# A Few 60D Specs [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 9, 2010)

```
<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/60d.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-4661" title="60d" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/60d.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="200" /></a></p>
<p><strong>A Couple of Specs

<span style="font-weight: normal;">Received word today of someone seeing a presentation of a pre-production 60D.</span> The entire spec list was not released to the folks being presented to.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Specs:

<span style="font-weight: normal;">18mp (Exact same as the 7D & T2i)

Tilt Screen (No word on size)

“Video Optimized” (I’m going to assume better AF when filming)</span> </strong></p>
<p>More soon.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## tamas (Aug 9, 2010)

I don`t know anything about the specs, but as I see the pic is *fake*. It is a photoshoped *50D*.


----------



## noobie (Aug 9, 2010)

Kind of wish we went back to just comments, no one has anything to say anymore :-\


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 9, 2010)

About what you'd expect. An updated T2i in a xxD body. I'd be surprised if the focusing and metering are anything more than an upgrade.


----------



## Waleed Essam (Aug 9, 2010)

noobie said:


> Kind of wish we went back to just comments, no one has anything to say anymore :-\



Yeah  the comments although had many inappropriate entries, yet was more fun to read and share opinions... now the forum is boring, no one comments anymore, or people are just lazy to go log in and write a comment.

CR guy can't please everyone in the same time though, and can't just keep switching between forum/messages all the time.

About the camera... I pray to god every night it's not 18mpix  I already use my 7D and I love it, but sometimes I wish I can use ISO6400 more confidently than I do now, and stick with APS-C. Seems that this is never happening and I'm forced to go FF with the next 5D or 3D or whatever.


----------



## that1guy (Aug 9, 2010)

Yeah, I'm kinda bummed about the 18mp too. Not that I am planning on buying one, but I worry that it means the trend of increasing mp is still going. I was getting hopeful when they lowered the mp on some of their point and shoot cameras. I guess I just wonder what it means for the whole Canon line. Maybe nothing.

I'm hoping the new 5D (whenever it comes out) doesn't get a huge mp bump. I think it has the perfect # of mp for a ff.


----------



## noobie (Aug 9, 2010)

I'm actually really interested to see the battle between the Nikon D95 and the Canon 60D right now I have the Canon 450 with a good deal of equipment but nothing I wouldn't be willing to shed it Nikon comes out with a very good D95. I would hate to leave the Canon lens line up, so I hope Canon pulls through.


----------



## Woody (Aug 10, 2010)

Let's see: 16 MP Nikon D95 vs 18 MP Canon 60D vs 16 MP Sony A55. Boring...

The specs for 60D seem terribly predictable. Here's hoping Canon brings something new to the table.


----------



## Woody (Aug 10, 2010)

Waleed Essam said:


> Yeah  the comments although had many inappropriate entries, yet was more fun to read and share opinions... now the forum is boring, no one comments anymore, or people are just lazy to go log in and write a comment.



I much prefer this. No more flaming baits. The trolls love it when they can enter unmoderated forums and make their unwanted comments, like what they do in DPReview forums.


----------



## that1guy (Aug 10, 2010)

Woody said:


> Waleed Essam said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah  the comments although had many inappropriate entries, yet was more fun to read and share opinions... now the forum is boring, no one comments anymore, or people are just lazy to go log in and write a comment.
> ...



Yeah, I am enjoying this more. I hardly ever commented before. I really enjoy seeing when new things have been posted (not all forums do that so nice going CR Guy!), and I also enjoy seeing how other people have commented in the past. It can help you figure out if they are full of it or if they are just a complainer. I have also noticed fewer trolls which is great. I don't think its too big of a deal to log in. Plus, now we get fun smilies   ;D   8)


----------



## unfocused (Aug 10, 2010)

I agree with the above comments. Slightly less convenient but worth it not to have to deal with the trolls. And since all your comments get saved it does make you stop and think before spouting off.


