Is there any truth in this statement

ray · 21-05-2008, 09:02

I read in a magazine, a person ask about upgrading from the 350D to the 40D and the answer he got was this

Upgrade to the 40D because of the features, you won't see an IQ improvement

is that true it seems a lot of money to pay for features...Ray

**stepheno** · 21-05-2008, 09:12

There is a grain of truth in that, Ray. All DSLRs have excellent IQ these days and the differences are debateable to the average eye. To you and me the difference in IQ is probably not noticeable until you start cropping in tight.

You need to ask yourself the question, are the new features worth it to you. Stuff like start-up time, burst rate, AF points etc.

ray · 21-05-2008, 09:18

Well as yet stephano no there not, but when i get my head round the camera i might think different

jake · 21-05-2008, 11:12

Of course you need the new camera Ray. Just think how many times you need to phtograph that black cat at midnight just as a moth is flying by at the speed of sound whilst someone is shaking you violently

I'm all for making life easier but they used to say 90% of photographs are taken between f5.6 and f11 and between 1/50sec to 1/500sec and that is still true today. Just think how much more you have on your existing camera that you don't use.
Looking around at my aquaintances the camera gear reflects their buying power more than the images they produce.

Rob Barron · 21-05-2008, 11:14

There are various things to consider when purchasing a decent dSLR, not just the quality of the pictures it can produce. The first I guess is 'How easy is it to produce the good pictures?' as you can probably produce the same but with one it is a lot more work.

Personally I am not a lover of the xxxD cameras but it has nothing to do with their image quality. As Stepheno said, they are all capable of excellent pictures. I don't like the size of them purely because I have fairly large hands and the buttons are all too close and fiddly for someone like me. I also like the build quality of the 40D which is definitely better and has improved weather sealing. The menu system is also much easier to access and navigate quickly.

That is by no means all the differences, I guess I am just encouraging you to think about the camera as a whole and how it will be in use, not only on the end results obtainable.

Cheers,
Rob

ray · 21-05-2008, 12:25

Thanks Rob im a bit confused with it yet but ill get there

**Sonsey** · 21-05-2008, 23:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by ray

I read in a magazine, a person ask about upgrading from the 350D to the 40D and the answer he got was this

Upgrade to the 40D because of the features, you won't see an IQ improvement

is that true it seems a lot of money to pay for features...Ray

As Stepheno says, there is a grain of truth to it but it's not entirely accurate.

I upgraded from the 350D to the 40D, and while the 350D produced some excellent results for me I have found the image quality of the 40D to be better, not by a huge amount by any means but it is noticeable, most likely due to the 40D's 14bit colour processing.

When you say that it's a lot of money just for features I have to disagree there. To me a camera is just a tool to capture images, the difference between them (and what your really paying for) is the many various features the manufactures add on to them to allow you to capture those images in differing ways and conditions that the cheaper models just arn't capable of on a consistent basis.

Just my way of looking at it

talk2me9 · 21-05-2008, 23:29

Ray
I have recently moved from a 350D to a 40D. To be honest I think it depends on what type of pictures you are taking rather than the quality. I did my first wedding a few weeks ago and I was so glad I had the 40D because of the build, ease of navigation, speed etc. If I am taking a landscape on a tripod however I reckon the 350D is just as good because quick navigation or build is not necessarily an issue; its about composition and those type of skills and the 350D is a brilliant camera. You will see an improvement in IQ with the 40D but you really have to get to know the camera to tweak the quality. so if you have the money go for it but otherwise concentrate on getting the best you can out of the 350D. I had the money...briefly and now it is gone! Now I need more because if you move to the 40D the battery is different, lense diameters are different etc etc so some of the stuff you had with the 350D is nolonger compatible!
Let us know what you decide and if you think you have made the right choice!
Andy

Soupdragon · 22-05-2008, 06:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sonsey

it is noticeable, most likely due to the 40D's 14bit colour processing.

Can you really see a difference between 12 and 14bit?
This was one of the first things I tried and I'm blowed if I can see it.

Boofers · 22-05-2008, 12:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soupdragon

Can you really see a difference between 12 and 14bit?
This was one of the first things I tried and I'm blowed if I can see it.

Soupy, I'm glad you brought that up, that's what I have been watching,,,,

20D and still happy,,

M1ke A · 22-05-2008, 12:31

Broadly agree with all that has been said here, but here's my 2p worth.

Comparing pure IQ of a controlled scene shot with the two bodies probably won't come up with much difference.

However the extra features, easy of use, superior focusing facilities and better build quality are highly likely to increase your number of keepers, depending upon what you shoot.

I personally find the xxxD bodies too small and noddy to use and even my 20D is uncomfortable without the battery grip.

Having just got a 5d, its IQ is great

but I've had the (servo) focus struggle quite badly on some stuff. My 1D2n just works in the same situations....

It's horses for courses. If you aren't shooting fast paced / constantly changing environments, then it's probably not worth changing. If on the other hand you are shooting sports for example, then the better bodies are the way to go. - How many xxxD bodies do you see attached to big white lenses at sports events?

**Markulous** · 22-05-2008, 12:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by M1ke A

How many xxxD bodies do you see attached to big white lenses at sports events?

Ahhh, now I see where I went wrong!

Actually, I do agree with everything you said. I've had some OK shots from my 2MP mobile phone (latest here: So who needs a dSLR?) and my best shots with my 3.4MP Sigma SD10 (the vast majority of those in my Gallery). Neither have any bells or whistles - SD10 is RAW only but other than that is very basic (which is why I got it)

I'm now using a 350D and quality is trailing my SD10 but it's more consistent and reliable - and switching manufacturer has opened up the future possibilities

A 'better' camera may not give you a great image but may improve your chances of getting one.
In the same way, a 'better' lens may also widen your options