Can't believe the 40D's ISO performance


Recommended Posts

Here are 2 shots with my 40D and 70-200 F4. Shot on M, 1/320, F/4 ISO3200, no flash. I tried my 50/1.8 and it wasn't bad, but my keeper rate is around 60% with it vs 80% with the 70-200. Only thing I hate about the 40D is the LCD. At home, i thought that most of the pics were out of focus...

A little bit of Neat Image later....

img0448editedsl3.jpg

img0452editedjpgye9.jpg

Compared to my old Nikon D50 at ISO 1600 after neat image.... Its a hell of a lot noiser and the colors are a off a lot more (AWB on both). Never would have thought there would have been this much of an improvement

dsc2600filtered2yx4.jpg

Great shots! You should try using some strobes to help with crappy gym lighting. ;)

The 50 1.8's focusing would be far too slow for sports. USM definitely helped you out here. Are you using AI Servo?

AI Servo, center point only.

I actually had my flash with me and bounced off the ceiling, but my shutter speed dropped from 6fps to like 2, so I decided against it.

All things considered, the 50/1.8 is fine for occasional use, and I'll use it if needed, especially in the dark fieldhouses for indoor track. I mean a lot of the out of focus was error on my part (picture not centered, which is easy to do when you are using only a 50mm lens) and I found that AI focus had a better keeper rate witht he 50

An example of a good shot from the 50

img03881filtereddw5.jpg

the tc are really only optimal using on big primes like 300, 400 f2.8 or 500, 600 f4. if u search hard enough u can see alot of post regarding 70-200 with 1.4 and 2 and the problems related to each one. then again if u are on budget, it's probably the only reasonable way to go. for me, i would use 70-200 and save up for something longer if i need something longer, eg, 100-400 or 300 f2.8 or 400 f2.8 or etc etc.. then again if u only use ur pics for web, even a 70-200 on a 2x tc would look more than fine. get wat works for ya and ur pocket. i know people that even shoot a 70-200 f4 on stack tcs and Mfing birds in flight. lol.

It's really not fair to compare the D50 to the 40D, even if the numbers are close in the model name. I can't believe the ISO performance of the D300 at ISO 6400. ;)

+1

Also, in the top pics, the D50 looks more luminous :p but has more noise to. The 40Ds seem a BIT too dark for me, perhaps stop or more of exposure compensation would help :)

It's really not fair to compare the D50 to the 40D, even if the numbers are close in the model name. I can't believe the ISO performance of the D300 at ISO 6400. ;)

D300 does give great ISO performance, but then again you're paying quite a bit more for it. ;) (which is not to say that the 40D takes a backseat for its noise handling)

I'd still rather take a 5D as I don't shoot sports. :p

D300 does give great ISO performance, but then again you're paying quite a bit more for it. ;) (which is not to say that the 40D takes a backseat for its noise handling)

I'd still rather take a 5D as I don't shoot sports. :p

Yes, you are paying more for it but you are also getting better build quality and a lot of other features that the 40D doesn't have. I'd gladly pay the price tag for the D300 with the battery grip and not even think twice about it. It's a very stable camera and Nikon currently has a better offering in the prosumer range right now even though it is expensive.

The 40D feels more flimsy in my hands compared to the D300 but I won't deny that the 40D is a great camera. The D300 is an overall better camera, even if not by an incredibly huge margin.

Yes, you are paying more for it but you are also getting better build quality and a lot of other features that the 40D doesn't have. I'd gladly pay the price tag for the D300 with the battery grip and not even think twice about it. It's a very stable camera and Nikon currently has a better offering in the prosumer range right now even though it is expensive.

The 40D feels more flimsy in my hands compared to the D300 but I won't deny that the 40D is a great camera. The D300 is an overall better camera, even if not by an incredibly huge margin.

It definitely is the better of the two cameras, but the features you get are again dependent on your budget and your needs. For some, the $1800 price point for the body alone may well be worth it if you require them. For others though, not so much.

