Canon 5D or 40D?

[johanjooste]

I have a question and am not sure if it's been answered before. If it is, please refer me to that post. I am in the market for a switch to

Canon digital after using Minolta film cameras for a long time. Ideally I should go for the 5D camera, but the price is for now too steep, so I

am thinking to get the 40D. My question is, the "best" lenses (L-lenses), are made for full frame cameras and if I buy EF-S lenses now and

want to upgrade to full frame later, then the EF-S lenses would be unusable? What advice can you guys give me, it's my first post! Johan

Jooste

[mike dixon]

A photo.net search of '5d vs 40d' reveals many threads on this topic:

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/search/?sitesearch=Photo.net&client=pub-1734703147688622&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&safe=active&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23CCCCCC%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3ADDDDDD%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BLH%3A45%3BLW%3A225%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fstatic.photo.net%2Fv2graphics%2Flogo.gif%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.photo.net%2F%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en&qx=5d+vs+40d&q=5d+vs+40d&section=all&x=0&y=0">5d vs 40d search</a>

[rainer_t]

The 5D (being a fullframe camera) needs EF lenses. (EF-S lenses doesn't even mount on it).

 

The 40D (being a crop camera) accepts EF-S and EF lenses. (The only crop cameras that don't take EFS lenses are

the old D60, D30 and 10D)

 

If you start with the 40D and plan to upgrade to fullframe later, you either buy fullframe compatible glas only,

or you buy some EF-S lenses which you sell when you upgrade.

[bluphoto]

If the 5D is too expensive then sure, go for the 40D. EF (L) lenses are pretty much "universal" and will fit any camera

that can accept EF-S lenses as well, so the L lenses will fit your 40D.

 

Remember, because the 40D has a smaller sensor (called APS-C sized) than the 5D you'll only get a portion of the

picture you would have got using a full-sized sensor (often called "full-frame"). This "cropped" image on Canon

cameras is actually 1.6x smaller than the "equivalent 35mm" image. This means the field of view for a 50mm lens

when used on a "crop camera" ie a Camera with the APS-C sized sensor, would be the similar to the field of view of

an 80mm lens (50mm x 1.6) on a full frame camera.

 

So although one particular lens is doing exactly the same job on the 40D AND on the 5D, the 40D APPEARS to give

the lens more "reach". This can cause problems if you were trying to get a wide angle view, but can be an advantage

if you're shooting distant subjects.

 

Both cameras really are excellent. The 40D is just about due for an update in the coming months, and the 5D is long

overdue an update - expected next month, although we've been saying that for at least a year!

 

PS yes, it has been aswered before, many times. Search for 5D vs 40D (or vise versa) for more information.

 

Happy shooting.

 

Guy

[johanjooste]

Thanks for all the answers, will search further!

Johan

[freelance]

If you are wide angle oriented, if your pictures have to be wide, choose the 5D. If you are tele oriented (if you are going to shoot birds or other distant object), go for the 40D. If you need speed (6fps), go for the 40D (The 5D is 3 fps)

[joe_oconnor3]

Can only say what I know.

 

I love my 5D. This is truly a professional build grade camera. If you have an investment in EFS lenses then go with the 40D but if not go with the 5D. With the you are getting a full frame SLR for about $2000. The 40D is a great camera but it lacks the full frame aspect.

 

Joe

[johanjooste]

Thanks Antonio, I have no digital equipment, coming from film, but need to make up my mind to go for either full frame

(more expensive) or crop factor (less expensive). Some rumors that full frame will be cheaper in near future? What is the

risk of buying a full frame camera second hand on Ebay for instance? (I have been warned against buying second hand

over the internet).

Johan Jooste

[danny d]

I would say 40D, unless you pixel peep or are shooting at 1600 ISO quite frequently the IQ is negligable.

 

As a hobbist the 40D paired with 10-22, 18-55 EFS IS, 55-250 EFS IS and a prime or two for low light you will have

excellent IQ in a very small package. White lenses are great and all, but seriously as I hobbist do you really want to lug that

heavy equipment all over, waht will you gain from that ?

 

[johanjooste]

Thanks Danny D, I tend to agree with you although I forgot to mention from the start that I am not entirely a hobbyist - have

worked on assignments (product shots, corporate functions and weddings). I intend to start doing weddings again (low

light), and in my spare time wildlife (in parks) and landscapes. So as you can see from my needs, it's from wide angle to

telephoto.

