Well, I love the speed/responsiveness of the 40D. The feature set is great - live view, 6.5 fps, big buffer, improved AF sensors.
But at the end of the day, like Stanj, I reach for the 5D more often - it's high-ISO performance is still better, and it tracks moving objects very well, at least when they're near the spot-meter circle (the "assist" AF sensors are quite helpful when tracking birds). And, of course, I prefer the larger sensor's DOF capability over that of the 40D.
I'm not convinced yet that the higher pixel density of the 40D's sensor is a significant advantage over the 5D either. More comparisons are in order.
Tom_W wrote:
I'm not convinced yet that the higher pixel density of the 40D's sensor is a significant advantage over the 5D either. More comparisons are in order.
It is if you are severely FL limited like with birds, but otherwise the 5D is better.
Yakim Peled wrote:
I have a 1D and 40D for about 6 month and often use both. I never had any other XXD body so I just compare these two and I can tell you that the viewfinder of the 1D is significantly larger than the 40D. And yes, It was several times when I switched lenses and amazed at the difference.
It's a combination of an increased size over the older xxD cameras and an increase in magnification (.95x vs the .76x magnification of my mkIII bodies) that makes the difference to my eyes. Also, like the 1-series bodies, the 40D has interchangeable focus screens.
garyvot wrote:
You sound surprised... My impression is the 5D does this to most cameras (and I've owned a 1Ds2).
Well then your 1Ds2 must have been broken In fact I don't know a single image quality area where the 5D would be superior to the 1Ds2, but I used the 1Ds2 far more.
I am not surprised. I am saying this as a long-time 5D un-lover (not hate, but definitely not love if you know what I mean). Again, all this compared to the 1Ds series.
It's a combination of an increased size over the older xxD cameras and an increase in magnification (.95x vs the .76x magnification of my mkIII bodies) that makes the difference to my eyes. Also, like the 1-series bodies, the 40D has interchangeable focus screens.
Well, all I can say is that to my eyes they differ significantly. As the old saying goes, YMMV.
I've stuck with my 20D since the week it came out and am 50/50 about going for the 40D now with the Canon cashback offer or holding out a little longer and seeing what the next gen brings... I'm in no hurry as I'm happy with the 20D though obviously expectations change as possibilities from new technology widen!... there's always the EFS 17-55 2.8 in the meantime!
The thing I'm confused about is the 'worse ISO noise at higher ISOs'....
I thought the 40D had improved IQ - to me, noise is an important factor in IQ. What ISOs are we talking about here? I regularly use 1600 for gigs but NEVER use 3200.
Is the ISO noise improved at LOWER ISOs? Hence the overall 'better IQ' tag?
I am using a 5D as my main camera, and bought a 40D as a back-up for the high fps (sport/wildlife) and the 1.6xCF (wildlife).
I hate :
Noise at 400 iso and up (OK I am spoiled by the 5D)!
Buffer (in RAW and with 6.5 fps, I often run into the 17 frames limits).
The LCD, blue-ish and too low resolution for the 3".
I love :
Anti-dust, really works,
AF and fps
The 3 'C' modes (one for jpeg, one for MLU and one for Bracketing).
In a word, the 5D is still a better camera for most of my needs, and I hope the 5D2 will be even better!
In fact I don't know a single image quality area where the 5D would be superior to the 1Ds2, but I used the 1Ds2 far more.