As a hobbyist, I'm pretty satisfied with the output of images I get. (as will most others using any modern DSLR; as is Brandon with his 40D--was it necessary to bring up a competing body?)

For me? I personally am waiting to go FF in the next few years and will be watching the market to see how it fares. Still waiting on a competitor from Nikon for the Canon 5D atm. ;)

What's the final word though? It's the images that you get out of the cameras and you can't deny that they're both marvelous. I'm pretty confident that if a random pool of images were chosen from select professional photographers using the 40D and D300, you'd be hard pressed to notice a difference or identify which is which. Let me take out a quote from you in another thread:

I'd rather not stand around and talk like I know what I am doing. I will let my pictures do the talking. As I said before, I have taken better pictures with a point and shoot camera than what some people can take with their expensive DSLRs. It takes a lot more than fancy equipment or an education in order for someone to be great at photography. It reminds me of this guy I know who has 2 bachelor degrees and talks so highly of himself and his achievements, yet he bags groceries for a living because he doesn't know how to apply himself or his education correctly. Talk is cheap.

Amen. (Y)

It definitely is the better of the two cameras, but the features you get are again dependent on your budget and your needs. For some, the $1800 price point for the body alone may well be worth it if you require them. For others though, not so much.

As a hobbyist, I'm pretty satisfied with the output of images I get. (as will most others using any modern DSLR; as is Brandon with his 40D--was it necessary to bring up a competing body?)

For me? I personally am waiting to go FF in the next few years and will be watching the market to see how it fares. Still waiting on a competitor from Nikon for the Canon 5D atm. ;)

What's the final word though? It's the images that you get out of the cameras and you can't deny that they're both marvelous. I'm pretty confident that if a random pool of images were chosen from select professional photographers using the 40D and D300, you'd be hard pressed to notice a difference or identify which is which. Let me take out a quote from you in another thread:

Amen. (Y)

I hear ya, different cameras have different features for different needs. I know that I would definitely use the hell out of the D300 in many different ways. Not only that, it's really the best option I have without converting over to the Canon system when I have almost $3,000 into my gear already. I really like Nikon glass though and the D300 is definitely a suitor for my needs and a camera with a lot of room to grow into. It could very well end up being my camera of choice for 5 years solid unless I wear out the shutter.

We'll see what the future holds, that's for sure.

That's amazing! You can see defects in the shadows around the faces, but still, short exposure!

I've been using my EOS Elan 7 film camera for too longz... I could use these lenses with a new digital camera... but nah, I'm not likley to, I don't have time for that anymore :)

It's really not fair to compare the D50 to the 40D, even if the numbers are close in the model name. I can't believe the ISO performance of the D300 at ISO 6400. ;)

Well I had a D50 prior to moving over to Canon, and the D50 was supposed to have this great ISO performance (as I was told?)

I'm still learning the Canon thing. Took me forever to realize how to adjust the aperture in M mode (the on off switch)

