Canon 5D vs 40D

Is the 5D worth the extra money over the 40D.I plan on doing low light work and

macro photography,plus landscapes.

Yes.

At least 2 out of those 3 lend indicate a 5D, maybe not the macro so much.

yes. epecially for landscapes.

Hi Frank, Many people would say "yes!" because the 5D has a FF sensor and excellent low-light (low noise) capabilities. The 5D's full-frame sensor means there's no "conversion factor" for your lenses to compensate for the smaller sensor used in the 40D.

 

However, the 40D has many new features the 5D does not, like live-view and the newer Digic processor, among others.

 

It's also likely that the 5D will be replaced by a newer model soon but that means the prices are very good now.

 

To me, it boils down to the primary feature of the 5D - its full-frame sensor and whether you feel that's worth it to you. If you shoot a lot of wide-angle shots, it very well may be.

 

If, on the other hand, I was shooting with a lot of long lenses (bird photography, etc.) I'd probably go for the 40D.

 

I'm sure other's will chime in. Good luck!

Low light, Landscape = 5D

 

Macro, not really sure about.

 

I'm in the same boat. question is the 5D is just as good at taking photo's now as the 40D. The 40D has a ton of new/good features that make it hard to ignore. Faster AF, faster frame rate. I am still torn, but leaning towards the 5D. 40D is sexy. :)

the 40D has a 'great picture' mode that I am finding invaluable. I don't believe the 5D has this great feature.

 

daniel

If you plan on using the "live view" on the 40D then I would just stick to a point and shoot camera. I would also add that I like the feel of my 5D in my hands because it's has a nice "heavier" weight than some of the others out there. Good Luck!

 

DG

For low light: 5D for lower noise.

 

For macro: live view might be really nice; have not tried it. The 40D also gives greater

lens to subject distance for a given focal length (not to be underestimated at high

magnification)

 

For landscape: depends.

 

First, I think it really depends on how big you want to print. My RebelXT does really well at

11x14 or 11x17 hanging on the wall at reasonable viewing distances. On the other hand,

it's 8MP definitely suffer compared to the 5D at those sizes squinting up close. So, do

you squint up close, or do you hang prints on the wall with glass in front of them? How

big do you print? Etc.

 

Second, don't underestimate the benefit of added DOF you get from the shorter focal

length lens (assuming you shoot from the same location with a wider lens). I can live with

the diffraction effects on the 5D at f/16 if it means a bit more DOF, but the smaller pixels

of the RebelXT show significant softening from diffraction at f/16. The 40D will be even

worse in this regard. On the other hand, greater DOF at the shorter focal length means

you don't stop down as much for the same DOF. This guy:

http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/ReviewInfo.html ran some tests and concluded that there

was greater sharpness throughout the frame by using the 1.5x subframe camera (D2x vs

1DsMII). Of course, as MP increase, the benefit decreases because diffraction degrades

the image at lower aperture (thus, Nikon moved to FF).

 

I have 5D and RebelXT.

from 5D, i trade it with 40D & 17-55/2.8IS. i miss the 5D alot even though i'm only using nifty fifty with it. works great on low light.

<p>I have a 5D and used to own a crop sensor body.

 

<p>For the type of work you describe, the 5D <i>may</i> be better. I think that the

image quality (particularly in terms of resolution and DOF control) is objectively "better" on

the FF body, though whether this will make a difference in your work sort of depends: how

carefully do you print and post process? How large do you print? What kinds of lenses are

you using? In other words, are your approach and end product of a sort in which the

differences will be apparent or significant?

 

<p>The 40D has some advantages over the 5D for certain kinds of shooting, but I don't

see that those would be relevant in the types of photography you describe.

 

<p>Dan

it's not about the camera, it's about the photographer. check out this guy's work. he uses everything from rebels to xxd to 1d bodies. his work speaks for itself.

 

the ff vs 1.6 body argument is getting tired:

 

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/photo02.htm

Do the faster fps and larger buffer of the 40D matter to you?

...and he says he's upgraded to a 1Ds Mark III for best image quality.

