Upgrade from 40D

I'm contemplating an upgrade from the 40D I've been using for years. I've been shooting more film that digital recently, and I've been noticing that when I do shoot the 40D, I'm just not happy with the results - even though I'm using the same lenses, everything looks softer than it should. I figure that enough time has gone my that a better sensor will be a noticeable upgrade from where I am now.

 

My current system is:

 

digital body: 40D

film body: EOS 630

lenses: 20/2.8, 50/1.4 (most used lens), 100/2, 24-85/3.5-4.5, 75-300II

 

I'm not in love with the 75-300; I picked it up second hand to shoot the solar eclipse last summer, but it doesn't get much use otherwise. The 24-85 is my 'vacation' lens, but I shoot the primes most of the time.

 

I'm interested in mirrorless, but video is not a consideration. Also, my subjects don't tend to move, so AF speed isn't a major factor.

 

I'm considering a used EOS M5 w/adapter to get my feet wet until the R lineup shakes out, but I'd like opinions. I'm not really looking to change systems, although that's a money issue rather than any sort of brand loyalty.

 

This is a typical subject (this is actually Tri-X scanned at 2700DPI, not the 40D):

 

 

Given what I shoot and why I'm looking to upgrade, does going the the M5 as a placeholder make sense?

My legacy from my business is a kit of Canon DSLRs and lenses, mainly 5D Series bodies, although I have kept a 20D for sentimental reasons. A few years ago I bought a Fuji X100s, and I love it - that got the 'mirrorless' bug active in me.

 

Recently I bought an EOS M5 and I love using it. I also bought the EF-S/EF to EM Adapter, thinking that I would use my EF lenses.

 

My experience is that I rarely use the adapter, even with the smaller light weight EF Prime Lenses that I have: I did pick up a second hand, latest version EF-S 18 to 55 "kit lens" for a bargain price and I use that sometimes, with the adapter, on the M5.

 

At this stage of my mirrorless journey with the M5, I am building and using a cache of very fast manual focus Prime Lenses, the most often used is a 35mm/0.95. I have found the price of these lenses is not prohibitive, and Manual Focus is not an issue for me, or for the camera, for the Subjects (mainly people) that I like photographing.

 

My advice is that I see mirrorless having a great advantage of being a physically small package delivering relatively high quality images, but I think that you might find using the lenses that you have as pain, because they might be too big and too heavy - I suggest to try that out before you buy.

 

Any details I didn't cover, or new questions, just ask.

 

WW

.

Edited February 20, 2019 by William Michael

I moved from the 20D to the 40D and then to the 60D. And now I have just started using an 80D! I was disappointed in the move away from the 40D thinking that even though I have kept most of the same lenses throughout the camera changes, I thought that the 60D was softer and grainier. However with the 80D I feel happier. It's not just a resolution thing it is just that it seems to cope better with challenging scenes better. My favorite lens that I have used throughout is the Canon 10-22mm.

For the same price I would consider an 80D or a 6D (original currently on sale). The advantage of the 6D is that it matches your film camera for format, so there is no crop factor for all your lenses. If you like the crop factor than the 80D is a very good alternative to going mirrorless. I have a full frame and a mirrorless and I am not sold on the mirrorless yet. Be sure to fully try out mirrorless before making your choice.

I'm using the 50D. It's the last of the Canon xD camera's with a joy stick and built to semi-pro standards. It has about 6 more mega pixels than the 40D if you like to crop a lot, or make bigger prints.

Frankly, I think you would do better upgrading your glass. The 75-300 has reputation of being one of Canon's weakest telephotos. The 24-85 is an old lens that gets mediocre reviews. The image can only be as good as its weakest link, and at least in the case of your zooms, that is probably your lenses.

 

I have no experience with mirrorless other than MFT, so I don't have anything to suggest there.

 

If you stick with a DSLR: it depends a good bit on how much you enlarge or crop and how much you shoot in low light. I had a 50D for years, and while I liked it in many respects, it is a poor performer in low light; it gets noisy fast. If you move to FF, the 6D seems like a logical choice, since it is much cheaper than the 5 series, and much of what the 5 series has you don't need--in particular, an expensive AF system. (Full disclosure: I have a 5D III.) However, I think hjoseph is right: I think that unless you move to a 7DII or 5Dx, you won't get a joystick. I don't think the 6D has it, and AFAIK--I may be wrong--the newer APS-C cameras other than the 7DII don't either.

I am not familiar with the stuff you own, so everything I say is generic and based on parallel experiences in other systems.

even though I'm using the same lenses, everything looks softer than it should

Could mean:

1. the AA filter and Bayer pattern get into your way.
   
