another dreaded 40d vs 5d question (long post)

[sheer]

 

First, sorry for the very (very) long post ...

 

I'm on the tail end of a one week vacation, during which I have been able to

play with someone else's 5d. I'm now going home and facing the torturous (but

happy) choice of upgrading my rebel XT to either a 40d or a 5d (before another

one week vacation in three weeks ;->). Currently, I have a 350d with a sigma

30 f/1.4 lens, a canon macro 60 f/2.8 and the kit lens (18-55) and I will

probably be keeping all of these for now (at least within my household ;->).

 

It started when I was trying to decide between the 17-55 f/2.8 IS or the 24-105

f/4 IS as a walk-about lens for my 350d and then I realized my lens choice would

depend on my eventual upgrade path (FF or not) and since I had the money I might

as well go all the way and upgrade now. Two upgrade paths I'm considering are:

 

- Canon 40d + 17-55 f/2.8 IS (+10-22 maybe)

- Canon 5d + 24-105L f/4 IS + 50 f/1.8 (+17-40L maybe)

 

If I get the 5d I might eventually upgrade the 60 f/2.8 macro to its FF 100

f/2.8 equivalent. I also need to think about a telephoto lens eventually.

 

I have enough saved up to go with either option but I'm not a professional

photographer so I shouldn't blow all my savings on my hobby (hence the 5d mk

II, when it comes out, might be a bit much) ;-> By the way, I've read a

sickening number of 40d vs 5d threads and am sick to death of thinking about it

but I want to get a new camera so I'm hoping that responses to my own, very

specific and wordy, post will help me decide.

 

My reasons for upgrading from my relatively new 350d are:

 

- better high-iso performance

- brighter, bigger viewfinder

- live view (if available and useful)

- large LCD

- better IQ

- better usability

 

I'm just a photography enthusiast (but I'm very enthusiastic) and I'm trying to

explore many different kinds of photography so I don't have very specific needs

but I do tend to take a lot of low-light photos, some night photos, macros,

city/land scapes, and some studio shots (planning to get strobist set). I don't

do sports or wild-life so while the high frame-rate of the 40d is nice its not

strictly useful for me (except maybe HDR). I'm sure I could continue to shoot

with the 350d (getting the 18-55 f/2.8 IS to replace the kit lens) but the poor

high-iso performance does often limit me and now that I've used a 5d for a week

I'm kind of itching for a grown-up body.

 

The way I see it the pros are:

 

40d

 

+ faster walk-about lens (17-55 f/2.8 IS)

+ larger LCD (but same dpi)

+ built-in flash

+ live view

+ optional wireless grip (actually I like the usb connector on it allowing

transfer to memory stick or HD)

+ 3 custom functions

+ better low-light AF (is this true?)

+ cheaper

 

5d

 

+ bigger viewfinder

+ better performance at 1600-3200 (is this true, how about 800?)

+ sharper images, better colors (?)

+ more L-friendly

+ better DOF/bokeh (this can also be a drawback, e.g. for macro)

+ EF lenses more future proof (?)

 

Looking at the 40d it seems to have a lot more going for it but many people seem

to suggest the 5d IQ to still be an important difference. I'm not interested in

pixel peeping but IQ has been an issue for me on my rebel xt particularly at

high iso (which I use a lot). Looking at my photos I have a large portion of

them at high iso since I like night photography. Also, the 5d image images I've

taken do seem much more alive than my 350d's but I haven't gone out of my way to

calibrate the camera settings so it might just be a result of higher saturation

settings on the 5d (I shoot raw so I'm not sure if these are applied or not) and

self-hypnosis ;-> Incidentally I only have an A4 printer (and occasional access

to A3) and though I might eventually print out something in a large format I'm

not sure I will. Thus I think a fair measure of IQ is how things look

full-screen on a 15" display since that's about A4 size. At this size, for

example, I definitely see grain at iso 1600 on a rebel xt but not on a 5d.

 

Before spending a week with the 5d I thought the lack of built-in flash and the

smaller LCD (than the 40d) might be an issue but now I'm not so sure. I took

several portraits on the beach with the rebel xt and the 5d and though I used

the pop-up flash on the former I found that the shadows were not such an issue

with the 5d. Do others who own the 5d feel that they miss the pop-up flash

often? Is there a cheap, ultra-portable (low quality) flash that can be tacked

onto the 5d to mimic the effect of a pop-up (I have a 430ex but I'm thinking

about something that can be carried around for snapshots)? The LCD on the 5d

is _much_ better than the 350d's and, from looking at it briefly in a store, I'm

not sure the 40d's is that much better than the 5d's (comments from owners of

both welcome).