 

A photo looking good at web resolution is pretty much unrelated to how it looks in a really big enlargement.

Buy the 40D now and wit for the new and improved 5D. The 40D is one wonderful camera. If you shoot wide and and eventually going to get a FF DSLR, then the 40D and the 16-35 lens is hard to beat.

mark

 

a hasselblad provides better image quality than the 1ds mark III. on top of that the original question was concerning whether the 5d was worth the extra cost over the 40d. the 1ds mark III costs several thousand dollars, as such its IQ cannot be compared to the 5d or 40d. also, web display sized images are the norm. very few people have a printer that can produce a 'really big enlargement' nor do most people want such an enlargement.

 

as such your comment has nothing to do with the original question. my comment suggests that a good photographer can produce quality imagery with the 40d, and, the full-frame vs. 1.6 crop body argument is quickly becoming more and more academic. i did not mean to suggest that the 40d produced resolution on par with the 1 ds mark III (that would have been asinine)

 

if the original question was 'is a $30,000 hasselblad better than the 1ds mark III' your logic might apply. as is, you're simply spinning your wheels -- a very common thing on these discussion boards

The main advantage for me of the 5D and the FF format is in the wide angle range, especially with perspective control 'shift' lenses.

 

Otherwise, the comments above pretty well sum it up. The 40D has some very nice new features, some of them pretty much off the 5D. For landscape work you could go with either and be perfectly happy.

An ef-s 10-22mm lens on the 40D will give you the sharpest wide angle combo. It is truly a breakthrough lens.

>

An ef-s 10-22mm lens on the 40D will give you the sharpest wide angle combo. It is truly a breakthrough lens.

>

 

I agree, the 10-22 zoom is a really nice lens.

>>> I plan on doing low light work and macro photography, plus landscapes. <<<

 

Yes the 5D has many advantages:

 

. Low light: viewfinder size, manual focusing; faster lens cache, especially at wide.

 

. Macro: viewfinder size, manual focussing; better IQ with range of working distances using the 180L

 

. Landscapes: a better lens cache at the wide; a faster lens cache at the wide (noted: only used sometimes); and full advantage of the TSE

 

WW

All you have to consider is the format. One is the same as film, and the other is subminiature, but uses the same lenses made for film. If you don't know what this means, you shouldn't spend more than $500 on any camera, let alone $1,000 to $2,000 on a very nice camera. Only spend a lot of money on a camera when you are educated enough to make your own decisions as to what you need. For 5D vs. 40D, all the features/details are unimportant, and image quality will be comparable if you know what you are doing. The only major difference is the format.

 

Keith

It's about lenses. The 40D only has one wide lens the 10-22. And it costs the same as a faster, full framed, weather sealed, hood and case included, and mechanically superior, 17-40L.

 

Canon has over 60 full frame lenses and maybe 7 crop lenses. The 5D uses the 60 plus lenses the way they were designed to be used.

 

What's the question again?

format format. Shooting landscape? Your probably going to want super mega wide at some point. What lenses do you have?

 

17-40L or 16-35L? You'll probably want to pick up the 5D, although either lens is reasonably wide with a crop sensor...but that's personal opinion.

 

10-22? then the 40D is the obvious answer... unless you want to sell it for a 17-40L.. which might cause you to take a slight hit money-wise.

 

Neither? Then you're cheaper option is the 40D + 10-22, although the quality MIGHT not be EXACTLY on par with the 5D... if you blow it up to 24x36 and look at it with a magnifying glass.

 

Shooting low light? Does this mean night shots on a tripod @ ISO 100 or weddings in a church with low light @ ISO 3200?

 

Well in either case, the 5D may have a slight IQ and noise advantage... but realistically, is it so drastically better that it justifies the extra $1000?

 

If you really don't have much in the way of lenses to start with... Then the 40D with better glass is a better option in my humble opinion, as a 17-40L is going to produce better quality images than an 18-55 kit lens on the same camera body.

 

If you have some nice L glass already and plan on shooting super wide landscape, then you may as well cave for the 5D, otherwise, save some money, get the 40D... it's a great camera.