7D vs. 5D Mark II...I know it's been done to death...but...

[scott_ferris]

<p>I'm sorry, you three guys are right, will anybody swap my 1Ds MkIII for a 7D or two? Please. I had not realised I was incapable of good post processing or that my eyes deceived me, or that my buyers were too fussy and didn't know what they should be happy with either. Ooh and it has video too.</p>

<p>While you guys are swapping your 7D's maybe you could spare a few for the stupid deluded Pentax 645D and Hasselblad H owners, because they don't realise they could get the quality they need for their magazines with a 5D MkII and we all now know that that is no better than a 7D because Daniel, Dave and Kieth have told us so.</p>

<p> </p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Well said Scott - the question I want Daniel and David to answer (and have asked twice but they seem to tactically ignore it) is...<br>

How much experience have you had shooting the 5DII?<br>

It seems that their absolute certainty of the 7D superiority may not be based on extensive experience of both bodies. The interesting fact is that all of us who have put thousands of shots through the 5DII and the 7D believe that the 5DII produces better quality images - especially at high ISO. None of this means that the 7D produces bad images - just that the 5Dii can produce better ones. As a pair of bodies they work well together.<br>

Just to prove I shoot both - here they are (each with a 70-200 attached)</p><div></div>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>What I wanted to know Philip, yet you keep avoiding it, is why the samples I posted don't show a difference. Hmmmm...bet you want to avoid that eh?</p>

<p>Oh, 20 years as a wedding photographer gives me a good bout of experience with gear. How about you? As to the 5D2, I do post processing for other local wedding photographers, some of whom use the 5D2. So to answer your question, I processed 15,000 to 20,000 5D and 5D2 images. How about you?</p>

<p>I'm off guys. You guys will do anything to avoid answering why you can't see a difference in the samples. </p>

[scott_ferris]

Dave,

 

I have explained to you several times why the samples you posted, against photo.net rules, don't show a difference. You

and Daniel and Keith just seem to ignore it.

 

You are not allowed to post ANY image you did not take yourself, unless it is an adjustment of an image somebody else in

the thread took and posted.

 

The closest I got between the 7D and the 5D MkII was under very controlled conditions with heavy tripod, cable release,

manual focus via live view, optimum aperture, optimum iso, manual flash etc. It was pretty pointless because I very rarely shoot like

that. When I compared real world images, well, I didn't get get 7D.

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>When I compared real world images, well, I didn't get the 7D.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Neither did I; I got a 5DII instead. But each to his own, I guess... ;-)</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>David - I have been shooting for over 25 years and started with weddings. I am surprised you dislike the 5DII so much as it was voted wedding camera of the year in the UK (by a large number of wedding pros). I cannot comment on your crops as they appear to have been taken from JPEG files from the Internet. When I looked at your source the best 5DII file was a 7MB JPEG and the 7D image is also a 7MB JPEG.<br />Rather than have me comment I just thought that I would post the conclusions made by the website you got the image files from. Here is how they concluded the 7D image results when compared to the 5DII<br>

<em>It's almost unfair to compare the 7D to the 5D Mark II, but if you're looking for a high-end photographic solution, it's a comparison you should make. At ISO 1,600, the comparison is like night and day. The 5D Mark II image is buttery smooth, even the red leaf swatch, while the Canon 7D suddenly looks like it's breaking a sweat just trying to keep up. This is relative, of course, but it shows again the advantage to full-frame over smaller sensors. After all, the 5D II is about the same size as the 7D, but quite a bit more capable in terms of light gathering, for about $800 more. If high ISO shooting were more important to you than a fast framerate, the 5D Mark II might be worth saving a little longer.</em><br>

So while I cannot personally compare "your" images the four reviews who took them drew similar conclusions to everyone else I have come across who shoots both cameras. Perhaps next time you take images from the internet you should check what the people who took them think! This statement was made on the comparison they do at ISO 1600 (where most of their comparisons are made). They also however made a more general set at a range of ISOs. Unfortunately for you they concluded that<br>