 

Surprisingly the choice of lenses seems to favor the 40d since there is no FF

equivalent of the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Another surprising advantage is the wireless

grip with its USB connector -- that would allow me to travel with an external

hard disk rather than a laptop (not sure how useful this is since I almost

always have a laptop). I don't suppose there's a 5d equivalent (more for the

USB connector than the wireless)?

 

I tried a 40d in the store but unfortunately the battery was almost out so I

didn't get much of a chance to try live view. Can people with 40d comment on

the usefulness of this feature _without_ a tripod (I don't really care for it if

I have a tripod since then I can just use the viewfinder). In particular does

it actually work for overhead shots and ground macros or does the mirror down

for autofocus issue make it a tripod-only feature.

 

The main (but extremely relevant) point in the 5d's favor is better image

quality and better high-iso performance. Reviews seem to consistently suggest

this but is this relevant in real life shots (not pixel peepers)? I also mean

shots in low-light, etc... I tried to stress test the 5d a bit at high-iso but

unfortunately can't get my hands on a 40d to compare. I've seen many reviews

which claim they're comparable but they often shoot in well-lit conditions and

also don't check for blurring due to aggressive noise reduction (on the 40d).

Here are some low-light iso 3200 shots taken with the 5d, which when viewed

full-screen on a 15" display (approx A4), show little, if any, visible noise:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/7269236

http://www.photo.net/photo/7269253

http://www.photo.net/photo/7269270

 

I consider these perfectly usable; all I did to these image was resize to 1280

max dim (required by photo.net) and converted to jpeg. I did not run any noise

reduction. Noise may well be a function of correct exposure but I think even

under-exposed high iso shots from the 5d are quite usable -- is this also true

of the 40d?

 

By comparison these shots on flickr taken with a 40d show visible noise even

when reduced (these are not my photos, just photos I found by browsing forums):

 

 

Is this typical of the 40d and does it also hold at 1600? I consider visible

noise at this image size to be a problem even for those who are not pixel

peeping. While its true that few of my "keepers" are shot at high iso I still

like the freedom to go to high iso without degrading image quality (to get large

DOF with macro at high shutter speed/small aperture for instance). Again can

people with both or either cameras comment, preferably with some examples to

backup claims.

 

Actually the 5d has another advantage which is that I could build an EF lens

collection since i will probably eventually upgrade to FF either way. I've

thought about just getting the 40d for now and eventually upgrading to something

like a 5d mk II a few years down the line if I have the money to spare and the

interest to justify it but I feel somewhat wasteful buying EF-S lenses knowing I

might well replace them soon and I find EF lenses on crop bodies often have

inconvenient focal lengths.

 

If anyone living in Amsterdam has a 40d and doesn't mind letting me play with it

(supervised) for a couple of hours I might be able to answer some of these

questions myself. I tried looking for rentals that have them but most places

only rent out 5d's. Having used the 5d for a week I can't imagine I'd regret

having it but I'd like to at least try a 40d to make sure I know what I'm missing.

 

Sorry for the long post. I would appreciate responses to any of the points

mentioned and general points of advice. I know there is no correct answer but

at the end of the day I'm going to have to buy something (well I could keep

using my XT I guess ;->). Am I and a lot of other people just dreaming up this

FF advantage thing (as Ken Rockwell puts it) or are there significant

advantages, particularly at high-iso? Are the live-view and other 40d features

not to be missed? Again real evidence would be nice: could someone post some

_low-light_ high-iso shots from the 40d.

 

many thanks,

Sheer<div></div>

[andy_witkowski]

this one is lit by a small 4 bulb chandelier about 6 feet away...not very bright...iso 1600 with the 17-55 2.8 IS @ 55mm f/16 for 1/4 sec handheld.

 

[andy_witkowski]

Although not low light, here is a comparo of 100,1600,3200 (top to bottom)

1 image of 3 100% crops of a wine bottle label. (sigma 30 1.4 @ f/4)

 

[sattler123]

After all this writing you should have made up you rmind! So what is it going to be?

[zafar1]

See, one can never be satisfied because canon does not make any camera which has ALL the features that anybody would ever want. If you start comparing the 450D with 40D, you will soon get into another dilemma, because 450D (XSi) has many features that 40D does not, has comparable image quality and more pixels!