Johan Jooste

[mwtphoto]

get the 40d and take the money you save over the cost of a 5d and buy some lenses. but if you are going to do a lot of low light high iso work then the 5d is the way to go.

[photo_dark]

Based on the fact you are interested in doing weddings, I would suggest the 5D. Better low light capabilities, better resolution, and since you are doing paid work, you are likely to be using L lenses or primes anyways.

 

What lenses do you have currently? a 5D + 24-70L f2.8 (or 16-35 f2.8) and a 70-200L f2.8 IS seems to be the generally accepted "wedding" kit. Of course, you may also want a few primes as well for truly low light situations.

[mendel_leisk]

"but the price is for now too steep"

 

For a full-frame, solidly built digital single lens reflex it is *the* bargain. I came to it from a 20D, and found getting lens for the former body a frustrating (and expensive) exercise. That's not to shoot down the 1.6 crop bodies, but if you have an inkling to go full frame, and like wide angle and fast primes, I would dig the little bit deeper and get the 5D.

[wes_baker1]

Depends. What do you want to do with the results? A 40D is pretty much overkill for 8X10 prints. It can get to 13X19 very easily, and even beyond if you're careful and you know what you're doing. A 5D can probably go one notch bigger in paper size than a 40D with equivalent image quality.

 

The wide angle issue was more important when there were no really wide angle lenses available, but the 10-22 EF-s performs very well for its cost, and there are 3rd party options now as well. Add a 17-55 f/2.8, and some sort of good long lens (maybe a 70-200 f/4), and you have a very flexible rig. If you want to shoot birds or something, the 1.6X factor actually helps.

 

The 5D has a bigger, brighter viewfinder. The 40D has LiveView, which is great for composing macro shots or panoramas.

 

If you want to ride the full frame bandwagon, the 5D is the obvious choice. Personally, I just never print anything much bigger than 8X10 anyway (if I'm going to, I use 4X5 film in a view camera), so my 40D is sort of excessive already. A 5D would be really great, but my limited gear money is better spent on glass. Your requirements and resources may differ.

[alan_myers]

Hi,

 

I think the 40D would be just fine for you to start out, too. Since it can use both EF-S and EF lenses, you have

plenty of good options to cover your needs.

 

If you think you may want to go to full frame fairly soon (either in place of the 40D, or in addition to it

because that's a good way to leverage your lens kit for maximum usefulness) it may be wise to limit the number of

EF-S or third party "digital only" lenses that can't be used on the full frame cameras (actually, some "digital

only" can, but are pretty limiting).

 

However, to get wide on a 40D you will likely need to invest in at least one EF-S or "digital only" lens. Most

EF/full frame lenses simply don't go wide enough to serve as truly wide lenses on crop sensor cameras.

 

Not to worry, though. Should you ever want to switch to strictly full frame, you can probably sell any

EF-S/digital only lenses off for at least 75 to 80% of what you paid for them, assuming they're still in good shape.

 

Otherwise, you might try to stick with EF and full frame third party lenses, to minimize the number of lenses you

won't be able to use on full frame should you ever want to do so. Simply choose an EF over an EF-S (or third

party equivalents) where possible, if you'd like the lens to be usable on both formats.

 

This has been one of the advantages of the Canon system for some years now. They've offered multiple formats in

digital, that share many lenses. It's sort of like the old days of film, having a 35mm film camera for some work,

and medium format for other things. Except now, with the Canon system, you could do both with one set of lenses

(and flashes, memory cards, batteries, etc.), rather than investing in two complete but incompatible film

systems, each with it's own set of lenses and accessories.

 

In fact, you are probably aware, Canon offers three formats of digital SLRs. The 40D (and digital Rebels, etc.)

are APS-C with a 1.6X lens conversion factor. The 1D Mark III (and it's predecessors) is a larger, APS-H sensor

with 1.3X conversion factor. And the 5D and 1Ds series are full frame, with no conversion factor when compared to

35mm film cameras.

 

Only within the past year has Nikon introduced full frame cameras to compete directly with Canon in that

category. Up to now, they have only offered APS-C, 1.5X factor D-SLRs. (This is still true for all other

manufacturers, as well, although some used slightly different sensor formats that give 1.33X, 1.7X and even 2X

factors. But this may change soon. See below)

 

Not to turn you away from Canon, but have you looked at the Sony system? The reason I ask is that it's very

possible your current Minolta lenses could be used on their D-SLRs. If you have a system already, this might be

worth considering.