<strong><em>Detail comparison</em></strong><em>. Since there really is no true comparison to the Canon 7D's 18-megapixel sensor, all I can do is compare it to its nearest competitors in the market, one 15, two 12, one 21, and one 24-megapixel sensor. The latter two are clearly superior thanks to their full-size 35mm-equivalent status, and they should be superior. The 7D holds up just about right against its lower-res foes, even the full-frame Nikon D700. At 3,200 and their highest settings, you could convince me that raising the resolution would produce almost the same result, but at ISO 100, the Canon 7D has the lead. Also note that the Nikon D300S and D3x top out at ISO 6,400. All six are cameras that get our highest recommendations.</em><br>

Again the 21 MP camera they refer to as being clearly superior is the 5DII. For anyone else interested here is the link<br>

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E7D/E7DA.HTM<br>

I think that the opinion of the people who took the shots you say are identical makes a better case than I could myself. By the way my comps are all taken from RAW files.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>the question I want Daniel and David to answer (and have asked twice but they seem to tactically ignore it) is...</em><em>How much experience have you had shooting the 5DII?</em></p>

<p>So you want to cloud the topic with irrelevant information? Why don't we please just get to the samples that illustrate the difference you and Scott claim exists? (BTW, both Dave and I have already answered that question.)</p>

<p><em>It seems that their absolute certainty of the 7D superiority may not be based on extensive experience of both bodies. </em></p>

<p>How much experience does it take to produce a sample to prove your point? I mean really, if the 5D mkII is vastly superior but nobody can see it, or nobody can produce an image on demand that shows it, then what's the definition of "superior"?</p>

<p><em>The interesting fact is that all of us who have put thousands of shots through the 5DII and the 7D believe that the 5DII produces better quality images - especially at high ISO.</em></p>

<p>Posted not one page after someone who owns both said the exact opposite.</p>

<p>I just love appeals to "all of us." Who is "all of us"? Can I have their names and email addresses? Do they have a web site which lists their official positions on matters of interest?</p>

<p>Keith is right. The other side is nothing but talk, and not very logical or well reasoned talk at that.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>I have explained to you several times why the samples you posted, against photo.net rules, don't show a difference. You and Daniel and Keith just seem to ignore it.</em></p>

<p>That's because your excuses deserve to be ignored. But rather than debate the samples we've posted, again I ask: if the 5D mkII is so much better at low to mid ISO then why don't you have samples which show this?</p>

<p><em>You are not allowed to post ANY image you did not take yourself, unless it is an adjustment of an image somebody else in the thread took and posted.</em></p>

<p>Translation: you don't like the truth, therefore you will attempt to get the truth deleted or banned on a technicality. BTW, my link was to a separate site which is within photo.net rules. I'm sure Dave can post his sample as a link if it comes to that. Trying to suppress evidence which disproves your theory only makes you look like a sore loser.</p>

<p><em>The closest I got between the 7D and the 5D MkII was under very controlled conditions with heavy tripod, cable release, manual focus via live view, optimum aperture, optimum iso, manual flash etc. It was pretty pointless because I very rarely shoot like that. When I compared real world images, well, I didn't get get 7D.</em></p>

<p>It is under controlled conditions where differences will be the most apparent. Real world conditions tend to mute any differences. Unless, of course, your exposures are terribly off, in which case the 5D mkII is more forgiving.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Philip - I wouldn't argue with quote 1. Based on the ISO 1600 samples the reviewer had at the time the 5D mkII is clearly better while pixel peeping. It's worth looking into whether or not RAW software improvements have closed some of this gap, but I for one have repeatedly said that at high ISO the 5D mkII has an edge. How visible that edge is in print or after further post processing is an entirely different matter. Keith's posts and samples at least bring into question how large the gap is using the latest RAW software and the best post processing technique. I have not pushed high ISO processing to the level he has because, quite frankly, I haven't had to. My high ISO shots are generally only printed to 8x10 or occasionally 13x19. The 7D is very clean at high ISO and these print sizes without requiring a great deal of post work.</p>

