|
|
Selection Criteria
I got my Canon EOS 400D Combo (EFS 10-22 USM & EFS 17-85 IS USM) about a year ago and it worked fine for everyday snaps. However, I do find its limitation when it goes to serious work during a wedding event that requires more accurate auto focusing capability and flash exposures under some low light indoor environment. I decided an upgrade and enhanced my combo for some serious work while maintening portability. Canon EOS 40D, Canon EOS 5D and Nikon D300 are in my list.
While 5D produced the best image quality in my eyes, its AF is not functioning as effective as 40D, it requires an external flash unit in order to assist on low light AF and provide filled light. The Nikon D300 is a more comparable choice, but it does cost $600 more on the body and I also need a Nikkor zoom lens (in addition to my prime collections) to meet the requirements for the exercise. After further investigation, 40D is the best choice in this situation, it works very well with my existing lenses 10-22 USM & 17-85 IS USM.
Now here is my ratings (5 is the highest mark):
Image quality: 40D=4, 5D=4.5, D300=3.5
Features: 40D=4, 5D=3, D300=4.5
Portability: 40D=4, 5D=3, D300=4
Ease of use: 40D=4, 5D=3, D300=4
Construction: 40D=4, 5D=4, D300=4
Value for money: 40D=4, 5D=4, D300=4
Overall: 40D=24, 5D=21.5, D300=24
Please be reminded that, the ranking here is totally a subjective perception, make your own judge and take your own risk if you take this serious in decision making .... :P
Taking a second thought, 5D is a nice camera delivers excellent details and DOF effect over a FF body, though 2-years behind in features, it probably the best camera at this resolution (well, but still a bit pricey) for landscape work and studio portrait on the right hands (I got a 5D too, see also Canon EOS 5D - Dark Angel in Digital Photography). Notice that 40D and D300 are in the same mark, but D300 is more expensive, Nikon managed to pack a set of rich features into D300, that would be very helpful and convenient, but not really critical to me (these built-in features may make the D300 looks more likely a point & shoot camera that may create lazy photographers, let the camera makes all the decisions?).
*** All I need is a balanced features camera to have my work done at the best pricing, that is Canon 40D in this case. ***
First Touch
40D has a bigger body, I find it fitting well in my hands, it still maintains portability, I don't have problem to bring the new combos during travel and outdoor works. 40D works responsively, AF always provides instant focus lock and performs much better under low light over 400D. Flash exposures are in accurate result.
How did it work in the wedding event? It delivered very nice result with my 17-85 IS USM in terms of AF and sharpness, locked at f/8, iso400 (considered as a noise free sensitivity level) with filled flash. In fact, at f/8, 40D & 17-85 IS produces very sharp out of camera images, I would have to set it wide open at f/4 or f/5.6 to keep it a bit soft in order to prevent "defeats on face" from being noticeable .....
can it be better? yes, it saves me some processing work for white balance correction if custom white balance was used for indoor shots. And perhaps, I would have more consistent result if I could have the 24-105 to shoot fixed at f/4 during the indoor session, even better, if I could have a 50/1.4 prime shoot wide open at f/2 & f/2.8 for some close up portrait, guess that would make a real difference? I will tell you later .... :P
Inspiration
I would say 40D is the best choice for serious amateurs at this moment for its price level, overall capability, performance and image quality, particularly, I don't have hesitation to shoot default at iso400, iso800 delivers very good result, iso1600 is also very usable. That is at least one-stop over the 400D in higher iso performance. I do test drive 40D at iso3200 and spent sometimes to play around the RAW (and you better shoot RAW!) conversion features provided by Canon DPP (Digital Photo Professional) program come with my 40D, it is a handy tools that provides some simple options, including exposure compensation & noise reduction. With proper exposure and handling in DPP, the image from Canon EOS 40D at iso3200 and iso6400 (check the samples pictures) can be also usable. In fact 40D is my first camera that produces images at this level I would keep for further processing work.
So higher iso performance is just a matter of marketing game? or something to do? The higher iso capability definitely gives an overall improvement on photography options. Firstly, at the same exposure amount, a smaller aperture can be used, this ensures subjects are in the DOF coverage for sharpness, it also means a higher shutter speed is possible to freeze actions. Most lenses go to their sweet aperture after stopped down 1-2 stops, the higher iso sensitivity also makes the optimal setup easier. On the other hand, you may use lower speed lens, and thus less investment (Canon, Nikon and all other lenses manufacturers would probably disagree on that .... :P).
Optimization
Am I lucky? Among more than 10 millions pixels, I find there is probably **1** dead pixel on my 40D, well, this spot is not visible in everyday work. I am not intended to call Canon for a new replacement, guess it would be very likely to have a copy with more dead pixels.... :P .... and here is the simple test: put len cap on, iso=100, M focus, 30 second exposure. Then change the level or change the color to gray in PS, view at 100%, then you can find how many dead pixel you have.
I am not intended to make any complaint on the 40D here, but would like to mention that its the 2nd unit I have, loaded with firmware version 1.05. The first unit has dead display in the view finder, it could not show shutter speed properly, I suppose that is manufacturing defeats, Canon has running into trouble with quality control?
