Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: 5D v. 40D  (Read 11948 times)

digital novice

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
5D v. 40D
« on: August 26, 2007, 03:14:42 pm »

Upgrading from 20D (also still hanging on to my Contax 645 w/film backs) and am looking for advice.  I  want to be able to do night exposures.  Is 5D better than 40D?  Should I wait for 5D upgrade?  Any thoughts on ultimate image quality?
Logged

myxamop

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
5D v. 40D
« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2007, 10:16:14 pm »

the 5D dose an alright job with night exposures, as for the nonexistent 40D defiantly will need to wait & see, but probably it will only get better, probably.
Logged

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
5D v. 40D
« Reply #2 on: August 27, 2007, 12:39:25 am »

Quote
Upgrading from 20D (also still hanging on to my Contax 645 w/film backs) and am looking for advice.  I  want to be able to do night exposures.  Is 5D better than 40D?  Should I wait for 5D upgrade?  Any thoughts on ultimate image quality?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135644\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

40d reviews and images will be hitting the net like crazy in the next few days which may help you decide.  I had a chance to play with one Thursday for about 30 minutes, but was more concerned about things that might impact our workflow as we switch. We will have one Monday or Tuesday, but I probably can't help you since I don't plan on doing anything other than portrait tests with it.

However, since the 5d is a 13mp full frame sensor (and one of the best Canon has ever used), while the 40d is a 10mp APS-C sensor, I would suspect the 5d will still be superior, despite the 40d's 14bit a/d

That being said, guessing the 40d will still be quite nice.

i guess thats not much help ... but thought I'd try.
Logged

stever

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1250
5D v. 40D
« Reply #3 on: August 27, 2007, 01:46:05 pm »

i have a 5D and 20D and plan to buy a 40D and continue to use the 5D with medium to wide lenses and crop-frame camera with long lenses

my guess is that there won't be much between the 5D and 40D at night and the decsion should be based on subject and lenses

the 5D needs good lenses to reach it's potential for wide angle, but there are no really good lenses for wide angle with a crop-frame Canon
Logged

newphoto

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
5D v. 40D
« Reply #4 on: August 30, 2007, 08:32:55 am »

"there are no really good lenses for wide angle with a crop-frame Canon"

Not so.  I own the Canon EF-S 10-22 and it is as sharp as any wide angle I have ever used for landscapes, and on my 20D and 30D bodies gives crisper, less distorted results than the Canon 17-40 L that I used to own..  Check out the Luminous Landscape review of this lens, or Popular Photography's review.  They claimed something like this to the best of my memory - the least barrel distortion of any wide angle zoom they had tested and the best ultra wide angle zoom they had ever tested.  High praise indeed.  Admittedly they are a little high priced and you need to understand going in that they will only work on the crop frame Canon cameras, excluding the 10D and earlier versions.  I decided to live with that as I like the crop frames lower prices and the extra reach I get for bird photography.  The 18 to 85 EFS is a decent lens also, albiet not strictly a wide angle zoom.

Colin
« Last Edit: August 30, 2007, 08:34:44 am by newphoto »
Logged

jd1566

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 149
5D v. 40D
« Reply #5 on: August 30, 2007, 10:09:14 am »

5D vs 40D.

The choice really has to do with more than image quality, but style of shooting, and whether or not you'll be happy with a cropped frame camera or not. Personally I would prefer the 5D (which I have) for my portrait shots because my OOF and DOF is as it shood be, whereas with teh cropped camera this effect is minimised because you are further away from your subject (using the same lens).
Then again if you take night shots or high contrast images then the 14 bit image may deliver better shadow detail as well as better gradation between colours.. this especially if you shoot JPEGS..  Depends on you really.

As for me, my 5D went swimming in salt water a few months back so I'm shooting with a 400D to tide me over until a 5D Mk II with 14bit processing becomes available.. I hope it will be my last digital camera that I buy.. the rest of my money will go to lenses instead of this endless camera upgrade path!
Logged
B&W photographer - Still lifes, Portrait

stever

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1250
5D v. 40D
« Reply #6 on: August 30, 2007, 04:26:18 pm »

the 10-22 is not a bad lens, but at 24mm equivalent there is a pretty noticeabel difference between it and the 24-105 on a 5D even though the 24-105 -- i have both
Logged

Ken R

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 849
5D v. 40D
« Reply #7 on: August 30, 2007, 05:13:36 pm »

