Upgrade from 40D

[dave_thomas8]

Ah yes, wrestling with those eternal questions! I think the answer depends on an alarming number of variables.

 

A 40D was my first DSLR, bought in 2007, and I've still been using it, mostly with a Canon 24-70 f/2.8L (original monster) or a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. By 2012 or so, I was finding the bulk and weight of that whole concept a bit of drag for vacation travel, hiking and that sort of thing, so I picked up a Canon G15 which I found to be quite a capable P&S for most of my uses -- supports raw mode, etc. More recently I've had a hankering for something "in between" -- probably more a case of GAS than need. So last November I bought an M5 with the 18-150 zoom which probably covers 98% of what I would ever need.

 

I had assumed I would maybe acquire the 15-45 next but have since decided it offers me little advantage -- a bit more on the wide end, and a bit less weight and bulk -- but how often would I use it. So in anticipation of a big trip coming up I got thinking a wider aperture might occasionally be handy inside some historic buildings and snagged the 22mm f/2. And that may be it unless Canon releases something not yet seen that really triggers my GAS. Meanwhile I added the adapter which can hang all my EF and EF-S lenses on the M5. But it's unlikely I would do much of that except for more technical, studio types of work. (Although the 24-70 with that 5x5 inch hood is sort of eyecatching on that small camera! :) )

 

And last month, just because I could, I picked up a FotoDiox Pro series adapter to hang my collection of FD glass on the M5 for tinkering. It's unlikely I would use that for travel or action/event work, but for table top stuff, copying paintings, etc., it could be useful. The new FF Canon offering is quite impressive, but $$$$, geeze man, it's a hobby! I gave the M5 a bit of a workout on a Thanksgiving weekend trip and was pretty pleased with what I got.

 

Another inevitable consideration -- ever larger raw files from ever higher pixel counts can quickly provoke the need for a new computer and accessories too. (We consumers have been put right where 'they' want us.)

[John Crowe]

I think you have answered your own question, but in review. The 40D is soft simply because it has nowhere near enough pixels. The higher the resolution the larger you can print. The M5 is going to make all of your lenses look significantly sharper. You have had a chance to actually use the M5 so now you know what is involved and you have one that you can buy at a reasonable price from someone you can trust. I chose to buy my A6000 a year ago for about the same price as your M5 simply because I wanted to try it, and because I had little to lose. I think the shots you posted here say go for it!

[William Michael]

. . . The only question I'm really trying to answer is "Would the M5 be a meaningful interim upgrade for me until I'm ready to upgrade my whole system?" . . .

 

I'm comfortable that the M5 will drop in to my existing system and address my issue. At $450 with the EF/EFM adapter included, it also seems economical.

 

If you have mentioned the price before, I missed it.

 

I assume that is US$.

 

At that price for the two items and if it is from a source that you can trust, I'd say it is a no brainer.

 

WW

[Jochen_S]

The only question I'm really trying to answer is "Would the M5 be a meaningful interim upgrade for me until I'm ready to upgrade my whole system?"

To me it sounds "Plan B"; it is a bit of an upgrade (& as such maybe just sufficiently justifiable) but not really the right move.

What would "upgrading your whole system" mean? <- This is a very(!) serious question by somebody trying to understand you. 3 lenses ready to burn Tri X and something digital body on the side. - What are imaginable upgrades including film? Hasselblad? Something Mamiya? Pentax 645? / Leica M??

 

If the DxO measurements I quoted are somewhat consistent,

• the M5 should make you feel basically the same (while peeping your pixels),
  
• is even less efficient
  
• places significantly more workload on your PC
  

and provides indeed slightly improved final results.

 

I am not overly sure about the old 5D (imagined as my general purpose camera) . Nonetheless I dare to stress: It costs probably half the money, and should behave like your film body.

I guess 5D II / 6D should be good enough to make shooting film irrational, unless a silver print at your wall is the goal.

 

Both options are now "seasoned" but: How long will it take you(!) to consume a digital camera? <- Check the shutter count on your 40D, how long you owned it and figure out when it would die at the 100001th click.

 

I'm not sure what you might want from your final digital system. Should it be smaller / lighter than the regular film kit? Different? Or just "overwhelmingly better"?

For serious photography or for happy snapping?

 

My demands on upgrade options: Either 2x the PMP or more than 2 f-stops low light advantage or being irresistibly dirt cheap. Otherwise I'd sleep on (with the exception of me being somewhat willing to buy into convenience features like much greater AF or a JPEG processing, great enough to make me delete my RAWs untouched). I am not sure if the step from 40D to M5 fulfills the mentioned criteria.

[Mark Keefer]

I moved from the 40D to the 7D to the 6D to the 5D MK IV and a A7RIII with Metabones MK 5 adaptors. Any move will be an upgrade. IMHO the 5D MK IV was a major leap forward for Canon, 30 megapixels, great focusing system, a big leap forward in low light high ISO noise, no banding issues pushing the blacks and shadows. Coming from a 40D, you will love the upgrade. The A7RIII with Metabones using EOS lenses gives you 42 megapixels with lots of resolution that can be appreciated with very sharp lenses. If using older soft lenses, maybe not so much of a wow. But the A7RIII with metabones can make use of crop sensor lenses mode. It has more focus points and a lot of cool features and has a very complex menu. I think the build quality of the Canon is better and you seem to be someone who holds onto a camera for a very long time and the Canon menu and operation will be familiar. The Canon gives great images, it does have an AA filter so it softens the images a slight bit, but still very sharp. The A7rIII has no AA filter and with added 42 megapixel resolution, there are times the sharpness over the 5D MK IV is significant. Still there are times I prefer the 5D MK IV, they are different tools. I like having both in my tool box for now. If hope to see Canon make some significant improvement in a 5D MK V or their new Pro Full Frame Mirrorless. Hoping for a big resolution upgrade, edge to edge focusing, eye detect and tracking, better low light high ISO low noise. It will take all that for me to consider my next upgrade. Lol.

[John Crowe]

I place no trust in online testing websites. I take them with a grain of salt. As you can see in your own photos, the step from 40D to M5 fulfills the mentioned criteria, and at very low cost.

[joe_hodge]

To close this out, I did decide to go with the M5 deal. Ultimately, I enjoyed my time with it on loan and being able to buy it together with the adapter at a great price made it easier. It also helps that I have small hands, so the ergonomics work for me. I appreciate all the feedback - it helped clarify my thinking a lot.