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • This is why science is the only path to truth. It isn't rigid in its beliefs, rather it changes its views based on scientific discoveries.
    • A 13 billion year old secret about our Universe's origin was revealed by Sayan Sen Image by Pascal Küffer via Pexels Researchers at the Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK) in Heidelberg had recreated a key chemical reaction from the early universe, producing results that could change scientists' understanding of how the first stars formed. The study focused on the helium hydride ion (HeH⁺), which is widely regarded as the first molecule to form in the universe. Scientists believe HeH⁺ appeared around 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe had cooled enough for electrons and atomic nuclei to combine into neutral atoms in a period known as recombination. This marked the beginning of chemistry in the cosmos. Immediately after the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As it expanded and cooled, hydrogen and helium became the dominant elements. Once neutral helium atoms formed, they could react with ionised hydrogen nuclei, or protons, to create helium hydride ions. Although simple in structure, HeH⁺ played an important role in the young universe. It was the first step in a chain of reactions that eventually produced molecular hydrogen (H₂), a molecule made up of two hydrogen atoms and now the most abundant molecule in the universe. Molecular hydrogen later became a key ingredient in the formation of the first stars. At the time, the universe had entered a phase often called the cosmological "dark age." Matter had become transparent to light following recombination, but there were still no stars or galaxies producing visible light. Several hundred million years would pass before the first stars appeared. For those first stars to form, large clouds of gas had to collapse under their own gravity. To do that, the gas needed to cool by releasing energy. While hydrogen atoms can help with this process at high temperatures, they become less effective below about 10,000 degrees Celsius. Molecules can continue the cooling process by releasing energy through rotational and vibrational motions. Scientists have long considered HeH⁺ a potentially important coolant because of its comparatively large dipole moment, a property that describes how electric charge is distributed within a molecule and allows it to release energy efficiently. The amount of helium hydride present in the early universe may therefore have influenced how easily the first stars could form. At the same time, HeH⁺ was constantly being destroyed. Under primordial conditions, its main destruction mechanisms were recombination with free electrons and chemical reactions with hydrogen atoms. These reactions ultimately helped produce molecular hydrogen, linking the formation and destruction of HeH⁺ to the chemistry that shaped the early universe. For many years, theoretical studies suggested that reactions between HeH⁺ and hydrogen atoms would become much slower at low temperatures. Scientists believed there was an energy barrier along the reaction pathway that reduced the chances of the reaction taking place in the cold conditions of the early universe. The new study suggests otherwise. To investigate the process, researchers recreated a closely related reaction using deuterium, a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen that contains one proton and one neutron in its nucleus. When HeH⁺ collides with deuterium, it forms an HD⁺ ion and a neutral helium atom. This allows scientists to study the reaction in a controlled way while closely mimicking the behaviour of the original reaction involving hydrogen. The experiments were carried out at the Cryogenic Storage Ring (CSR) at MPIK, a specialised facility designed to recreate conditions similar to those found in space. Researchers stored HeH⁺ ions in the 35-metre storage ring for up to 60 seconds at temperatures just a few kelvins above absolute zero and merged them with a beam of neutral deuterium atoms. By adjusting the speeds of the two particle beams, the team measured how the reaction rate changed with collision energy, which is directly related to temperature. The researchers found that the reaction rate remains almost constant as temperatures decrease. In other words, the reaction does not slow down at low temperatures as earlier models predicted. “Previous theories predicted a significant decrease in the reaction probability at low temperatures, but we were unable to verify this in either the experiment or new theoretical calculations by our colleagues,” explained Dr Holger Kreckel of MPIK. “The reactions of HeH⁺ with neutral hydrogen and deuterium therefore appear to have been far more important for chemistry in the early universe than previously assumed,” he continued. According to the researchers, the reaction appears to be barrierless, meaning there is no energy obstacle preventing it from taking place efficiently even at very low temperatures. The findings support recent theoretical work led by physicist Yohann Scribano, whose group identified an error in a widely used potential energy surface, a mathematical model used to describe how the energy of a system changes during a chemical reaction. The error appears to have caused previous studies to significantly underestimate reaction rates under primordial conditions. The new calculations closely match the experimental results. Together, they suggest that helium chemistry in the early universe may need to be re-evaluated. Because molecules such as HeH⁺ and molecular hydrogen played an important role in cooling primordial gas clouds, the findings could help scientists build more accurate models of how the first stars formed. By showing that helium hydride was likely destroyed more efficiently than previously thought, the study offers new insight into the chemical processes that shaped the universe during its earliest stages and helped set the conditions for the emergence of the first stars. Source: Max-Planck Institute, EDP Sciences This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "What an interesting smell you've discovered"
    • It could EASILY be 70 for the base game BUT + lots of FOMO to make it up to 100-120, like a few days Early Access, online money, pre-order bonus cars, weapons, missions, clothing, avatars or profile stuff, etc... And still WAY TOO MANY people would buy those and make Rockstar insane money.
    • Just to understand: your solution to getting rid of an online password manager is...another online password manager?
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      DrWankel earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      DrWankel earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      Supreme Spray LV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Genuinetonerink- Dubai earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      164
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      92
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!