The 5D is awesome during night exposures. Smaller pixels arent the best for light gathering...and the 40d has much smaller pixels.
Logged

macgyver

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 510
5D v. 40D
« Reply #8 on: September 02, 2007, 06:17:30 pm »

The 40D is so much quicker it's not even funny.  I hate to shoot action with a 5d, 40d is much better.
Logged

mahleu

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 585
    • 500px
5D v. 40D
« Reply #9 on: September 02, 2007, 06:22:29 pm »

I think i've just come to the same crossroads. I had my heart set on a 5d but now i've begun to consider the 40, although that would also mean getting a 10-22 lens as I love the 17-40 on full frame. I'm very torn. It would be a lot easier if there wasn't such a price jump between the 2.
Logged
________________________________________

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
5D v. 40D
« Reply #10 on: September 04, 2007, 06:49:15 am »

Quote
Upgrading from 20D (also still hanging on to my Contax 645 w/film backs) and am looking for advice.  I  want to be able to do night exposures.  Is 5D better than 40D?  Should I wait for 5D upgrade?  Any thoughts on ultimate image quality?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135644\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

For what it is worth, the D2x - whose pixels are smaller than those of the 40D - is pretty good with long exposures. The last one I did was 3 mins and it came out perfectly clean.

Adding to this the conclusion of Michael that the 40D image quality is in the same ball park as that of the 5D, my personnal conclusion is that technology impacts actual image quality more than theoretical physics and that the only credible answer will come out of an actual image comparison between the 2 bodies.

Regards,
Bernard

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
5D v. 40D
« Reply #11 on: September 04, 2007, 07:41:06 am »

When the Nikon D300 ships in November I think that we might see a drop in the price of the 5D. Canon doesn't have a direct competitor to the D300, but then again Nikon doesn't have a direct competitor to the 5D. Moving the 5D and the D300 closer in price will make the marketplace quite interesting.

As for choosing the 5D over the 40D based in image quality, I'm afraid that's a losing game. The differences are pixel peeping small. The real issues come down to viewfinder size, lens acceptance, etc. Frankly, though I've been happily using the 5D since it came out, if I had to choose between the two today I'd go for the 40D. On the other hand, when the 5D's replacement comes out, likely next spring, things will look different again.

Bottom line: The point isn't which camera will make a better photograph. It's which one will let you make a better photograph.

Michael
Logged

John (jnsail)

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
    • http://www.ndaeaglesswim.org
5D v. 40D
« Reply #12 on: September 09, 2007, 01:20:35 am »

I own the 5D and the 40D.  I am an amateur, not an experienced pro like Michael.  

If I did not have either camera today, based on my experience, if I had to buy today, I would buy the 40D.  Let me explain why.  First, see Michael's watch parable.

Unbelievable as it sounds with its smaller pixel size, the 40D has a cleaner, high ISO image, which is also cleaner in the shadows.  It seems to have a very accurate and quick autofocus and better automatic white balance.  It is slightly smaller.  Its unsharpened images seem a bit softer than the 5Ds, but I am not using my normal RAW processor (Lightroom or ACR).  

The 1.6 "crop" factor means smaller, lighter lenses compared to the 5D - and then there is the ruthlessness with which the 5D's full frame sensor shows the weakness of lenses, including L series lenses.  (The vignetting can be more easily overcome in most RAW developers.)  The smaller 40D sensor hits a sweeter spot in L lenses at the expense of th "crop" factor.  

Smaller, lighter lenses can be very good.  My first shots were at a nighttime highschool football game.  I took the camera straight out of the box it came in and used my 70-200 f2.8L IS - handheld - at ISO 1600.  The effective focal length compared to full frame was 320 mm at the long end.  Since I do not have a press pass, I was relegated to the stands.  A fast 300mm lens would have been unmanageable (and expensive).  Cropping a 5D to yield a similar telephoto effect would have resulted in a lower resolution image (12.8/1.6=8).  I was astounded at the photos, and marveled at how far we have come since 1600 Fuji film.  The dynamic range seems to be very good.  

I also shot a family event with 24-105 L lens.  I missed the wider angle, but the short end was equivalent to about 35 mm full frame, which is okay most of the time.  You may have to compose with your feet a bit more.

I shot very low light night time test shots in my office, taking photos of items that I had used to test my 5D and lenses several times.  The 40D out performed the 5D.  Focus was quicker.  Images were cleaner.  Text on posters was sharper.  Colors were better.  ISO 3200 yielded usable images.  

