11-17-2010, 08:53 PM
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
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
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....