[Joku]

Hi



I currently have a Canon 40D, and as I shoot a lot of low-light photos, I have been considering to buy a used 5D. There are just a couple issues, first is that Tamron 28-74mm lens isn't as good as 17-50mm (I have it currently), and that longer focal length lenses such as Canon's 70-200mm don't have as much reach. On the plus side there are cheaper 'standard' prime lenses, like 50mm 1.8 or 1.4, and the better viewfinder is a plus.



So, what do you think, is it worth it?

[Guest]

[quote name='Joku' timestamp='1289917408' post='4203']

Hi



I currently have a Canon 40D, and as I shoot a lot of low-light photos, I have been considering to buy a used 5D. There are just a couple issues, first is that Tamron 28-74mm lens isn't as good as 17-50mm (I have it currently), and that longer focal length lenses such as 70-200mm don't have as much reach. On the plus side there are cheaper 'standard' prime lenses, like 50mm 1.8 or 1.4, and the better viewfinder is a plus.



So, what do you think, is it worth it?

[/quote]



My two cents worth: Going from one very decent body to a rather good body one is not going to change the look of your photos that much if you stick to budget lenses unless there are specific features you need/want on the full frame 5D.



You'll probably get more satisfaction when you see what a 40D delivers with a very good lens - or better still, a 5D with a very good lens. My advice would be to invest in better (full frame) glass and stick to the 40D until you decide to move to a newer full frame camera if that's the way you want to go.

[popo]

I did previously change a 50D for a 5D1, and to me it was not worth it. To me, the main reason for going full frame is the potential shallower DoF it can provide over smaller sensors in a given condition. I later found out I didn't need it, and I missed having live view too.



I would say only change if you're really sure the 5D offers you something you need to do but can't currently. If you feel technologically limited at the moment, identify what that limitation is and what ways there may be to resolve it.

[Joku]

[quote name='popo' timestamp='1289930271' post='4205']

I did previously change a 50D for a 5D1, and to me it was not worth it. To me, the main reason for going full frame is the potential shallower DoF it can provide over smaller sensors in a given condition. I later found out I didn't need it, and I missed having live view too.



I would say only change if you're really sure the 5D offers you something you need to do but can't currently. If you feel technologically limited at the moment, identify what that limitation is and what ways there may be to resolve it.

[/quote]



Well, mostly it's that I feel like I don't have good enough image quality or fast enough shutter speed when shooting at low light conditions. Also, the ISO 3200 in 40D is somewhat noisy. Full frame viewfinder would be nice, but not essential. Otherwise the 40D is just fine.





Also, I currently have these lenses:

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8

Sigma 30mm f/1.4

Canon 50mm f/1.8

Canon 70-200mm f/4 L



If I would change, I would also have to change the Tamron to 28-70mm model and sell Sigma 30mm. Maybe change 50mm f/1.8 into f/1.4. Being able to use 50mm lenses as standard lenses would be very nice, as the Sigma isn't very good quality for a prime lens. On the down side, my 70-200mm f/4 wouldn't have as good reach.



[quote name='Pinhole' timestamp='1289925269' post='4204']You'll probably get more satisfaction when you see what a 40D delivers with a very good lens - or better still, a 5D with a very good lens. My advice would be to invest in better (full frame) glass and stick to the 40D until you decide to move to a newer full frame camera if that's the way you want to go.

[/quote]



That's probably true, but very good lenses are also very expensive. The Tamron is already a good lens, and you would have to get something like Canon 24-70mm L lens to get any improvement. Changing to a 5D would probably cost me only a couple hundred euros when factoring in the money from selling the 40D.

[popo]

Personally I'm not sure the 5D offers enough noise difference to be worth the effort of changing from a 40D. At ISO3200 I find the 5D has quite a lot of chroma noise, which is easy enough to process out I guess. But after that will it provide enough benefit over a 40D? I think they could have gave the 5D another setting above that too though.



Noise is somewhat personal too, so I guess I can only suggest you do check out samples from other sources and see if it is worth it.

[Rainer]

[quote name='Joku' timestamp='1289917408' post='4203']

So, what do you think, is it worth it?

[/quote]



From what you write, I gather that a 5D is not likely to change

your situation (much).



I personally changed from a 300D to a 5D (which is certainly a

completely different step than yours) and I never looked back once ...

not even for an excellent lens like the EFS 10-22 ... but I don't read

the "magic words" in your post ... like the wish for more

control over DOF, or some desperation for a bigger viewfinder that

could (equipped with the EE-S screen) even make the use of manual

focus lenses a pleasure. So, you're likely better served with better glas,

albeit this will mean you buy the EFS 17-55 IS (which is also costly).



