40D - Have I Made A Mistake?

[hjoseph7]

The 40D is a great camera. If I hadn't purchased the 30D a couple of years earlier, I would be very happy with the 40D. However, the 5D is still selling at $900 above the 40D. There must be a reason.

[fotografz]

Yes, the 40D is a fine camera. Is it fine for what you want to do? Well, what do you mean by Product photography? For fun, or for money? If for fun and exploration, let her rip. If for money, then what kind of Product photography? For who?

 

These blanket answers without knowing the specifics of your aspirations doesn't do much except make you feel warm and fuzzy about your decision. Same for "it's the photographer, not the camera" bromide. Of course that's true, DUH. But there is an equally relevant old

bromide ... "Horses for courses." The right tool for the job.

 

For example, if you crank out volume parts catalog photography you'll blow through any Pro-sumer camera in quick order. If you want to do magazine advertising showing slick product photography like for food or spirits, then resolution can become of paramount important.

Here's why ... straight from the horses' mouth (not his bum : -) ... most product photography is used in multiple sized formats ... from tiny web images ... to magazine ads ranging from Digest size to Tabloid sized spreads ... to bus wraps, to billboards. Often a product shot has

to include a huge amount of border space to accommodate the huge range of crop proportions in printed matter. Plus, Art Directors are quite fond of cropping the bejesus out of an image ... and they want the resolution to be able to do that.

 

Folks here may buy product work from your 40D ... but I probably wouldn't. The difference may be that they don't buy product photography, and I do. Millions of dollars worth over a long career as an Art Director. Just a real world perspective to consider.

 

Practice up with your 40D and do some small jobs locally ... if you're really talented, you'll reach the limits of that camera pretty fast ... but the good news is that you'll know where to go from there based on your experiences. Best of luck.

[jason_hall4]

Lindsay,

 

As many of the folks here, I own both and I can tell you the difference in output of the two is minimal.. The 40D is more advanced and is a better performer. Both and I mean both are great cameras....for different reasons.

 

Difference in features aside, the main advantage I see in the 5D is the larger view finder and the fact my lens are what they should be. Meaning my 24-105 is really a 24mm on the wide end. At the same time the 40D made my 200mm into a 320mm Also my 70-200f2.8 makes a great portrait lens now on the 5D. My 85mm f1.8 is much more useable indoors.

 

Please understand that the 5D is a truely great camera, but does not take any better of a photo than the 40D, just a little bigger one. I guess the folks that look down on your 40D because it is concidered to be a consumer model. While it is just that it is also very much of pro quality, it just doesn't have a few more features or the sealing. If the FF snobs look down on it because of the crop factor, then think of this. Of all the big time high level pros that have shot Nikon digital for years now, none have had FF until this past year. Look at the work that they produce...don't tell me you have to have FF. That is a load of crock. Sorry I am being so direct. But I heard so much about the FF haveing this extra something about it. It is the same &^%($# technology...just a larger piece of silicon.

[jason_hall4]

>>>"However, the 5D is still selling at $900 above the 40D. There must be a reason."<<<

 

The larger sensor cost a fair amount more to produce in quanity. It has been said it is because of the number of sensors that can be made from a single waffer of silicon.

 

Jason

[jason_hall4]

Ok, now that I have taken a little more time to reflect and to read marc's post. The bottom line is, will the 40D have the resolution that you need for the intended output? I don't know as I shoot portraits and events. If the resolution is good enough then you are golden. If not, then decide what you really do need and work toward that. Many pros only rent the larger cameras as the jobs come along that require it.

 

Jason

[colinsouthern]

"Thank you Colin, that was an excellent summary, it very much put things into perspective for me. "

 

You're welcome Lindsay :)

 

As with anything in life, you have to ferrett out the positive value, and learn to discard the negative value in all of life's experiences - it's sounds like your your course has a bit of both.

 

I'd suggest you hang around here a bit as well - there's a wealth of experience around here - we don't all agree, but on most occasions we back that up by saying why - which gives you the opportunity to make an informed decision. Keep in mind also that people tend to speak using their own experiences as a frame of reference: what may be good advice for a landscape photographer may be hopeless advice for a sports photogrpher or a wedding photographer. If in doubt, have a look through the online galleries of those who offer advice and perhaps seek the advice of those who are already getting the results that you'd like to be able to get.

 

Cheers,

 

Colin

[bob_king2]

I recently did a shootout with a professional photographer I know. He was armed with a 5D

+ EF 24-70 f/2.8 L while I had a 400D with EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. He was very skeptical of EF-

S lenses. We photographed the same subjects, both wide open and stopped down, both hand

held and on a tripod. We loaded the shots onto his Mac. He examined each shot at pixel

level. He was damned if he could see a difference... But I guess I had an advantage with IS.

