5D vs. 40D

[Riggaberto]

I upgraded from an xti to the 5D recently, and the sensor jump, (and the larger viewfinder, dont know how big the 40d's is) is so much better. The extra sensor size really boosts the quality a lot, it's very noticeable. But yes, to take full advantage, you need L glass. So worth it though, if the L glass I owned were women, I'd be a pimp. I have to recommend 5D though, they're a great price right now.

 

[atp_design]

Its clear the 5D is much better than the 40D. However, value for money is the decision he needs to make. The 5D is much more expensive and maybe the image quality of the 40 may suffice for what he wants ?

So a 5D with L glass lense will cost $2500 +lense
A 40D with EFS lense will cost $1200+ lense

Is the image quality vs price really worth it ?

 

[usayit]

If you have money to burn.... 5D
If you are a professional that depends on their equipment... 5D
If you can tell the difference between prints from the 40D (box wine) versus the 5D (expensive wine)... 5D

Full frame is also an argument for the 5D. Since you posted that you didn't fully understand the concept of "crop factor", I think it is safe to say that the 1.6x crop on your current 300D wasn't much an issue for you anyways.

All else... you are probably better off with the 40D and put the investment into glass.


The 5D has features (and lacking features) that cater to the professional

The 40D has features that are geared towards the consumer/hobbiest.

Both are wonderful cameras that 99% of us here would not find limiting. Both can be a tool to learn. Neither will make you a better photographer. Only you can answer the value versus cost importance.


My thoughts.... You don't seem to have much too complain about on your 300D AND you are shooting with a kit lens. So the 40D is a nice step up without digger deeper in your bank account for the 5D. This should allow for a good step towards a nicer lens.

 

[usayit]

Another thing to note... that I see much confusion....

The image quality and lack of noise at high ISO is has to do more with internal processor and sensor site density; NOT just sensor size.

 

[atp_design]

I had a look at a few demonstrations yesterday comparing the two cameras. Yes it was obvious at the start the 5D is the better camera, full frame etc.. On the other hand, the 40D has a newer sensor and can use the EFS lenses which are of better quality to the equivalent EF lense used on the 5D. Both cameras produced almost identical images even after zooming in.
Secondly, we then realised that the areas where the 5D was better could be fixed with one minute in photoshop using the 40D. Lets face it, who doesnt do any post processing on their photos.
So for half the price, the 40D was the one to go for.

 

[FidelCastrovich]

What kind of focus sensors does the 5D have?
Because after picking up a friend's 40D with its 9 cross-type sensors and seeing how easily it locks even in dim lighting, i must say it is a big plus, not to have to use the center point and then recompose.

If the 5D doesn't have that, it might tip the scale for me, in favor of the 40D.

 

[atp_design]

Im sure the 5D has the same focusing points as 40D, but there are another 6 hidden AF sensors as well.
Also the 5D doesnt have a self lense cleaning mechanism to remove dust.

From what i learnt, to get the most from the 5D you need to invest in expensive L series lenses. So it all comes down to the age old arguement. A crappy camera with a great lense will deliver a great photo, conversely a great camera with a basic lense will deliver a basic photo.

 

[shivaswrath]

5D full frame all the way if you're serious about photography in the future.

If you dabble, 40D is an overkill option.

I considered the 5D for a bit as well since full frame was something i considered - but liked Nikon's menu systems better in the end. . .

 

[usayit]

I'm not too convinced of the actually necessity of having full frame for serious photography (It is nice to have though).

This is like a large or medium format guy saying that serious photography cannot be done with a cropped 35mm film size which, in time, was proven incorrect.

 

[yeti]

I have the 40D and it's pretty good. I haven't handled a 5D to directly compare, but I did a similar research a while back.

From engineering perspective I am personally not convinced that a bigger pixel means less noise as a silicon wafer for a CCD will be doped to pick up anything from near-infrared all the way to gamma rays that happen to be "in the area" , and the larger the "area" - the more the noise. The argument I do agree with is that a larger pixel will receive more incident light and would allow for a higher signal-to-noise ratio. I am not sure how those two arguments exactly play together, but my suspicion is that ultimately the size of the sensor doesn't matter too much as far as the percieved quality of the final image goes. At the end of the day the argument becomes if Canon will use same or better-quality material for full-frame CCDs than they would for cropped-frame CCDs and I believe they do use better-quality material. At the end of the day how good an image you are going to get out of your camera is a decision Canon's MARKETING department gets to make.

There is also something else at play here, which might be more important here: what you are really comparing here is apples and oranges: 5D is not designed to compare against the 40D, but the 20D and the 30D: the older cameras based on its technology and it would naturally surpass it in every test there is. The 40D is compared against 1D mark III, which is based on ITS technology, the Digic III chip. You are not really comparing just two different cameras here, you are comparing the two different technologies inside. You can tell that the 40D has a faster CPU, faster bus and more internal memory by the faster rate it can shoot with and the greater number of images it will take before it has to stop, meaning more resources to burn on extra noise-filtering. Trust me, this is important, no CCD will yield good-quality image by anyone's standards without the extensive noise-filtering provided by the on-board logic. The CCD on its own is just too noisy.