----------



## gkreis (Aug 10, 2010)

that1guy said:


> Yeah, I'm kinda bummed about the 18mp too. Not that I am planning on buying one, but I worry that it means the trend of increasing mp is still going. I was getting hopeful when they lowered the mp on some of their point and shoot cameras. I guess I just wonder what it means for the whole Canon line. Maybe nothing.
> 
> I'm hoping the new 5D (whenever it comes out) doesn't get a huge mp bump. I think it has the perfect # of mp for a ff.



Do you feel like you can rely on 3200? From the test shots I have seen in reviews, the noise begins to climb on that sensor quicker after 800 than I have seen with the 40D, 30D... 

Now I have to cross my fingers and hope they have made some substantial change to make it a better performer. But I am not going to hold my breath. Part of it they can't fix... pixel density.


----------



## gkreis (Aug 10, 2010)

unfocused said:


> I agree with the above comments. Slightly less convenient but worth it not to have to deal with the trolls. And since all your comments get saved it does make you stop and think before spouting off.



The old way was awful for finding recent comments. They were buried as replies in threads throughout all the comments. I really like how ALL comments are put at the end of the list as you go.... I guess ideal would have been for them to be keep in the their mini-threads, BUT someone highlighted or indexed so you could always find what you hadn't already seen very easily.


----------



## that1guy (Aug 10, 2010)

chrome_dude said:


> that1guy said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, I'm kinda bummed about the 18mp too. Not that I am planning on buying one, but I worry that it means the trend of increasing mp is still going. I was getting hopeful when they lowered the mp on some of their point and shoot cameras. I guess I just wonder what it means for the whole Canon line. Maybe nothing.
> ...



Which camera are you asking if I feel like I can rely on 3200 on? If you are asking about the 7D, I would definitely say no. If the 5DII then I'd probably say yes. 

I shoot stock photography and they are REALLY picky on the technical end of things. A lot of 7D samples I have seen would not be accepted because of noise. Not saying I couldn't use it, but I don't think it would really help me out in difficult situations. 

If they don't release a new FF camera by the time I actually need a camera, I am thinking of just picking up a 40D as a cheap way to hold me over until a camera I really want comes out. Like you, I think it handles noise very nicely, and you can get them really cheap now.


----------



## Woody (Aug 10, 2010)

chrome_dude said:


> Do you feel like you can rely on 3200? From the test shots I have seen in reviews, the noise begins to climb on that sensor quicker after 800 than I have seen with the 40D, 30D...



NOT true according to the RAW files here:
http://pixinfo.com/cikkek/dslr_evolution.3
with everything upscaled to 40 MP.

The 18 MP 7D/550D sensor trashes ALL older APS-C sensors from low to high ISO. That's why Nikon is going to release a 16 MP D90 update soon. 

Even when the 7D RAW files are compared to the 1Ds3:
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_7d_review.htm

"Surprisingly, the 7D is relatively good in this aspect. It is not as good as the 1DsIII, but the difference is small - I'd say about 0.5 stop - and it is a bit better than the 500D and 50D."

"The 7D seems to capture slightly more detail into highlights (even though it shows a slight magenta cast), while the 1DsIII captures a bit more detail in the shadows - but the differences are so small that in practice you won't see any real difference."

I guess this pixel density myth won't die till the 16 MP Nikon D95 is released.


----------



## Waleed Essam (Aug 10, 2010)

that1guy said:


> chrome_dude said:
> 
> 
> > that1guy said:
> ...



I use the 7D ISO3200 confidently, without even need for NR, or very slight NR applied. When I opened this subject I mentioned I can't use 6400 confidently as I'd like to. I use it, I apply some NR in Topaz De-Noise or Neat Image, but I just don't feel confident to use it every time I want to. So yeah, the ISO3200 on the 7D is very good.

Hope Canon don't mess things up with the 60D being same noise performance as the 7D, coz if Nikon's D95 is actually cleaner AND 16mpix, Canon will really look bad.