2. your lenses aren't that great on a crop sensor.
   
3. pixel peeping reveals (technique?) flaws, you don't see in your film approach.
   

I recommend figuring out what you have as a very first step. I'd hit DXOmark's databases for starters To see what each and every lens of mine should deliver behind an upgraded body, compared to what I have right now) and would also try to evaluate / compare my lenses under clean(!) test shot conditions; i.e. either with flash or on a rock solid tripod, where the floor doesn't shake, like in an average building.

• A currently comparably weak lens will stay so, if you upgrade to a higher resolution sensor.
  
• High res sensors diminish your hand holding skills even further!
  

I'm interested in mirrorless... AF speed isn't a major factor.

 

I'm considering a used EOS M5 w/adapter to get my feet wet until the R lineup shakes out,

 

I dare to assume that getting a moderate resolution FF mirrorless with IBIS would be the best plan for you. According to Jared Polin's EOS RP review Canon have IBIS in the works right now. There is also Sony stuff floating around that could use your EOS glass with adapters. - (Not ultra reliably but prolly good enough for static subjects?). - A used Alpha 7 II might be worth pondering. Runner up would be an used EOS 6 or a new RP.

 

FF seems the way to go, to get more sharp pixels from a not entirely great lens. It also offers higher usable ISO, to avoid camera shake.

 

While I don't know your glass, FF heritage wides on Pentax crop bodies never knocked my socks off; even on 6MP they looked inferior to a 100mm macro.

Just FTR: I have and use kit zooms too. - If your primes are your usual choice and cut your cake, there is nothing wrong with keeping not great zooms for less serious shots. But if I'd buy into another crop system, I'd get it's wide (or range wise "basic standard") kit zoom for sure. So far those delivered better results than unspectacular old FF zooms.

Frankly, I think you would do better upgrading your glass. The 75-300 has reputation of being one of Canon's weakest telephotos. ... The image can only be as good as its weakest link, and at least in the case of your zooms, that is probably your lenses.

 

No argument on the zooms - I just don't use them enough to spend much on upgrades.

 

My thinking on going mirorrless is that the less-complex mechanics and optical path, combined with focusing directly off the sensor, should be a better system overall compared to SLRs. I am arranging to borrow an 80D to test, too.

An 80D makes a lot of sense if you can get a used one at a good price. While mirrorless cameras are mechanically less complex than DSLRs, do understand that the EVF adds an additional layer of complexities compared with an OVF, and there is no difference in the optical path of mirrorless and DSLR.

Without knowing how long it might take for the R line-up to 'shake out' or what your budget is, it's difficult to offer any real advice. Especially as I don't know much about mirrorless systems:). I had a 40D before I upgraded to a second-hand 6D a few years back. At that time, ''mirrorless" wasn't even on my rader but it would be now.

 

You'll of course compare the weight, size, balance and viewfinder of a current M or R series with the 40D (or 80D) with your usual lens in a store. Your choice also depends on whether you want a FF in the interim or whether a crop's OK too. The difference in weight between my 6D an M5 is about 260 g but bear in mind that a Canon EF-M lens adapter - weighing in at 105g - is going to eat up some of this. At $185 (at B&H), it's not cheap either.

 

The M5 looks attractively priced at the moment for what you get. If you feel comfortable with the M5+adapter and want to 'wet your feet' in mirrorless, go for it. It may even be possible to pick one up second hand. Alternatively, a 'more modern' (new or second hand) Canon DSLR than the 40D will be an improvement and avoid the weight/costs of an EF-M lens adapter. If you later switch to the R or RP series, you'll probably need a new lens adapter (or new lenses). I have no idea whether a lens adapter affects video quality.

 

FWIW, I'm totally convinced that mirrorless systems will eventually replace the current design of most DSLRs (with mirrors). I think that we're now in a 'transition phase' between camera systems with and without mirrors. From what I've read, manufacturers are making great strides in their development of better electronic viewers. I personally expect this 'transition' to take place sooner rather than later. But I also realize that many photographers tend to stick with what they know and trust. So mirror are likely to be around for a while. For many photographers like you, a key question is "when (if ever) to buy in to mirrorless"? It's the same kind of question as 'should I upgrade my smartphone now - if you're entitled to - with what's now available or should I wait until future model xxx becomes available?''

