Yet another 5D vs 40D thread (serious question inside)

unixcat · Nov 2, 2007

OK, I looked at all the old historical threads on this and even re-read Ken Rockwell's reviews.

We all know the advantages and strengths of each camera:
5D: Better ISO perf at 800+, FF, sharper detail, etc
40D: 6fps, weather sealed, better LCD, sensor cleaning, newer technology, etc..

I played with a 5D for two weeks and the IQ was stunning. However the 24-105 f4 was disappointing in LL. I had to rely on the ISO perf of the body. Not a bad thing I guess, and IS really helps.

My question (which I didn't see answered) is this:

Would it be better for me to buy the 40D and take the money saved to invest in the great L prime lenses (14L 35L 85L)? Specifically, would a great prime lens on a 40D nullify the lack of ISO perf buy allowing one to avoid having to even go to a higher ISO?

I'm especially looking for answers from people who have used primes on both cameras or the 40D alone.

TIA!

Steven Major · Nov 2, 2007

The subject matter (what you shoot) may be a factor in your decision, The reach (crop factor) of the 40 D can be a huge advantage. At the end of the day, it is not image sharpness that should impress you or a client. Good Luck

AKaz · Nov 2, 2007

Until the new 5D is announced wait, it most likely will be announced at PMA in early 08 Feb 1. The major price dropping is telling you this.

If you can not wait i would get the 5D, and buy a 35MM F1.4 to go with it. you will never look back.
--

Our tools help us do the work, however it is still up to the photographer to bring the pixels to life. -

unixcat · Nov 2, 2007

AKaz said:
Until the new 5D is announced wait, it most likely will be announced
at PMA in early 08 Feb 1. The major price dropping is telling you
this.
If you can not wait i would get the 5D, and buy a 35MM F1.4 to go
with it. you will never look back.

Good point, but I definitely can't wait. I need a new body now. ;-)

The like-new 5D's are going for $1770-$1900 on eBay, so price between 40D and 5D is not that big a deal. I am mainly shooting pics of my

When I played with the 5D for a couple of weeks, the shutter lag, slow fps, and slow CF card writes were annoying. ....but that IQ was like OMG!!!! So what I wonder is if the 40D will be a major disappointment in terms of IQ and ISO, or would it be negligible with the right glass attached? I will be buying L primes regardless of the body I decide on. The 40D is appealing for the long term for candid/action shots of my kids as they grow up, get into sports, etc.

So I guess i may stop by the Ritz in DC today to see if they have a 40D that I can play with. I think my brain is going to explode from this!

Sadja Herzog · Nov 2, 2007

Not directly familar with 5D, but I thought in my reading that ISO on 40D was better. IQ is very similar, again from what I read. The deciding issue should depend on what you shoot and how big you plan to print. 5D has an advantage for landscapes and highly detailed subjects.

Ask yourself this: would you buy a 2 year old computer (speaking of technology, not new vs used)? To me, digital cameras are basically computers. My answer to my question is: No.

Beginner's Mind · Nov 2, 2007

Unless you are making very big enlargements, the 40D has plenty of resolution. High ISO should be fine too for normal uses. (If you're shooting weddings and things like that, 5D's high ISO could make more of a difference - as a photographer you can't turn up the lights in the church or reception hall.)

Unless you're used to using fast primes, you might not realize that the depth of field you get at wide open aperatures might make those aperatures useless for many purposes anyway. (Not saying they're bad, just for general purpose shooting, zooms are fast enough.)

The 5D with 24-70L would be better than 5D with 24-105L in my opinion.

Indoors, use that flash you're buying and tilt and swivel to bounce it off the ceiling (to one side or the other) to get more flattering directional light. Flash will also give you an assist beam for low light AF.

unixcat said:
AKaz said:

Until the new 5D is announced wait, it most likely will be announced
at PMA in early 08 Feb 1. The major price dropping is telling you
this.
If you can not wait i would get the 5D, and buy a 35MM F1.4 to go
with it. you will never look back.

Click to expand...

Good point, but I definitely can't wait. I need a new body now. ;-)
The like-new 5D's are going for $1770-$1900 on eBay, so price between
40D and 5D is not that big a deal. I am mainly shooting pics of my

difference.

When I played with the 5D for a couple of weeks, the shutter lag,
slow fps, and slow CF card writes were annoying. ....but that IQ was
like OMG!!!! So what I wonder is if the 40D will be a major
disappointment in terms of IQ and ISO, or would it be negligible with
the right glass attached? I will be buying L primes regardless of
the body I decide on. The 40D is appealing for the long term for
candid/action shots of my kids as they grow up, get into sports, etc.

So I guess i may stop by the Ritz in DC today to see if they have a
40D that I can play with. I think my brain is going to explode from
this!

unixcat · Nov 2, 2007

Sadja Herzog said:
Not directly familar with 5D, but I thought in my reading that ISO on
40D was better. IQ is very similar, again from what I read. The
deciding issue should depend on what you shoot and how big you plan
to print. 5D has an advantage for landscapes and highly detailed
subjects.

