I returned my Tamron 17-50 2.8 lens so that I could consider changing over to Nikon D300. But now that the dust has settled on D300 and 40D announcements I have concluded D300 is not that much better then 40D to justify the extra cost. I live in Australia and in Australia Nikon rip us off so the price difference between 40D and D300 will be a lot more then $500.
So I have been curious how Canon 5D and 40D compare. Other then the sensor size difference what other differences are there between these cameras and which one is a better upgrade camera from Canon 400D?
Tarpon6, do you mind if I ask a dumb question? When you replied to NamiSwan, you asked "What do you like to shoot? That makes all the difference...." What is it about these cameras that makes them application specific? The 5D is a 12 MEG full frame while the 40D is a 10 MEG Csize. Is there something in their design that makes them better for one usage and not another?
I'm just dumb and trying to learn. When I upgrade from the 20D, I don't want to end up with something I'm not going to be happy with.
Application has something to do with the fit of the camera to your style. The 5D being a FF camera at 12MP is better with wide angle lenses and is typically a good fit for nature and portrait shooters. It is not a fast performer with frames shot per second, so it falls a bit short for sports or action shooting.
40d is an APS-C sensor, which utilizes the center of the lens, and gives you more "reach" than a FF sensor. Typically, this is better for sports / action shooters since you usually would be looking for longer glass for that application. In addition, the FPS on the camera is higher than the 5D which will help you have better chances at that perfect moment (ball on bat, the priceless expression, etc.)
Can the 40d take nature and portrats shots? Sure! Can you shoot sports with a 5D? Sure. They are just not the best choices for those applications.
It will be difficult for anyone to make conclusive comparisons between the 5D and 40D until the 40D starts being actually used by photographers. I think it's safe to speculate -- based on some early sample images -- that the 40D will be more than capable of making great images in the right hands. If you don't mind the 1.6x, then it makes financial sense to stick with a 40D.
Then again, the 400D is certainly capable of making great images, too. I'd rather put extra money into quality lenses.
FLORIDAG8R and tmr_wa I have read 5D has excellent ISO performance due to its full frame sensor. I think this is a major advantage of 5D over 40D regardless of shooting style.
In May I upgraded from 20D to 5D. The images I get now are better in all areas.... from wide angle stuff where I now get the full use of my 16-35 to portraits and even sports. The full frame is just more life like to my eye. The extra MPs has also helped. Comparing it to the 40D of course is hard as I haven't tried it but for me once I went full frame everything else will feel as a compromise. It is however important to know what you would like to shoot. I certainly managed to shoot a variety of things with my 20D.
What about the 12 bit of the 5D vs teh 14 bit of the 40D? Would that make for better images out of the 40D? I seem to recall the canon press release talking about smoother transitions, almost that the dynamic range would be improved.
I didn't win the big Mega Millions lottery last week, so I won't be able to afford a pair of Canon's new 1Ds Mark III cameras. But the new and more affordable Canon EOS 40D looks like a significant upgrade to my venerable 10D cameras. The best part is that it is supposed to be available sometime in September, in time for me to buy one and test it thoroughly before my three-week Peru trip begins in early October.
But today I spotted a classified ad for a used 5D body, with a Canon battery grip included, for $1,900. The ad said the camera was in good condition, with the shutter tripped less than 10,000 times.
So I'm debating. Though of course the 40D isn't even available yet, it should be cheaper, offers 14-bit processing, and represents Canon's latest technology in the company's "prosumer" niche. But the 5D has a full-frame chip with somewhat more resolution. If you were headed to Machu Picchu (and elsewhere in Peru) and wanted to take the highest-quality photos you can afford, which one would you choose?
Thanks for your help!
Jim Quinn
Edited by Jeff on Aug 29, 2007 at 11:11 AM GMT (Reason: yet another 40D/5D thread)
For a trip like that where you will be looking a scenics, lots of color and detail there would be no question in my mind... go with the 5D. You do not need 6.5 fps.
