Same price - 40D or 5D?

[george_parris]

This is not like past questions about "which one should I get", as there is a

twist. I brought a film camera in for Canon to repair (yeah, I have not gone

digital and don't know anything about Canon's digital line-up other than

relative "ranking"), but Canon said they could not fix it and offered me a

choice of a 5D or a 40D as a replacement. I asked for a day to think about it

but do not know much about the practical functioning of the two cameras. I am

leaning toward the 5D but what would others do in my shoes any why (aside from

the fact that I could sell the 5D for more than a new 40D costs)? Also, does

anyone know which is a better low-light performer in terms of autofocus?

[bobatkins]

If they are the same price, the 5D is the obvious choice if for no other reason than that you could sell it, buy a 40D and pocket at least $400. The difference in retail price is closer to $1000.

 

I'm not sure why they would be the same price. That seems very odd.

 

If I wasn't going to sell it, I still think I'd take the 5D unless it was a heavily used 5D.

[george_parris]

Thanks for the response. I don't mean "price" in the normal sense - the cost to me is the same regardless of which camera I choose. So no, they are not the same "price", but Canon gave me a choice between the two.

 

Any experience with low-light performance between the two?

[photo_dark]

5D has a slight edge in low light over the 40D.... but it's a very slight edge. Due to the larger sensor pixels, it is less prone to noise at ISO 1600 or higher.

 

That being said, the 40D performs just fine. I second Bob's choice.

 

I have a 40D and absolutely love it, but given the choice, i'd choose the 5D as well.

[peter_thatcher]

I went with the 40D basically because of the price. Since that isn't a concern, my vote would be for the 5D. The 40D is only slightly better all around. The Liveview is nice if you are shooting still lifes or table tops, but even for that I hardly use it... It will drain a fully charged battery in under an hour, so the AC adapter is a must. The full frame more than makes up for the 5Ds shortcomings with better image quality and higher Megapixels.

[sarah_fox]

The 5D is a better camera, but it might not be the right camera for you. If you like low light photography and wide angles, you might prefer the 5D. The 5D will also make the most of your regular EF (as opposed to EFS) lenses.

 

The 40D is more feature oriented and is faster. It might do a bit better with telephoto photography.

 

Personally, I like the 5D (and just bought one), but that's only because of the particular things I do photographically.

[peter_j2]

I have a 5D and have never used the 40D. I love my 5D and it's dynamic range. It is a full-frame CMOS sensor with plenty of real estate around each pixel which yields better higher ISO images. Just Google "5D vs 40D comparisons" to view other opinions.

 

You can also see a hand held image taken at f/4, ISO 3200 here:

 

 

No Photoshop was used. Just Canon's DPP.

[george_parris]

In what way is the 40D "faster" (AF, shutter lag, shutter speed)? Features are usually unecessary, though I am coming from a Canon 1V.

[William Michael]

I would not choose either simply by assessing comparisons and contrasts of the two bodies: I think that logic is grossly flawed, as they are both very fine cameras.

 

It is far more sensible to assess the type of photography one is interested in (or is interested in pursuing) and the lens cache one has (or is likely to grow).

 

For example, if you have young kids and are very interested in shooting their football games and have a 70 to 200 zoom then the 40D would be my choice.

 

If however you have a nice set of EF prime WA lenses and landscapes are your bag, I would never consider the 40D for that pursuit.

 

WW

[andre_stull]

Coming from film to digital, the 5D would be my choice. The viewfinder is basically the same, and if you have EF lenses, then it's all the same. The 40D is a great camera, but now you have to deal with a viewfinder that is half the size and your lenses need to be adjusted for the crop factor sensor (100mm=160mm).

 

If 3 frames per second is fast enough and you do not shoot in the rain, then the 5D is the one. Welcome to digital!

[peter_j2]

I am flipping through the Canon EOS System Fall 2007 62 page catalogue and this is a snippet of how the 5D is described on page 15:

 

"the EOS 5D is ideal for experienced SLR users seeking to transition to digital-especially EOS owners who have an investment in EF lenses."

 

"The EOS 5D is also the perfect backup body for professionals shooting with EOS-1 class Digital SLR cameras."