----------



## match14 (Aug 10, 2010)

I hope â€œVideo Optimizedâ€ does not take anything away from the cameras ability to take still pictures. I don't mind video on Canon DSLRs just now as it does not cripple the still taking process but if â€œVideo Optimizedâ€ compromises that then I'm not interested. I'm not interested in video capture so would never use movie mode but as I say I don't mind that the facility is there as it stands just now.


----------



## Aputure (Aug 10, 2010)

> About the camera... I pray to god every night it's not 18mpix  I already use my 7D and I love it, but sometimes I wish I can use ISO6400 more confidently than I do now, and stick with APS-C. Seems that this is never happening and I'm forced to go FF with the next 5D or 3D or whatever.



Yeah I also vote for a lower mega pixel sensor. Looks like that rumor of a 14mp sensor might not be true, such a shame. Although the 7D sensor is still the best in the business on APS-C cameras, so I guess you can't complain too much. Swivel screen and video optimization should be very, very cool though.


----------



## Woody (Aug 10, 2010)

Waleed Essam said:


> Hope Canon don't mess things up with the 60D being same noise performance as the 7D, coz if Nikon's D95 is actually cleaner AND 16mpix, Canon will really look bad.



The D95 WILL look cleaner at 16 MP, only because Canon has been totally stubborn and so far, they are the ONLY company that refuses to apply in-camera RAW NR. Nikon (see D90/D5000 vs D300s), Sony and Pentax have all gone down that route.


----------



## lol (Aug 10, 2010)

I'm happy enough with the 7D at ISO3200 so a 60D behaving similar would be ideal as a 2nd body update for me. That alone is enough for me not to consider getting another 50D... the tilt screen would make me really happy


----------



## that1guy (Aug 10, 2010)

This was the sample I had seen a while ago showing the noise difference between the 7D and the 5D mkII. 

http://www.cameratown.com/reviews/canon7d/

As you can see the 7D actually does pretty well. I'm not saying that it doesn't do ok (I think I might have ruffled some feathers before ), I'm just saying that I would prefer something that is better than that. Anyway, going based on arguments, more pixels are better than fewer with low noise. My thought is, why not have more pixels and less noise. I am of the opinion that if you can have less pixel density you will have a better photo. I think that is one of the reasons why the 5DmkII has better image quality. The "more pixels is better crowd" might argue that the 5DII has more pixels, but come on, it is only 3mp more (which isn't that much) and when you look at the pixel level the 5DII really is doing better. 

Another problem with a more tightly packed sensor is diffraction, but that is a whole other topic. I don't know all of the technical end of it, and I don't want to start a big argument, so I'll quit w/ it here. Just wanted to show that the less density/better pixels crowd has a good point too 

The other thing I will throw out there is this...we all have different needs. Some people need a camera that has a better looking image when viewed at 100% (stock photographers would be a good example), other people need a fast performing camera that will get the photo in the instant and make a nice print (wedding photographers great example here). I hope no one thinks I'm bashing one choice over another...just trying to point out why I made mine 

Oh, and I just found one more thing that proved me wrong on an earlier thought I had...DxO Mark is an independent lab that tests camera sensors for all kinds of things (sn ratio, dynamic range, tonal range, color sensitivity, etc). The 7D actually does beat the 40D on most accounts, so that changed my mind there. A 1D mkiv (a camera that came out around the same time so technology is on a more level field) did beat the 7D by quite a margin. Is it better technology, or a less dense sensor, or both? I don't know, food for thought though. If anyone is curious, they can check the DxO site. It is pretty cool, you can compare up to three cameras side by side. Here's the link: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors


----------



## Jan (Aug 10, 2010)

that1guy said:


> If they don't release a new FF camera by the time I actually need a camera, I am thinking of just picking up a 40D as a cheap way to hold me over until a camera I really want comes out. Like you, I think it handles noise very nicely, and you can get them really cheap now.