Yea, but couldn't I just get an ultra wide lens for landscapes? I won't be printing any bigger than A3 or A2, ever.

Sadja Herzog said:
Ask yourself this: would you buy a 2 year old computer (speaking of
technology, not new vs used)? To me, digital cameras are basically
computers. My answer to my question is: No.

Hmm, interesting. I don't look at it quite the same. Computers are designed to do 2 things: Store information, and compute numbers very fast. A camera does so much more IMO. There are many variables that go into the final IQ of an image you get out of the camera.

Thanks for opining though. I do agree that it is old technology though. It's definitely a factor.

unixcat · Nov 2, 2007

Beginner's Mind said:
Unless you are making very big enlargements, the 40D has plenty of
resolution. High ISO should be fine too for normal uses. (If you're
shooting weddings and things like that, 5D's high ISO could make more
of a difference - as a photographer you can't turn up the lights in
the church or reception hall.)

Won't be doing weddings, but I do shoot my kids in a variety of changing lighting conditions. Mostly low light, and they seem to move at 1000/mph! Which brings me to your next point....

Beginner's Mind said:
Unless you're used to using fast primes, you might not realize that
the depth of field you get at wide open aperatures might make those
aperatures useless for many purposes anyway. (Not saying they're
bad, just for general purpose shooting, zooms are fast enough.)

That's the dilemma, I need and want that narrow DOF for that creamy bokeh. The 24-105 L is not fast enough for me at f4. If never used a 2.8 zoom, but I think I need faster. I really believe that what I've been looking for will be found in the primes. So how does the DOF on a wide open prime make it's aperture useless? I've never heard this said before, so I'm genuinely intrigued!

Beginner's Mind said:
Indoors, use that flash you're buying and tilt and swivel to bounce
it off the ceiling (to one side or the other) to get more flattering
directional light. Flash will also give you an assist beam for low
light AF.

That's a possibility. So would a 40D + 50mm L Prime + 550EX give me the tools I need?

I love these forums. Thanks!

Sadja Herzog · Nov 2, 2007

Wasn't thinking about FOV at all. Only pixel density and number.

I had a 40D briefly. The gallery below includes some ISO 1600 shots (didn't try for 3200), notably the osprey, rose and hyacinth (?):

http://www.pbase.com/sadja/40dfirstdays

I traded up for the 1DIII which has, IMO, even better IQ (and no AF problems).

Konrad-W · Nov 2, 2007

Go for 40D.

The 5D is, compared to 40D, just old. IQ is very good but it's slow, has small LCD. I use 40D for weddings and dark churches and it works fine (but i have best L lenses you can buy). I'm waiting for 5Dmk2,3D,7D or whatever because now it doesn't make sense to buy a 5D anymore. The production period between 5D and the next model is too long, which you cannot say about 30D-40D period.

The lens ist most often more important that the body and with top prime lenses you can't do anything wrong.

--
Konrad Wasylewski

Wedding Photography Monika Wasylewska
http://www.monikawasylewska.com

Knut Vonheim · Nov 2, 2007

I, too, had to choose between the 40D and 5D. However, going with 5D did not prohibit me from buying L lenses.

Personally I consider the lenses a long term plan and the camera the best I can afford at the time.

I disagree with the statement that 5D is "just old". It is not the latest, but the IQ is just as good in 2007 as it was in 2005. This should not deter you from choosing this camera.

I think you would be extremely pleased with the results. Not the same fps, but IQ is unquestionably good. Further, composing pictures in full frame just feels familiar/better to me.

Either way you will be happy, but don't let introduction year of a camery "scare you".

Hope this helps!

Cheers,
Knut

gdanmitchell · Nov 2, 2007

I could offer you some useful advice, but since you only want to hear from "people who have used primes on both cameras or the 40D alone" (a rather small group, I imagine) I'll refrain...

Dan

unixcat said:
OK, I looked at all the old historical threads on this and even
re-read Ken Rockwell's reviews.

We all know the advantages and strengths of each camera:
5D: Better ISO perf at 800+, FF, sharper detail, etc
40D: 6fps, weather sealed, better LCD, sensor cleaning, newer
technology, etc..

I played with a 5D for two weeks and the IQ was stunning. However
the 24-105 f4 was disappointing in LL. I had to rely on the ISO perf
of the body. Not a bad thing I guess, and IS really helps.

My question (which I didn't see answered) is this:
Would it be better for me to buy the 40D and take the money saved to
invest in the great L prime lenses (14L 35L 85L)? Specifically,
would a great prime lens on a 40D nullify the lack of ISO perf buy
allowing one to avoid having to even go to a higher ISO?

I'm especially looking for answers from people who have used primes
on both cameras or the 40D alone.

TIA!

--
---
G Dan Mitchell
SF Bay Area
http://www.gdanmitchell.com/

unixcat · Nov 2, 2007

gdanmitchell said:
I could offer you some useful advice, but since you only want to hear
from "people who have used primes on both cameras or the 40D alone"
(a rather small group, I imagine) I'll refrain...