 

Cheers, Bob

[colinsouthern]

"We loaded the shots onto his Mac. He examined each shot at pixel level. He was damned if he could see a difference... But I guess I had an advantage with IS."

 

Nah - it'll just be those low-quality Mac monitors blurring everything as usual :)

[lindsay_dobson]

Thank you again for all your responses, this is very interesting indeed.

 

Victor - that's correct, I didn't sign up for the (two) workshops where my equipment was regarded as below-par.

 

Marc, thank you for your comments, may I ask you to elaborate on a couple of things: "Folks here may buy product work from your 40D ... but I probably wouldn't. Practice up with your 40D and do some small jobs locally ... if you're really talented, you'll reach the limits of that camera pretty fast".

 

In terms of my product photography so far my jobs have included fine watches for a small journal and necklaces for a local business. Incidentally, the watch photographs were very well received, but I didn't bother telling anybody I'd shot them with my lowly 350D. Of course, I do understand that large formats are essential in many circumstances and clearly that is a limiting factor. However, in terms of how this relates to the 40D/5D debate, I don't really see much (if any) advantage in the 5D at just two more megapixels. Versus the 5D, in what sense would one outgrow the 40D? I can certainly see why the larger formats would be needed for many kinds of product work - but why would the 5D be included in that category? Just to clarify, are you saying you would not buy product shots taken with a 40D but you would take shots from a 5D? I was a little alarmed by the fact you feel I might 'blow through' the 40D quickly - do you mean it's not robust enough for a high workload?

[lindsay_dobson]

Marc - I forgot to ask you what the minimum resolution is that you would accept for product shots (editorial/magazine). This is of interest, because I have had variable answers.

[mike_earussi1]

Lindsay, professional product photography is usually done using view cameras, 4x5-8x10, not only for the resolution (properly scanned they can yield 200-400mb file sizes, far greater than anything achievable with a DSLR) but because the camera movements enable you to control the image much better. If you're unfamiliar with view cameras and what they can do there are plenty of books on them at the library, and no doubt, some info on the web.

[fotografz]

Lindsay, your questions are getting to the heart of it ... good for you.

 

It sounds like you have already embarked on the advice I provided to shoot some small local jobs ... well before I gave it : -) And I have no doubt that your watch images for the small journal were well received ... for something like that there's nothing lowly about a 350D or a 40D. Lighting technique and optics can play a greater

role than the camera used in those less resolution demanding circumstances. Which is why I gave you that advice.

 

There are far more technically minded folks on this forum than I am, or care to be. Yet I'm surprised that no one mentioned pixel pitch. The 40D is a crop frame sensor. The 5D is not. The 5D pixels are larger .. so while only 2 megs greater, they make up a full frame sensor. This tends to produce smoother tonal gradations and

allows the capture of more subtile lighting and texture. To put it in perspective, the new Canon 21.1 meg 1DsMKIII cannot hold a candle to a 22 meg Phase One, Leaf Aptus, or Hasselblad MF digital back. Same pixel count, but the Phase One sensor is almost 645 in size. (I'm not advocating a MF back, just using it as an example of

pixel size in relationship to image quality).

 

However for most of what I buy in terms of commercial images for advertising and promotion, a 5D wouldn't cut it anyway. So, I'd say don't sweat it. Use your current camera to learn with, and when the time comes you'll know full well where you need to go.

 

The comment concerning the durability of these so called Pro-sumer cameras meant that they were not designed for the day-to-day chugging out of thousands of catalog images. Before digital, this was the domain of the Hasselblad E series cameras that were built like M1 tanks. If catalog product studios use a 35mm digital it's

now something like a 1-Series Canon. Personally, I've never seen anything less employed in that kind of work. There is a reason why Canon and Nikon build cameras like the 1 series and top Nikon Pro digital cameras ... if there wasn't a need for them no one would buy any. There is nothing worse than having a digital system go

down when you have highly paid models and make-up artists standing around twiddling their thumbs.

 

There is no pat answer as to the minimum resolution that is acceptable. It is completely dependent on use. It is the unpredictability of use that often has the photography buyer erroring on the side of "More is More". For example, I was in NYC supervising a food shoot for an Unilever national food ad. The Agency prodcuction

manager had provided all the magazine specs so we could allow for bleed and trim for the worst case scenario. We were shooting with a rented Phase One 22 meg digital back mounted on a Sinar view camera using Digital optics. The tech expert running the Phase One Capture then warned us that we were running out of resolution

if we allowed for much more bleed and trim. In this case I kept the resolution where it should be, and had a retoucher add some extra background for the worst magazine crop and trim.