<p>As for quote 2, the statement was an overview based on a sampling of ISO 100, 3200, and 12,800 crops. If you look at the ISO 100 crop the 5D mkII has a bit more contrast and sharpness, but that gap disappears once you process the crops and apply LCE and sharpening appropriate to the sensor. That is what Dave and I have been saying this entire time. You essentially took the second quote out of the context of the box it was in and the samples which were being looked at. His statement was in regard to performance across the entire ISO range. The low ISO crops support what Dave and I are saying.</p>

<p>As for quotes, let's look at what Amateur Photographer had to say in their 3/6/2010 article APS-C VERSUS FULL FRAME. Regarding the 5D mkII and 7D at A2 print size they had this to say: <strong><em>"At lower sensitivities it is impossible to distinguish between images from the two cameras when they are enlarged in this way."</em></strong></p>

<p>Even while pixel peeping a resolution test chart <em><strong>"...the EOS 5D Mark II is capable of resolving a little more photographic detail than the EOS 7D, but in photographic images it is more difficult to distinguish between the results from the two cameras than some might expect."</strong></em></p>

<p>Exactly what we've been trying to say this entire time.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>While you guys are swapping your 7D's maybe you could spare a few for the stupid deluded Pentax 645D and Hasselblad H owners, because they don't realise they could get the quality they need for their magazines with a 5D MkII and we all now know that that is no better than a 7D because Daniel, Dave and Kieth have told us so.</em></p>

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html" target="_blank">http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html</a></p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>I have explained to you several times why the samples you posted, against photo.net rules, don't show a difference. You and Daniel and Keith just seem to ignore it.<br>

<em>You are not allowed to post ANY image you did not take yourself</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Is that right now, Scott?</p>

<p>Every single picture I've posted was taken by me, has my name on it and in the Exif.</p>

<p>So now we know you're all talk <em>and</em> you selectively ignore what's in front of you to score irrelevant and invalid points...</p>

<p>The longer you and yours make excuses for why you're not going to post your "proof" the more right the folk on this side of the fence are gong to feel. because it surely looks to me like the real reason for the lack of your "proof" is because it doesn't exist.</p>

<p>You know what Shakespeare said about "protesting too much..."</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>While you guys are swapping your 7D's maybe you could spare a few for the stupid deluded Pentax 645D and Hasselblad H owners, because they don't realise they could get the quality they need for their magazines with a 5D MkII and we all now know that that is no better than a 7D because Daniel, Dave and <em>Kieth</em> have told us so.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's <strong>Keith</strong>, but no real surprise that you got it wrong - there's a lot of "<em>not looking at what's right in front of you</em>" in this thread, isn't there?</p>

<p>As to the gist of your comment above: someone very early in the thread posted this extremely relevant response to your "point" (and I use the word quite wrongly there) - make of it what you will: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml</p>

<p>Go ahead - spin that one away too - especially the bit which says:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13X19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Given this, why is it so far beyond your imagination to even consider the possibility that a well-taken, well-processed, well-printed high ISO 7D file might be able to give a similar 5D Mk II file a run for its money, even if you apparently can't achieve it yourself?</p>

<p>To be honest, <a href="http://www.snotr.com/video/141">this link</a> perfectly captures the way this thread is going.</p>

<p>I'll leave it to you to figure out who's who...</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I am sorry Daniel that you feel that by asking if you have used both cameras I am clouding the topic will irrelevant information. Obviously all you need to do is shoot the 7D to see that it will out perform all other cameras. As to me taking quotes out of context I was asked to comment on some images taken from the internet that you claim shows the 7D matches the 5DII. Since they are not my shots I merely posted the comments made by the people who took them (which unfortunately disagree with your claims) - I even provided the link for those who want to read the full review.<br>

Canon is clearly just exploiting foolish people like myself by even trying to sell the 5DII - especially when they charge $1000 more for it.<br>

Enjoy your 7D - there will never be a better camera </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Keith,</p>

<p>Your link. Interesting. I have linked to it regularly over the last two years,<a href="../beginner-photography-questions-forum/00XuBX"> here is the last time</a>. I also own a G10. You have also selectively quoted the article and completely changed the conclusion of it.</p>

<p>For your ease I have copied it below.<br>

<em>"Let me be clear though, <strong>this comparison is not by any means definitiv</strong>e"</em><br>

