Has anyone seen any reviews comparing the 40D and the 5D as i'm think about upgrading my body which is currently a 350D. I'm guessing that other than the full frame view finder which would be nice for portrait and landscape i'm guessing that the 40D is generally a better camera (faster auto focus, lower noise at high ISO etc)?
40D V 5D
- Thread starter Geffen
- Start date
if i had the budget to choose between them, i'd get the 5D without a second thought.
the 5D, as a higher user-level than the 40D, has had all the magiks in the 40D from the start. AF will probably be exactly the same speed between the both of them, maybe even higher in the 5D.
By Virtue of its larger image sensor, the 5D with definitely have lower noise at every ISO setting.
Also, the full-frame viewfinder is AMAZING if you've not used it before or you're used to your 350D.
Trust me, the 5D will without a doubt, be the better camera.
the 5D, as a higher user-level than the 40D, has had all the magiks in the 40D from the start. AF will probably be exactly the same speed between the both of them, maybe even higher in the 5D.
By Virtue of its larger image sensor, the 5D with definitely have lower noise at every ISO setting.
Also, the full-frame viewfinder is AMAZING if you've not used it before or you're used to your 350D.
Trust me, the 5D will without a doubt, be the better camera.
Last edited:
It's unlikey noise will be any less on the 5D, the 40D is probably better. The 5D is nearly 4 years old and advances have caught it up. The DP Review of the 30D had the same noise profile of the 5D. The only advantage the 5D has is full frame.
af is slower and less consistent on the 5d and doesnt have 6.5fps, only 3fps
full frame its only true advantage and it also lacks in built flash. many many times have i missed something as simple as that handling a 5d with a 24-70 or 24-105 and add a 550ex its very heavy after a evenings use.(wedding or presentation etc)
full frame its only true advantage and it also lacks in built flash. many many times have i missed something as simple as that handling a 5d with a 24-70 or 24-105 and add a 550ex its very heavy after a evenings use.(wedding or presentation etc)
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 145
On paper 40d has quite a few advantages with the faster fps and liveview etc, but I'd trade mine for a 5d any day of the week. From some research it seems that the general opinion is the 40d is superior for macro, action and birding because of its speed, liveview and crop.
However the 5d is superior for landscape and portraiture, actually has slightly less noise at low light and slightly better IQ, also a big plus is the viewfinder apparently which is large and brighter.
I guess it comes down to priority and cost, obviously the 5d body is more expensive but the high quality glass needed for it really starts to add up, apparently it really shows up any flaws. Personally I'm happy with my 10-22 for landscape on my 40d, but if you want more info there are loads of threads on flickr and other forums.
However the 5d is superior for landscape and portraiture, actually has slightly less noise at low light and slightly better IQ, also a big plus is the viewfinder apparently which is large and brighter.
I guess it comes down to priority and cost, obviously the 5d body is more expensive but the high quality glass needed for it really starts to add up, apparently it really shows up any flaws. Personally I'm happy with my 10-22 for landscape on my 40d, but if you want more info there are loads of threads on flickr and other forums.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 13,498
5D = better noise, full frame, probably better built but its over 3 years old now.
40D = crop sensor (giving bigger range IMO due to the 1.6x crop factor), far newer, DIGIC 3, etc etc etc..
Personally, I want both. But went for the 40D due to the bigger range...
40D = crop sensor (giving bigger range IMO due to the 1.6x crop factor), far newer, DIGIC 3, etc etc etc..
Personally, I want both. But went for the 40D due to the bigger range...
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 9,967
- Location
- London UK
I'm not going to upgrade 'yet' 
But if was I think I'd either go for the 40D now or hold off on a replacement for the 5D. As been said it's 3+ years old now and I'd expect a replacement due fairly soon, Nikon seem to be wowing lots of people with it's D300 and I would think Canon are going offer up something next.
But if was I think I'd either go for the 40D now or hold off on a replacement for the 5D. As been said it's 3+ years old now and I'd expect a replacement due fairly soon, Nikon seem to be wowing lots of people with it's D300 and I would think Canon are going offer up something next.
Bigger range?
read lots of threads like this over on potn forums and the general feeling seems to be split
lots of people who have the 5d and then got a 40d still prefer the iq of the 5d, but there is still quite a few who think the 40d has better or similar iq - i reckon its probably about 60-40 in favour of the 5d
theres no denying that featurewise the 40d is superior
i have owned a 300d, 350d and 20d then eventually got my 5d and i have to say that the 5d is in a completely different league to all of those , the full frame, the metering , and the dynamic range - although i have seen graphs showing the 20d has more range but in practise i find the 5d miles better
there is just something about the 5d that makes images *pop*, i cant quite put my finger on it
lots of people who have the 5d and then got a 40d still prefer the iq of the 5d, but there is still quite a few who think the 40d has better or similar iq - i reckon its probably about 60-40 in favour of the 5d
theres no denying that featurewise the 40d is superior
i have owned a 300d, 350d and 20d then eventually got my 5d and i have to say that the 5d is in a completely different league to all of those , the full frame, the metering , and the dynamic range - although i have seen graphs showing the 20d has more range but in practise i find the 5d miles better
there is just something about the 5d that makes images *pop*, i cant quite put my finger on it
As others have said, it all depends on what type of photography you do.
