^^^ Well said, I completely agree. ISO 1600 on the 40D was pretty nasty, but on the 5D it is really usable. Also, I find that the files the 5D produces seem to hold up to editing better than those from the 40D, if you start really messing about with curves etc, or even just adjusting the exposure of the raw file if you botched it. The files just seem to take more abuse somehow.
Opinion: 5D Classic vs 40D or...
- Thread starter teddyt72
- Start date
- Messages
- 308
- Name
- Pradeep
- Edit My Images
- Yes
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
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.
I can echo these two sentiments too. I just sold off my 30D and 40D (both back up cameras to my 5Dc) as I just didn't use them anymore. The noise on the 40D at high ISO is far worse (IMHO) than the 5D. I shoot at ISO1600 on the 5Dc without thinking twice.
For me, the only things that made the 40D a superior camera was the better LCD, sensor cleaner and quieter shutter sound. For pure IQ, the 5D is better. Period.
And, yes, I do think the files from the 5D have a "magical" feel to them - something that many FF users agree with - and something I never got with either the 30/40D. It's not something that can be easily explained, but I do believe it is real - maybe the extremely low dof when shooting wide open, is the reason for this sense of "magic". Either way, I can no longer go back to shooting a crop.
- Messages
- 3,522
- Name
- Marcus
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I went from 400D to 40D. Definitely an improvement on handling, build, menu systems etc.
Then from 40D to 5D. I felt like I had taken a big step backwards regarding menu system, LED size and quality, but..... the images just had a smoothness to the colour and the images themselves just had 'something' about them.
Just do it and give yourself a little bit of time to get used to the camera, but the important bit, the output will confirm to you it was the correct decision. You can't beat full frame images.
Then from 40D to 5D. I felt like I had taken a big step backwards regarding menu system, LED size and quality, but..... the images just had a smoothness to the colour and the images themselves just had 'something' about them.
Just do it and give yourself a little bit of time to get used to the camera, but the important bit, the output will confirm to you it was the correct decision. You can't beat full frame images.
OP
- Messages
- 367
- Name
- Eddie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
True - although I don't think you can argue that a 5D _ 24-105 will produce better images than a 40D + sigma 17-50. Also with this direct comparison I think I'd appreciate the extra mm from 80 (effective) to 105. I know I'd lose a few stops from not having 2.8, but I'd have a 50mm prime for low light stuff.
I take your point, I know this isn't a magical fix. I'm not just one of those people who think the more I spend on a camera the better images I'll get, although there is a bit of that.
nothing wrong with a 50 on a crop, you just have to stand back a bit
the sigma 30 is supposed to be a better, sharper lens either way anyway.I'm open to this - let me have a dig around! Although I admit that some of this is "feel" rather than technical limitations. As Nick, Boswellox and Pridash have said full frame images have a certain something to them. Maybe a lot of the time it's because more competent photographers use them so you see more good images from them, but I'm sure there is truth in this too.
OP
- Messages
- 367
- Name
- Eddie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