I never said only, just especially. Any useful advise would be; well... usefull!

unixcat · Nov 2, 2007

Konrad-W said:
Go for 40D.

The 5D is, compared to 40D, just old. IQ is very good but it's slow,
has small LCD. I use 40D for weddings and dark churches and it works
fine (but i have best L lenses you can buy). I'm waiting for
5Dmk2,3D,7D or whatever because now it doesn't make sense to buy a 5D
anymore. The production period between 5D and the next model is too
long, which you cannot say about 30D-40D period.
The lens ist most often more important that the body and with top
prime lenses you can't do anything wrong.

That was my logical analysis as well. That's amazing that you're doing weddings with a 40D. How's the bokeh with those primes on the 40D? What do you see in terms of DOF with the prime lenses wide open?

LXI_Martin · Nov 2, 2007

I have a 30D (which I love), not a 40D, but for what it's worth I think from what you've told us (kids, reach, etc.) you'd be much better off with the faster 40D.
The 30D is great for fast shooting and I love the extra reach.

Lenses is more difficult. I have a hunch that the suggestion to get a 35 1.4L was a good one... (I prefer primes for fast action, but I don't know this lens, nor do I know the field of view that would suit you best. But the suggestion sounds good to me and is giving me thought.) Anyone else with views on a 40D/35L combo?

Martin

unixcat · Nov 2, 2007

Knut Vonheim said:
I, too, had to choose between the 40D and 5D. However, going with 5D
did not prohibit me from buying L lenses.

Same here. I'm getting the L primes regardless.

Knut Vonheim said:
I disagree with the statement that 5D is "just old". It is not the
latest, but the IQ is just as good in 2007 as it was in 2005. This
should not deter you from choosing this camera.

I think you would be extremely pleased with the results. Not the same
fps, but IQ is unquestionably good. Further, composing pictures in
full frame just feels familiar/better to me.

Either way you will be happy, but don't let introduction year of a
camery "scare you".

Hope this helps!

Thanks. But it's not the newness of the 40D per se. It's the features. I know it's a compromise either way. The bottom line for me is this:

What differences (other than the crop) would I see with a 50mm 1.2L on a 40D vs a 5D?

Staale S · Nov 2, 2007

The narrow DOF of an ultra-fast prime (the 85 f/1.2 springs to mind) shot wide open does not make it useless, but it requires you to be ultra-aware of it at all times. It is quite easy to get one eye sharp, one eye unsharp in a full-frontal portrait photo.

You can't be asleep at the helm when you are using such a lens. Of course, the wafer-thin DOF allows for some spectacular shots that simply cannot be achieved with slower glass.

The 5D, with its larger sensor, will have a narrower DOF for the same framing compared to the 40D with the same lens. This can be a plus or a minus, depending on the circumstances. It is more than a full stop difference in DOF.

unixcat · Nov 2, 2007

Sadja Herzog said:
Wasn't thinking about FOV at all. Only pixel density and number.

I had a 40D briefly. The gallery below includes some ISO 1600 shots
(didn't try for 3200), notably the osprey, rose and hyacinth (?):

http://www.pbase.com/sadja/40dfirstdays

The rose and hyacinth are really sweet macros.

Mike Scott · Nov 2, 2007

I use both cameras with Primes and zooms all the time. Including the 300 f/2.8IS and the Sigma 150 f/2.8 macro (two of the best IMO). To be honest, IQ is very close, you can probably argue in favor of the 5D in certain cases, but in general the files are difficult to differentiate.

I choose which camera to use based on the subject and have no second thoughts as to which has the better IQ.

Macro, Telephoto, or fast motion..... I use the 40D

Portraits and Landscapes..... I use the 5D

If I were to buy just one now, it would probably be the 40D. With EF-s lenses you can get the same FOV as the 5D, but the 5D will never shoot 6+ fps.

I can't believe that there are posters who are acting surprised that the 40D is being used for weddings. I did just fine using the D30, 10D, 30D and now 40D. I even shot one wedding using an Xti for 30-40% of the shots after I had some Err issues with the 5D. The Xti belongs to my wife and I leave it in the car as my second back-up if I'm shooting alone.

Mike

Konrad-W · Nov 2, 2007

unixcat said:
That was my logical analysis as well. That's amazing that you're
doing weddings with a 40D. How's the bokeh with those primes on the
40D? What do you see in terms of DOF with the prime lenses wide open?

Right now i have only 50/1.4 prime, and i'm satisfied. There are 2 or 3 pics on my website (galeria/portrety) where you can see the bokeh and i think they are made with 30D.

I think just for fun and for advanced amateur 40D is more then enough. It's fast, AF is good and with primes you will have fantastic results. For work it's not enough - that's why i will buy the new 5DMk2/3D/7D and a 1DMk3 soon.

--
Konrad Wasylewski

Wedding Photography Monika Wasylewska
http://www.monikawasylewska.com

Yet another 5D vs 40D thread (serious question inside)

Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Member

Member

Senior Member

Active member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Forum Enthusiast

Member

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Active member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts