Opinion: 5D Classic vs 40D or...

teddyt72

teddyt72

Messages
367
Name
Eddie
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I feel like there must be threads on this but I've tried searching and couldn't find any... so sorry if I'm duplicating.

I currently own a 40D but am considering switching to a 5D classic since these are now so reasonably priced second hand (£400 - 500 ish). The main reasons I'm thinking of switching are:

- Better IQ - I love the almost dream like images I see from 5Ds
- Access to EF lenses as they were intended. I've been hankering after a 24-105 for a while but just don't think it makes sense on a crop (or as much as I'd need a wide angle to compliment)
- I've been frustrated at the lack of quality standard primes for crop bodies. I've got the Sigma 30mm 1.4 and whilst it's ok I'm not blown away.
- I just can't bring myself to pay £800 for the 17-55 2.8 IS - a non L lens and so I'm struggling with what I can do to up the quality from the 40D + Sigma 17-70 combo. Full frame seems like the answer...

I'm aware that it's an older camera but still very competent I believe? What might I miss vs the 40D? I've read that the 5D needs cleaning more due to lack of sensor cleaner. I guess I'd just have to learn how to deal with that.

I think full frame would make me happy!! I don't tend to take much wildlife or action photography so I don't think the slower AF or FPS would be an issue. IS the AF on the 5D as bad as some say? I struggle to believe it.

The other consideration is lenses. I'd have to sell my Sigma 30mm 1.4 and 17-70. The only lens I have which would transfer are my Canon 70-300 IS and nifty fifty 1.8. I think I would be ok using the 50mm as my only standard lens short term (I'd probably get the 50mm 1.4 later) until I can get a standard walkaround. I'd be torn between saving up for the 24-105 vs getting something else as a temporary solution. What would people recommend as a cheaper temporary walkaround zoom for the 5D?

So I guess what I'm asking is whether I'm right to be thinking of making the switch and if there's anything else I should consider. You may have guessed that budget is an issue - I can justify spending a few hundred quid on top of the estimated £600 I'd get from selling the 40D, 30mm and 17-70. So that won't stretch to a 5D II, but I should be able to get a 5D Classic + 24-105 eventually.

Thanks in advance.
Eddie.
 
I'd recommend you go ahead and buy one but keep the 40D. I did the same thing last year and sold the 40D but wished I hadn't a few times since then. Like when I needed extra reach and speed. 50mm f/1.8 is fine on the 5D and if you liked the 30mm on the crop then you'll like the 50mm on the 5D. I liked the focal length a lot so I've now upgraded to the f/1.4 version.

It's a slippery slope though and now I've got a 5D2 in the post lol. If you want a cheap 5D1 I've got one in the classifieds ;)
 
Last edited:
Personally I think you're wanting to change for all the wrong reasons. Yes the 5D a great camera and the 24-105mm not a bad lens to accompany it, but the lens does have its issues and perhaps would be less obvious on your cropped sensor.

As for quality of prime lenses for a cropped body, there's loads. If it a EF lens it fits either of the 3 camera types bodies canon produces, only the EF-S lenses are specifically for the cropped sensor, so there's loads of choice.

I know that the size of the sensor and pixels on the 5D lend themselves to portrait / landscapes, (larger pixels and more colour depth) but you should still be able to take great images with the 40D.

At the end of the day, its the quality of lens you put on the camera that makes the image, and the sigma 30mm f1.4 not the best or easiest lens to use.
 
I've not found AF to be a problem with my 5D (mk 1) but I dont use it for sport photography, I had a mk3 over the weekend and I'd really struggle to justify buying a Mk3 on IQ alone, so I think the Mk1 is still a damn fine camera. However I also have a 1D (mk2) and my wife has a 50D and tbh there's not a massive difference between any of them, in fact sometimes the actual quality of the 50D is better as it has better ISO handling and greater cropping due to its larger (Mp) image size. I love my 5D and wouldnt get rid of it but I wouldnt swop a 40D for a 5D as my sole camera, the 5D is just a little more specialized in terms of what its best at. Its better at some things than the 40D but not all. Maybe hire a 5Dmk3 for a weekend from Calumet or borrow someone's 5D mk1 before maybe rushing into the wrong decision as the IQ is very similar in most "normal" situations and will let you gauge if the pluses of a 5D mk1 are worth the minuses.