 

I think if were you (with my limited budget!), I'd take a multi-pronged approach:

- take enough time to learn about different current/older DSLR and mirrorless systems (comparisons, reviews) and trends/expectations (rumours)

- borrow/hire a current mirrrorless system + EF adapter and get some hands-on 'mirrorless' experience

- wait and see what Canon and other suppliers have to offer in 2019

- in the meantime, either just use your 40D or upgrade (cheaply) to a 'more modern' second-hand Canon DSLR that works with your EF lenses without an adapter

- When you've made your final choice of supplier/model, look at the costs/limitations of a Canon EF-adapte;r consider selling off any bodies, lenses and previous adapters that you no longer need/want.

everything looks softer than it should

 

I came back to this because I realized there's some missing information.

 

First, are you printing, and if so, how large? And do you generally crop severely?

 

If you don't crop, the native resolution of Canon printers will allow you to print a 40D image up to about 8 1/2 x 13 with no uprezzing at all. Modern software handles modest uprezzing well, so if you aren't printing large and aren't cropping severely, the 40D should be able to produce very sharp images. If it isn't, I would look elsewhere for the problem. That's why I first suggested lenses.

 

The other piece of missing information, however, is how you shoot and process. Do you shoot raw or JPEG? How do you process the images? The 40D has an anti-aliasing filter, and all images therefore need at least some sharpening. If you shoot JPEG, some amount of sharpening will have been applied in camera, depending on the picture style you select. If you shoot raw, it's all on you to do the needed sharpening.

 

When I started macro years ago, I used a Rebel XTi, which had a sensor with the same resolution as that of the 40D. (I don't know whether it was the identical sensor.) That camera, paired with a good macro lens, produced extremely sharp images, even though my postprocessing skills at that time were pretty rudimentary.

I came back to this because I realized there's some missing information.

 

First, are you printing, and if so, how large? And do you generally crop severely?

 

If you don't crop, the native resolution of Canon printers will allow you to print a 40D image up to about 8 1/2 x 13 with no uprezzing at all. Modern software handles modest uprezzing well, so if you aren't printing large and aren't cropping severely, the 40D should be able to produce very sharp images. If it isn't, I would look elsewhere for the problem. That's why I first suggested lenses.

 

The other piece of missing information, however, is how you shoot and process. Do you shoot raw or JPEG? How do you process the images? The 40D has an anti-aliasing filter, and all images therefore need at least some sharpening. If you shoot JPEG, some amount of sharpening will have been applied in camera, depending on the picture style you select. If you shoot raw, it's all on you to do the needed sharpening.

 

When I started macro years ago, I used a Rebel XTi, which had a sensor with the same resolution as that of the 40D. (I don't know whether it was the identical sensor.) That camera, paired with a good macro lens, produced extremely sharp images, even though my postprocessing skills at that time were pretty rudimentary.

 

Good questions.

 

I don't crop much - I generally 'zoom with my feet' and compose in-camera. Certainly there are exceptions, but most of the time if I'm cropping it's to change the aspect, and it's not followed by enlargement. I generally shoot RAW+jpeg, and use the jpegs for casual photo sharing, but process the RAWs for shots I actually care about.

 

My main tools are Lightroom and Darktable. I do sharpen as necessary, and a bit differently for display vs. print. More specifically, I generally adjust orientation if necessary, then contrast (base curve, levels, clarity), then crop, and sharpen last. I occasionally apply the appropriate lens profile in Lightroom if distortion looks to be an issue, also. Other tools if I'm looking for a particular effect, but

 

I don't print digital at home. When I do print digital, I generally use Shutterfly with all of the automatic corrections turned off. I print film optically in a darkroom, not from scans.

 

I'll be doing some test shooting this weekend to compare my 40D with and 80D, M5, and Tri-X@320 in HC110 using the same lens (50 1.4), subject and lighting. I know there is a subjective component to this, too, since film and digital are just different.

 

I do have the opportunity to buy the M5 (that I'm borrowing) for $450 with the Canon EF/EFM adapter and 22 EFM lens included, which looks pretty good to me. That will also have an impact on my decision if the better sensor helps get the results I'm looking for.

 

Here is a sample from my 40D (50/1.4, 1/500th at F4 on a tripod) with focus on the name over the door. Sharpened in Lightroom (amount 41, radius 1.2, detail 25, masking 0). No cropping or transformations that could affect the sharpness. It's OK, but not crisp to my eyes.