 

Sony bought Konica-Minolta (which made film and digital SLRs based upon the older Minolta-A mount system) and has

been aggressively developing a line of D-SLRs from it. Some of their newest models are going to CMOS sensors (and

they provide Nikon with their sensors, both CCD and CMOS-type).

 

Plus, Sony has promised that they too will have a full frame D-SLR by year's end, supposedly even higher

resolution than the top of the line Canon 1Ds Mark III (24MP compared to 21MP, so really "only" a modest

increase). It will probably be pretty expensive, though.

 

On the other hand, since they are providing less expensive full frame and APS-S size 12MP CMOS sensors to Nikon

right now, I wouldn't be surprised to see some more Sony's in both formats using them. Their current top of the

line APS-C A700 is 12MP CMOS, just like the well regarded Nikon D300. I'm not terribly familiar with Sony's

cameras, but the models below the Alpha A700 are all still using CCD sensors, which I suspect will mean higher

ISOs are less usable (due to higher power usage resulting in more heat, which in turn adds noise and/or requires

stronger noise reduction that costs detail) and camera battery life might reduced. They do enjoy in-camera image

stabilization, which will work on any lens fitted to the camera, even older Minolta-A lenses, but isn't quite as

effective as in-lens stabilization like Canon's and Nikon's, especially at longer focal lengths. In-camera image

stabilization also can't be seen in the viewfinder, the way in-lens stabilization can.

 

Just a thought here.

 

The Canon system is also excellent and can meet your needs, I'm sure.

 

Cheers!

[steveshinn]

FWIW... I had the same dilema as we set off for our vacation. My daughter has a sharp eye and I wanted to add another body to my equipment which is several lenses and a well used 30D.

 

Research on this site and others led me to get a 40D over the 5D. Cost aside the comparisons seemed to favor the 40D, and the 5D, according to some, is old and soon to be replaced. But then there is the 50D or what ever due "soon" too. I got the 40D and we left for our trip to Yellowstone before I had time to run tests on it.

 

When we returned I put the shots up on the screen and was a bit disappointed in the apparent softness of many of the 40D shots. I don't know if I simply attract bad copies of Canon ware or what but I found myself having to take the camera back to Canon (fortunately just a short drive down the road) for adjustment. Three trips later I now have tack sharp images. The same thing happened with my 30D out of the box. They said it was back focusing... etc.

 

My point, whatever your choice, I would not be surprised to hear that the images were a bit soft so check it out before you drive off. The 40D came from B&H so I didn't have that option but that was no fault of B&H.

 

The previous posts offer many technical considerations re Canon v Nikon v Sony etc. I have a small collection of Canon stuff and will most likely stay with them. I have had Nikon systems and still have my old Ftn... I think. C or N, both are fine systems. IMHO Sony, which I have a nice old 707 and other PaS stuff, is a good line but has miles to go to catch up the the C and N offerings in lenses etc.

 

For me, unless I get a greater pixel population to fill a full frame sensor, it doesn't make sense to take 10 or 12 mp and simply spread them over a larger sensor. 1Ds MkIII answers that challange, the 5D does not but the 1D is bigger, heavier and a pile of scheckels more than the 40D. I put my money in lenses.

 

If a redo were offered I would do the same things again.

[johanjooste]

Hi there, thank you all for contributing. I think I have made up my mind for now, and that is to go with the 40D, get only

certain EF-S lenses for the "wide" end and the rest EF lenses to use on a full frame body when I get there. I was thinking

to get the following for now: 17-55mm, f2.8 IS (general scenes), 85mm, f1.8 (for portraits and low light shots).

Johan Jooste

[carlwakefield]

Johan the 17-55 lens is an efs lens and will only work on your 40D? you will not be able to use it on the full format body later. Also there is the issue or DOF between a 40D and 5D. I have both 5D and 30D I would avise you to get the 5D. A 5D with a 24-105 L lens is a great package to start. The 5D is worth the extra price and you will be happy with it for years. The 85mm l.8 is a great lens and very good value for money but for many things this is long on a 40D. Backgrounds look great a AV 2.2 and I actually love that lens on my 30D but also on my 5D.