40D or 5D - I have to choose!

[chris_iannicello]

<p>I've been a 40D owner for 6 months.... no complaints at all, but I was able to get a 5D for a very good deal so I figured I'd try it out. I've read all i can read on the 2 cameras and their pros and cons. 5D better for portraits and landscapes, 40D for action/sports, etc. Well I got the 5D this week and I'm testing it out, but I'm having 2nd thoughts. <br /> I shoot both action and portaits, but it's a mixed bag for my needs. <br /> <br /> The problem is I so used to the "crop lens" layout. I don't shoot much landscape, so I usually have a 24-xx or 28-xx lens on my 40D and I'm just fine with the lack of wide angle... I also have the IS kit for when I need 18mm in a pinch. But with the 40D, I can pretty much get away with two lenses - 24-xx and 70-200mm f/4 L and I have what I need. Actually, I'd probably get the 24-105mm L if I kept the 40D.<br /> With the 5D, I'm not sure 200mm would be enough reach and it's more expensive and would take a much larger lens to get the 70-200mm crop equivalent of 112-320mm, etc. The 100-300mm L is big $$ and much bigger than the 70-200mm L. I suppose I could use a 1.4x tele on the 70-200mm L but I'm concerned about the AF speed with the telecon. on it.<br /> Either way, I'm probably going to add either the 85mm or 100mm prime to my arsenal eventually.<br>

Such a tough choice!<br /> <br /> If anyone has any input that I have not thought of, I'd appreciate it. Thanks much!<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ***<br /> <br /> SAMPLES<br /> <br /> 2 of my fav shots from both the 40D (shot with the Tamron 28-75mm at<br /> f/4) and the 5D (shot with the Canon 70-200mm f/4 L @ f/4). I can<br /> see the difference in the fine detail:<br /> <br /> <br /> <img src="http://www.ohcello.com/IMG_2207_1024.jpg" border="0" alt="" /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <img src="http://www.ohcello.com/MSI_08121085.jpg" border="0" alt="" />

</p>

[shambrick007]

<p>Sounds like you should keep the 40D. But then again that's easy for me to say since I have have the 5D and 50D :-). But really, from what you've said, stick w/what you've got.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>I started with the 10D, with the intention of eventually moving up to full frame. Then I got the 5D. I was thrilled with what the 5D gave me in wide angle and in overall detail from my (full frame) EF lenses. However, I missed the telephoto end. That's OK, of course, since I'm the same way about telephoto work as you are about wide. I mount up a long lens occasionally, but it's really not my thing.</p>

<p>I eventually upgraded my secondary camera from the 10D to a 40D to recapture the tele end that I had lost and to give me a cheaper carry-around camera with a lighter lens (EFS 18-55). That gave me the smaller format at higher pixel density, for greater reach at such times as I dabble with telephoto work. Now I'm thrilled to have both formats, with the respective advantages that each camera offers over the other. If you don't have to sell your 40D to make the move, I'd highly recommend owning both.</p>

<p>If you do get the 5D, you'll have to rethink what lenses you use and when. I got the 24-105 bundled, and I was very glad I did. My prior favorite walkaround lens, the 17-40, would not have been suitable for that purpose. Not everyone loves the 24-105, but I think it's an awsome lens.</p>

[chris_iannicello]

<p>Yeah, the 24-105mm on FF is just not long enough for me as I shoot a TON in the 100-135mm range for indoor candids and mid-range outdoor work...</p>

[tdigi]

If you don't need the wide end as muchjust keep the 40D. Wide is probably the biggest advantage of a full frame camera.

[mwtphoto]

<p>keep the 40D and spend your money on glass.</p>

[chris_iannicello]

<p>Thx for the feedback everyone =)</p>

[pgranone]

<p>The AI servo mode on the 5D will outperform the 40D AI servo if you enable the extra 6 focus points in the custom function. <br>

I have shot action your years with the 5D. You have to use the center focus point for best results. <br>

I think the 5D is the better option due to the better image quality it produces. <br>

The 40D is better if you are constantly focal length constrained, or cannot work with using the center point with the 5D.</p>

 

[nhut-nguyen]

<p>keep the 40D and spend your money on glass. I agree!</p>

[w_t1]