Hi Jim, that's a tough question! I don't mean to be skeptical of used items, but it's very hard to judge what "good condition" means. Before you settle, I'd heavily suggest you inspect the 5D thoroughly, asking to test shoot it etc.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that one store in the US (is it B&H?) is selling the 5D brand new for not much more than your given quote...granted, it does not come with a battery grip, but at least you know it's new.
Primarily, what do you shoot? The 5D is an amazing camera for landscapes, waterscapes and any other scapes, as well as portraiture and other such things, However, it is probably not the greatest for wildlife and sports due to it's low number of fps. The 40D sounds as though it would be a great action camera.
There's a lot to consider when buying new cameras. Have a great time in Machu Picchu!
Forget the 12bit vs 14bit arguments. The 5D still has better images than the 40D.
Question that the original poster did not answer is what they want to shoot. The 40D shoots at 6.5fps with a shorter lag and viewfinder blackout, and new and improved AF. The 5D clunks along at 3fps with rather long blackout and shutter lag; pics are prettier though.
Several people have mentioned I have not specified what I am going to shoot.
In general I will mainly shoot landscape and nature closeup. Occasionally I might use my dSLR for other subjects like portraits of my son and on the weekend I went to Zoo so I shot wildlife. I am also thinking about using dSLR for Astrophotography. However, I know for certain I will not shoot action or sport.
I would take my 5D. I agree, however, about checking the condition. That price seems slightly low for "good condition" + grip. But... I haven't looked for a couple of months, so they might be getting down there. That's a great buy if so.
B&H is currently listing a 5D body for $2,539 US, more than $600 above the used price I've seen. I haven't contacted the private seller, by the way, so it's possible that camera may have been sold already.
As a retired newspaper studio photographer, I have shot portraits, food, fashion, and news. I have used panoramic and other special-purpose cameras on occasion as well as medium and large format. These days, though, I do a fair amount of travel photography, which means landscapes, celebrations, musical and stage performances, impromptu portraits, interesting details, and such. Each one of these shots might have been done "better" with the perfect camera for that situation, but the next shot might require a completely different "perfect" camera. I don't have the budget, or the back, for them all, so I tend to like cameras that can produce good results in a variety of circumstances.
Good to hear from an Australian. My younger daughter is spending two years in Brisbane on a post-doctoral internship, which of course will require a visit at some point from mom and dad.
Jim Quinn
(for work samples, please check www.jamesfquinn.com)
NamiSwan wrote:
Several people have mentioned I have not specified what I am going to shoot.
In general I will mainly shoot landscape and nature closeup. Occasionally I might use my dSLR for other subjects like portraits of my son and on the weekend I went to Zoo so I shot wildlife. I am also thinking about using dSLR for Astrophotography. However, I know for certain I will not shoot action or sport.
Your interests could be served well by the 5D I think. Though I own a 5D I do not normally recommend it as you really have to want the FF-ness of it to pay the extra cost, and I also believe that most people really can't afford these things unless you can pay cash out of your pocket.
The 5D + the 135/2 or 85/1.2 make the ideal portrait setup. I have the 135/2, while others prefer the shorter 85mm. I do have the 85/1.8 (which is much more affordable), but the 135/2 is special. You can add extension tubes to the 135/2 if you want to shoot macros.
What does your 400D not do that you would like a 40D or 5D to do?
Do you have any EF-S lenses currently? I ask because if you have EF-S glass this won't work on the 5D so if you went with the 5D option you would need to replace/supplement these existing lenses making the upgrade quite expensive.
I don't think as yet anyone has really posted a proper hands on review of the 40D so I would wait for this because buying one. Lastly, for ultimate image quality and detail I think the 5D will still be better than the 40D if you have good quality L lenses to put on it.
I really enjoyed your website! I would say a 5D would do you nicely! However, when traveling and photograghing your family in scenic enviornments, would you miss the popup flash for fill flash?
Have a great time in Machu Picchu!