<em>"Will I be selling my Hasselblad and Phase One back? No, of course not. Why would I? <strong>Each system has its place and specialized function.</strong>"</em><br>

<em>"Now we have a situation where pocketable digital cameras – at least so far in the form of the Canon G10 – have come of age and are able to produce professional quality images <strong>in some situations</strong>"</em></p>

<p>It really is funny, I found the 7D images breakdown in a similar way to my G10 images, much later of course, but just the same. Another interesting thing, remember how the G10 was completely destroyed by most reviewers and "internet experts", most of whom also never owned or used the camera in question? It was said to have "too many pixels", so much so that the marketing department dialed it down for the G11.</p>

<p>With regards your lion toy image, it might look good for a 6400iso image, but for my uses it is 100% unusable. To me it proves that just because the dial goes up to 11, it doesn't mean you should use it. Camera technology has taken quantum leaps in the last decade. I can now shoot at 200iso what I needed to use 50iso for before, at the same time I can use a 135 format camera to match my MF film to do it. But in the spirit of showing some people, and causing you Dave and Daniel more angst, here is a little set up shot to compare to your lion. Bare in mind my camera only goes to 1600, it is built as a very high quality low iso imaging tool, however if you under expose at 1600 by two stops and then pull it back in post you achieve the same thing, so that is what I did.</p>

<p>P.S. Sorry for spelling your name wrong, I have an uncle Keith and I spell it wrong to him half the time too. DOH!<em><br /></em></p><div></div>

[marcsharp]

<p>When I do street photography, I usually use my 5DII, because I will often bump up the ISO to 1600 or higher to get a faster shutter speed to get sharp images even in decent light. Many times, I will use my 7D, because I want to extend the reach of my 70-200mm lens without using a teleconverter, and I prefer the focusing system on the 7D. When I use the 7D, RAW images straight out of the camera imported to Aperture with nothing else done show visibly more noise than images taken with the 5DII and the same lens with the same settings. It happens so often that I am generally more confident shooting with the 5DII. That said, if I didn't LOVE the 7D, I wouldn't have one, but my general opinion (without ever having taken the time to do a scientific comparison) is that the 5DII gets better quality images in camera. Obviously, once the images are processed, both get virtually identical results. I think the 5DII is worth the extra money, but that all depends upon your needs, budget, and priorities. I can confidently say that, in my hands, the 7D does not get better IQ than the 5D Mark II.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Here is a 100% crop from the above image, only a fool would argue the two images, Keith's lion and my horse, are in the same league.</p><div></div>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>Zvia - are you referring to noise at 100% view, full-screen view or 'the size you would look at things on the web'. I agree that noise when processing can be irritating but it all depends on how they look as the 'final product'.<br>

Which leads me to Daniel's comment: much as I agree with him, if you don't print much then this becomes a moot point.</p>

[zvia_shever]

<p>Mike said:</p>

<p>"Zvia - are you referring to noise at 100% view, full-screen view or 'the size you would look at things on the web'. I agree that noise when processing can be irritating but it all depends on how they look as the 'final product'. Which leads me to Daniel's comment: much as I agree with him, if you don't print much then this becomes a moot point."</p>

<p>Mike, I was looking at all views. At the web size and full screen, there wasn't much difference until after 800+ ISO. At 1600 though, I could see the noise difference at full screen. Before NR, at 100%, the difference was evident even at ISO 100 due to the 7D's weird noise in the "sky". I agree with Daniel's comment/opinion that in print there won't be much of a difference...BUT....I don't print that much so no matter what it would look like in print, it would still bother me on screen (maybe that's a psychological issue with me, rather than a noise issue with the 7D ;)</p>

<p>Gave back the 7D and 5D II today. Sad to see them go, as I really do believe both are great cameras. The 7D's AF system was such a pleasure to use that I'm waiting for the 5D III to come out hoping that it will have a similar system, plus improved fps. If and when those 2 changes are made, I'll be first in line to purchase. </p>

<p>A couple other observations from playing around with the 7D and 5D II this morning before I had to return them:</p>