 

I can tell you that at one time I was a proud owner of both 40D and 5D but I sold my 40D because I was not using it at all. The only two real reasons you would want a 40D for is its high speed (6.5 fps) and low cost. Otherwise 5D is equal or better than 40D in every case.

 

BTW, get yourself a 220EX flash if you need a small pocket flash with 5D.

[c jensen]

I have both, and my opinion is you can't go wrong either way. I need the FPS speed of the 40D for my daughter's sports; otherwise I would probably just have the 5D. But if money was more of a restriction, I would buy the 40D and then concentrate on getting the right lenses for my needs.

[johnson_d.]

Holy cow, this is a great example of "paralysis by analysis". Just make a decision and run with it. In the end, it won't make as much difference as the amount of thought you're giving it implies. Or, another way to put it is that if the answer isn't obvious to you then it probably doesn't make much difference anyway.

[bob_king2]

Unless you need the fps of the 40D I'd go for the 5D as you have the funds for it plus you seem to want to shoot lots of low light photography. You will have to feed it good glass as the 50mm f/1.8 is the only one that will work out of your current lenses.

 

In my opinion the 2 cameras are for different purposes and you choose the tool accordingly. I'm in the same boat but I'm going for the 40D as I need the fps plus I already have the 17-55 f/2.8. One day I will get a full-frame camera and when I do I'll need to buy a walkaround lens to go with it - either the 24-70L or the 24-105L. Good luck.

 

Cheers, Bob

[elliot1]

Using a good tripod with your current camera may give you the high quality low light low noise results you want by allowing you to shoot at lower ISOs.

[sheer]

Thanks for all the responses and the sample photos (Andy).

 

Juergen, I think I've decided for the 5d (even before posting) but I'm not sure that I'm not just spending more money unnecessarily (when the 40d would satisfy my needs) or that I won't regret missing some features of the 40d or the 17-55 f/2.8. This is definitely paralysis by analysis (welcome to my life): either way I'm sure I'll be very happy yet have some regrets. I'm still trying t o maximize the former and reduce the latter. Anyway, I'm very sorry for the insanely long post but I just kept writing and couldn't stop...

 

Zafar is the 220 ex really a "pocket flash"... seems a bit big on amazon.

 

Elliot I know a tripod works but only when it convenient to carry around and when you have the time to set it up.

[david_wu6]

To help you not to change your mind: there is no equivalent 16-35 F2.8 for 40D.

[zafar1]

Sheer

 

It is a little bit of stretch to call 220EX a pocket flash. You can probably put it in your pant pockets (depends on your pants) but not in your shirt. However compared to the 430EX it is pretty small.

[sheer]

Thanks David, actually the 16-35L is a bit out of my price range for now considering I would already be splurging for a 5d+24-105. I would probably get the 17-40 though I've heard the 10-22 on a crop body is about as good.

 

What keeps me flip-flopping are comments like Johnson's: "to put it is that if the answer isn't obvious to you then it probably doesn't make much difference anyway." and the fact that many people say the 5d IQ is only noticably different on very large prints. If the cameras are essentially equivalent then why pay twice the price for the 5d (750 euros vs 1500 with canon's rebates)? A larger view-finder, building a FF lens collection and better high-iso handling are all good reasons but I'm not even sure if the last one is true.

 

I think the majority of people responding to such threads say the 5d IQ is better but the tests I've seen mostly notice this (if they do at all) when pixel peeping (which is silly IMHO). It would be nice to have some arguments/evidence to back up this contention by those who make it.

 

I would still appreciate answers on the following questions:

 

- 5d vs 40d LCD -- is the difference very noticable?

 

 

- Is LiveView usable for hand-held on the ground or overhead shots (by hitting the autofocus button?). Has anyone actually used it for this?

[sheer]

Andy, I spent some more time going through your flickr links you sent -- thanks a lot. Its hard to judge since some of those shot might have been post processed a lot but I think the 5d shots might be _slightly_ better at iso 3200 but to my eyes its certainly not night and day. If someone has compared both cameras under realistic (low-light, maybe underexposed) conditions by shooting the same subject with both then please send me the link.

[andy_witkowski]

Of the 2 links I posted

the first had white bal adjustment (RAW source)

in camera noise reduction is on

RAW to jpeg convertion via Digital Professional Pro.

 

The second were 100% crops of out of camera jpeg (neutral style) stuck together in Paint Shop Pro x2

 

Just a note, if the image is underexposed. I'm sure the 40D will produce noiser images than the 5D....