 

Sounds like that would apply to you George. EOS-1V owner's with Power Drive Booster PB-E2 included :)

 

If you are in the Toronto area next weekend, you can play with every Canon DSLR and lens at the Photographic & Digital Imaging Show held at the International Centre in Mississauga. Perhaps, by that time, a new DSLR or lens may be announced,

[mars c]

One thing to like about the 5D is that you can use the 24-105 and 24-70L lens as they were intended.

 

I'd choose 5d.

[ken munn]

I'd say - unless you want to change your style - your lenses will decide for you, and the

decision they make will be 5D.

 

On a 5D your existing lenses will work in, focal length terms, as they did on your late

lamented film camera.

 

On a 40D they will, effectively, behave like lenses that are 60% longer. While this may be

an advantage if you are into extreme telephotos, it will be a much bigger disadvantage if

you are a wide-angle fan. That nice 24mm will behave, effectively, like a 38mm. So if you

are a wide angle user, and you choose the 40D, you are almost certainly looking at buying

an extra lens at the wide end, maybe Canon's 10-22mm. You should then be aware that

the 10-22 will not work with any future full frame body you may want.

[tscheung]

If I were you, 5d, because this is FF body

[david_wu6]

George,

 

I give you another reason to get the 5D.

 

If Bob's finacial reasoning didn't convince you, how about think this way: get the 5D from Canon and excahnge it for a 40D with many CF cards (5-10 2GB from example) from me or almost anyone else.

[mark u]

If you get the 40D you will also have to buy a wide angle lens to give you the same coverage you have with your film lenses. You might also need to buy or trade other lenses because of the crop factor impact. Remember that to replicate an image on a crop camera you need 5/8ths the focal length and aperture as an approximation - and faster lenses can be expensive. Buying the 5D incurs no such expense. OTOH if you had been considering buying a longer telephoto or a 1.4X TC you wouldn't need the investment with the 40D (although you'd still need the wider lens(es)). The 40D also offers more fps and some bells and whistles that probably don't make much practical difference.

[bluphoto]

I had to finally retire my 1V-HS because of the hassle of film and processing, but found that my new 5D is every bit up to the standard of images I was getting with the 1V.

 

Having tried my friends 40D (before plumping for the 5D), I have to say that the images simply didn't "pop" quite as much. Could easily be down to the smaller depth of field for a given field of view on the full-frame sensor.

 

If you're used to using 35mm and want to keep the "pop" given by shallow depth of field, then the 5D is the obvious choice.

[alexdi]

The 40D has certain advantages for sports photographers: greater reach, far faster framerate, better AF. For most everything else, the 5D is a more interesting camera. As good as my 40D is, if I could trade it for a 5D, I would.

[sarah_fox]

Yeah, what Mark U said, sort of. It really depends on your collection of lenses. However, I'll point out that I really didn't think through the fact that I would need a different walkaround lens for a FF until I was well into the price hunting process. I bought the 24-105 with this in mind. (I had previously been using my 17-40 as my general-purpose walkaround lens.) Do think about what lenses you have in your collection and what you might need to get. You might be surprised how you will need/want to reconfigure when moving to full frame.

[george_parris]

Thanks everyone for the very informative answers. I will be going with (and keeping) the 5D as it sounds like it would serve my needs and cater to my familiarity with my existing lenses (50 1.4, 85 1.2II, 135 2, 180 3.5, 17-40 4, 24-70 2.8, 24-105 4IS (walkaround), 70-200 2.8IS, 1.4x). Also, even if I decided the 40D was the way to go later, I can sell the 5D and buy a 40D at full retail and still have money left over. The only thing I am leary about which made me wonder if I should have pushed Canon for a better replacement is that the 5D has no weather sealing and no anti-dust system for the sensor (which is obviously not an issue for film) - but considering that many others have been able to live with this, I am sure I will as well (though I am a chronic lens changer).

[ttroutindy]

Out of curiosity, which Canon film camera did you have before? Also, I would have gone with

the 5D as well, mainly for the full frame. Although, depending on what you had before, you

might have been able to push for a 1d Mk III; which is a fine camera. Either way, you will be

very happy with the 5D! I am jealous, since I am still sporting my Canon 10D :)

 

--Travis

[William Michael]

`though I am coming from a Canon 1V.` (Apr 22, 2008; 12:53 a.m.)

[ttroutindy]

Thanks, William, I must of glazed over that post. :)

[William Michael]

I have a nexus with those who have double letter initials as their name . . .

 

we are special . . .

 

also . . . I `glaze` often !

 

Cheers

 

WW