<p>1. I put the 70-200 f/4 IS (my favorite lens) on the 5D and was actually able to shoot IN THE HOUSE. That may sound trivial, but I can't tell you how many times I've wanted to use that lens in my home but didn't because it was simply too long on the 40D. With the purchase of a FF, I'd get so many more uses out of that great lens...indoors on the FF, outdoors/wildlife on the 40D.</p>

<p>2. I played around with ISO 3200 on the 5D and the shots actually weren't horrible! The 3200 (and especially the 1600) will come in very handy in a middle school gym! I shot last season with the 40D at ISO 800 1/60 - 1/80, which obviously is too slow, and there was lots of noise and no really sharp shots (the point and shoot crowd loved them, but of course I didn't). I can only imagine the improvement when I can bump up to 1600 or 3200.</p>

<p>Again, just waiting for Canon to improve the fps (even by 1) and the AF system on the 5D. </p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Scott, I know it's on;y been mentioned a few dozen times, so you appear to have missed it....I clearly stated at low isos....where landscape shots are done....100-400 at 16x24. Why you resort to 6400, which is completely off topic, is beyond me. Do you have a 100 iso comparison image for us? Anything? Appears not.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Because that is where Keith shot his lion picture! Wouldn't be much of a comparison if I hadn't would it?</p>

<p><em>"Do you have a 100 iso comparison image for us? Anything? Appears not."</em>Do you? That you shot?<br>

<a name="pagebottom"></a></p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>Zvia - Am I right to say 'Get the 5D 2 - you know you want to'? I am not sure how much better the 5D2 can get as a stills camera so the question is do you want to wait for a 5D3 and miss a year's shooting with a quality camera (or however long it takes the 5D3 to come out)? That is a tough decision.<br>

Maybe keep an eye on Adorama, B&H and other sites for second hand 5D2 (with a short warranty) and you can sell it when the MK3 comes out with not much loss.</p>

[zvia_shever]

<p>Mike - I don't see how Canon could get away with a 5D3 (or whatever they'll call it) without giving it a comparable or better AF system than the 7D, especially as many thought the 7D would be FF. Also, the 5D2's fps is I believe the slowest of any current FF out there. Those are 2 big issues for me, especially the AF system, it really is nice on the 7D. I also don't think Canon can do away with the 5D system as I think there's to big of a price jump between the 7D at $1,700 and the 1D Mark III at $4K. There still needs to be a FF under 3K.</p>

<p>You are correct though, after all this I have decided that for me, a FF is the way to go....and it's not just about the IQ. </p>

<p>I also need to decide whether to buy the 2 or wait for 3. I believe there's some kind of show next month where Canon may unveil or give some sort of hint about something new on the horizon. If there's no sign of a 5D3 then it's an issue of the cost effectiveness of renting a 5D2 for this year's trips (Grand Canyon for a photo workshop in March, Yellowstone and Tetons in June, and probably Arches in October...if not Arches, then a photo workshop in Zion). Renting the 5D for all 3 trips would cost me about $700 or I can get a 5D2 refurbished from Canon (that's how I bought the 40D) for 2K. Do you think I could get $1,200 or so for a used 5D2 AFTER the 5D3 comes out? If so, it would probably be more cost effective to buy.</p>

 

[scott_ferris]

<p>Zvia,<br>

Nobody knows how Canon work this stuff out, it seems they make some very strange decisions sometimes! The 1D MkIV (the MkIII was replaced a while ago) is not FF, the 1Ds MkIII is and that costs $6,000. That leaves plenty of room for a $3,250 5D MkIII, certainly Canon price stuff high to start and then let dealers ease the price once initial demand is cleared. With the MkII at $2,499 currently, even a $2,999 MkIII looks cheap. The 100 L macro was $1,250 on release, I just got one new for $884.</p>

<p>With regards resale prices, Canon FF cameras seem to hold their value very well, I would expect a year old 5D MkII to make well over $1,200 when the MkIII comes out. If I was you, with the trips you have planned, and now having shot with both cameras, I'd get the refurb MkII now and sell it when the clamour for the MkIII has died down, whenever that might be.</p>

<p>Interesting that despite all the heated debate, when you used both you decided that the 5D MkII was the camera for you. I am very sure you will really enjoy it, and the future MkIII :-).</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>I'll certainly agree with Scott 100% on one issue: Predicting Canon's next move is very difficult to do.</p>