 

 

I've used Live View for a few things....tripod stuff

 

I don't think it would be very useful "overhead" as for the most part its a manual focus operation. To get AF to work the mirror has to flip back up, focus then flip back down, shutter releases. Also I don't think you could see whats on the LCD if you raised the camera overhead .

 

Ground shots would be a little better, pretty much it isn't a real option for subjects that are moving.

 

 

As for sports, its looks the 5D holds it own. http://www.rangefindermag.com/magazine/Sep07/186.pdf

[andy_witkowski]

err...thats flip back DOWN, then back UP :)

[zafar1]

Checkout some comparison tests I did a few months ago. These were not designed to test low light performance, but to test the (supposed) long reach of 40D.

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zafar1/sets/72157603827705006/

[andy_witkowski]

Zafar

What white bal did you use for both cameras?

Are these jpeg out of the camera or raw2jpg?

What picture style (assuming jpeg) was used?

 

Thanks

[sheer]

Andy, I've really enjoyed going through the flickr links you sent. When I said I didn't know what post-processing was done I was mostly referring to the treatment of the images on the search links you sent not your own images. The images from the 5d seem to have less noise and also nicer bokeh but I'm not sure I could distinguish them in a blind test. Also, the photographers using a 5d probably tend to be professionals more often which might also bias the quality of the images.

 

Zafar, thanks a lot for your link. Are you convinced your tests are fair? The 40d IQ seems significantly worse, particularly indoors. In the outdoor test I would tend to call it in favor of the 40d though you claim more of a tie. In the carpet test the 40d seems almost out of focus - you sure it wasn't? Perhaps its because the 40d has more pixels for the same FOV so its larger on my screen? Perhaps it would be more fair to extrapolate the 5d to the same pixel count (or reduce the 40d)?

 

Do I understand correctly that your goal here was to crop the 5d sensor to a 40d FOV and compare the images? If so, why are the 40d images also center crops -- flickr size limitations?

 

Zafar you definitely seem to prefer the 5d. Andy do you have both or just the 40d? I was a little confused with what you said about ground-shots. You think live view might work for ground shots for motionless subjects but not for overhead at all? And you think its only useful on a tripod? Can't you use it to frame the image then make it autofocus quickly and fire -- is that awkward? If its only useful on a tripod then that's one less reason to get the 40d since on a tripod I might as well just use a viewfinder (considering the 5d one's is so good). I only want live view for awkward angles hand held.

 

thanks again guys

[sheer]

The last thing I want is to go down this road but I just read that _today_ (or yesterday by now) dpreview listed the 5d as discontinued:

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/

 

Do they have special access to canon info?

[andy_witkowski]

I only have the 40D.

 

Maybe I'm mis-understanding what you are talking about with overhead and ground shots.

 

I think the lack of a swiveled LCD makes it difficult to use at angles where it would be tough to see the LCD.

 

I see the Live VIew as something great to use for macro and portrait photography.

 

It has a grid which is nice to use to line up a scene. It also allows you to zoom on the center portion of the image (up to 10x) for fine manual focusing.

 

I think at first enableing AF seems cumbersome, but like many things if you do it often, it becomes second nature.

 

Hope this helps.

[andy_witkowski]

Oh the other benefit (at least to me) of live view is, when tethered to a computer you can get a nice preview on-screen (live view on screen). Along with the center zoom and software controlled fine AF adjustment you can be assured that the focus is spot on.

[sheer]

I just meant that the main times when I wish I had something like live view (with my 350d) is when I have to hold the camera over my head (e.g. in a crowd to get a shot of something I can't see at eye level) or when I'm trying to shoot something from a very low angle and I can't or don't want to lie on the ground. This is where I hoped live-view would come in handy but for this to be the case the camera has to be able to auto-focus in these situations. I thought perhaps one could use the LCD to frame the shot and then hold down the autofocus button to get the mirror to go up focus and then quickly take the shot. Do you think this works or is live view only useful on a tripod or at a normal eye level? For portraits I don't really think I'd need it though I could see it as useful with macros even at standard eye level.

[andy_witkowski]

Yeah, In the case of holding the camera up to shoot somthing (like over the crowd) I don't think live view would be helpful, as the angle of view of the LCD is limiting.

[l_t6]

Sheer, re your comment that dpreview listed the 5D as discontinued... I think you're misreading their list. 5D is listed under "Current Models" (where there are thumbnail images). The list of discontinued models is below the sub-heading "Discontinued Models"