The new Canon 40D

[Patrick]

Re: The new Canon 40D

I've used cameras without exposure control etc. However they all need to have the exposure set and focus determined in some way. I had the first practical SLR camera with AF, and I can remember when I had stop down metering on my Pracktica being scoffed at by an old school photographer But having built in metering and open aperture metering etc were true advances in camera use and definitely made things easier for the photographer. Using a hand held light meter would still be the alternative

You are probably right about live view becoming the norm, but I can say without a shadow of a doubt that it doesn't inspire and enthuse me like that Minolta 7000 did, that was a seminal moment indeed.

As for Lightroom you are right, though as I recall I was a bit sniffy about the Beta versions at the time, which I did try and decided to wait till the full version came out. It was then that most agreed that it was a vast improvement, a program designed for photographers by photographers.

I agree with Stephens live view is certainly not a feature to compare with auto exposure or auto focus. I see it as an amateur feature tacked on to professional gear with limited value, certainly not a feature to clinch a sale.
I had live view with my old Olympus E10, and didn't use it. I know it wasn't as good as will be offered on modern cameras, but it did give me a flavor of it's possible potential or lack of potential, and proved to be the latter.
As to using it for focusing Macro shots, no way would I trust an electronic screen for such critical work. using an angle finder is more flexible and I beleive accurate.

As I stated in an earlier reply if in tethered mode a live view can be seen on a laptop I could find good use for it in the studio environment, but could do the work equally well without it. I would prefer manufacturers concentrate their effort on image quality and not be sidetracked by irrelevances of this type.

Patrick

[Patrick]

Re: The new Canon 40D now we have the spec

I agree, the value of live view is certainly reduced when the camera doesn't have a flip-out screen, but it's not lost completely. In situations when using the camera on a tripod, using live view on the back of the camera remains a great way to compose and check focus. You see 100% of the frame, too, not the 95% or so that most TTL viewfinders afford.

Ian

Go to http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_40D.html for the full spec of the new Canon 40D a day early, and yes there is live view

Patrick

[Stephen]

Re: The new Canon 40D

Looks like a significant step forward Patrick, especially for you having been using a 10D for years Not sure about this sRaw mode, maybe OK for family snaps but everything else looks good. You'll be getting the order in asap I take it.

[Pops]

[Ian]

Re: The new Canon 40D

As to using it for focusing Macro shots, no way would I trust an electronic screen for such critical work. using an angle finder is more flexible and I beleive accurate.

Hi Patrick, with due respect that's technically incorrect. With Live View you see exactly what the sensor sees. The optical TTL view, using a focus screen, is an approximation of the accurate focus view, it has to be adjusted in the factory to be correct and it can be wrong if the camera is knocked or suffers some other damage.

But let me just repeat, Live View is not the be all and end all - and I never said it was, but seeing as it's apparently featured in the 40D it does confirm my view that it will become a standard feature in all DSLRs in a fairly short space of time. When you get your 40D, maybe, just maybe, you will come to use it for certain jobs. But its inclusion takes nothing away from the rest of the camera - there is no compromise or cost in its inclusion.

Ian

[Ian]

Re: The new Canon 40D

Looks like a significant step forward Patrick, especially for you having been using a 10D for years Not sure about this sRaw mode, maybe OK for family snaps but everything else looks good. You'll be getting the order in asap I take it.

I'll prefer to see the final press release

There were references to both Digic IIII (?!) and Digic III in those leaked details

But I certainly do expect a 3 inch screen instead of 2.5 inches, a bit of a boost faster than the old speed of 5fps and the idea of a kit lens with IS is tried and tested by Panasonic/Leica, so that makes sense too. These are all important USPs to lift the 40D above the Nikon D200.

I only hope the optics of the kit lens have been improved as well - the standard EF-S 18-55 I have tested is quite poor compared to other kit lenses out there.

Ian

[Ian]

Re: The new Canon 40D

[Patrick]

Re: The new Canon 40D

I'll prefer to see the final press release

There were references to both Digic IIII (?!) and Digic III in those leaked details

But I certainly do expect a 3 inch screen instead of 2.5 inches, a bit of a boost faster than the old speed of 5fps and the idea of a kit lens with IS is tried and tested by Panasonic/Leica, so that makes sense too. These are all important USPs to lift the 40D above the Nikon D200.

I only hope the optics of the kit lens have been improved as well - the standard EF-S 18-55 I have tested is quite poor compared to other kit lenses out there.