You're not really saying that a 40D offers better image quality at lets say 3000x2000 px than a 7D, are you? 

Edit: oh, sorry, I didn't read your last post. Never mind.


----------



## Jan (Aug 10, 2010)

Canon Rumors said:


> 18mp (Exact same as the 7D & T2i)


Exact the same as 7D/550D? Wasn't there a difference between these two sensors? I remember having read this somewhere...


----------



## unfocused (Aug 10, 2010)

> Wasn't there a difference between these two sensors?



It appears you are correct. At least, several websites say the sensors are different "according to Canon." However, no one seems to be able to explain what the differences are. Perhaps the difference is that one sensor is in the 7D and one is in the T2i.


----------



## J (Aug 10, 2010)

This is just hearsay, but I recall reading somewhere that the difference was on the back-end. The 7D is dual processor and the T2i is single processor, so the difference is that there are half the data channels (i.e. the sensor outputs data more slowly). Technically that would be a "different" sensor, just not so much regarding IQ.


----------



## Woody (Aug 10, 2010)

that1guy said:


> As you can see the 7D actually does pretty well. I'm not saying that it doesn't do ok (I think I might have ruffled some feathers before ), I'm just saying that I would prefer something that is better than that.



I'm not a big fan of 7D, but it's nothing to do with image quality. So, I am not upset by what you say about the 7D.  However, the belief that high pixel density automatically translates into poorer IMAGE quality is a myth.



that1guy said:


> This was the sample I had seen a while ago showing the noise difference between the 7D and the 5D mkII.
> http://www.cameratown.com/reviews/canon7d/
> ... I think that is one of the reasons why the 5DmkII has better image quality. The "more pixels is better crowd" might argue that the 5DII has more pixels, but come on, it is only 3mp more (which isn't that much) and when you look at the pixel level the 5DII really is doing better.



While the 5D2 may be better because it has a larger sensor (nothing to do with its absolute pixel count), the difference is really not astounding (i.e., definitely not 2 to 3 stops better like what many people think). Let me quote from your web link:

"While the differences aren't HUGE, the 5D Mark II's full-size sensor definitely made a difference at ISO 3200 and beyond. Of course that means both cameras were fairly well matched up through ISO 1600, not an easy feat for an 18MP cropped-sensor camera."

I should also point out that in the above link, the 7D shots are darker (i.e., lower exposure) than the 5D2.



that1guy said:


> Another problem with a more tightly packed sensor is diffraction, but that is a whole other topic. I don't know all of the technical end of it, and I don't want to start a big argument, so I'll quit w/ it here. Just wanted to show that the less density/better pixels crowd has a good point too



That is a myth that can be debunked most easily. If you compare images from the 12 MP 450D against the 18 MP 7D side-by-side, all the way from f/2.8 to f/16 using the same lens,
you'll see they are EQUALLY affected by diffraction beyond f/8. The 7D is not in any way worse. Some other points to note:

(a) diffraction occurs at the lens, and the sensor merely records what has already taken place
(b) diffraction believers forget about the AA filter in front of the sensor, its strength can be lowered with increasing pixel density



that1guy said:


> Oh, and I just found one more thing that proved me wrong on an earlier thought I had...DxO Mark is an independent lab that tests camera sensors for all kinds of things (sn ratio, dynamic range, tonal range, color sensitivity, etc).



DXOMark is full of garbage. Their numbers have no real world meaning (in fact, they contradict what you actually SEE from DPReview etc) and they are not even self-consistent. I do not wish to go into all the gory details here unless you really want me to.


----------



## Woody (Aug 10, 2010)

J said:


> This is just hearsay, but I recall reading somewhere that the difference was on the back-end. The 7D is dual processor and the T2i is single processor, so the difference is that there are half the data channels (i.e. the sensor outputs data more slowly). Technically that would be a "different" sensor, just not so much regarding IQ.



