5D or 40D?

Hi guys,

I've finally decided to upgrade the old D30, and have for some time looked at the 5D as a serious option, mainly (or solely?) due to the full-frame cmos.

However, after reading some more, I'm in doubt; is the extra 1000 usd worth spending on the full frame, or would I be better of investing in the 40D and throw a 10-something EF-S lens into the equation for that wide-angle deal?

I got an EF 17-35 f/2.8 and EF 70-200 f/2.8.

Any comments or thoughts?

--

http://www.ideno.dk
[email protected]

and the answer boils down to, basically, if you're not sure, you really don't require a 5D. Which is not to mean one can't WANT one, though.

What is it about the specs of each that has you pondering the choice?

--
...Bob, NYC

Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/btullis

Hi Bob,

Well, question is exactly that; looking at the specs, I do not get a clear idea as to what direction one takes over the other.

I am reading from reviewers and other posts, that the 5D is better in low light and for landscapes (I am guessing because of the fullframe), but the 40D is better for action shots, faster AF etc.

I know I'd be loving any of the two compared to my old D30, guess I am just looking for justification of spending 1000 USD more to see my lenses get used to their full potential, "true" wide-angle, and better low-light IQ.

--

http://www.ideno.dk
[email protected]

Anders Rasmussen said:

I know I'd be loving any of the two compared to my old D30, guess I
am just looking for justification of spending 1000 USD more to see my
lenses get used to their full potential, "true" wide-angle, and
better low-light IQ.

Click to expand...

I think I responded to this same message on the 40D forum.

Just a quick comment about the "true" wide-angle item above. In the canon lens world you can get a 16-35 for the FF camera or a 10-22 on the crop. They both bring you to 16mm FF equivalent. (Now if you're talking third party lenses like the sigma 12-24 that is another matter.)

Yes, your 17-35mm would become 27-56mm on 40D, and sigma 12-24mm would become 19-38mm. The EF-S lens doesn't mean the lens stay the way it is. eg: 10-22mm EF-S would still be 16-35mm on the 40D, the only difference is, EF-S can only be use on 1.6x crop body, it won't work on 1.3x either.(don't be nit-picking, severe vignet=no work for me.) With that said, I would repeat what other would have said b4 me(not neccessary in this thread), take the lens you have to the store and try on both of them. 5D is nice, but it's a bit outdated, and on the way out.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
If picture worth a thousand words, how many megapixel is it?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.jotographer.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

If you don't need the functions of the 40D (Live View etc) I personally would stick with the 30D until the replacement for the 5D arrives.

30D to 40D is not much of a difference. More of the same camera with additional features.

The 5D is a totally dreamy camera but as stated earlier is a little feature light and getting on a bit in todays market. I think it now looks a little expensive, especially as the update will be due this year (we think?). Canon are milking it for as much as they can.

Unless you can grab a bargain second hand 5D, I'd wait and save the pennies (for now at least).

The 5D MKII will be the camera to own in a few months IMO......... It will be a scorcha' !!

Anders Rasmussen said:

I know I'd be loving any of the two compared to my old D30, guess I
am just looking for justification of spending 1000 USD more to see my
lenses get used to their full potential, "true" wide-angle, and
better low-light IQ.

Click to expand...

There's your answer. You don't seem to be worried about the usual wildlife or action concerns, where the 40D might be generally better suited.

I couldn't justify my 5D purchase until after it was made, if that's any consolation.

--
...Bob, NYC

Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/btullis

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
If picture worth a thousand words, how many megapixel is it?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.jotographer.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Sorry, I should read more carefully!

Still think its worth waiting a couple of months to see if there is and 5D news.

Same here, Bob. I have an XTi which took stunning pics (spec-wise it's almost identical to the 40D), but I'm having it converted to full time infrared. My abilities just didn't justify a 5D, but the pictures...man. So now it seems worth the price. Now if I can just become half as good a photographer as it is a camera, I'll be in hog heaven. I've perused literally thousands of camera-credited photos on the net in the past couple of years, a far higher percentage of which were 5D pics than you might think, given the large number of different models available from Canon and other manufacturers overall.

Unless you need the more robust design or live view of the 40D, I'd go with the XTi or XSi and spend the savings on some nice glass. That or take advantage of the low price of the 5D, which must be one of the best deals in digital photography ever, so far.

http://www.photos-of-the-year.com/articles/canon-5d/
http://www.photos-of-the-year.com/articles/canon-40d/

--
http://www.photos-of-the-year.com/articles/

it's 50% your fault for misreading, and 50% Canon fault for having the stupid naming scheme and confuse the non-hardcore Canon shooter. It's even worse on ebay, people trying to scam the other.

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
If picture worth a thousand words, how many megapixel is it?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.jotographer.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-