Canon 5D Mark1, vs 40D?

[verticalization]

Hey everyone.. i've been mulling this over in my head for the past few days. I've decided to sell my XT and the 28-135 USM i've gotten so used to and upgrade to a semi-pro model. I've finally started pushing the limits of my lil XT and, i'm kinda tired of it honestly.

So for the past week or so, i've had my mind set on the 40D, i love the controls, I love the ISO capabilities.. and I think it would be the perfect upgrade. I have no problems with the crop sensor since its what i'm used to, and it fits my lenses decently. I love the 6FPS burst mode, but.. i really dont find myself bursting or shooting stuff where i would need it.

But than I found the 5D mark 1.. full frame goodness, 12 megapixels which is plenty for me. I can get it for slightly more (2 more weeks of saving)
i LOVE the detail, and the iso capabilities of this camera, i guess a little more. The only thing that worries me is dpreview compared it to the 20D in iso sensitivity..

Anyways, what does everyone think? i'm already completely sold on both cameras, its just.. tough. Basically my lenses are tamron 90mm 2.8 macro, and canon 28-135 USM (which, i would be selling to get the 5d)
I'd keep both lenses if i got the 40D and be happy (well, with a future upgrade)
with the 5D i would keep my 90mm, and buy a 50mm 1.4.. two nice primes I would be very happy (especially since they would both be their actual focal length)

Thoughts an opinions are appreciated thanks for reading

 

[NateWagner]

I would get the 5D.

Personal opinion, but the ISO is better, the full frame goodness is better, and it's really a great camera for the price. The main downside is that the screen on the 5D is small and is not very color accurate. Other than that, definitely a 5D over a 40D

 

[PackingMyBags]

I have a 40d and love it. I just wish it was a FF sensor. I never push the ISO over 800 because images look like crap to me. I would go 5d if you have the money.

 

[verticalization]

Thanks for the quick replies, yeah.. the screen size doesnt really bother me so much since i've been used to the (what seems like) 1 inch screen on my XT..
I'm swaying towards the 5D i think.. i just wish i could pull an extra 1200$ out of my butt and get the mark II lol

 

[gsgary]

There is no way on this world that the 5D and 20D should be compared on ISO, which you chose depends on what you shoot
This is iso3200 5D

 

[verticalization]

aaand with that quick example i think i'm soold on the 5D..
i've been definitely getting into a lot more super low light/no flash type situations.. and pushing 1600 on my XT does not make me happy..

 

[gsgary]

aaand with that quick example i think i'm soold on the 5D..
i've been definitely getting into a lot more super low light/no flash type situations.. and pushing 1600 on my XT does not make me happy..

Here's another that will sway it
iso3200 300F2.8L @ f3.2

 

[verticalization]

Awesome catch gary.. I have a bad feeling that if i get the 5D.. its gonna take my lens addiction to a whole new level... i'm okay with that

feel free to post more "persuasion" shots.. i love seeing super clean high ISO photos..
also, is there any major post processing done to reduce the noise in these shots?

 

[cfusionpm]

Well I have a 50D, which is argued to have worse high ISO performance than the 40D, and I nabbed quite a few acceptable shots at 3200, this one being one of my personal favs:

ISO 3200, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS @ f/2.8

 

[NateWagner]

I will say that a 40D (which is what I use currently) is also much better than an XT or a 20D in ISO. However, it's not nearly what I've seen from a 5D even though the 5D is quite a bit older.

I have a 40D and I love it, but, if I were to choose one or the other, the 5D would be the definite choice. And I wouldn't worry about the 5DII just wait a year or two with the 5D and upgrade to the III whenever it comes out. Maybe they will throw a better autofocus system on it.

 

[robertwsimpson]

What are you taking photos of?

If you want to shoot mainly portraiture and things that are close up, go for the 5d.

If you want to shoot fast and catch things that are far away, get the 40d.


I just got the 50d, and I've got great photos at ISO3200. I was also weighing getting a 5dMkI or a 1dMkII when I got the 50d, but the main reasons I got the 50d are for fast burst shooting, the live view (which I use a lot), fast autofocus system, larger crisper screen, newer technology, etc etc.

just my 2 cents.

 

[Derrel]

The 20D and the 5D are contemporary cameras, so that is why dPreview compared the two in ISO sensitivity. The 5D is now an "old" camera. Is frame rate is a bit slowish. It has no pop-up flash. It might look a bit outdated on paper on on a specification sheet--but it's a lot like the "old George Foreman"
or the "old Muhammed Ali" or the "old Brett Favre"--in real-life it's still amazingly good, amazingly capable in terms of the final result. I have not seen the dpReview comparison of the 20D vs 5D for several years, but I still shoot my 20D for knockaround shots, but for anything "serious" but not really fast-moving, I reach for my old 5D.

The 5D has an amazing blend of the "right" anti-aliasing filter, the right image processor, and the right blend of sensor size--ie Full Frame 24x36mm, and pixel size so that its performance from ISO 100 to 3200 is really amazingly balanced. The 5D blows the 20D away at 1600 and 3200. Really, it does.

 

[verticalization]

I shoot mainly people, still life/landscape.. i'd really like to start getting into nightclub/concert photography (which i've tried a few times)
I guess fast moving stuff isnt really my thing, maybe some wildlife here an there..


Whenever i play with the burst mode on the 50D's at best buy/ritz camera i'ma wlays amazed how fast it is.. but, like i said in my first post, i guess i don't really see myself using it that much.

I think i'm prretty much sold on the 5D.. even the "old" 5D which, has 2x the capabilities of my XT.. now, its time to sell & save.. get the ball rolling in time for spring

 

[squirl033]

i have both the 5D and the 40D. i use them for two different purposes. the 40D, with a 100-400 lens, makes a nice wildlife set-up. a little light on resolution, but quite capable of making very nice images as long as i don't push the lens too far. the 5D, with my Tammy 24-135 lens, is absolutely amazing for landscapes and stills. if, as you mentioned, you plan to shoot mainly people, landscapes, etc., the 5D is a no-brainer. image quality is amazingly good, even compared to the newer models, and unless you plan on making prints the size of barn doors, you really don't need more than 13Mp anyway. just make sure to put a good lens in front of it... it wants glass that's nice and sharp corner-to-corner, and a lot of cheaper lenses don't do well on the 5D...

 

[gsgary]

Awesome catch gary.. I have a bad feeling that if i get the 5D.. its gonna take my lens addiction to a whole new level... i'm okay with that

feel free to post more "persuasion" shots.. i love seeing super clean high ISO photos..
also, is there any major post processing done to reduce the noise in these shots?

That shot was shot as a JPG because we were shooting and printing on site no time for Raw and were printed with no noise reduction , but this shot has been run through noise ninja on a low setting
Here's a portrait with the 5D