low light shooting and this helps a fucking lot.
3. I have big hands and the 400D's size really wasnt working for me. I like the heft of the 40D. This is extremely subjective, you're just gonna have to try a 40D out and feel it. Sold my 400D to a friend and when he used my 40D, he wanted to sell the 400D too. Shake wise, I also find that the extra mass helps. On the same lens, I find that i take 50% less shaky shots with the 40D than with the XTi.
4. Partial weather sealing is okay too. Means I can shoot in light drizzles or in fog with no fear that h2o will ruin my camera.
5. The price of the 40D right now is more or less equal to the price I paid for my 400D 1 year ago.
6. Two wheels, fuck yeah.
7. 150,000 shutter clicks. Doesnt make you take better photos but value wise, I can get three times the life out of my 40D than my 400D which cost the same.
8. Also, 1000D is going to kill 400D resale value which is why I had to sell it fast.
>> Anonymous
>>245386
Also, FWIW, the 40D doesnt seem to underexpose photos like the 400D. I used to have to batch process all my 400D shots in Photoshop/Lightroom because it tends to underexpose. Not so much with the 40D.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>245287
>Second newsflash, you can keep the same sensor and increase resolution.
Please explain this statement more. I honestly can't see how you can rationalize it.
EOS 300D sensor: 6 megapixel
EOS 400D sensor: 10 megapixel
You obviously don't mean *same* same, since resolution is a physical property of the chip and not like a firmware trick. So I thought maybe you meant "Same technology", but the 400D's sensor is a couple of generations more advanced (easy proof: They have about the same noise characteristics despite the 300D being 1.8mp/cm^2 and the 400D being 3.2mp/cm^2). So what do you mean? That they both use CMOS sensors? By that logic, every Canon DSLR from the D30 to the 1Ds Mk III use the "same sensor".

So, what do you mean by "same"?
>> Anonymous
>>245467

Hes probaly meaning theyre using the same size, aps-c, although he sounds like a tard.
>> Anonymous
I wish at least one company would make a sensor that has awesome noise performance and awesome dynamic range at the expense of resolution at a comfortable 6 or 8 megapixels. Come on, Fuji! Put it in the S6 Pro body which could be based on the D300 and see many Nikon users flock to it and convince the big companies that professionals and advanced amateurs won't be fooled by the HURR DURR Megapixels!
>> Anonymous
>>245485
Once we get to high enough resolutions, 4 pixels could then be put together to act as one. This effectively quadruples the light sensitivity per pixel. Astronomers have done this for years.
http://www.ccd.com/ccd103.html
>> Anonymous
bayer sensors are so 1990s

the future are larger and full size foveon type sensors that see in full color

i called it here first
>> Anonymous
>>245496
foveon sensors are shit
>> Anonymous
foveon type, you idiot

it's inherently superior and if you can't accept it, you're just an idiot
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>245515
It's better in theory, but it's never really worked out to be that big a difference. We're pretty damn good at the Bayer pattern, seems like. I was talking earlier at a family reunion to a crazy uncle who's an electrical engineer who did some contract work for Sigma on the foveon, so he's well acquainted with the technicals. Basically the idea's a whole lot better on paper than it works out IRL.

And dude, get a used 5D from keh.com for like $1700. If you have the 24L, that lens deserves to be on full frame.
>> Anonymous
>>245515
butthurt
>> Anonymous
>>245490
is the implementation of binning limited to the hardware? would there actually be any use in trying to emulate it with software?
>> hekrob !NpuBFNCrvo
>>245538
well when you resize a picture it tends to reduce noise but i doubt it's the same thing
>> Anonymous
>>245538
It's called Tone Mapping