I own the 40D but my experience of the 5D is limited to a couple mins of playing with someone elses.
I'd expect the 40D makes a better sports camera with a better auto focus(9 cross type AF points compared to 3 on the 5D), 6.5fps shooting, 1.6x crop and a larger buffer.
The 5D with it's full frame sensor I would expect to give better IQ and noise performance despite being 12bit images (14bit of the 40D) and Digic II (Digic III of the 40D) making it good for studio or landscape work.
As well as considering the above you should also consider the cost of the lenses to go with it. The 5D's FF sensor means it will fully exploit the lens optics. If you have 'cheap' lenses this will show more softness and chromatic aberrations. If you aren't going to splash out on some good lenses you may be better off getting a crop camera until you have built up a good quality lens collection.
I own the 40D but my experience of the 5D is limited to a couple mins of playing with someone elses.
I'd expect the 40D makes a better sports camera with a better auto focus(9 cross type AF points compared to 3 on the 5D), 6.5fps shooting, 1.6x crop and a larger buffer.
The 5D with it's full frame sensor I would expect to give better IQ and noise performance despite being 12bit images (14bit of the 40D) and Digic II (Digic III of the 40D) making it good for studio or landscape work.
As well as considering the above you should also consider the cost of the lenses to go with it. The 5D's FF sensor means it will fully exploit the lens optics. If you have 'cheap' lenses this will show more softness and chromatic aberrations. If you aren't going to splash out on some good lenses you may be better off getting a crop camera until you have built up a good quality lens collection.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 13,498
FF: 16-300mm (Using 16-35 + 70-300)
APS-C : 16-480mm (Using 10-22 + 70-300)
1.6x "the range"
Yes you can get 1.4 and 2x TCs etc, but they mostly degrade IQ and limit F-Stops
And yes I know it isn't *that* exact, but its roughly the idea
Edit: Yes you can get even wider angle on FF, but you can't extend the long end as easily
Last edited:
FF: 16-300mm (Using 16-35 + 70-300)
APS-C : 16-480mm (Using 10-22 + 70-300)
1.6x "the range"
Yes you can get 1.4 and 2x TCs etc, but they mostly degrade IQ and limit F-Stops
And yes I know it isn't *that* exact, but its roughly the idea
Edit: Yes you can get even wider angle on FF, but you can't extend the long end as easily
And unless you shoot sport or wildlife then most people prefer the wider end available through a FF.
And if you have a FF then you might afford a 500mm prime etc.
But this is just flawed anyway. You don't have more range, you just have an automatic 1.5 times zoom addition. This can be a frend or foe depending on what you shoot.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 13,498
As I do pretty much everything, its 100% a friend.
I'd hate to loose 240mm on a 100-400 going from 40D to a FF camera.
Ideally I'd have both, but for money, space and common sense I only have one
And 500mm on a 40D is still longer than a FF camera...
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 2,503
- Location
- Oop North
Edit: Yes you can get even wider angle on FF, but you can't extend the long end as easily
You could always crop into the image and print it 1.6 times bigger - which is just what a 40D does.
(with a little provisor that you might end up with a bit more visible noise
)And a 16mm Prime on a crop sensor = 24mm
Something most landscape/architectural photographers couldn't accept.
As someone who shoots both wildlife and landscape a cropped sensor has both advantages and disadvantages- but a FF will give better IQ.
The only real advantages a cropped sensor gives is decreased cost and the potential for lighter glass.
Something most landscape/architectural photographers couldn't accept.
As someone who shoots both wildlife and landscape a cropped sensor has both advantages and disadvantages- but a FF will give better IQ.
The only real advantages a cropped sensor gives is decreased cost and the potential for lighter glass.
You could always crop into the image and print it 1.6 times bigger - which is just what a 40D does.
(with a little provisor that you might end up with a bit more visible noise
And if the FF sensor has an increased MP count then you may not loose resolution and the FF should offer better noise performance.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 2,503
- Location
- Oop North
The test I saw of this (30D vs 5D) gave the edge to the 30D. I think it was on bobatkins.com
The 5D is one of the best DSLRs Canon have ever made, its also one of the sharpest at ISO100 with a decent lens, pretty good up to ISO800 to.
I'd have one over the 40D any day of the week, i've used both cameras quite a bit with the same lenses (17-40F4, 70-200F4, 300mm F2.8, 500mm F4) and the 5D's images excel in all areas,
Ok its 4+ years old, but that doesn't make the images bad, and with the release of the new 5D on the horizon, you can pick up an absolute bargain second hand.
I'd have one over the 40D any day of the week, i've used both cameras quite a bit with the same lenses (17-40F4, 70-200F4, 300mm F2.8, 500mm F4) and the 5D's images excel in all areas,
Ok its 4+ years old, but that doesn't make the images bad, and with the release of the new 5D on the horizon, you can pick up an absolute bargain second hand.