BAD NEWS FOR THE 40D!

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
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 ****!
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/mul...8740-9068-9537

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

"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."

In all honesty how many shots did you throw away in getting the shots you
posted? How many of those were AF issues? Reliably means that you get it
and you get it in one shot, not take 20 and hope one turns out OK. The AF
on the 40D is not reliable; personally, I think that the AF on the 20D was
much better than the 40D.
-Jim

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
On Aug 22, 12:08 pm, "jimkramer"
wrote:

In all honesty how many shots did you throw away in getting the shots you
posted? How many of those were AF issues? Reliably means that you get it
and you get it in one shot, not take 20 and hope one turns out OK. The AF
on the 40D is not reliable; personally, I think that the AF on the 20D was
much better than the 40D.

Admittedly, I haven't too much sports lately, but I never felt myself
handicapped by the 40D's AF performance. Of course, I've never shot
with a pro camera either (unless you count the Fabulous EOS-1V) so I
don't really have anything to compare it with.

Even on my hummer shots the flowers are usually blowing around quite a
bit, but the 40D tracks them just fine.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/101999348
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/101514908

It is hard for me to believe that Galbraith got some of the poor shots
he did with the top lenses that he uses. AF performance is largely
lens-dependent. I do OK with my relatively cheapo consumer lenses and
my 40D. Give me a 400 f/2.8L and a 1D3 and it would be like cheating.

Perhaps I'll have to take The Mighty Jewel out this weekend to give
her and the 40D a good workout.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/34543730
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/1537780


Again, how many frames did you blow through to get those shots?

This isn't about the good shots, it's about how many bad shots it takes to
get the good ones.
-Jim

On Aug 22, 1:43 pm, "jimkramer" wrote:



Perhaps I'll have to take The Mighty Jewel out this weekend to give

her and the 40D a good workout.



http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/34543730

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/1537780



Again, how many frames did you blow through to get those shots?



First time, every time, baby! Ain't no filler, every one's a killer!



Usually when I'm shooting sequence shots there is little variation between
the focus of all the shots. That's because I got my technique down and
everything.

It's not like one shot will be blurry, the next sharp, and the next one
blurry again.

The shots I choose have more to do with composition than focus issues.



Since I do most of my shooting in broad daylight, it is possible that the AF
performance of the 40D would suffer in poor light. I guess we'll know in a
few weeks when football season starts.