Matt
 
I have a 40D and the 30mm sigma is good but I've heard great things about the cheaper canon 28mm 1.8.

also i've upgraded to the 7D from a 40D. it's a great camera but I'm not blown away by the noise handling to be honest.
also the 17-55 is a good lens, not L glass but is less than £600 2nd hand which is always an option.
still I do like the 5D and I'm probably going to have to save up for a 5Dii myself next year (2nd hand)
 
having recently gone from crop to full frame, newer crop camera older camera. (2010's D3100 to 2008's 5D mk2) I would say it's the right thing to do and a massive step in the right direction where everything just feels right.

BUT if you didn't learn photography with a 35mm film camera, you probably won't lust after full frame like I did. your "want" probably came from marketing and word of mouth, not justified and upgrade isn't needed.



the thing is, dreamy bokeh and the like are exactly the same on a crop sensor. only difference is the framing. you can use EF lenses on crop cameras as well, not much difference there. finally lusting after L lenses are everything that's wrong with Canon. non-L lenses isn't the end of the world, L are the only choice on full frame, but with a crop body, there's so many other great choices.


TL;DR: full frame are nice, but don't worry about it if you learnt photography on APS-C.
 
Hi all, thanks for the input so far. Not as easy a decision as I thought!
RedTele - noted your offering in the classifieds ;-) do you have any shots taken with your 5D I could see?
pete.rush - interesting, good to have my thoughts challenged :) I think I disagree about primes for crop - obviously there are lots available and I am aware that EF lenses work on crop bodies, but it seems you're always compromising (if you're looking for a 50mm equivalent). Sure there are some canon 24mm and 28mm lenses which would function as a standard prime on a crop but I feel like none are ideal. Am I wrong in saying that to get the best from an EF lens you need to shoot full frame?
When you say less obvious issues of the 24-105 on my crop as it uses the centre of the lens? I get that, but then I'm losing the wide end and don't get all the DOF benefits, right?

MatBin - ok thanks, food for thought! I thought about renting one, but it costs about £100 to hire which is 1/4 the cost of the camera so I'd probably be better off buying one second hand and selling on if I don't like it.
DizMatt - yeah interesting. I looked at both before buying the sigma. Maybe I was swayed by how "Fashionable" the Sigma is - plus there are some great shots from it on Flickr. I guess what you don't see on Flickr is the number of keepers you get, or don't! I only really like the images from it up to about f4, so quite a specialised lens.

So how about in terms of pure image quality which would win?
40D + 17-55 IS
5D + 24-105
 
don't get hang up on full frame equivalent stuff. shoot whatever you like, as i said earlier, full frame equivalent is only relevant if you learnt photography on a 35mm film camera.

out of 17-55 f2.8 and 25-105 f4, I'd say the f2.8 lens will perform better if both are shooting at f4, you've got more aperture to play with and lower lens sweet spot.
 
Just giving my two pence here...I also own a 40D, and had a Sigma 17-70 as my walkabout lens. I recently bought a 5D, kept the 40D as a backup and sold the Sigma. I tried a few things to replace the Sigma but ended up settling on the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and so far I'm very impressed with it, a nice combination.

From my experience the 5D produces noticeably better images than the 40D, and I disagree with a post a few up from mine that says the bokeh is the same on crop as it is on full frame - you have to bear in mind the effect that the effective focal length has on the bokeh - the difference between a shot taken on my Sigma 50mm f/1.4 on the 5D vs my old Sigma 30mm f/1.4 on the 40D (which gives the same field of view and aperture) is remarkable, and for me personally was what I wanted. I just can't get the same dreamy look on my 40D - I can get close, but it isn't the same.

