Canon 40d vs. 5d

Hi... First of all, I will say, that I?m not rich and therefore money matters.

I?m into photojournalism (but not so much action-photos - but definitely

low-light), but not professional. At the moment I have a canon Eos 350 D , a

flash (canon 430)and a Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX DG. I want to change my camera-body,

but I?m not sure if I should go for the 5D or a 40D. The issue is mainly the

lens, because I would need to buy a 17-85 (probably) if I bought the 40D, while

I can use the Sigma on a 5D (I need wide-angel). The question is mainly, is the

5D worth the money or should I stay cropped? Thanks for any suggestions... Morten

I'm a 5D shooter but would be hard-pressed to pick between the two. The 40D is much

newer now and has some cool new features to go with that.

 

Then again I personally really like the 5Ds full-frame sensor and intend to stick with that.

It's perfect paired with the lenses I've accumulated.

 

You need to make that decision for yourself!

 

To inform your decision you can check out the full reviews at dpreview.com. Among other

things, you can compare noise at various ISO settings.

If I had to chose (I have both cameras) I would always pick the 5D over the 40D - better low-light capability, better IQ. I love my 40D for bird photography, but it doesn't make up for capabilities of the 5D. Now is the time to get one - prices are pretty low.

Morton, you hopefully realise, that your question is hard to answer without any information about the type of photography you do. ... You have the 350D + a 24-70 now ... buying the 40D doesn't change the cropfactor, so, why would you need a 17-85 if you get the 40D? Is there a wish for more wide? ... If so, why not get the 17-85 first?

I think that the only objective way to do it is to examine the differences between the two - and then give a weight to how important those differenes are.

 

Some to consider are.

 

- 40D has a much larger screen

 

- 40D can shoot at twice the speed of the 5D

 

- 40D has 14 bit A/D converter

 

- 40D has Digic III processor

 

- 40D multiplies your focal lengths by 1.6

 

- 5D has slightly higher resolution

 

- 5D has a full frame sensor

 

- 5D has 1 stop better high-ISO performance

 

- 5D has brighter viewfinder

 

Some things to think about ...

 

Keep in mind that you won't spend 100% of your time testing the camera and validating reviews - no doubt you want to actually use it in the real-world. In reality there is no difference between 8MP and 10 MP. In reality the high-ISO performance of both cameras is more than adequate - as is the image quality.

 

I would suggest that the deciding factors - realisticaly - come down to things like:

 

- "Is full frame a blessing or a curse for the type of photography that you do" (if you're into long shooting then you'll need to buy a 600mm lens for the 5D whereas a much cheaper 400mm lens would provide the equivalent reach on the 40D. If you're a wide shooter then you can get a 10-22 EF-S lens for the 40D that will give you the same field of view as a 16-35mm on a 5D) (and 40D + 10-22 will cost you less than a 5D with a 16-35) (yes, there is a small difference in lens speed - is that significant for you?).

 

- 5D has a brighter view finder, but the 40D has a MUCH bigger screen - which do you value more? (personally, I find the latter more useful for evaluating images.)

 

- Would you use the much faster FPS of the 40D (my experience is YES - very much so - it's amazing how much expressions change in a fraction of a second).

 

In my opinion the 5D has been a wonderful "poor mans 1D" for several years, but now it's the "geriatric" of the upper-class digital camera world. Personally I can't think of any significant reasons to buy one over a 40D.

As a 5D owner I would say if all you know is cropped then stay that way. There is no 'advantage' on going 'full frame'.

I would want to ask WHY do you want to change your 350D body?

Thanks for all the good advice, I appreciate at lot Here?s some more information as asked for.

I?m going to use the cameraa a lot for lowlight situations, and I do need wide-angels (though not more than 24-28), so yes, I think I would prefer the 5d if money wasn?t a matter. I?m chaning my 350D for several reasons; -

- It performs not very well in bad light

- the viewfinder is to dark and to small, the autofokus won?t work that well either

- It has been serving me more or less 150.000 times so the shutterbutton is really loose now

- the screen is to small

- the handling doesn?t work well with manual

- there?s no spot-metering - - - etc.

 

My consideration mainly lies on the 40D?s lowlight performance and the quality of the 17-85 lens. Anway I?m not gonna be able to afford any L-lenses for a long time (so I would have to stay with my Sigma 24-70 2.8) and if I at some time will be able to buy one it?s because I?m a pro and then I?ll probably also have cash to get the upcomming "5D".

 

I?m still confused... Morten

My major stock agency will accept images made on the 5D but not those from a 40D. Which is QED really.

"My major stock agency will accept images made on the 5D but not those from a 40D. Which is QED really."

 

Crazy.

 

If I took 5 shots on a 5D, 5 shots on a 40D (with the appropriate adjustment in focal length) - post-processed both in an appropriate way - resized to the same pixel dimensions and stripped out the Exif data and printed both at 12" x 18" I'd defy ANYONE to be able to put them into respective 40D/5D piles without error.

