BAD NEWS FOR THE 40D!

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Annika1980 - 22 Aug 2008 16:20 GMT

Bad news, sports fans!
Rob Galbraith has declared on his site that "the EOS 40D is not a
viable sports camera."

He says it cannot reliably be used to get sharp action shots.
Well, dip me in sh.t! I am crushed.
Now I guess I'll have to go and delete these pics off my pbase site:

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/95582285/original
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/100734385
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/95595517
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/95595521
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/98146203

Galbraith has had a hardon for the autofocus tracking performance of
the 1D3 since it came out and his comments about the 40D are contained
in his extensive review on his site.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068-9537

He does explain why he still uses the 1D3 over say, a D3, however:

"The EOS-1D Mark III produces the best overall file of any digital SLR
we've ever used. A CR2 coming from this camera contains a level of
detail, dynamic range, tonality and quality from each of its 10.01
million image pixels that is hard for any other camera to match on a
per-pixel basis. The Nikon D3, for example, produces a better NEF at
really high ISO settings (plus very good quality generally), but at
lower ISOs it can't quite deliver the fineness of detail from each
pixel that the EOS-1D Mark III does."

Reply to this Message

Doug Jewell - 22 Aug 2008 22:51 GMT

> Bad news, sports fans!
> Rob Galbraith has declared on his site that "the EOS 40D is not a
> viable sports camera."

I think he's been on the wacky weed there. I know quite a
few who prefer to use the 40D over 1D3 for sports shots -
and that includes quite a few who have access to both
cameras. The reason is pretty simple - 1.6x crop factor =
shorter FL lenses = lighter lenses = more manouvreable.

> He says it cannot reliably be used to get sharp action shots.

I haven't used the 1D3 to compare it with, but compared to
my GX10/K10 I did find the 40D to be a little more likely to
not get focus, but that was more than offset by it's speed.
The GX10/K10 will lock focus pretty much every time even in
quite low light, but compared to the 40D it takes an
eternity to do it.
As for other reasons for photos that aren't sharp - well
that would come down to the operator wouldn't it?

> Well, dip me in sh.t! I am crushed.
> Now I guess I'll have to go and delete these pics off my pbase site:
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/95595521
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/98146203

Some nice work there.

> Galbraith has had a hardon for the autofocus tracking performance of
> the 1D3 since it came out and his comments about the 40D are contained
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> lower ISOs it can't quite deliver the fineness of detail from each
> pixel that the EOS-1D Mark III does."

Hangon - he's raving about sports performance, and then says
the 1D3 is better at low ISO, the D3 is better at high ISO.
But... Dunno about anyone else, but every time I've done
sports type work, it's required ISO's of 400+, because it's
normally in lit stadiums at night. Personally I think this
galbraith bloke is just trying to justify why he spends more
on his cameras than he needs to.

Reply to this Message