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

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature 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
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!