<p>Take whatever info you get here with a grain of salt. I have both, and use both. My 17-40 stays on my 5d, and is a perfect walk around lens for me, very suitable for my purpose. If I did have to choose, I would pick the 5d</p>

[chris_iannicello]

<p>FYI, If I check all my shots, I would say my most used focal length is 70-130mm... I shoot a lot of single portaits, with some 2-4 person group shots.... </p>

[garry_anderson3]

<p>I had the same problem so I kept both. My crop camera is now used as a '1.6 teleconverter'. Its somewhat better in IQ than a glass one, more flexible and controlable also.</p>

<p>I also like having more options.</p>

[chris_iannicello]

<p>I hear you, I just cannot afford at $625 1.6x teleconvertor =)=)=)</p>

[chris_iannicello]

<p>Thanks again... with 2 kids... this all might come down shutter lag times... =)</p>

[kari v]

<p>"I hear you, I just cannot afford at $625 1.6x teleconvertor =)=)=)"</p>

<p>Just wait couple of years and mere 1.4 TC will cost the same or more than 40D. How about then? :D</p>

[stp]

<p>I think you've answered your own question better than any of us could possibly do. If you've had both and have used both, I don't think there's any better way to arrive at a conclusion (assuming you can keep only one).</p>

[timothy_pia]

<p>I'd keep the 40D since you mention how you love the reach you get with telephoto lenses. Also you mention the fact that you don't really do much landscape shooting, and that's just what the 5D's specialty is. The 40D can do fine portraits in its own right and you can chase action with it a lot easier than the 5D. For me though, I think the best of both worlds is the way to go with a crop body as well as a FF to compliment it. I already own a 40D which I love, but because landscape photography is what I shoot the most of, I'm looking at the 5D mark II down the road. I've gotten used to a lot of things on the 40D that I'd give up on the first generation 5D i.e. LCD clarity/size and menu navigation to name a couple. I'd rather move forward than backwards with technology. Once again, keep your 40D. It's a great camera.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<blockquote>

<p>With the 5D, I'm not sure 200mm would be enough reach and it's more expensive and would take a much larger lens to get the 70-200mm crop equivalent of 112-320mm, etc. The 100-300mm L is big $$ and much bigger than the 70-200mm L. I suppose I could use a 1.4x tele on the 70-200mm L but I'm concerned about the AF speed with the telecon. on it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you are misunderstanding the logic of having a crop lens. A 320mm lens has more reach than a 200mm lens. A crop sensor using the same lens as a 'full frame' sensor does not have more reach - it only crops the image that the lens projects. If this is part of your decision-making banish it from your mind right now!<br>

Taking an image with a 5D will give you exactly the same picture (same depth of field, same perspective) as using the same lens on a 40D <strong>shooting from the same position</strong> but it will have more in it. So if you put the 24-xx on the 5D and want the same image as a the 24-xx on the 40D you only need to crop it - you do not need to spend 625$ on a teleconverter. But if you want to avoid the tedium of cropping an image and you want to take a <em>frame-filling</em> picture with both cameras you will have to stand in a different position (closer with the 5D) or use a longer lens (longer with the 5D). Both of these will affect perspective and depth of field and you can use these creatively. The question is - do you need to?<br>

The 5D can give you shallower depth of field (e.g. using a longer lens from the same position), but also give you more options on how wide an image you want to capture. The 5D has been widely praised for its colour rendition and you would need to look at this very closely along with the high ISO performance. So the 5D will require a slightly different way of thinking.<br>

But are these differences relevant to what you do? If you are happy with the 40D (you seem to be) and it does everything you want (and it seems to) then I would put the money towards the best glass you can afford to get the very best from your 40D (24-xx L, or eevn the 70-200 f2.8 L IS, maybe?).</p>

[benbangerter]

<p>Mike, I believe the "$625 1.6x teleconvertor" Chris mentions is the 40D!</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Mike, I'm not misunderstanding anything. There's no benefit to throwing away the margins of a full frame image. Furthermore, the higher pixel density of the 40D (re the 5D) is of benefit. Honestly, I could do the telephoto shots with a 50mm lens (or any lens) and a severe crop, but that would be senseless.</p>

