5D or 40D - I have to choose!

[ohcello]

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.

I shoot both action and portaits, but it's a mixed bag for my needs.

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.

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.

Either way, I'm probably going to add either the 85mm or 100mm prime to my arsenal eventually.

Such a tough choice!!

If anyone has any input that I have not thought of, I'd appreciate it. Thanks much!

 

[Bastian09]

Take 40D. Much faster. More fps in action= more sharp shoots.

AF of 5D is not better then 40d. And you have a crop of 1.6. that makes a 200mm a 320mm. (and if you go for a 10mm EF-S/DC you are as wide as the 16mm EF/DG)...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gallery, published and awarded shoots
http://www.shadows-lights.de/pixlie/pixlie.php

 

[Deadwood Doc]

I was in your position, had the 40D then got a new 5D, al I can say is the 5D far outshines the image quality of the 40, and yes I am doing large prints, you can crop tighter with the 5D and regarding the speed I got this as well as many others easily with the 5D admitadly with a 100-400 but easily could have got the same result with my 70-200.

 

[bluefox9er]

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.

I shoot both action and portaits, but it's a mixed bag for my needs.

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.

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.

Either way, I'm probably going to add either the 85mm or 100mm prime
to my arsenal eventually.

Such a tough choice!!

If anyone has any input that I have not thought of, I'd appreciate
it. Thanks much!

--

read what you have written...you have pretty much answered your own question!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dipak49ers/sets/

 

[freedom gundam]

just keep both the 5d and the 40d, i got the 5d and the 50d i find the 5d is very useful in wide angles and landscape photos. while the 50d i use it for more telephotos. plus ur 40d wouldnt be worth that much now days anyway.

 

[neroangelo]

Hi, just thought I'd stick in my input.

Yes the 5d has better IQ by a small margin. I love the DOF that it gives in comparison with the 40d.....but...It is waaaaaaay slower than the 40d and I personally get frustrated with it sometimes waiting for the buffer to clear. 40d has better low light AF, read/write buffer, screen and live view (as you know)...

I think I 'am preaching to the converted though.

Have you thought of hanging off for a while and getting a 5d2? Stills IQ in that with the 24-105 is stunning to say the least.

good luck with your choice...

Slainte(cheers)

 

[HarryLally]

I've used the 40D for around 14 months with no complaints. I recently bought a nearly new 5D on eBay and haven't used the 40D since. I will get it out again when the weather improves for sports and wildlife/ birding where the crop factor really comes into its own and the slightly faster FPS and AF help. In the meantime I'm loving the IQ from the 5D with its wonderful shallow DoF, which reminds me so much of my film days. The two bodies complement each other really well IMO, so if you can afford to do so, keep both. If not, then the 40D sounds better for you, given your style of shooting.

Michael

 

[ohcello]

2 of my fav shots from both the 40D (shot with the Tamron 28-75mm at f/4) and the 5D (shot with the Canon 70-200mm f/4 L @ f/4). I can see the difference in the fine detail:

 

[ohcello]

I do notice a slight difference in the shutter lag, with the 5D being a touch less responsive.... also I cannot afford to keep both! The 40D will still garner $600+...

 

[jtyoung]

I think the question is which do you prefer?

For me, if I had to choose, I'd probably keep the 40D and maybe add the 17-55 2.8 IS to my arsenal (it just so happens that's exactly the combo I have -- on the other hand, I also have the 5DMII). If you want sharp details and rich colours on a crop body, I don't think I've found a better lens (I also have the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and Canon 70-200 f4L and the 17-55 blows the two away as far as colours go in my opinion).

For all purpose usage, the 40D is a more flexible camera with better AF (by just a touch even over the 5DMII), faster frame rate and is more durable in adverse conditions (environmental seals and sensor dust cleaning) and has a better LCD for reviewing (although not nearly as good as the 50D / 5DMII). In the mid focal lengths, I'm convinced Canon doesn't make a lens as good as the 17-55 2.8 IS for the full frame body (the 24-70 2.8L is nice and optically probably as good but is much bulkier and doesn't have IS which reduces its effectiveness in low light conditions).

The only area of real weakness on the Canon crop bodies (the 10-22 is nice for wide angle and there are a couple of non Canon lenses which do as well) is a mid to long lens. The 70-200 2.8L IS works beautifully on a FF body for indoors usage at events but on a crop body, it's just too long. The closest you can get is the Sigma 50-150 but it doesn't have IS and Sigma quality is erratic.

 

[ohcello]

Thanks for the information... one thing is that 55mm is just not long enough for my tastes on the 40D... I have the IS kit lens and I'm constantly at the tele end of the zoom wanting more... that is why I did not want the 24-105mm on the 5D... ... I do a lot of indoor candids in the 55-75 / 95-125mm range.

The 24-105mm on the 40D however is a very desirable range for me. If Canon made a 38-168mm L lens, this would be a done deal and I'd pick the 5D in a heartbeat.

Right now, I have the 28-135mm for the 5d and it's good so far, but you do have to stop it down a bit more and I'm sure the colors are not equal to the 24-105mm..