 

Edited February 22, 2019 by William Michael

The image does not look sharp to me, but I don't know if it is the lens or camera (or anything else). Your settings seem perfectly fine, though I typically sharpen more aggressively in LR (amount at around 90-100 with masking at around 60-70. Masking allows for more aggressive sharpening since it reduces the impact on areas without a lot of detail). The M5 and 80D have the same sensor and image processor, so they will have the same image quality. I would anticipate that the user experience between theses cameras will be the deciding factor. The 22mm is purported to be very sharp, and with your 50mm, would be an extremely light and compact kit.

I think that the exposure parameters are not OK for this scene, if you want the building in sharp focus.

 

 

Rationale:

> The FoV HEIGHT of the frame at the front corner edge of the building is about 12’ 6” (calculated being about 43 bricks @ 3½” each brick, including mortar)

> This means, using a 50mm lens on an APS-C Camera, the SD is about 40’ (to the Plane of Sharp Focus).

> The DoF (using CoC = 0.016mm) for F/4 and 50mm lens on APS-C at SD =40’ is about 27’, importantly the range being Near Limit = 30’; Far Limit = 57’ (i.e. “Far Limit” is about 17’ behind the Plane of Sharp Focus).

> Far Limit = 57’ means that we’d expect to be getting quite soft at about 6’~8’ behind the Plane of Sharp Focus.

> Similarly at 5' in front of the Plane of Sharp Focus and closer, the elements will show marked softness

> I estimate, (by counting bricks at 9½” including mortar), that the distance from the front corner of the building to the second brick pier on the outside of the building, is about 12’.

> The building’s edge, where the brick pier is located, is receding at an angle of about 60°, which places that second brick pier at about 6’~7’ behind the Plane of Sharp Focus

 

Conclusion:

I reckon it is fair to assume, when using F/4, the second pier and all behind it will be soft, getting softer as the distance increases. Similarly a good proportion of the grass area at the front of the building should be expected to be rendered soft.

 

***

 

I think that it is difficult to assess, with any accuracy, any minute degree sharpness at the front of the building using the low res image supplied: having stated that, the front of the building seems quite sharp on my Studio Monitor.

 

***

 

I have an EF 50/1.4 and I use it often.

My experience is that when used at F/4 on an APS-C Camera, this lens exhibits generally softer at edges than at the centre: the edge sharpness improves at F/5.6 and is a little better again at F/8.

I have not done exhaustive tests on other samples of this lens, but on the other hand I have not seen evidence whereby I should consider my lens as faulty or inferior to others.

 

***

 

Post Production Sharpening has much to do with the ‘sharpness’ of the Final Image.

 

WW

I think that the exposure parameters are not OK for this scene, if you want the building in sharp focus.

 

 

Rationale:

> The FoV HEIGHT of the frame at the front corner edge of the building is about 12’ 6” (calculated being about 43 bricks @ 3½” each brick, including mortar)

> This means, using a 50mm lens on an APS-C Camera, the SD is about 40’ (to the Plane of Sharp Focus).

> The DoF (using CoC = 0.016mm) for F/4 and 50mm lens on APS-C at SD =40’ is about 27’, importantly the range being Near Limit = 30’; Far Limit = 57’ (i.e. “Far Limit” is about 17’ behind the Plane of Sharp Focus).

> Far Limit = 57’ means that we’d expect to be getting quite soft at about 6’~8’ behind the Plane of Sharp Focus.

> Similarly at 5' in front of the Plane of Sharp Focus and closer, the elements will show marked softness

> I estimate, (by counting bricks at 9½” including mortar), that the distance from the front corner of the building to the second brick pier on the outside of the building, is about 12’.

> The building’s edge, where the brick pier is located, is receding at an angle of about 60°, which places that second brick pier at about 6’~7’ behind the Plane of Sharp Focus

 

Conclusion:

I reckon it is fair to assume, when using F/4, the second pier and all behind it will be soft, getting softer as the distance increases. Similarly a good proportion of the grass area at the front of the building should be expected to be rendered soft.

 

***

 

I think that it is difficult to assess, with any accuracy, any minute degree sharpness at the front of the building using the low res image supplied: having stated that, the front of the building seems quite sharp on my Studio Monitor.

 

***

 

I have an EF 50/1.4 and I use it often.

My experience is that when used at F/4 on an APS-C Camera, this lens exhibits generally softer at edges than at the centre: the edge sharpness improves at F/5.6 and is a little better again at F/8.

I have not done exhaustive tests on other samples of this lens, but on the other hand I have not seen evidence whereby I should consider my lens as faulty or inferior to others.

 

***

 

Post Production Sharpening has much to do with the ‘sharpness’ of the Final Image.

 

WW

 

That's a more rigorous response than I had any right to expect, and I appreciate it a lot. I believe my my expectations fit with your analysis, in that I expected that the image would be maximally sharp centered on the nameplate, where the focus point was placed, with the brick softening at both the near and far corners and beyond.

 

I'll be doing some tests with three bodies using the same lens this weekend: 40D, M5, and 630/Tri-X (my 80D loan fell through), and giving a lot of thought to the responses I've received.

You're welcome.

Let's know what you find out from your tests, I for one, am quite interested.

 

WW

A logically corollary of William's post: to test sharpness, photograph something that is parallel to the camera body. I have often used brick walls, as you did here.

Very preliminary - the weather was poor today, so I had to shoot indoors. Here are samples from the 40D and M5. Both shots:

 

EF 50 1.4

1/60th @ F3.5 on a tripod

RAW, processed in Lightroom: treatment B&W, similar degree of sharpening

 

This is an ~1000 pixel crop from center frame - no scaling. I considered using an equivalent FOV to adjust for the different density of the sensor, but I think this show per-pixel sharpness better.

 

40D:

 

 

M5:

 

I have an opinion, but I'm going to keep it to myself for now. Tri-X@320 in HC110 coming tomorrow after the film dries.

Adding Tri-X, scanned @2700DPI:

 

 

A different FOV, since I shot this without moving the tripod.

You may want to consider viewing all three files at the same magnification (upscale the 10mp file or downscale the 24mp file with similar treatment for the film scan file). I would move the camera position for the film test so as to provide the same FOV as the crop sensor digital cameras. It would also help to shoot the digital files at base ISO up through at least 6400 ISO (3200 for the 40D of course). I would anticipate that the M5 sensor has at least a 2 stop high ISO advantage and a significant DR advantage over the 40D, and the difference would be more apparent in color (though that might not be what you care about).

I agree with the test/evaluation method above. I would not go to crazy with ISO settings since obviously the 40D will be significantly worse. What ISO did you use for these? Yes, the 40D will look as soft as it is, just not enough pixels. The M5, or any other 24MP crop body, will make all your lenses look sharper. M5 seems to easily beat the film, but yes adjust the test distance. You have heavily favoured the M5 here.

Just DxO links: 50/1.4 rated 7PMP on 40D , 15 PMP on 5D II, 10PMP on 7D II (no 80D tested. - dunno what the high res crop body might be). 22 PMP on 5DS R, 11 PMP on the old 5D. (Toggle cameras yourself, once you hit their page.)

My conclusion: That lens isn't a killer, sharpness wise (like my Pentax counterpart too). In your case I'd pick a FF body and would forget about crop sensors entirely, until you feel an urge to get hold of a crop system; modern lenses planned & made to shine on that sensor + some features, that make the kit appealing to you.

I am not bashing anything less than FF; that stuff takes pictures and is sometimes affordable, but your approach is to combine the drawbacks of both realms. I don't see the reason to do so anymore (it was a different thing when low res crop bodies like 10D became available: "Finally something digital for my glass!") Right now a used 5D should be x<300€/$ and 5D II / 6D bodies should be cheaper than crop + glass.

Some interesting ideas for further testing here, but I'm probably not going to follow through on most of them. The only question I'm really trying to answer is "Would the M5 be a meaningful interim upgrade for me until I'm ready to upgrade my whole system?" Keeping in mind:

• I'm primarily a B&W film photographer
  
• I'm not shooting action
   
  
• I share my lenses between my film & digital bodies, so I'm not going to buy into another system right now
  
• My unhappiness is with softness with the 40D
  

From what I'm seeing, I'm comfortable that the M5 will drop in to my existing system and address my issue. At $450 with the EF/EFM adapter included, it also seems economical.

Without much relevant knowledge (except owning a 40D and a 6D), I do wonder whether your concerns about 'softness' are due to your camera, your settings, your lenses or your technique. I don't in any way question your skills. A FF camera (with a bigger sensor of the same size) will in general capture more details of what your lens is capable of. A LF camera will capture even more. Sensor size and sensor resolution are different. Some smaller (crop) sensors have a better resolution than some FF sensors.

 

The 40D has a 10 MB APC (crop) sensor. More modern APC sensors have a have a higher resolution (20 MB+). The same is true for FF sensors.

 

But the most important question is how much resolution do you need? Digital photos are published at relatively low resolution so the fine details of a large sensor get lost. Printed photos are printed at a resolution somewhere between 300 and 600 dii. You can work out out how many pixels you need for this.

 

'Soft photos' are in IMHO usually due to lenses and/or the AF communication between camera and lenses.