In terms of use, you will find that the 5D feels a bit more clunky, the menu system isn't as nice and, this is the big one, the LCD is terrible! If you are outside and there is any kind of sunlight anywhere, you will struggle to accurately check your shots on the LCD. I also miss having the dedicated AF and AE lock buttons on the back, you just have AE lock on the 5D, which I have assigned to AF, but I would prefer to have both.

Anyway, I definitely recommend going for it, particularly if you shoot a lot of portraits. However, you might want to hold on to the 40D, as it is still a cracking camera and might be more suitable for certain situations than the 5D.
 
Last edited:
Just a bit more for you to consider - I bought the Tamron new, but they seem to go for silly cheap money used (around £200-£250 as far as I can tell) and for that money you can't go wrong. I initially tried the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, which is far more expensive, weighs about as much as a car and proved terribly unreliable for me (the first copy stopped focusing in the first hours use, the second one had hideous focusing problems and just gave soft images).

I can honestly say I'd recommend the Tamron 100%, it really is a nice lens. I was tempted by the 24-105 but I would have missed the option of shooting at f/2.8, so went with the cheaper Tamron. After living with it for a while, I know I made the right choice for the type of shots I take, but obviously that might not be the case for you.
 
bozwellox said:
From my experience the 5D produces noticeably better images than the 40D, and I disagree with a post a few up from mine that says the bokeh is the same on crop as it is on full frame - you have to bear in mind the effect that the effective focal length has on the bokeh - the difference between a shot taken on my Sigma 50mm f/1.4 on the 5D vs my old Sigma 30mm f/1.4 on the 40D (which gives the same field of view and aperture) is remarkable, and for me personally was what I wanted. I just can't get the same dreamy look on my 40D - I can get close, but it isn't the same.
Click to expand...

if you mount the same 50/1.8 to both camera, you will get same depth of field, same quality of bokeh. the property of the lens doesn't change. only framing changes, that's something you could work around.
 
RedTele said:
It's a slippery slope though and now I've got a 5D2 in the post lol. If you want a cheap 5D1 I've got one in the classifieds ;)
Click to expand...

I was just looking at that in the classifieds and just managed to resist, then the first thread I read in the equipment section brings me back to it... Might have to log off quick before my will power fades! ;)
 
wuyanxu said:
if you mount the same 50/1.8 to both camera, you will get same depth of field, same quality of bokeh. the property of the lens doesn't change. only framing changes, that's something you could work around.
Click to expand...

Yes I understand that, but taking your 50mm lens example, you would need to be further away from the subject to get the same framing on the crop sensor, when compared to framing the same shot with the same lens on a full frame camera. The further away from the subject you are, the less pronounced the bokeh is.
 
Last edited:
Dunno if this will help...

Like a lot of people I shot with 35mm cameras for decades before going digital, and specifically APS-C. After a while I got used to APS-C and then I went back to 35mm with a 5D and I was surprised at how much getting used to it took. I found that I was shooting with longer lenses than I'd have been using with my APS-C DSLR's and as a result I was having to use narrower apertures to get the DoF that I wanted and therefore having to watch my ISO and shutter speed.

Plus a 35mm DSLR and lens is probably going to be bigger and heavier than a similar APS-C set up. There can also be a bit of vignetting, but I personally don't think it's too much of an issue and can actually be quite artistic :D

My APS-C camera was a 20D and I did expect an increase in image quality when moving to a 5D and I suppose I did... but it wasn't anything to be blown away by and at low to middling ISO's it was marginal, if anything, and the 5D really only pulled ahead at the higher and highest ISO's. However, as has been noted lenses become... different. My most used lens is now a 50mm f1.4 but my 85mm f1.4 and 12-24mm are transformed on the 5D in a good way :D but personally I wouldn't buy into "standard" range f4 zooms as my main lenses.

We all know the differences between APS-C and FF if we stop to think about them, it's just that when I started to shoot with a 5D after about nine years with APS-C it all came as a bit of a shock in practice.
 
bozwellox said:
Yes I understand that, but taking your 50mm lens example, you would need to be further away from the subject to get the same framing on the crop sensor, when compared to framing the same shot with the same lens on a full frame camera. The further away from the subject you are, the less pronounced the bokeh is.
Click to expand...
that is true, but I don't really see this as a problem, unless in tight enclosed spaces where every bit field of view is required.

eg, i was doing street photography over the weekend with a friend of mine. he's got a 50mm on a crop sensor, i've got the same 50 on my 5D. I was taking portrait full body shots whereas he was taking landscape face shots. he's used to the 50 field of view and produces just as good, if not better shots!

it's all about the photographer rather than the equipment!
 
Hi all, good to see a healthy debate!
wuyanxu - thanks for the contribution. I did have a 35mm film camera for a few years before getting a 350D, so I sort of did learn on a 35mm (Pentax ME Super) and I still think the images I got from that are nicer than my 40D. It had a 50mm prime and that was it. So I guess I am looking to go back to that sort of setup. Trouble is whether that's a romantic lust or practical consideration. I have a 50mm prime on my crop and I do find it too tight, hence buying the 30mm. I prefer that focal length but am not blown away by the sigma 30mm.

Bozwellox - thanks, I've heard that a lot elsewhere when trying to research so good to hear your experiences. Noted that the 5D menu's are a bit more clunky - I think I'm fine with that. The Tamron is a good tip too, thanks. I wasn't familiar with that since I've been looking at crop friendly lenses to date. Could be a cost effective way to test out FF.

woof woof - I think I am prepared for it being a bit of a learning curve - I understand there are differences and I guess I just have to give it a go to really know.

So I think that's my mind made up, thanks all. I'm going to assess my finances and probably sell the Sigma 30mm since I don't rate it and put that towards a 5D, give it a go with my nifty fifty and 70-300 and see how I get on. If I prefer it to the 40D I'll sell that and the 17-70 (Or just the 17-70 and get the cheaper Tamron rather than the 24-105) and use that cash to invest in a standard zoom for the 5D. I think that sounds like a plan!

Eddie.
 
wuyanxu said:
that is true, but I don't really see this as a problem, unless in tight enclosed spaces where every bit field of view is required.

eg, i was doing street photography over the weekend with a friend of mine. he's got a 50mm on a crop sensor, i've got the same 50 on my 5D. I was taking portrait full body shots whereas he was taking landscape face shots. he's used to the 50 field of view and produces just as good, if not better shots!

it's all about the photographer rather than the equipment!
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing with you, nor am I suggesting it's about the equipment, I was just giving my opinion on what advantages I feel I got when moving to a 5D from a 40D, as that is what the OP asked for. :shrug:
 
if you started with 35mm film and feel you are being limited by current crop camera, then going to full frame will be the best decision you've ever made! go for it!


@bozwellox. I'm not arguing with you either, and it's great to see that we both understand only the field of view changes, the actual lens property and ability to render bokeh doesn't change. i was just pointing out that the cropped field of view isn't end of the world. it all depends on if the photographer is used to the field of view.
 
my plans are similar, but longer term
sell the 30mm, get a 5Dii and a lens, perhaps the tamron mentioned above
then the 50mm will work on both 7d and 5Dii bodies..
and my 70-200 sigma will work a treat on both too.
however, then I'll want the 85mm f1.8 too..just because it's so nice :)
 
DizMatt said:
my plans are similar, but longer term
sell the 30mm, get a 5Dii and a lens, perhaps the tamron mentioned above
then the 50mm will work on both 7d and 5Dii bodies..
and my 70-200 sigma will work a treat on both too.
however, then I'll want the 85mm f1.8 too..just because it's so nice :)
Click to expand...

