jvarszegi wrote:
Yes. The per-pixel noise performance of the 5D is roughly equivalent to that of the 20D. The main advantage is in resolution here, where one can see that the fact that the 5D has more pixels is a true advantage.
.
I could not disagree more with this. I don't really think the difference is in resolution or at the pixel level. It is in the aggregate look of the pixes piled up until you get a picture. If you took a closeup photograph of a persons face using a 5D, 30D or DSII each would have a different look. To me the skin texture and color taken with the 5D just looks right - not at the 100% pixel peeping view, but when printed. I don't think this has to do with the resolution of the camera's.
Maybe the 40D will have that look as well. If so, it will be a really swell camera.
bobbytan wrote:
I've had my 5D since it came out and I would not have any other camera except the 5D Mk II.
Indeed, it is a nice shot, Bobby. I don't think that 5D owners would be interested in a 40D, except for some kind of a backup body. The 40D would appeal more to people that currently use a 1.6X crop cameras, especially if they are happy with their EF-S lenses. The price difference of around $1,200 would be enough for them to lean more towards the 40D over the FF 5D. Just my take, of course. I know you are anxiously waiting for the 7D or whatever Canon decides to call the successor of the 5D.
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)...Show more →
I upgraded from the 10D to 5D, lets see better AF, better noise, nice bright VF, bigger buffer. The cons slightly noiser than the 10D (quieter than the 20D), you will need new CF cards or more of them, the camera is slightly bigger.
I do everything from sports (hockey, syncro, LL, soccer, ...) church shots, vacations, birthday parties, and yes portraits. Its the best all round camera you can find until the mythical 5Dmk2 aka 3D comes out in 2008.
Reasons for 40D
* Cheaper
* Customers will not notice a difference in prints less than 16x24
* All 9 Cross Type AF
* Will do wide angle IF you buy the 10-22
I find it incredible that on none of the DP forums I've scanned, no-one has yet been able to provide a credible comparison of the image quality wrt colour and dynamic range of the 40D and 5D.
All I've seen are some rather hackish attempts to gauge the noise level and the usual blurry half-arsed pics of cats, shipping boxes, brick walls and babies.
Doesn't anyone here own/work in a camera shop that has these two cameras on sale, and can actually operate them in a semi-professional manner?
I think we've all heard enough speculative waffle about 14-bit and FF. Let's see the results!
TT,
Is that not better to wait for reputable reviewers that have more credibility/knowledge/experience than the average Joe here, on dpreview or somewhere else, to come up with their evaluation? Be patient, you will get what you are looking for before too long.
How long has the 40D been available now? about 5 mins!
Give people a chance! I think most people lucky enough to have one would be more concerned about making sure it works fine, and maybe even taking some photos with it rather then doing comparison testing.
We will soon see a flood of reviews, blogs and what not hitting the web over the next couple of weeks anyway.
Nah, there are a bunch of people out there who have both cameras in their hands, in Australia and Hong Kong, for example, many of whom would be anxious to sell either or both.
If they were reading these forums they would know any information would be a scoop, and that there are scores of eager eyeballs awaiting their every utterance.
Instead we're seeing speculation, denial and heresay.
My conclusion therefore is that these sites are a bit lightweight. Not much help frankly.
Possibly there's a camera shop in your area where you can test them side by side to your satisfaction then report your findings. If there isn't, then you can appreciate the situation most of us are in.
Hi
I recently upgraded from a 400D to a 5D.
The full frame gives you so much light you can get by without ever using flash again.(i am not joking -it's power is breath taking.!)
You would however need a tripod for shake.
The picture quality, menu options ,iso's,are also amazing.
Use good lenses and you have a beast of a camera
I don't own either camera but I have been doing a whole lot of investigation into available samples from the 40D and also the many images available of the 5D. I am continuously amazed at the high overall IQ of the 5D, clearly an amazing performer.
I have not been so impressed with what I have seen on DP Review and other available posts of the 40D, as images appear to me to be quite flat, lifeless, and they have a pastel-like flavor. I have yet to see a pure primary "red" from the 40D. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the camera is unable to perform that task, I am simply saying that I have yet to see some "primary" red from the 40D. What I see is a pinkish hue in every shot that I've seen in the red spectrum, something that is pastel-like, and not pure. If anyone has an example that shows a pure primary "red" or knows of one, I'd be very pleased to have the link. And I would be quite happy to withdraw my complaint as well with the IQ of this camera in that area. It may simply be that the photographers I've seen have shot in AWB and have not taken the time to use a grey card. That is what I'd like to see investigated.
Again, I am not dissing the IQ of this camera since there are simply not enough posted samples to provide a clear and fair comparison. However, I have yet to go to any 5D site where I am not extremely impressed with one or more photos, and I'm talking IQ here, nothing more, and nothing less. It doesn't matter how many bells and whistles that a tool has, if it can't perform in the most important area, then it is flawed. The 5D impresses me in that most important area, image quality.
In order to exemplify my above concerns I am posting a small visual of what I mean by "primary" red. I quickly made this up as a response to another post and decided to post it here as well, just to clarify what I'm seeing.
Again, this may simply be a matter of AWB not being spot on, and manual white balance being needed in this particular incidence. I don't know. All that I do know is that "every" shot I've seen with the 40D has that pastel red. To me, that is not a minor thing. The sign on the right is the "primary" red
Normcar21 wrote:
I don't own either camera but I have been doing a whole lot of investigation into available samples from the 40D and also the many images available of the 5D. I am continuously amazed at the high overall IQ of the 5D, clearly an amazing performer.
I have not been so impressed with what I have seen on DP Review and other available posts of the 40D, as images appear to me to be quite flat, lifeless, and they have a pastel-like flavor. I have yet to see a pure primary "red" from the 40D. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the camera is unable to perform that task, I am simply saying that I have yet to see some "primary" red from the 40D. What I see is a pinkish hue in every shot that I've seen in the red spectrum, something that is pastel-like, and not pure. If anyone has an example that shows a pure primary "red" or knows of one, I'd be very pleased to have the link. And I would be quite happy to withdraw my complaint as well with the IQ of this camera in that area. It may simply be that the photographers I've seen have shot in AWB and have not taken the time to use a grey card. That is what I'd like to see investigated.
Again, I am not dissing the IQ of this camera since there are simply not enough posted samples to provide a clear and fair comparison. However, I have yet to go to any 5D site where I am not extremely impressed with one or more photos, and I'm talking IQ here, nothing more, and nothing less. It doesn't matter how many bells and whistles that a tool has, if it can't perform in the most important area, then it is flawed. The 5D impresses me in that most important area, image quality.
In order to exemplify my above concerns I am posting a small visual of what I mean by "primary" red. I quickly made this up as a response to another post and decided to post it here as well, just to clarify what I'm seeing.
Again, this may simply be a matter of AWB not being spot on, and manual white balance being needed in this particular incidence. I don't know. All that I do know is that "every" shot I've seen with the 40D has that pastel red. To me, that is not a minor thing. The sign on the right is the "primary" red
Just so entertaining listening to the "experts" guess 