Coming back to real life work, I decided to have 40D configuration set for best possible image quality at a trade off the continuous shooting performance (I don't need 6fps at 95% of the time). I would also avoid shooting at iso3200 (huh?! surprised to learn that most pictures in this article were captured at iso3200?!). Now my 40D has the custom function setting "C.Fn II: Image" options all at the value "1", that means, in-camera noise reduction (it does great job, and save time for post processing) is on for long and high ISO speed exposures. The highlight tone priority feature also helps to mainten hightlight details from being over-exposured. I also set my 40D to record RAW + JPEG in creative modes that I used over 95% of the time.
Should you switch too? Don't get me wrong, 400D has its own position, it costs in half price for beginner and good for those want maximum portability for everyday snaps. In fact, I would have my 400D as backup body and keep the 17-85 attached for quick snaps. And the 40D would serve as my main camera with the 10-22 for wide shot (check the sample pictures) that I do about 70% of the time, I am going to share some more work captured from this new 40D wide-combo during a trip soon, come and visit this page a month later you would find more samples.
What Next
40D really opens a new path that Canon is going to win me more on lens investment. I would probably acquire some EF L lens, such as Canon EF 24-105/4L IS USM as default lens on my 40D and Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM lens for lower available light environment.
Why EF L lenses? Though I am not intended to have a Canon FF body in the short future, I expected EF lenses are working better on cropped body like 40D over FF body like 5D concerning vignetting, I also want a high quality lens for serious work on my 40D. In fact, with a EF lens on my 40D, it is running with the best portion of the glass for greater edges and cornors image quality, the problem is more costly.
Why EF 24-105/4L IS USM? This is an interesting lens, though not wide enough on the 40D, I find it a great lens for portrait and outdoor works, in particular, it is sharp wide open at f/4 which I find the best aperture for portrait. It also becomes a nice complementary lens with my 10-22. Some people would prefer the 24-70/2.8, a faster lens in similar range. For my style, I find the extended focal length and IS feature from 24-105 gives more advantages over the 1-stop faster 24-70 at most of the time.
If I have to go into shooting moving subjects or actions, I would always prefer one stop higher usable ISO level (thus double the shutter speed) instead of one stop faster lens, not only because the faster lens is more expensive and bulky, but also a bigger aperture means shallow DOF coverage and subjects are more likely at risk being out of sharpness. Lenses at f/2.8 and faster are good to work with sensors (some work at f/5.6 and some need f/2.8 or faster) for tracking subjects during continuous shooting. Some people would also love to produce special blur background effect given by a very shallow DOF.
And I would have the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM run on my 40D for low light, portrait work or when I need a shallow DOF effect, it will perform nicely at f/2 and f/2.8.
Show Time
People keep asking me where I took these sample pictures? It is around 7 pm at my working place where you can capture some wonderful city light scenes during a 30 mins short trip ...... and check this if you want the answer.
Samples from 40D + 17-85
I tried to challenge the 40D's higher iso performance, the effectiveness of the lens 17-85 IS and myself - point & shoot handheld ability. All sample shots below are straightly out of camera at iso3200, aperture locked at f/8, all others default, only resize and rotation applied by PS. There is some banding effects at this sensitivity level, but you could hardly find that at busy area, iso1600 and lower sensitivity levels.
Some banding/ pattern noise effects at iso3200 and particularly visable in dark sky.
More samples from 40D and 17-85 captured during a recent trip, it is not difficient to find some distortion effect at the wide end.
Samples from 40D + 10-22
I tried further to see how 40D could be achieved at iso3200, these pictures took under a single poor in-door light source. The result is amazing, image were straight from camera in jpeg with in-camera noise reduction. It does great job. The samples were just resized with a simple contrast & USM update in PS:
The 40D & 10-22 delivers very usable wide shots, locked at 10mm f/6.3 iso3200, a cloudy afternoon, there are rich details in the center, edges & corners distortion is acceptable.
What is wrong with this building? zoom in a bit at 12mm, f/11, iso1600, 10-22 delivers much better details and contrast. The distortion can create some funny effect.
40D Usable iso6400?
I managed to shoot at iso3200 and under exposured the image by -2 & -1 stops, then pushed it up again in DPP. It looks like to my eyes that while the -2 stop copy (iso12800?) already run into vanish, the -1 stop copy (iso6400?) still maintains most of details. I believe with a more advanced noise reduction program and addition processing effort, it may be also usable.
Now judge it by your own eyes ..... here is some interesting result as shown below for comparison.
Shoot at iso3200
Shoot at iso3200 -1 stop (push up 1 stop in DPP)
Shoot at iso3200 -2 stop (push up 2 stop in DPP)
100% center crop at iso3200
100% center crop at iso3200 -1 stop (push up 1 stop in DPP)
100% center crop at iso3200 -2 stop (push up 2 stop in DPP)
What about the reverse? The image is at iso3200 and over exposured by +1 stop, yes, it still maintains details. Then it was 1 stop down in DPP. It can hardly tell the difference from the image size for this web article, at 100% crop, the compensated copy running with much less noise, does it just mean that is equivalent to shoot at iso1600?
Shoot at iso3200
Shoot at iso3200 +1 stop (1 stop down in DPP)
100% center crop at iso3200
100% center crop at iso3200 +1 stop (1 stop down in DPP)
|
|