 

[Gambo1]

I have the 40D and just got the 5D MkII. The 24-105 was used 98% on the 40D and I use it exclusively for portraits on my 5D MkII. I also carry the 70-300 on the 5D most of the time as the range is more usable. of the two choices, I'd keep the 40D and spend the $$ on the 24-105mm. It is an amazing lens.
--
All freedoms have a price; what are you willing to pay?
http://gambo1.smugmug.com/

 

[painter man]

--
i agree i think you have answered you own question

 

[ohcello]

Well if I go with the 40D I will get a 24-105mm for sure...

What I'll try and test is to see how much 'reach' you actually lose with the 5D...

I'm also wondering if I'll get used to the increased shutter lag, which feels substantial, but it could be just how the 5D shutter sounds compared to the 40D

 

[dswcamera]

I have both the 40D & the 5D.
A little background....

I started out with a 20D, then upgraded to the 40D.
Along the way, got a 1DMkII, which I loved but didn't use it's prowess much.

I felt the 40D & the 1DmKII overlapped functionally in many ways, but not necessarliy performance wise. I just wasn't using it often & to advantage.
I then traded the 1DmKII for a 5D.

Now I have two cameras that overlap, but differently.
The 40D:
The 40D being a crop, gives me
"reach"
6.5fps, better LCD(good enough better)
Nice IQ at 10mp & good enough noise perf.

AF is pretty good, certainly better than 20D (my opinion) & definitely better than 5D.
Menus/ergo, better than 5D
Sensor cleaning is a BIG Plus, at least my experience

The 5D:
Noticeably better IQ than 40D at 12.8mp (viewed at 100%)
Better High ISO, by about 1 stop and seems to clean up better (?)
Full frame and the framing advantages
The LCD, menus/ergo are definitely dated.
The AF is marginal, especially low light (40D shines here).
It is my landscape tool of choice,
BUT its sensor needs manual cleaning. ;-(

I now have two different bodies that serve my needs better.
For air shows, sports, birding, events, the 40D is my tool of choice
I also bring it w/me for landscapes as my long-lens camera.

For portrait, landscape, printing BIG, flashless-low light, the 5D my tool
They both can be used interchangeably, but their strengths distinquish them.
Hope this helps.
If you can afford it, KEEP THEM BOTH

Dan

--
'A bad idea in search of a good cause is..
just a bad idea' ... me

 

[ohcello]

Thanks for the input... I cannot keep them both right now =) $$$

But I'll probably decide very soon as I cannot afford to keep both cams very long.

Thanks again!

 

[jtyoung]

The 24-105 is a good lens (I got the lens with the 5DMII kit) but it definitely is sharpest stopped down a couple stops. I think the 17-55 colors are still a little more vibrant and it's pretty much sharp through the range. However, if you're worried about reach then the 17-55 is a little short at times (although I honestly never really noticed myself -- I tend to crop in if necessary).

Thanks for the information... one thing is that 55mm is just not long
enough for my tastes on the 40D... I have the IS kit lens and I'm
constantly at the tele end of the zoom wanting more... that is why I
did not want the 24-105mm on the 5D... ... I do a lot of indoor
candids in the 55-75 / 95-125mm range.

The 24-105mm on the 40D however is a very desirable range for me. If
Canon made a 38-168mm L lens, this would be a done deal and I'd pick
the 5D in a heartbeat.

Right now, I have the 28-135mm for the 5d and it's good so far, but
you do have to stop it down a bit more and I'm sure the colors are
not equal to the 24-105mm..

 

[ohcello]

From all the tests I've seen, the 17-55mm is sharper than almost any zoom, and from the tests I've seen of the 24-105mm, it's very sharp wide open from 24 to about 60-70, and then f/5.6 the rest of the way.

I have a hard time spending the huge $$ for the 17-55mm when I almost never us the 17-28mm range, even on a crop.

I've owned the 28-75mm, which was great, but I found f/2.8 pretty soft, so I stopped down to f/4 anyway. That is why I'm thinking the 24-105mm might be a good fit, using it at f/4 from 24-75mm (perhaps it won't be quite as sharp in the center as the Tammy, but probably better on the edges even on the crop cam), and then using it at f/5.6 from 75mm to 105mm...

 

[Jeff Seltzer]

Answer: 5d. Assuming image quality is your ultimate criteria, then 5d should be your choice. The only thing I miss about my 40d (which I sold) is having ISO show-up in the viewfinder.

The 5d is a classic, and for good reason. It's like a classic car, movie, piece of furniture, work of art - whatever. It's a great camera. The 40d? I can hardly remember mine. The 5d + L primes = the best.

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.

I shoot both action and portaits, but it's a mixed bag for my needs.

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.

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.

Either way, I'm probably going to add either the 85mm or 100mm prime
to my arsenal eventually.

Such a tough choice!!

If anyone has any input that I have not thought of, I'd appreciate
it. Thanks much!

--
http://www.jeffseltzerphotography.com

 

[ohcello]

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