Yes, that is nearly correct. The 7D sensor has two channel outputs for faster frame rate while the T2i only has one.


----------



## that1guy (Aug 11, 2010)

Hey Woody,
I really would be interested in reading more, and seeing more comparisons on diffraction. Everything I have read and seen says that it gets worse on dense sensors, but this is one of those things where I would love to be proven wrong. It would make my life better, especially since it seems sensors are getting packed tighter and tighter these days  Any info, links and photo samples would be appreciated!


----------



## Grendel (Aug 11, 2010)

that1guy -- check Physical Limits in Digital Photography and Lens Diffraction & Photography.

Just know your camera limits and choose your settings wisely


----------



## Woody (Aug 11, 2010)

that1guy said:


> Hey Woody,
> I really would be interested in reading more, and seeing more comparisons on diffraction. Everything I have read and seen says that it gets worse on dense sensors, but this is one of those things where I would love to be proven wrong. It would make my life better, especially since it seems sensors are getting packed tighter and tighter these days  Any info, links and photo samples would be appreciated!



I have tested this before but did not keep the photos. Will do so again. Give me some time.


----------



## that1guy (Aug 11, 2010)

Sounds awesome, thanks for the info you two. Grendel, I will check out the links, Woody, I will check back for your photos. Thanks again


----------



## lol (Aug 11, 2010)

Getting fed up of the endless speculation on diffraction limiting without basis, I actually went and did a practical test on the 50D before the 7D was available. More on it here.

Thinking more, I overlooked one factor in that test... as I was relatively close the magnification should start to contribute:
effective_aperture = physical_aperture * (1+magnification)
While I'm not 100% sure on the physics, the effective aperture value seems to impact the diffraction softening as opposed to the physical aperture value. Only something that becomes significant as the magnification increases so not something you would normally encounter.


----------



## wuschba (Aug 11, 2010)

Wasn't today another possible "announcing-day" for the 60D?! Anything happening?


----------



## visceralpsyche (Aug 11, 2010)

First spy photos are out:

http://bbs.kakaku.com/bbs/00490111139/SortID=11748888/ImageID=709823/

Looks like a significant change on the 50D!

HTH!


----------



## match14 (Aug 11, 2010)

Looks like a dissapointment then if these pictures are real.

Things missing that are on 50D are :-

C1 and C2 on the mode dial only C now

No picture style button

No multi controller for af point selection

Looks like most of these are to be done via the Q menu

Also buttons appear to be scattered around a bit.


----------



## visceralpsyche (Aug 11, 2010)

match14 said:


> No multi controller for af point selection


It looks like the back wheel has a smaller inner ring that might be the multi-controller and an outer ring which behaves like current generation bodies.


----------



## match14 (Aug 11, 2010)

Ah never saw that. Also looks like a push button in the center of the mode dial.


----------



## gkreis (Aug 11, 2010)

Woody said:


> chrome_dude said:
> 
> 
> > Do you feel like you can rely on 3200? From the test shots I have seen in reviews, the noise begins to climb on that sensor quicker after 800 than I have seen with the 40D, 30D...
> ...



Wrong. This idea doesn't take into account the inherent noise in the technology.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/#Depth_of_Field_Myth

People like to point to photos that show the 7D doing just fine, BUT that is in well lit scenes. When the light begins to drop -- when some of us photographers like to shoot or are forced to shoot -- the 7D's small pixels are a problem. There is no substitute for larger pixels, period, if you are looking for better dynamic range and reduced noise. In the link above he explores the ideal pixel size (too few hurts images and too small hurts). The 7D and 50D crossed the line for the APS-C. I think a 13-14 megapixel APS-C is the sweet spot. Nikon, if the rumors are true, is being dragged into this pixel war that is not helping us folks.