<p>For instance, here's a 100% crop from the center region of an extraordinarily sharp shot with my Zenitar 16 on my 5D, replicating the field of view of a 300mm lens on a full frame camera. While this is an extreme example, I think it illustrates the point...</p>

<p><img src="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/pn/telewithwide.jpg" alt="" width="266" height="402" /></p>

<p>So there it is, in all its glory. Not very exciting, is it?</p>

<p>The fact is that many lenses have better resolving power than the 5D, so mounting them up to a crop camera with a higher pixel density (like the 40D) yields greater overall image detail than crops taken from a 5D's image. It's not a matter of total reach. It's a matter of greater reach without sacrificing quality or resolution. One could of course crop from the image of a 5DII or 1DsIII, but then not everyone can afford these cameras.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>Hi Sarah -</p>

<blockquote>There's no benefit to throwing away the margins of a full frame image.</blockquote>

<p>But at what point do you 'throw away' the image information. If you stand at the <em>same position</em> and point the 40D and the 5D at the same object <em>with the same lens</em> you can 'throw away' the information by cropping the 5D image or you can 'throw away the information with a 40D by not recording it in the first place (because the sensor is not as big). All I was saying in my post was that the 5D gives you an option you do not have with the 40D - if you shoot landscapes then having that option on the is extremely useful; if you only shoot portraits they may not be important to warrant the outlay. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>For instance, here's a 100% crop from the center region of an extraordinarily sharp shot with my Zenitar 16 on my 5D, replicating the field of view of a 300mm lens on a full frame camera. While this is an extreme example, I think it illustrates the point...Not very exciting, is it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't really understand what you are trying to demonstrate. I thought I made it clear that the different sensor sizes require using lenses of different focal lengths and/or requires the user to change their position. I was just wanting to explain that sensor size does not affect magnification, only coverage of the scene.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The fact is that many lenses have better resolving power than the 5D, so mounting them up to a crop camera with a higher pixel density (like the 40D) yields greater overall image detail than crops taken from a 5D's image. It's not a matter of total reach. It's a matter of greater reach without sacrificing quality or resolution.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree completely. But if you re-read my post it was about coverage of the scene given by the two sensor sizes and explaining how the 40D does not make a 200mm lens act like a 320mm lens. Your comment above is about the resolving power of the sensor due to <em>pixel density</em> (and nothing to do with the size of the sensor) and this is is certainly where the 40D has another advantage over the 5D.</p>

<p>Hi Ben -</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Mike, I believe the "$625 1.6x teleconvertor" Chris mentions is the 40D!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nope. In Chris's OP he was talking about the 'reach' of the 5D and the need to buy a 1.4x teleconverter - I presumed this to mean getting a frame-filling image in the 5D just as he gets a frame-filling image with the 40D. I was explaining that the using 40D is not the same as putting a 1.4x t/c on a 5D.</p>

<p>I just want him to avoid spending hundreds of dollars due to a misunderstanding of the implications of a crop sensor vs 'full frame' sensor. </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Mike, I don't completely disagree with you, and I do see your point. When I had a 10D and a 5D, both of which had the same pixel density, my 10D just gathered dust, because I could do exactly as you suggested with images from my 5D. However, I realized that a 40D, with higher pixel density, could get me a tad more resolution in that center region when shooting tele images I'd otherwise end up cropping down. It was a no-brainer to get the 40D for the tele work. Getting a higher resolution crop body is a more cost effective solution than to get a longer lens, and both are better solutions than simply cropping down an image. In fact that is what I was illustrating with my telephoto shot taken with a wide angle (actually fisheye) lens. Here's the original, BTW...<br>

<img src="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/pn/wooded%20path%2001.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>Now I see what you mean. Choose the tool for the job, eh?</p>

[benbangerter]

<p>Mike: The Canon EF 1.4x and 2x teleconverters are each $265 (B&H). No one makes a 1.6x teleconverter for EF lenses to my knowledge. You can certainly get a used or refurbished 40D body for $650. So I stand by my take on Chris' comment. (Only Chris can tell us what he meant!)</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>"Choose the tool for the job, eh?"</p>

<p>Yup. ;-) It's good to have both the 5D and thd 40D. They both seem to have their place.</p>