I was wondering how long it would be before someone brought up the 85mm! I got one a few weeks back and it is now my favourite lens on the 5D. Got it from Panamoz for about £250ish - bargain!
 
teddyt72 said:
Hi all, thanks for the input so far. Not as easy a decision as I thought!
RedTele - noted your offering in the classifieds ;-) do you have any shots taken with your 5D I could see?

So how about in terms of pure image quality which would win?
40D + 17-55 IS
5D + 24-105
Click to expand...

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=5013721#post5013721

Rather than clutter up this thread I've posted a few photos on my thread. I mainly do landscapes so I've not got many shallow DOF stuff but the last photo is exactly the combo you're talking about with the nifty fifty at f/1.8.
 
AF on 40D is pretty bad, on 5D it is [marginally] better if anything. As far as glass goes, get Canon L lenses, and maybe 85mm f/1.8. Considering you are not happy with 30mm it is very unlikely you will enjoy other 'cheap' 3rd party lenses
 
DizMatt - good luck with your upgrade plans. I would love a mark II but hey, a classic will have to do me for now. I have heard that 85mm is nice - maybe a future Xmas or birthday present to myself!

daaugirdas - ok, I'll take your word for it! I think I will end up with some L glass, I hope! P.s. just taken a look at your flickr - some verrrry nice work there :-)
 
Interesting that a couple of people have mentioned full-frame being a good choice for 3x-35mm film SLR users..

I made the move to digital relatively late, having been a hardcore film user. I bought the 5D classic from new back in 2008 - having done my research, I was adamant that I wanted a full-frame body. I wanted my DSLR to behave as far as possible in the same way that a film SLR would. The 5D was ideal for me, as in addition to preserving effective focal length and having the same big viewfinder as a film SLR, the noise on higher ISOs was very pleasing and film-like - just like shooting on fast grainy film.

If the comments on the many "full-frame vs. crop" threads on here are anything to go by, once you've made the move to full-frame you won't want to go back to using a crop body!

I could never use a crop DSLR - for me that would be a big backward step. I've had a play with a couple of DSLRs belonging to friends, and the smaller viewfinder is enough to put me off!

I upgraded to a 5D mk II, mainly for the larger LCD and the self-cleaning sensor. The AF is fine for my needs, and I've no real desire to fork out to upgrade to the 5D mk III :)

A.
 
Last edited:
Anorakus said:
If the comments on the many "full-frame vs. crop" threads on here are anything to go by, once you've made the move to full-frame you won't want to go back to using a crop body!

I could never use a crop DSLR - for me that would be a big backward step. I've had a play with a couple of DSLRs belonging to friends, and the smaller viewfinder is enough to put me off!
Click to expand...

Not that I want to move this off thread as I don't, but there is an argument for smaller formats too. These days I have MFT and FF and I actually use the MFT more as it's smaller, lighter, gives very acceptable quality at low to middling ISO's and is much easier to hand hold in lower light as it allows reasonable DoF with the slightly wider lenses at faster shutter speeds/ISO's.

To me the ideal is to have to formats, 35mm for ultimate quality and a smaller format for use as and when. Not that I'd suggest that the OP should rush out and buy a 5D and a MFT set up but if keeping the 40D and the 30mm f1.4 could be an option it'd give a good and relatively comact fast prime option with a built in flash for use when those things would be an advantage.
 
Last edited:
on the subject of 'cheap' 3rd party lenses I would happily recommend giving the 70-200 OS from sigma a go. a good substitute for the canon L glass and I would love to try it out on a FF canon.
also the 5Dii is in the plan for me as it takes the same batteries as my 7D
 
DizMatt said:
on the subject of 'cheap' 3rd party lenses I would happily recommend giving the 70-200 OS from sigma a go. a good substitute for the canon L glass and I would love to try it out on a FF canon.
also the 5Dii is in the plan for me as it takes the same batteries as my 7D
Click to expand...

OK so you haven't tried it on FF then. Have you seen the MTF at least? The corners aren't looking that impressive...
 
Thanks annorakus, useful comments. I've been persuaded to give it a go but keep my 40d until I'm sure.