 

BTW, I also own a commercial photo studio, and do some local commercial photography myself. Here's an example of the "you never know" how the stuff is going to be used: I had a small company approach me to shoot a catalog of editorial type images of their rain gear made for horse back riders. A location shoot that sounded

perfect for using my 1DsMKII and 5D ... until I was informed that they'd be not only be using the images for the internet and a printed catalog ... but also for for trade show display prints @ 8 feet wide! The Canon's stayed home, and I took a Hasseblad H3D/39 and H3D/31 ... which I own, but would have rented if I didn't.

 

Here's some of the shots that were made into 8' wide prints that had to be clean looking from even a few feet away since they lined the inside of the client's trade show booth: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=777157

 

I detect an aspiration to move forward on your part. If you'd like some help, or an experienced eye to look at some of your work feel free to contact me. This is what I do for a living.

[lindsay_dobson]

Marc - thank you so much for such a detailed and extremely helpful response. I'm sure you have detected that I am experiencing the psychological battle of what I want to achieve versus what is practically and financially possible. I do need to be grounded at times and in many ways the product photography might not be the way forward for me. I suspect these leanings come from my technical background (clinical biochemist in the early years, then a long stretch as an interior decorator) and some comfort with innanimate objects as opposed to living and breathing ones! To get the best from the (limited) equipment I have I think I should perhaps explore other areas such as portraiture - where I suspect the 5d might be more appropriate.

 

Ah! I had wondered about the construction of the Canon 1 series bodies - I'd always assumed they were made that way so they could do double-duty as a defensive weapon, should some hapless paparazzo need to defend himself. I did consider a used one of these, but I was concerned it might have been flogged to death, as so many pro-cameras are.

 

I have struggled at times with the whole 'size' thing, particularly in terms of why such huge images would be needed for magazine spreads. I had naively thought I could simply upscale my pictures (to a degree) with the relevant software. But I can certainly see your point in terms of the massive billboards you mentioned! I thought those photos were absolutely dazzling, and a timely reminder of just how hard I will have to work over the coming years if I am to achieve my goal of a modest second income.

 

Thank you so much for offering to look at some of my work, I hope that I will be able to show you something decent at some point. I would be too embarrassed to submit what I have done so far!

 

Kind regards, Lindsay

[alan_myers]

Hi Lindsay,

 

First of all, be aware that every piece of photo equipment comes with it's limitations. It's a photographer's skill working around those that counts, more than the comparative price or capabilities of any given item.

 

More and more product shots are made for use on the web. Your 40D will be more than enough camera for that. A 10MP camera is also plenty for most print publications, ressed up a little.

 

Next time a tutor frowns at your 40D, show them Live View. That will probably shut them up.

 

If you are seriously considering a TS-E lens, I'd suggest you rent before you buy. I think on a 40D you will find the 45/2.8 more useful than the 90/2.8 TS-E. (I've used the 45mm on my 30Ds for literally hundreds of small product shots.)

 

The 40D can also provide excellent portraits. The lenses you use will have more influence on the quality of those, than the camera that's capturing the image.

 

In time you will probably find yourself with more than one camera body, serving different purposes. In the meantime, a 40D will do fine for the learning process.

 

As soon as you find the limitations of any piece of photo equipment that you *can't* work around, you will know exactly what other piece of equipment you need to add to your kit, to do the job.

[fotografz]

"I'm sure you have detected that I am experiencing the psychological battle of what I want to achieve versus what is practically and financially possible."

 

Join the club Lindsay : -) That's an occupational hazard that many ambitious photographers experience.

 

Work on developing your vision, study lighting like crazy. Don't place limits on yourself. If you need more than what you have to achieve an idea or express a vision... rent it.

 

 

Most of all, develop your taste. See what's going on in the world of product photography ... or any other form of photography ... right where and when it's happening ... in the real world of working professionals.

 

 

Here's a good place to start: http://www.blackbook.com/search_result.php?s_cate=prod

 

 

Don't be intimidated, be inspired.

[lindsay_dobson]

Marc - I'm so pleased I'm not the only one who thinks like that! And thank you for the link, it's really fascinating. I'm drooling over the pictures.

 

Alan - that is very true, I am indeed used to working around the limitations of a basic kit, I shouldn't have allowed myself to be niggled by the workshop tutors. There's bound to be the odd one in the class with more money than sense, shame I can't be there to find out. And I would love to know what you have been able to achieve with the TS lens.