Ian

[Stephen]

Re: The new Canon 40D

Also there is the spec for the new 1Ds MkIII on the same site, 21 mega pixels no less.

Patrick

Now there's the thing Patrick, when that MkIII is released there are going to be a few MkII's going on Ebay I reckon. For anyone wanting a quality Pro FF it could be the way to go

Actually the same applies to the 5D if that's replaced, I've considered buying a SH one on Ebay, they have got to be worth a grand

[Patrick]

Re: The new Canon 40D

Now there's the thing Patrick, when that MkIII is released there are going to be a few MkII's going on Ebay I reckon. For anyone wanting a quality Pro FF it could be the way to go

Actually the same applies to the 5D if that's replaced, I've considered buying a SH one on Ebay, they have got to be worth a grand

I have been watching Ebay but the 1Ds when they do appear which is rare, are a good deal more than a grand.
Since they are mostly used by pro photographers I should think they get full usage and value before selling, so they may not be the best buy.

Patrick

[StuartR]

Re: The new Canon 40D

I agree with Stephens live view is certainly not a feature to compare with auto exposure or auto focus. I see it as an amateur feature tacked on to professional gear with limited value, certainly not a feature to clinch a sale.

I had live view with my old Olympus E10, and didn't use it. I know it wasn't as good as will be offered on modern cameras, but it did give me a flavor of it's possible potential or lack of potential, and proved to be the latter.
As to using it for focusing Macro shots, no way would I trust an electronic screen for such critical work. using an angle finder is more flexible and I believe accurate.

As I stated in an earlier reply if in tethered mode a live view can be seen on a laptop I could find good use for it in the studio environment, but could do the work equally well without it. I would prefer manufacturers concentrate their effort on image quality and not be sidetracked by irrelevances of this type.

Patrick

never go digital?

It's all getting a bit emotive for something you don't have to use! Words like "pointless", "amateur" and "irrelevances" are a bit rich on a forum mainly used by amateurs?

I could start to get an inferiority complex but I won't

Mind you, I still want live view with a screen that lifts and rotates....perhaps on the 50D?

[Bearface]

Re: The new Canon 40D

Some interesting stuff here. It never ceases to amaze me how new technology can polarise opinions to such an extent. For what it's worth I'd like to add my own two-penn'orth...

On the subject of live-view screens for DSLRs........well as someone who earns a living from photography, I can't see how or why it would be necessary (or even desirable) to have such a feature on a DSLR.

For a start, DSLR viewfinders are the only way to get a proper "live" view, as they provide a genuine, first-hand picture of the scene through the camera's lens, whereas the LCD "live-view" is basically a relatively low-resolution, digital image which can only serve as rough guide to what the camera actually sees. When composing, focusing or seeking out specific detail to hone in on, the LCD reproduction from a current camera is never, ever going to come close to what the naked eye sees.

When I started out shooting professionally, I initially used a Fuji S602z high-end compact, followed by a Sony DSC-F717, both of which had digital viewfinders and live-view LCD screens. To be honest, using either to compose or focus on detail was an absolute pain in the neck and while LCD technology has moved on somewhat since then, it hasn't brought us anything that can compete with a naked-eye view, which is what a TTL viewfinder gives you. LCD monitors are fine for reviewing composition and loosely checking your exposures, but I've yet to use one which gives me anything close to what I'd describe as a reliable, accurate representation of the image I've captured. Maybe in a few years, when we have 8-10 megapixel LCD viewfinders or preview screens I'll think differently, but right now I'd sooner rely on my own eyes and the camera's lenses...

Moving onto the rumours about the specs for the new 1Ds MkIII, I'm intrigued by the idea of a 21MP, 35mm-based DSLR. The advisor at my pro supplier used to be a Canon technical bod and he reckoned that Canon themselves believed that even the best current DSLR optics were at their very limits in resolving the detail from the 16.7 MP 1Ds MkII. It's widely known that the newest L-series lenses are only just sufficient to get the best out of both the 5D and the 1Ds MkII, so if the rumours are true and the MkIII is going to be blessed with a 21MP sensor, I sincerely hope Canon plan to launch some new lenses to enable users to get the most from it.

My plan is to buy a pre-owned, low-mileage 1Ds Mk2 when the Mk3 version launches and to sell my lovely 5D to Stephen ( ). Then, when the teething issues with the 1D Mk3 have been ironed out, I'll chop in the 1D Mk2 for one of those and hopefully that and the 1Ds II will see me through the next couple of years. We recently "inherited" a Hasselblad H1 with a Kodak 645 back too, so for once I feel as though we have all bases covered.......and there isn't a "live-view" LCD screen in sight

[Ian]

Re: The new Canon 40D

On the subject of live-view screens for DSLRs........well as someone who earns a living from photography, I can't see how or why it would be necessary (or even desirable) to have such a feature on a DSLR.