Woof woof - I was thinking since I'm not too impressed with the 30mm sigma I'd sell that to help pay for the 5D. I imagine the reason I'd want to keep the 40D is to use with my tele lens to get more reach. The 5D is ony a few hundred grams heavier than the 40D and my nifty fifty is a lot lighter than the sigma 30mm.
 
I've owned a 5D in the past and currently shoot, very happily, with a 40D. I don't tend to shoot very wide or at high ISO so the bigger screen, live view and sensor cleaning make the 40D a better camera for me than the 5D. The only aspect of the 5D I miss is the bigger, brighter viewfinder. I've not been unhappy with the IQ of the 40D in any way but perhaps I'm easy to please.
 
I think both cameras are fantastic. I've shot with a number of 40D's, 5D's, 5DMKII's and 1DSMKIII in the past. If I wasn't needing above 1600 ISO and better AF I'd happily shoot with the 5D to this day. No DSLR of the past 7yrs or so will produce poor images, but if you want the best IQ that your budget can buy, then 5D is the way to go. The sensor on the 5D is phenomenal and isn't too far off from the 5DMKII, its the screen, AF and FPS that let it down slightly but all of which can be lived with.
 
I went from a 40D to a 5Dc and found the bump up in image quality to very noticeable. Shaper details, better colours, nicer bokeh. And that's with the same lenses.

I'd recommend the change as long as you have the lenses to suit and you don't mind missing out on the better autofocus and FPS.
 
probably going against the grain but i wouldn't go from a 40D to a 5D because of the "issues" raised in the opening post.

id address the glass first, i dont think youll see any improvement otherwise.
 
there is an alternative
don't go full frame but look at the 60D as an upgrade

Thanks for the comments on the MTF re; sigma 70-200
I haven't look at that but I might try it out on a friends kit
I'm not that picky with my lenses from a highly technical point of view.
but the sharpness I can achieve on my 7D is very pleasing indeed
 
paulcamas - fair enough, I don't doubt that the 40D is a capable camera. I've just been frustrated at the lack of decent crop specific glass. I've also always wanted a 24-105 but it wouldn't have made much sense as a walkaround on the 40D (for me - I'd miss the wide end).

hsuffyan - thanks, sounds like a well informed opinion. I don't need ISO about 1600 and don't shoot sport or wildlife so I think the AF will be fine (I've heard it's better than the 40D anyway)
2Thumbs - good to hear. What lens' did you use on both out of interest? I see you have a 17-40, did you use that on the 40D? I would probably look at getting the 24-105, although some have said the Tamron 28-75 2.8 is very capable and cheap 2nd hand if I need a stepping stone.
neil_g - I do appreciate the need for good glass. My point is that as an upgrade from my 17-70 on a crop the 17-55 2.8 IS is pretty much the only option and since it costs as much as the 24-105 and doesn't have the build quality I don't see why that's a better combo than the 5D + 24-105. Likewise, I want a standard prime - not easy to achieve on a crop - Sigma 30mm 1.4 was the best option I found but even that's not ideal and a compromise. Whereas with a 5D I would have the choice between canon 50mm (1.8 I have, 1.4 could be an upgrade), the sigma 50mm 1.4 etc. Does that make sense?

DizMatt - the above reasons are why I'm not looking at that route.

Thanks all, really good to get this off my chest!! haha.
 
Go get your 5d you've made your mind up really and now your looking for justification in the community!

I have a tamron 28-75mm on my mkii and while not perfect nothing comes close for 200 notes second hand!
 
a1ex2001 said:
Go get your 5d you've made your mind up really and now your looking for justification in the community!

I have a tamron 28-75mm on my mkii and while not perfect nothing comes close for 200 notes second hand!
Click to expand...

Haha, yep I guess you're right! *Skulks off into the night* Thanks all.
 
teddyt72 said:
2Thumbs - good to hear. What lens' did you use on both out of interest? I see you have a 17-40, did you use that on the 40D? I would probably look at getting the 24-105, although some have said the Tamron 28-75 2.8 is very capable and cheap 2nd hand if I need a stepping stone.
Click to expand...