----------



## lol (Aug 11, 2010)

Skimming through the clarkvision link, the author of that suggests 5 micron pixel spacing (I work that out to be around 13MP for crop sensor) is his optimum preference *on the basis of a diffraction limited f/8 lens*. If you pick a lower aperture as limit, then it would shift the peaks in the chart to smaller pixel pitch. Yes, it does mean if you use higher aperture values you wont get the maximum resolution possible from the sensor, but you wont get any less than if you had a low resolution sensor either. See also my earlier link where I did a practical example of diffraction effects. You don't need to fear the onset of diffraction softening. The author also appears to be targeting optimal pixel sharpness. That's a common failing of the low MP fan group who fail to see the bigger picture.

In practice, I'm often shooting in poor light and the Canon 7D is the best >1.5x crop sensor camera I have ever used particularly at high ISO, and it also beats two bigger sensor cameras I've owned too.


----------



## mushin (Aug 11, 2010)

Not only that, but his example at the end of the article to "prove his point" really destroyed his credibility for me. One, you can't prove anything with an example (although you can certainly disprove something by providing a counter-example.) Two, he "shows" that photo-stacking to reduce noise doesn't work, when people have been successfully using that technique for quite a while (just go take a look at astrophotography sites.) In the end, all the example does is show that he doesn't know how to utilize the technique, he doesn't fully understand what he's talking about, or both.


----------



## gkreis (Aug 11, 2010)

lol said:


> Skimming through the clarkvision link, the author of that suggests 5 micron pixel spacing (I work that out to be around 13MP for crop sensor) is his optimum preference *on the basis of a diffraction limited f/8 lens*. If you pick a lower aperture as limit, then it would shift the peaks in the chart to smaller pixel pitch. Yes, it does mean if you use higher aperture values you wont get the maximum resolution possible from the sensor, but you wont get any less than if you had a low resolution sensor either. See also my earlier link where I did a practical example of diffraction effects. You don't need to fear the onset of diffraction softening. The author also appears to be targeting optimal pixel sharpness. That's a common failing of the low MP fan group who fail to see the bigger picture.
> 
> In practice, I'm often shooting in poor light and the Canon 7D is the best >1.5x crop sensor camera I have ever used particularly at high ISO, and it also beats two bigger sensor cameras I've owned too.



Thanks for your feedback. I hope you are right.... because I don't see that I have an alternative. I am too deep into Canon and I can't justify a FF as a hobbyist. I will wait to see the 60D reviews, for sure, but I may have to just bite the bullet and buy it, hanging onto my 40D as a backup 2nd body.


----------



## that1guy (Aug 12, 2010)

mushin said:


> Not only that, but his example at the end of the article to "prove his point" really destroyed his credibility for me. One, you can't prove anything with an example (although you can certainly disprove something by providing a counter-example.) Two, he "shows" that photo-stacking to reduce noise doesn't work, when people have been successfully using that technique for quite a while (just go take a look at astrophotography sites.) In the end, all the example does is show that he doesn't know how to utilize the technique, he doesn't fully understand what he's talking about, or both.



I found the photo stacking thing to be a bit of a turn off myself. I actually didn't read a ton more after I skimmed it quick and found that right off the bat.

The good news here for me is that I actually have a better understanding of not only diffraction itself, but what it means to my pictures. Turns out I was half right and half wrong, and it was mostly because I was looking at it the wrong way a bit. Feels good to have that cleared up in my head though 

chrome_dude: If I were you, I would just think about getting rid of the 40D to help finance something else. If you are just a hobbyist, I don't think that you need to keep a backup on hand. Why not sell it now while it has some value and put the money into your next camera. If the new one does break, you should be able to find a good 30D/40D/50D on craigslist (or locally) within a day or two for the same as you sold yours for (or less if it is a while before the new one breaks). I actually take paid jobs on the side and I only have one body (of course, I don't shoot any weddings or events that are critical without borrowing or renting another body because that would be irresponsible). The majority of my work though is just small portrait sessions that could be re-scheduled if disaster struck. Anyway, it was just a thought to help you finance that nice new purchase


----------



## Inst (Aug 21, 2010)

Ehhh, more MP actually improves dynamic range to some extent by increasing total signal, although the D700 is significantly ahead of the 5D2 in DR. Remember, you're evaluating image quality, not pixel quality, so low quality pixels can be offset by simply having more of them.

