I live in the UK and have been fortunate enough to get a 5D Mark 1 body from a friend. It is immaculate, low shutter clicks etc, with all original box contents. I'm delighted with it so far after taking plenty of test shots.
I shoot lots of varied photography, including kids (as we have 2 youngsters) and motorsport.
From my test shots so far, mostly with the 50mm 1.8, despite the crude AF on the lens, the 5D performs pretty well with moving subjects in fairly good light (such as my daughter running with a football etc). It also focuses rapidly in low light with this lens, or the 70-300 IS I have.
Now the dilemma. I've also got a 40D, but can't afford to keep both bodies. I could get approx £750 for my 40D & 17-85 IS.
The lenses I have are (all Canon):
50mm 1.8
17-85mm EFS
70-300mm IS
Clearly if I keep the 5D I'll need a walkaround lens - but I can't afford the 24-105 L at the moment. Was thinking about the 28-135 IS to tide me over, though I'm aware that the 5D will expose the flaws of this lens more than if it were on a crop body.
I've read on various forums that the AF on the 5D is not as good as the 40D. I'd really appreciate some advice & opinions on this, I'm going to the Formula 1 British GP next month and want to know which body will perform best - I don't want to get home, look at my shots and wish I'd used the other body. Luckily a friend is lending me a 300mm 2.8 lens for the event - so I should get some sharp shots.
I'm leaning towards keeping the 5D - but if the 40D fits my needs better then perhaps I should keep that?
I initially thought the high ISO performance of the 5D was far superior to the 40D (800, 1600, 3200) - but having done some further tests, I think they're about the same, which surprises me - and that reduces the 5D 'advantages' somewhat.
Advice much appreciated!
Dave
I shoot lots of varied photography, including kids (as we have 2 youngsters) and motorsport.
From my test shots so far, mostly with the 50mm 1.8, despite the crude AF on the lens, the 5D performs pretty well with moving subjects in fairly good light (such as my daughter running with a football etc). It also focuses rapidly in low light with this lens, or the 70-300 IS I have.
Now the dilemma. I've also got a 40D, but can't afford to keep both bodies. I could get approx £750 for my 40D & 17-85 IS.
The lenses I have are (all Canon):
50mm 1.8
17-85mm EFS
70-300mm IS
Clearly if I keep the 5D I'll need a walkaround lens - but I can't afford the 24-105 L at the moment. Was thinking about the 28-135 IS to tide me over, though I'm aware that the 5D will expose the flaws of this lens more than if it were on a crop body.
I've read on various forums that the AF on the 5D is not as good as the 40D. I'd really appreciate some advice & opinions on this, I'm going to the Formula 1 British GP next month and want to know which body will perform best - I don't want to get home, look at my shots and wish I'd used the other body. Luckily a friend is lending me a 300mm 2.8 lens for the event - so I should get some sharp shots.
I'm leaning towards keeping the 5D - but if the 40D fits my needs better then perhaps I should keep that?
I initially thought the high ISO performance of the 5D was far superior to the 40D (800, 1600, 3200) - but having done some further tests, I think they're about the same, which surprises me - and that reduces the 5D 'advantages' somewhat.
Advice much appreciated!
Dave