So which one do you pick? I recommend the 40D. It's cheaper, it is based on the best technology for "right now", and will give you more use - more bang for the buck. 5D, while undoubtedly a great camera, is based on an already old technology. Unless you absolutely NEED a full-frame camera, for example for landscape photography, you are better off with the 40D and better lenses.

That's my humble opinion.

 

[Village Idiot]

I have the 40D and it's pretty good. I haven't handled a 5D to directly compare, but I did a similar research a while back.

From engineering perspective I am personally not convinced that a bigger pixel means less noise as a silicon wafer for a CCD will be doped to pick up anything from near-infrared all the way to gamma rays that happen to be "in the area" , and the larger the "area" - the more the noise. The argument I do agree with is that a larger pixel will receive more incident light and would allow for a higher signal-to-noise ratio. I am not sure how those two arguments exactly play together, but my suspicion is that ultimately the size of the sensor doesn't matter too much as far as the percieved quality of the final image goes. At the end of the day the argument becomes if Canon will use same or better-quality material for full-frame CCDs than they would for cropped-frame CCDs and I believe they do use better-quality material. At the end of the day how good an image you are going to get out of your camera is a decision Canon's MARKETING department gets to make.

There is also something else at play here, which might be more important here: what you are really comparing here is apples and oranges: 5D is not designed to compare against the 40D, but the 20D and the 30D: the older cameras based on its technology and it would naturally surpass it in every test there is. The 40D is compared against 1D mark III, which is based on ITS technology, the Digic III chip. You are not really comparing just two different cameras here, you are comparing the two different technologies inside. You can tell that the 40D has a faster CPU, faster bus and more internal memory by the faster rate it can shoot with and the greater number of images it will take before it has to stop, meaning more resources to burn on extra noise-filtering. Trust me, this is important, no CCD will yield good-quality image by anyone's standards without the extensive noise-filtering provided by the on-board logic. The CCD on its own is just too noisy.

So which one do you pick? I recommend the 40D. It's cheaper, it is based on the best technology for "right now", and will give you more use - more bang for the buck. 5D, while undoubtedly a great camera, is based on an already old technology. Unless you absolutely NEED a full-frame camera, for example for landscape photography, you are better off with the 40D and better lenses.

That's my humble opinion.

You do realise that pretty much everything after the original 1D in Canon's line up uses CMOS sensors and not CCD?

Nikon uses mainly CCD sensors and just recently started using CMOS sensors. That's one reason that Canon cameras were considered to have better noise handling when compared with eqaul Nikon cameras.

 

[yeti]

You do realise that pretty much everything after the original 1D in Canon's line up uses CMOS sensors and not CCD?

Nikon uses mainly CCD sensors and just recently started using CMOS sensors. That's one reason that Canon cameras were considered to have better noise handling when compared with eqaul Nikon cameras.

I didn't know that. Thanks!

 

[yeti]

I always assumed CCDs are parallel devices, while in fact they are serial ones. I thought CCDs are read the way RAM is. I've been proven wrong.

My argument above still stands, though.

 

[solrac8126]

let me talk about crop:
i have the 5d in my hand right now and the xti, i've taken pictures with both,
The first time i grabbed the 5d and looked trough that viewfinder was great!
It's a real 35mm camera like my old k1000.
It's true that you can't stretch and image on the computer but you can crop it, so i like to have the 17-40 as a true 17mm lens, on the xti is a 27~ mm
If this will matter to you go with the 5d.

ISO noise:
Just great almost no noise, compared to the xti sensor both cameras have a digic II.

GRIP?
Well i guess this don't come into discussion since the 40d has also a nice grip.

Power:
I just got a new battery with the 5d and i guess i've shoot like 250 pictures and still has power, i've used auto focus and reviewed some images with the LCD at high and low brightnes, the batter was stored so it still needs some cycles to get full power since this is the first one.

As per sensor cleaning, i won't put to much mind in that i've clean the 5d sensor since at the newspaper i worked most of the people have lost the lens caps and sometimes you have to change lenses real quick in hard situations, my rebel has no dust right now but it has only like 5 months or less and hasn't been used to much, the ones in the newspaper are years old...

The 40d has a couple of features that are really great, the 5d is an old camera and lack a couple of the 40d's features, and to tell you the truth rigth now i don't have the money (nor the necessity) but i'm waiting for the 7d or 5d mk ii

i have a ocuple of pictures of the 5d with a lens designed for a small sensor, let me post it, hold on

Tamron AF 18-200 mm F3.5 - F6.3 Di-II - Canon 5D