Canon 5D vs 40D: given the option...?

[daethon]

So besides the obvious 12.8MP vs 10.1MP, Full frame vs. Cropped Sensor. 14/12 bit, etc.

What do y'all think?  If you had the option between the two, which would you go with?  


I fully expect to be purchasing the replacement to the 5D when it comes out, so, i'll soonish, have a full frame one.  


So i'm thinking:

Variety or Uniformity?  

Whatever I purchase now will become my backup camera.  I kinda like the thought of having the extra reach if I need it, but i remember reading somewhere that you get about 30-40% more light with the full frame camera, and since i tend to do a lot of low light (no flash) photography, that could be very beneficial.

Y'alls thoughts?  

I really like the Live View feature as I do a decent amount of macro work.  Frames per second isn't that important.

I'm replacing a 20D with this.  

I was planning on waiting till august, in hopes that the 5D replacement would be out by then, but I'm traveling to Hawaii, and my 20D is...on it's last toes...

Thanks in advance...

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

If I had your decision to make, the most important issue to me would be the lens reach for each and how each fits my own shooting style. If you tend to do much more wide angle than tele shooting, as I do, then the full-frame 5D is great. But if you tend to use teles a lot, go for the crop-frame (unless you always use a sturdy tripod and don't mind carrying around a huge weight in big lenses).

IMHO, the other differences between the 5D and the 40D are pretty minimal. The optical viewfinder on my 5D is much nicer (bigger, brighter image) than on my old 10D, but the 40D is supposed to have a very nice finder. The differences in number of pixels and the 14 vs. 12 bits are not very significant.

On my 10D I used a 17-40/4L lens over 90% of the time, and sometimes a 15mm Sigma, or a 100mm Canon macro, and less often a 70-200/4L, and about twice added a 1.4x extender. So my shooting tends to be very much toward the wide end. Once I upgraded to the 5D, and added my first stabilized lens, the 24-105L, I found myself using the 24-105 for almost everything. I have still never wished for a lens longer than the 200 (or faster than f/4). So the 5D suits me very well.

I have sometimes thought that having the built-in sensor cleaning would be nice, but a new thread on the LL forum today suggests that it doesn't really work. So I say, pick the camera that suits your own shoorting style. They're both great cameras.

[DarkPenguin]

Is your lens collection appropriate for a FF camera?

[Ray]

So besides the obvious 12.8MP vs 10.1MP, Full frame vs. Cropped Sensor. 14/12 bit, etc.

What do y'all think?  If you had the option between the two, which would you go with? 

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175255\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I reckon the 12mp 450D will be a better replacement for the 20D if frames per second is not a big issue for you.

The differences between the 5D and 40D are not just about pixel count, but pixel spacing. The 5D is less demanding on lenses. Some folks worry if the 1Ds3 is too good for most Canon lenses. Well, the 40D is equivalent to a 26mp full frame sensor. Whilst it's true the 40D will always have better edges and corners than the 5D, these are usually not the most important part of the image.

[daethon]

Is your lens collection appropriate for a FF camera?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175270\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Good question.  

This is my lens collection

17-40L
24 f/1.4L
135 f/2L
180 Macro f/3.5L
1.4X Canon Extender

50MM f/1.4 (but i never use it)


This said.  I will have a full frame within the year regardless.  So, the real question is:  Would it make more sense to have a 5D II (or whatever it'll be called) and 40D or a 5D II and 5D pairing?  


As for the 450 Xsi, I can't stand the interface on the X series cameras.  

I'm leaning heavily towards the 5D II + 40D combination, as I think it might give me the most versatility, and would mean that I could do a day tour to the big Island that I might have to forgo otherwise.  

But, if optical/build differentials are large between the two, or switching from FF to Crop somewhat regularly makes it harder to compose photographs, then it might make sense to standardize on the larger sensor

[macgyver]

I would go 40d. The only thing the 5d has over it is sheer size of image and better finder.

[stever]

i agree with the 5DII, 40D.  i use a 5D and 4D with 20D backup.  the focal length versatility is particualrly useful with longer lenses.  i also do not find much difference in image quality or high ISO noise between the 5D and 40D - the 5D II should be noticeably superior to the 40D in both respects (if not, Canon will be in trouble)

i consider the pixel spacing of the 40D to be a complete non-issue as far as center sharpness is concerned.  in fact, i believe center sharpness is better with the crop-frame camera on marginal lenses - the outer portion of the lens affects the whole image, not just the edges and corners

[Ray]

I would go 40d. The only thing the 5d has over it is sheer size of image and better finder.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175284\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not quite true. I think you'll find that the 5D has lower noise at ISO 3200 and as I mentioned before, with the same lens it should produce marginally sharper (or simply better) results than the smaller format 40D because of its wider pixel spacing. It would be a bit like comparing a P21 and 1Ds3 using the same MF lens on both cameras. The P21 would have the advantage even though the pixel count is the same.