Re: 15mp being the limit, whiners were complaining that 50D was worse than 40D and that 12mp was the limit for reasonable performance, and now Nikon is about to follow suit into 16mp. For FF, Nikon D3x at 24 mp actually outperformed 1Ds3 at 21mp, so it seems as though it's more a matter of technology than hard physical limitations.

Remember, on compacts, the G11 dropped back from the G10's 15 MP, but scaled up to APS-C formats pixel density would be equivalent to 70 MP.


----------



## gkreis (Aug 23, 2010)

that1guy said:


> chrome_dude: If I were you, I would just think about getting rid of the 40D to help finance something else. If you are just a hobbyist, I don't think that you need to keep a backup on hand. Why not sell it now while it has some value and put the money into your next camera. If the new one does break, you should be able to find a good 30D/40D/50D on craigslist (or locally) within a day or two for the same as you sold yours for (or less if it is a while before the new one breaks). I actually take paid jobs on the side and I only have one body (of course, I don't shoot any weddings or events that are critical without borrowing or renting another body because that would be irresponsible). The majority of my work though is just small portrait sessions that could be re-scheduled if disaster struck. Anyway, it was just a thought to help you finance that nice new purchase



My 40D body is now only worth about $500-$550 on eBay. Having had my 40D break on a trip, I realize how totally frustrated I would be without an instant replacement on an expensive trip. Besides, why not have two lenses ready to go without swapping?

The biggest reason, however, to keep this body is all the work that has gone into tuning this body with my lenses. The difference in focus quality is dramatic and just buying a replacement 40D means all new tuning efforts AND who knows what I am getting problem wise in a used camera. (Not likely, I guess, but one more thing to consider.) I know my 40D's history... and that is worth something, especially since I treat my cameras with extra care.


----------



## Jan (Aug 23, 2010)

Inst said:


> Ehhh, more MP actually improves dynamic range to some extent by increasing total signal, although the D700 is significantly ahead of the 5D2 in DR. Remember, you're evaluating image quality, not pixel quality, so low quality pixels can be offset by simply having more of them.


Concerning SNR, you're right, but DR range increases with increasing pixel size.


----------



## Rocky (Aug 26, 2010)

chrome_dude said:


> that1guy said:
> 
> 
> > chrome_dude: If I were you, I would just think about getting rid of the 40D to help finance something else. If you are just a hobbyist, I don't think that you need to keep a backup on hand. Why not sell it now while it has some value and put the money into your next camera. If the new one does break, you should be able to find a good 30D/40D/50D on craigslist (or locally) within a day or two for the same as you sold yours for (or less if it is a while before the new one breaks). I actually take paid jobs on the side and I only have one body (of course, I don't shoot any weddings or events that are critical without borrowing or renting another body because that would be irresponsible). The majority of my work though is just small portrait sessions that could be re-scheduled if disaster struck. Anyway, it was just a thought to help you finance that nice new purchase
> ...


How do you tune the 40D with the lens??? Is it doe by Canon??Thanks


----------



## gkreis (Aug 27, 2010)

Rocky said:


> How do you tune the 40D with the lens??? Is it doe by Canon??Thanks



It is done by Canon. I discovered this when my Xsi took outstandingly crisp photos with the same lens that was very mediocre on my 40D. I researched on the web and found folks talking about. I sent the body and lens to Canon (the body was under warranty so they covered shipping and the procedure) and when it came back I was thrilled. It was just as sharp as the Xsi, perhaps even sharper. Then I knew that all those folks selling their lenses because they got a soft copy might just have needed Canon to do their magic...

Perhaps there is a way to get a good price on someone's soft lens... ;-)


----------