[steve_whittaker3]

Hi,

I recently bought a 40D after looking at the 5D and the 1D MK111,

I shoot weddings when I am not doing the Videography side of things, I love the 40D I wouldn't have had a need for the 1D unless I was shoting sport and the 5D I couldn't justify the price dif, All my clients have been very happy and knock on wood I haven''t had one complaint at all, The 40D is a great camera I highly recommend it for what you are doing.

 

cheers

Steve

www.exceptionalmoments.net

[lindsay_dobson]

Hi Steve, I'm pleased you're happy with the 40D, it has some great features. One of my friends is also a wedding photographer and he's still using his 20D, with great results. There have been some developments over the weekend - I've been offered a used (but immaculate) 5D body in exchange for my new 40D and lens. I'm not sure what to do. One thing that struck me was, after using the 40D for a couple of weeks, the 5D felt a bit 'basic'. I'm not saying it isn't a superb camera, because it is, it's just I'd got used to the bigger screen and the automatic sensor cleaning, and all the 'goodies' on the 40D!

[tom_worster]

i got my 40d in january. my first slr in nearly 20 years. like you, i did suffer sensor envy from time to

time sine the purchase.

 

but i've come to see the dslr thing a bit different. the lenses are the real investment concern while

the bodies are like home computers -- there's a guaranteed rate of obsolescence. they are

ephemeral. you won't have it for long so don't worry. enjoy the 40d's bells and whistles and feature

superiority over the 5d while you have it and look forward to replacing it in 2 or 3 years with

something even more amazing. value comes from getting plenty of use out of it before the next

upgrade.

 

for me, the more serious worry is investing in ef-s lenses. i have the 17-85 and the 10-22 and i plan

on the 60 macro. (the 10-22 is why i opted for canon over nikon or pentax.) if i choose to switch to a

full size sensor i'll have to start over. i reassure myself by looking at the resale value of well-looked-

after lenses. i don't consider it likely that canon will suddenly abandon aps format (there's a lot of

rebels out there) so i should be able to unload the ef-s gear.

[lindsay_dobson]

Hi Tom, it was interesting reading your comments, and I do agree with what you are saying. It's silly for me to be hung up on 'only' having 10.1 megapixels when the lenses are so much more important. In fact since I got the 40D that's been my biggest pre-occupation - getting the lenses to do it justice. As you say, bodies come and go. But I don't think you should be remotely concerned at choosing EF-S lenses. I've had these for many years and they're changed almost on whim - they're incredibly easy to sell on (for a good return) providing they are immaculate with their original boxes. In fact today I traded the 60mm macro for something which will give me a little more working distance, but I will miss it, it's a fantastic lens. I got back most of what I paid for it. I use both EF-S and EF lenses. If anything, the EF-S lenses are even easier to sell, as are the crop bodies. I recently sold a 350D, in very good condition - even though it was three years old I got about 65% of what I paid for it originally. If you sell bodies at around two years old, the return is much more worthwhile.

[mike_sinquefield]

I just bought the 40D myself, and a few months ago got the 50 1.8, and all I can say is if that's not a great combination for portraiture, just ask my wife who has fallen in love with the shots I've made of our daughters with that exact combination. My only complaint is sometimes I actually have to soften my photos a bit to help hide the inevitable drool on my 7 month old's face...

[lindsay_dobson]

I'm afraid I've succumbed. There is no rational explanation for my ambivalent feelings towards my 40D, but I now have both cameras. It's very interesting to conduct some side by side tests. Obviously I am using the same conditions, the same in-camera parameters, same lens etc. What is evident is the 5D 'behaves' very differently to the 40D. I found that with my 350D and then the 40D it was virtually impossible to get a 'bad' exposure (assuming one exposes correctly in the first place, that is) but there's been the odd hit and miss shot with the 5D which I'm not accustomed to, I'm not sure why that is. It feels quite un-sophisticated when compared with the 40D, and a bit slow, but there is a notable superiority in image quality. Colours are also more accurate straight out of the camera in the 5D, especially skin tones and reds (again, identical parameters in each body). I prefer the 5D's brighter viewfinder over the bigger screen on the 40D. But I like the responsiveness of the 40D.

 

All I can really conclude is that both cameras are fabulous, but in different ways. Can I tell you which one I prefer? I can't. As has been said, you won't go far wrong with either. I know, I know, that's what everyone has been telling me ....... :-)

 

Mike - yes, I also find my 50mm f1.8 sharp - sharper than I was expecting.