Its not crazy. They have to draw a line somewhere and they need to behave consistently in a way that their photographers know what to invest in, right or wrong. The argument you use could equally be used on 30D vs 40D; 20D vs 30D; and so on- and its unlikely to provide a clearly visible break point. I believe that they have done some tests a year or two ago in which they concluded that they were happy with full frame sensors but not with cropped sensors. That point of view may of course change, but you have to expect a stock agency to encourage its contributors to use the best equipment they can.

 

Frankly if one looked at the actual usage of the material by end users, most would be quite happily satisfied by my 10D or less- but the Agencies want to sell a product that stretches beyond 50MB and its against that sort of thing that they review cameras.

So it comes down (for me) to the lenses available and the lowlight performance I guess. The 40 D has some clear advantages as pointed out by some and it is cheaper by far. The 5d has on the other hand also some advantages, but if I had the same choice of lenses I wouldn?t worry - I would just buy the 40d. The thing is that I own a Sigma "L-like" lens thats wideangel on 5d but not 40d, so I would have to buy the 17-85. The problem is that the 17-85 doesn?t perform well between 17-35 (dpreview.com). Then I could choose a sigma 18-50 or something, but then again I?ll be moving towards the price for a 5D...

-- "My consideration mainly lies on the 40D?s lowlight performance and the quality of the 17-85 lens."

 

If you're serious about lowlight, you need more than the 17-85. While I find it to be a nice lens for walk around, it's not a good lowlight performer. The f/2.8 zooms are better, and prime(s) are even better in this field.

<small><i><blockquote>

 

I think I would prefer the 5d if money wasn?t a matter.

 

</blockquote> </i> </small><p>

 

You can buy one new for $2100. Last week Adorama had Canon-refurbished bodies for $1600 (currently sold out).<p>

 

Your question could be solved if you articulated a hard and fast budget. Come up with one and you'll probably answer your own question, regardless of issues of image quality.

<small><i><blockquote>

 

If you're serious about lowlight, you need more than the 17-85.

 

</blockquote> </i> </small><p>

 

Exactly. If you got the 40D and wanted a fast wide-angle you'd be looking at a $1,000 Canon 24/1.4 (38mm equivalent -- not that wide, either) or a $400 Sigma 20/1.8 (30mm equivalent, pretty soft wide open). Otherwise you're looking at lenses significantly slower. <p>

"they need to behave consistently in a way that their photographers know what to invest in, right or wrong."

 

In other words, "There's no good reason for it, it's just the way they do it".

 

In my opinion, if you can't visually differentiate the images, then the "break" doesn't exist.

 

I guess that by their policy the images from my 10MP crop-factor 1D3 are excluded as well?

Thanks for your all your nice advice. I?ve been breaking my head the last few days, reading tons of reviews, counting my pennies etc. I?ve decided to throw the ekstra 500 $ and buy a 5d, regardless of my lack of funds. Then rather wait a bit. My reasons is following:

 

It seems that the lenses produced for the cropped cameraes aren?t that good in the wide area (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina) and the one I have is good all over. So I would get quite a lot of value for the extra money and I would be able to use prime-lenses without thinking about the crop-factor. So putting together a better image-quality from a fullframe 12 mp and a better lens (that?s free because I allready own it) I think the 5d system is better value for the money after all.

If I allready owned EF-s lenses or none at all, I would probably have gone for the 40D... And then I just have to accept that they probably announce a new and improved 5d at Photokina this september. I can?t wait that long, I need it for my adventures this summer.

 

Thanks a lot everyone.

 

Morten<div></div>

The point of making my observation was to let those on the horns of this dilemma (I'm not) that if they supply or intend to supply images to the upper end of the stock agency market know that it might be sensible to check their agencies/potential agencies to find which if these cameras is approved. In that context it doesn't matter whether other people agree with their decision or not-if they want to supply they'll need to comply.

 

But I still don't agree that there's no logic. The Stock Agency does not set out to protect the interests of people who've bought the 40D. Their job, the way they see it, is to deliver an unequivocably satisfactory product for the most extreme and demanding roles they set out their stall to satisfy, and to reflect their conclusions in advice to photographers. Camera choice is one of a series of dimensions- others include PS and raw processing- they choose to control in order to do the job they way they think is right. I don't see anything in this that should compel them to test every camera the second it comes on the market. As long as photographers know what they need to do then thats good enough, and the list is reviewed from time to time. Mr Southern should also take into account the possibility that the people at this Stock Agency might disagree with his conclusion regarding the parity of 40D and 5D images- they do have people assessing these things. They have incidentally approved the Nikon 300D which is also a crop sensor and was introduced just after the 40D- so I think its fair to say that the exclusion of the 40D is unlikely to be by omission.

To David Henderson... That?s a really good point, and yes, drawing lines is always questionable, but that doesn?t really matter, because lines are drawn and that is what is important. Anyway, I don?t think it matters to me at the moment, because I have no intention of joining and agency, and if I had they wouldn?t want me... :)

Let's not get too excited about this. It may not be too long before some agencies set standards requiring 20 mp or medium format. There have long been agencies dealing only with big film--4x5 etc.

<i>Texas Highways</i> used to require film submissions, but has now relented:<p>

 

http://www.texashighways.com/index.php/component/content/article/5697-submission-guidelines<p>

 

Things keep changing. . .<p> .

 

--Lannie