Just my 2cts ... Rainer



PS: If you have the chance to borrow (or rent) a 5D for a weekend ...

that would eventually be a good idea ... it will build up more

confidence to a decision (for or against the 5D)

[bryan conner]

I have a 40d and love it. I also have borrowed a 5d (original) from a buddy. My opinion was that there was a small (but definite) difference in image quality of both the raw files and the jpegs straight from the cameras. The 5d files simply looked a tad bit better to me. I can not describe it, which I know is going to infuriate some of the people on this forum who have far more technical photographic knowledge than I do. LOL. The 5d did have lower noise overall, but using a good noise reduction program such as Noiseware Pro reduces the 5d advantage.



If you primarily shoot portraits, then the 5d would be the one to choose. But, if you shoot a lot of sports, or other fast moving subjects, then the 40d is the one I would choose. The AF in the 40d was faster to lock on focus. The 40d kicked the 5d's butt in shooting at a night time football game.....big time. Another advantage that the 40d has is a 1/250 flash sync speed vs the 5d's 1/200. Not a big advantage, but one nonetheless.



I agree that you should try to find one to rent for a day or two and compare for yourself.

[wim]

Having owned a 350D, 2 400Ds, a 40D, a 5D classic (simultaneously with the 40D), a 5D II and a 1D Mk III (and currently still owning the latter two), I would say, yes, the 5D is a better camera than the 40D for one thing very specifically: IQ.



As a camera the 40D is better and newer than the 5D classic, and if you need the speed (FPS), and better AF especially in the off-centre points, the 40D beats the 5D easily. However, I have always been looking for better and better high iso performance, due to the fact that I often shoot handheld without flash at night, and in low light you never have enough sensitivity. The 5D classic IMO beats the 40D easily in this regard, based on my experience. I actually stopped using the 40D altogether, and sold it. But then, I was looking for high iso performance, and for better IQ.



If I had known everything in advance, I actually would have gotten the 5D at the time I got the 350D, as it was available by then. I chose the 350D at the time because I didn't want to take the risk of not liking dslr photography (despite being well versed in film slr photography) at the time. However, looking back at my experiences up to and including the 5D classic, I can say that I had two AHA - moments: the first being that my prints from the 350D were better and sharper than anything I had ever done with film (talking negatives and printing here), and the second one when I saw the RAWs from the 5D. Beautiful stuff. I am a little spoiled by now, with the files from the 5D II being even better, but the files from the 5D were a joy to look at, even of the images that I deleted from my hard disk. I never felt thsi way about the 40D files. And even to this day, I say the results of a 5D classic are comparable to those of a Nikon D700 (or should that be the other way around?) - a few friends of mine have D700s <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />.



Furthermore, despite people saying that some lenses are better than others, I do know, again based on my own experience, that results with a 5D (or 5D II) and 17-40L f.e., just are better than the results of an EF-S 10-22 and 40D. It's that simple. And if you do get the best lenses, and do make large prints, there just is no comparison at all. FF beats APS-C any time here.



Do note that in order to get the most out of a camera, you need to acquire good processing skills, however. I can easily print B&Ws in a similar tonal range I used to achieve with prints from film, but it did take me about two years before I got there in a way that I was really happy with the end results. Processing skills for digital are rather different than those for analog, especially if one uses a Zone system type of approach for B&W photography <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



In short, if I look back at my 6 years of experience with dslrs now, I don't regret one bit going FF. It is the format of choice for me. And yes, I do have a 1D Mk III, which I bought used, but then, I do need a camera for sports photography under difficult circumstances now and then, which really is the only use it gets. It's hard to shoot fast action sports at dusk, with a 5D II and a 100-400L <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. Other than that, FF all the way. The way I see it, despite eveybody repeating the same thing over and over again on the internet, namely, lenses before body, doesn't hold when going from one format to another, IQ-wise at least.



HTH, kind regards, Wim

[Joku]

[quote name='wim' timestamp='1290027229' post='4222']As a camera the 40D is better and newer than the 5D classic, and if you need the speed (FPS), and better AF especially in the off-centre points, the 40D beats the 5D easily. However, I have always been looking for better and better high iso performance, due to the fact that I often shoot handheld without flash at night, and in low light you never have enough sensitivity. The 5D classic IMO beats the 40D easily in this regard, based on my experience. I actually stopped using the 40D altogether, and sold it. But then, I was looking for high iso performance, and for better IQ.

[/quote]



I actually feel a bit same way about IQ and high ISO performance.. and I don't really do sports photography, so the speed doesn't matter that much. Also, I don't think I have ever used the off centre AF-points besides testing..





I guess I have to borrow a 5D from somebody.

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='wim' timestamp='1290027229' post='4222']

The way I see it, despite eveybody repeating the same thing over and over again on the internet, namely, lenses before body, doesn't hold when going from one format to another, IQ-wise at least.

[/quote]

Agree 110%... going from 328.56mm[sup]2[/sup] of APS-C to 864mm[sup]2[/sup] of FF spatial imaging area is an improvement of a 2.6x factor... which is easily higher than the improvement factor that people get from most lens upgrades.



GTW