The lenses I had during 40D/5Dc ownership were the 50L and 70-200 F4L IS, both of them sing on a full frame body.

The 17-40mm is a recent purchase, no experience on a crop but I'm liking it on the 5D. :)

The Tamron SP 28-75 f/2.8 is meant to be a good lens for the price, but supposedly isn't really that usable wide open and has slow-ish focusing. I've never used it myself though, but would like to give one a go.

By the way, 40D AF is much better than the 5D. I find the latter hesitates on the outer AF points where as the 40D would hit them straight away.
 
Last edited:
I agree, get your 5d, i did pretty much the same, and now have both a 40D and 5d. They are both great cameras, the 5D images IMO are generally better than the 40Ds though when i am taking the image, always looks better on the 40d due to the poor LCD on the 5D. The camera i pick up usually depends upon the subject, but i do feel that the 5D has that extra something over the 40D that makes me grab for it more often.
 
teddyt72 said:
neil_g - I do appreciate the need for good glass. My point is that as an upgrade from my 17-70 on a crop the 17-55 2.8 IS is pretty much the only option
Click to expand...

not really, you have plenty of 18-50 area constant 2.8 options. the sigma for example, that always gave us great results on a 20D.

and since it costs as much as the 24-105 and doesn't have the build quality I don't see why that's a better combo than the 5D + 24-105.
Click to expand...

define "better". a full frame sensor isnt magically going to make your images great if youre already struggling to get the best from a 40D.

Likewise, I want a standard prime - not easy to achieve on a crop - Sigma 30mm 1.4 was the best option I found but even that's not ideal and a compromise. Whereas with a 5D I would have the choice between canon 50mm (1.8 I have, 1.4 could be an upgrade), the sigma 50mm 1.4 etc. Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

nothing wrong with a 50 on a crop, you just have to stand back a bit :D the sigma 30 is supposed to be a better, sharper lens either way anyway.

personally id like to see some photos that you think the 40D is limiting you on.
 
Been reading this for the past few days, and have typed big long essays, and then deleted it all and decided to stay out, but today I am going for it :thinking:

Having owned both, in the below order

Bought 40D
Bought 5Dmk1
Sold 40D
Bought 5Dmk2
Bought 40D
Sold 40D
Bought 5Dmk1
Sold 5Dmk2
Bought 5Dmk3

(leaving with me with the 5D1 and 5D3 combo)

I definitely have an opinion of 40Ds vs 5D1s!

In short, the 5D is a much better camera, despite its older tech.
In long....

Depends a lot which lenses you use. I primarily shoot primes, and wide open a lot. In this scenario the 40D (and possibly all crop sensor camera's) are a lot more susceptible to chromatic abberation and horrible purple-ness.

My favourite lenses include the Sigma 85mm 1.4 and Sigma 50mm 1.4 and Canon 35L - which all shine on the 5D. There is CA with each of those lenses, but only slightly, and under the right conditions you will get it.
On my 40D, these lenses were almost unusable unless stopped down to 2.8 or above, as the purple fringing and bloom (white bits having an almost radioactive shine to them around the edge) was terrible.

Using other lenses, the 40D was fine (70-200 2.8s, 17-50 2.8s etc) just not with those fast primes - which I loved, more than the camera.

Secondly, ISO. This is debatable, but the ISO noise I get at 1600 with my 5D is a lot more controllable than with the 40D. A high ISO 40D has a very digital looking grain pattern to it, which is hard to ignore. The 5D high ISO appearance is a lot nicer. Its very hard to get side by side examples of this and prove it, but if this is any help... I hated shooting above 800 ISO on the 40D, but on the 5D1 I will go all the way to H1 which is 3200! Dont get me wrong, it is still noisy at this ISO... but the noise doesnt take over the image, like it can do on the 40D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top