You see, that's a fine example of just what I was saying earlier

Tim - have you used contemporary DSLR live view? If not, how can you come to such an abrupt and final opinion on its value?

And how, I ask, can you justify the bit wher you question if it's 'even desirable'? Is the EOS 1D Mark III ruined by having Live View?

Are you saying that Canon is wrong in featuring Live View? I can remember Canon staff telling me that Live View wasn't necessary and they had no plans to feature it. That was just two years ago.

Ian

[Bearface]

Re: The new Canon 40D

You see, that's a fine example of just what I was saying earlier

Tim - have you used contemporary DSLR live view? If not, how can you come to such an abrupt and final opinion on its value?

No. Are you telling me that it's preferable to the "real" live view (the naked eye view...) though the viewfinder of a DSLR?

Are you also telling me that since I used a Sony DSC-F717 that the quality of these screens has improved dramatically? (Because it would have to be a hugely significant, quantifiable step forwards, rather than a marginal one...).

Are you telling me that I'll be able to rely on a one-dimensional, 3" digital view of a given scene rather than the 3D, accurate view that my own eyes see through the viewfinder? Even assuming that LCD quality was close to what you get through a viewfinder, how could a single-dimensional, 230,000 pixel view be comparable to a real, first-hand view?

If not, then I'm afraid I see the Live view business as just a gimmick. I don't doubt for a second that it'll sell cameras, but it's desirability is going to be limited to those who are motivated by gadgety, gimmicky features, rather than to those who take photography seriously and who therefore need the best possible view of whatever it is they're shooting.

And how, I ask, can you justify the bit wher you question if it's 'even desirable'? Is the EOS 1D Mark III ruined by having Live View?

You're now putting words into my mouth. I'd respectfully ask you not to do that.

I can justify questioning such a thing because (a) that's my right as an individual and (b) because as a professional photographer I think I'm reasonably placed to post an opinion based on my experiences and knowledge of my kit.

Are you saying that Canon is wrong in featuring Live View? I can remember Canon staff telling me that Live View wasn't necessary and they had no plans to feature it. That was just two years ago.

Ian

Hey, manufacturers are experts at deciding what their markets need, as opposed to finding out what their customers want; you know that as well as I do. However if you're asking me if serious photographers need a Live View then you've already had my answer; absolutely not.

[Patrick]

Re: The new Canon 40D

never go digital?

It's all getting a bit emotive for something you don't have to use! Words like "pointless", "amateur" and "irrelevances" are a bit rich on a forum mainly used by amateurs?

I could start to get an inferiority complex but I won't

Mind you, I still want live view with a screen that lifts and rotates....perhaps on the 50D?

Sorry I don't mean any offense I am an amateur myself and as stated used, all be it older technology, live view on my Olympus E10 or rather didn't use it I found little use for it. I couldn't if shooting low down get to see the screen properly, but using an angle viewfinder I could look down into it and see very well. I have one for my Canon and it serves me very well.
A flip live view screen on a pro camera would be laughably flimsy for a hard working pro photographer.

Ian the screen may be exactly what you see and be 100% frame, but the electronic screen cannot be as clear as a regular viewfinder held to the eye blocking out any distractions, just the image we are exposing. Bringing into the discussion possible faulty or damaged viewfinders is not in my view the argument, a fault is a fault and needs to be repaired.


Incidentally Stuart if you read the the article Canon are expecting to sell to so called advanced amateurs and pro photographers on a budget, or indeed pro's wanting a second camera to back up their 1Ds or 1D Mk III's. Its interesting to note the two Pro Photographers that have replied to the forum on this subject of live view, neither see the point of it I think that says much.

I concede Ian it takes nothing away from the camera other than adding to development costs and production costs however little. The fact all cameras and I don't doubt for a second they will have live view within two years means nothing, manufacturers will sell what they think we want. In the same way cameras no longer have a flash sync socket just a hot shoe, live view may very well disappear again in time.
In fact are now a lot of new models of digital compacts loosing RAW because the market they generally appeal too are not interested in RAW. An example of a feature thought to be valuable and is to a large number of DSLR users, but not necessarily compact users.

Good discussion whatever side of the argument anyone takes.

Patrick