<p>I think what does/does not go in the 5D mk III and 7D mk II is more a marketing decision than a technical one. I think Canon's dilemma is how do they maximize sales of the 5D / 7D lines without cutting into sales of the 1Ds / 1D lines. So you see the lower-cost cameras approaching or even meeting the specs of the higher-cost cameras, while carefully not meeting some other specs.</p>

<p>For example, the 5D2 equals the resolution of the 1Ds3, but it has a lower fps, much simpler AF, and lacks weather sealing. And the 7D has excellent AF and almost matches the fps of the 1D3 and 1D4, but has a lower level of weather sealing. Both the 5D and 7D have lower build quality than the 1D and 1Ds.</p>

<p>Given the relatively small number of variables at play, I don't see that Canon has a lot of room to improve either the 5D or 7D without bumping into the higher-end cameras. In particular, a 5D with 5 fps and a 7D-grade AF system looks a whole lot like a 1Ds3. I don't see how Canon could make such a camera without cutting into 1Ds sales. But that could change when the 1Ds4 is released. It may have some magic new feature that can be denied to the 5D3, thus making room in the product line for a better-than-the-5D2-but-still-not-as-good-as-the-1Ds4 camera.</p>

<p>...But, having said all that... Canon is tough to predict. In the end we'll just have to wait and see.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Zvia--the following is just my personal opinion about your situation. I make no comments or claims about whether the 5DII or 7D has better image quality, beyond my own experience with full frame and cropped sensor cameras.</p>

<p>I have a 5D original and 40D and I use both to shoot weddings. I am waiting for the 5D III, and not very anxiously, because my 5D original serves my business and personal photographic purposes just fine. Should I buy the 5D III, I'm not sure I'd run out and replace the 40D. I don't feel any kind of lack when I sell the images both cameras produce, to my clients. Even at high ISO. Even if I know some clients will never print an album. I do know that most clients will not be pixel peeping at 100 percent, even if the images never make it as prints, and that content always overshadows technical perfection.</p>

<p>I say this because, arguments over which camera is supreme aside, it really comes down to what you value. You said you value 'just knowing' that the noise from a full frame camera is 'better' than a cropped sensor camera, so you should pay attention to that, no matter what anyone else thinks. Follow your own priority list.</p>

<p>There is one other reason I am posting. That is to suggest that you consider improving your shooting and post processing skills using the 40D before deciding on a purchase of a used/refurbished 5D II or renting it for your vacation. I know that many newcomers to wedding photography tend to 'freak out' when they shoot high ISO images and pixel peep with their cropped sensor cameras. They immediately want to know if the noise will improve if they run out and buy the full frame. Of course it will, given they still shoot the same way, which is to say, with a wider underexposure margin than is best, when trying to suppress noise.</p>

<p>My response to them is to suggest that they not underexpose (which makes noise worse) and get a good noise control software package and learn how to use it without totally stomping the noise out of the image. For instance, in the case of your gym shots with your 40D--1/60th and 1/80th is too slow a shutter speed to stop subject motion or even hand holding shake, so it is no wonder the shots weren't sharp. I know your point is that using the 5D II at ISO 3200 gives you 2 stops more, meaning, you could have shot the images at 1/250th or 1/320th, which, by the way, may still be too slow to stop most sports subject motion.</p>

<p>You might consider shooting the 40D with a wide aperture prime, at ISO 3200. Don't underexpose. Get good with handling noise in post processing. Say you use the 85mm f1.8 (becoming a 136mm lens), you can shoot f1.8 or f2 @ 1/500th (given your original EV was not underexposing the scene), and which gives you a better chance at stopping subject motion. And still end up with decent--no, more than decent--images. I routinely shoot my 40D at ISO 1600, and ISO 3200 with some care about not underexposing. I don't apply any out of the norm noise control if I nail my exposures.</p>

<p>I'm not saying you shouldn't go ahead with your plans to rent or purchase. I'm just saying there might still be some things you can do to satisfy yourself with the 40D in the meantime, and IMHO, it is worth giving them a try.</p>