Since I have them both, I will use them both, but for different purposes.  I will tend to use the 5D in better lighting where I can use the higher resolution or where I really need the wider angle.  I will use the 40D for everything else, especially for sports.  

My 5D was preceded by a 20D.  I stopped using the 20D (even for sports) simply because the 5D yielded better images.  The same is not necessarily true for today's 20D replacement, especially considering the cost difference.  

I assume that there will be a replacement for the 5D, and it will probably be a significant improvement.
Logged

jkrolleston

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25
5D v. 40D
« Reply #13 on: September 09, 2007, 10:57:58 am »

Hi, kinda agree with Michael on this one. The quality available now is just amazing, I upgraded from 30 D to the new 40 D and quite literally the results will just blow you away. I couldnt afford the 5D, so that was my major governing factor, but I'm delighted with my new purchase. Whether it's Canon or Nikon or whomever, just see the camera as a tool to assist in achieving your vision...get out and use whatever you finally decide to buy.. because the manufacturers have given us some exceptional pieces of kit to own at the moment.
Keith
Logged

digital novice

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
5D v. 40D
« Reply #14 on: September 09, 2007, 09:18:28 pm »

Re:  5D v. 40D

Many thanks to all who have offered their opinions, comments, and recommendations.  Michael is right, of course, on the topic of pixel peeping and I've pretty much decided to go for the 40D.  I do still enjoy using the Contax 645; there is just something I like about the aperture ring on the lens, the mirror lock-up button, the awesome Zeiss glass, ...   (At the risk of dating myself, I still wear Accutron tuning fork watches - not the quartz replacments!)

Anyway, I enjoy the forum very much and will continue to be a contributor.
Logged

markgoldstein

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
5D v. 40D
« Reply #15 on: September 24, 2007, 09:16:45 am »

Hi,

Just wanted to let you know that we've published an in-depth review of the Canon EOS 40D, which may help with your decision:

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_canon_eos_40d.php
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
5D v. 40D
« Reply #16 on: September 25, 2007, 03:46:28 am »

Quote
I own the 5D and the 40D.  I am an amateur, not an experienced pro like Michael. 

If I did not have either camera today, based on my experience, if I had to buy today, I would buy the 40D.  Let me explain why.  First, see Michael's watch parable.

Unbelievable as it sounds with its smaller pixel size, the 40D has a cleaner, high ISO image, which is also cleaner in the shadows.  It seems to have a very accurate and quick autofocus and better automatic white balance.  It is slightly smaller.  Its unsharpened images seem a bit softer than the 5Ds, but I am not using my normal RAW processor (Lightroom or ACR). 


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138124\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There seem to be a lot of conflicting reports on the 40D versus the 5D. For example, Bob Atkins is a very experienced photographer with a greater knowledge of technical matters than most and his review of the 40D places noise at slightly worse than the 20D, with the 40D's noise reduction off, and slightly better than the 20D with the 40D's noise reduction on. The significance here is that the 40D's noise reduction does not appear to reduce resolution, so there would seem to be no reason not to use it.

However, when comparing noise from cameras with a different pixel count, one has to be careful one is comparing equal size images, which means either the 40D image should be interpolated (together with the noise) to the 5D size, or the 5D should be reduced (together with the noise) to the 40D size.

Having done this, I would expect, judging from the reports I've seen so far, that any noise advantage of the 40D over the 5D (if it exists) would be too marginal to be of significance.

The real reason for choosing a 40D over a 5D would be the benefits of the cropped format in conjunction with a higher pixel density, which offers greater telephoto reach, and such factors as more accurate and faster focussing, live preview and so on and particularly the cheaper cost, not only of camera body but of telephoto lenses.

The downside is wide angle performance. Where are the 10-22mm (EF-S) lenses that are of equal quality to the Sigma 15-30 or Canon 16-35?

Maybe I was unlucky with my purchase of the Canon 10-22mm. After trying a different copy of this lens in three different countries, I found one that was nearly as sharp as my Sigma 15-30.

However, having compared equal FoV shots from my 20D plus 10-22mm lens with 5D and Sigma 15-30mm lens, it's clear to me that the superiority of the 5D image is more than pixel-peeping small. Since I use the Sigma 15-30 a lot for landscapes, I can't see a 40D being a complete replacement for my 5D.

I also get the impression that the 40D's resolution is only very marginally better than the 20D, as one would expect with 10mp versus 8mp.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2007, 04:28:03 am by Ray »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up