I actually picked up a 40D before I left Bangkok recently. I intended to just get the EF-S 17-55/F2.8 IS for my 20D. However, I didn't realise how inexpensive the 40D is. When I discovered, after a bit of bargaining, I could get the body for A$300 less than the lowest internet price in Australia, I couldn't resist   .

[I Simonius]

So besides the obvious 12.8MP vs 10.1MP, Full frame vs. Cropped Sensor. 14/12 bit, etc.

What do y'all think?  If you had the option between the two, which would you go with? 

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175255\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well all I can tell you is that I had the 20D, tried the 5D but was scared of it's big preofessionalness, felt it was too much camera for me at the time, bought the 30D, and after a very short period of time realised the difference i IQ was too much to lose every time I looked at the 5D samples I had taken , so sold the 30D and got the 5D for real. I would be very surprised if I ever went back for a crop camera,  now over a year later.

I haven't shot with the 40D so I can't direcly compare but there is something about 5D IQ that is different to teh crop camera IMO.So if it was my choice I'd rather have a5D as a second nbody than a 40D  but that's just me ;-)

[DarkPenguin]

Well all I can tell you is that I had the 20D, tried the 5D but was scared of it's big preofessionalness, felt it was too much camera for me at the time, bought the 30D, and after a very short period of time realised the difference i IQ was too much to lose every time I looked at the 5D samples I had taken , so sold the 30D and got the 5D for real. I would be very surprised if I ever went back for a crop camera,  now over a year later.

I haven't shot with the 40D so I can't direcly compare but there is something about 5D IQ that is different to teh crop camera IMO.So if it was my choice I'd rather have a5D as a second nbody than a 40D  but that's just me ;-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175305\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's 8mp vs 12.7mp.  So I would expect there to be a non trivial difference.  10.2mp vs 12.7mp?  Dunno.

[DarkPenguin]

Not quite true. I think you'll find that the 5D has lower noise at ISO 3200 and as I mentioned before, with the same lens it should produce marginally sharper (or simply better) results than the smaller format 40D because of its wider pixel spacing. It would be a bit like comparing a P21 and 1Ds3 using the same MF lens on both cameras. The P21 would have the advantage even though the pixel count is the same.

I actually picked up a 40D before I left Bangkok recently. I intended to just get the EF-S 17-55/F2.8 IS for my 20D. However, I didn't realise how inexpensive the 40D is. When I discovered, after a bit of bargaining, I could get the body for A$300 less than the lowest internet price in Australia, I couldn't resist   .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175293\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You bought a 40D, Ray?  What do you think of the ergonomics over the 20D?   I was surprised at how much easier it is to operate with so few obvious changes.

[DarkPenguin]

How are you going to change those lenses for FF?  I mean you have to be used to the FOV you have now for the primes.   I would guess you'll probably start using the 50 over the 24 (or get a 35) and get an 85 for the 135.  17-40 likely gets replaced (or supplemented) by a 24-70.  If you're adding lenses then it probably doesn't matter which camera you get.  If you're replacing lenses then you probably want 5D/5DII.

A comment on the X series interface.  While the previous versions were pretty bad the Xti's is pretty good.  Much better setup than the 300D and 350D.

Aero just went tits up on this machine again.  Nice thing that firefox will restore a session complete with typed text.  I think I do not care for Vista.  It had best get better with SP1 or I'll actually buy a Mac.

Good question. 

This is my lens collection

17-40L
24 f/1.4L
135 f/2L
180 Macro f/3.5L
1.4X Canon Extender

50MM f/1.4 (but i never use it)
This said.  I will have a full frame within the year regardless.  So, the real question is:  Would it make more sense to have a 5D II (or whatever it'll be called) and 40D or a 5D II and 5D pairing? 
As for the 450 Xsi, I can't stand the interface on the X series cameras. 

I'm leaning heavily towards the 5D II + 40D combination, as I think it might give me the most versatility, and would mean that I could do a day tour to the big Island that I might have to forgo otherwise. 

But, if optical/build differentials are large between the two, or switching from FF to Crop somewhat regularly makes it harder to compose photographs, then it might make sense to standardize on the larger sensor
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175279\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Ken Bennett]

I had the same decision to make a couple of months ago: buy the 5D or the 40D. Given my history of camera purchases, I just knew that as soon as I bought a 5D, Canon would release a new model. I played with the 40D and liked some of the features enough that I went ahead and bought one.

The 40D is my personal camera. I have a pair of 1-D Mark II bodies at work, and a 20D. Let me say here how much I *hate* the 20D. The image files are okay, but the usability is terrible. The 40D is a huge improvement over the 20D in almost every way. It is more responsive, quicker to focus and shoot, more intuitive to use, and the image quality is significantly better. If you have a 20D, the 40D is a solid upgrade choice.

Compare to the 1D2's, the 40D doesn't come off as badly as I had feared. Of course the user interface is very different, which is taking longer to get used to than I expected (but when I upgrade to the Mark III bodies, it'll be the same as the 40D). I've been shooting the 40D attached to my 300/2.8 at college basketball games and major events, and with a 17-35/2.8 for general shooting. I was *amazed* at the autofocus performance at the first basketball game -- out of 250 shots, I had maybe 15 that weren't in perfect focus. Yes, the 300 is a quick lens, but this performance was extraordinary. (I used all 9 focus points and just shot away whenever I wanted.) The focus is good under dim light, too, locking on very quickly.

Image quality is outstanding. I have several 13x19 full-frame prints at ISO 400 that are incredibly detailed and sharp. The 40D is slightly better than the 1D2 at ISO 800, and much better at ISO 1600. This despite the smaller chip size.

So why choose the 40D over the terrific 5D? For me it came down to features: the 14-bit raw files, the amazing and excellent auto-sensor cleaning, the large LCD, and the quick and responsive AF and handling. I don't have as much need for wide-angle performance right now, as I have other options for that. I will purchase a 5D replacement when it comes out, at which point I will have a 5D(2) with a 24-105, and a 40D with a 70-200 -- that's a pretty good setup that covers most of what I would want to shoot for personal use.

If you are going to buy a 5D replacement when it comes out, and you want a camera now, the 40D is certainly a decent option.

[daethon]

I had the same decision to make a couple of months ago: buy the 5D or the 40D. Given my history of camera purchases, I just knew that as soon as I bought a 5D, Canon would release a new model. I played with the 40D and liked some of the features enough that I went ahead and bought one.

The 40D is my personal camera. I have a pair of 1-D Mark II bodies at work, and a 20D. Let me say here how much I *hate* the 20D. The image files are okay, but the usability is terrible. The 40D is a huge improvement over the 20D in almost every way. It is more responsive, quicker to focus and shoot, more intuitive to use, and the image quality is significantly better. If you have a 20D, the 40D is a solid upgrade choice.

Compare to the 1D2's, the 40D doesn't come off as badly as I had feared. Of course the user interface is very different, which is taking longer to get used to than I expected (but when I upgrade to the Mark III bodies, it'll be the same as the 40D). I've been shooting the 40D attached to my 300/2.8 at college basketball games and major events, and with a 17-35/2.8 for general shooting. I was *amazed* at the autofocus performance at the first basketball game -- out of 250 shots, I had maybe 15 that weren't in perfect focus. Yes, the 300 is a quick lens, but this performance was extraordinary. (I used all 9 focus points and just shot away whenever I wanted.) The focus is good under dim light, too, locking on very quickly.

Image quality is outstanding. I have several 13x19 full-frame prints at ISO 400 that are incredibly detailed and sharp. The 40D is slightly better than the 1D2 at ISO 800, and much better at ISO 1600. This despite the smaller chip size.

So why choose the 40D over the terrific 5D? For me it came down to features: the 14-bit raw files, the amazing and excellent auto-sensor cleaning, the large LCD, and the quick and responsive AF and handling. I don't have as much need for wide-angle performance right now, as I have other options for that. I will purchase a 5D replacement when it comes out, at which point I will have a 5D(2) with a 24-105, and a 40D with a 70-200 -- that's a pretty good setup that covers most of what I would want to shoot for personal use.

If you are going to buy a 5D replacement when it comes out, and you want a camera now, the 40D is certainly a decent option.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175328\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

k

Thank you for the reply.  Exactly the type of response that I was looking for, and the conclusion that I was expecting to hear.  At present I don't do a lot of long focal length work.  Mostly because I can't afford the lenses that I want to add to my collection to be able to handle it.  I've become a big fan of the limitations and speed inherent in prime lenses.  

I think I'll be going forward with the 40D and eventual 5D II combination.  Eventually, I'll add the 14MM, and the 400MM.  I think with that i'll end up with all the coverage that i'll need.

One thing, I just went to my two local Wolf Camera's, they were both out of 5Ds.  It looks like they may be starting to Stock Out, which could indicate that they're getting close to the next release...

Thanks again

[Ray]

You bought a 40D, Ray?  What do you think of the ergonomics over the 20D?   I was surprised at how much easier it is to operate with so few obvious changes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175309\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, the whole ergonomics thing is a major improvement as well as the smooth and effortless manner the camera takes those rapid frames at a rate of 6.5 per second. However, in the final analysis, it's the images you are left with that count.

I haven't had time to do any thorough comparisons between the 5D and the 40D. I've just returned to Australia and have thousands of images to sort through.

It's an upgrade from my 20D for me. I had the experience of my 5D breaking down and whilst it was in for repair I had only my 20D. I hope I find a use for it, but I suspect it will prove to be yet another piece of equipment that is under-utilised. The main attraction for me was the EF-S 17-55/2.8 lens, but first indications are that my copy of this lens is not as sharp as the one tested by PhotoZone. On the other hand, it might just be the case that my copy of the 50/1.8 II is better than the one PhotoZone tested. My impressions are all from comparisons rather than absolute measurement. PhotoZone's copy of the 17-55 appears to be sharper than the copy of the 50/1.8 they tested.