Should I sell my 40D to pick up a 5D?
- Thread starter Phate
- Start date
I know what your saying don't get me wrong the 40D is an amazing camera, but there is SUCH a pull to go full frame and I definately will. Just figuring out either now or later
The way things seem to be heading I can see myself heading down the portrait road, I thoroughly enjoy it, I'm confident with people and want to improve on it.
Can you write down 5 points why full frame is better. And if you note down image quality issues then someone will have to post an example from a 5d and a 40d and you will have to successfully detect which camera was used for each shot - I would be surprised if you could tell the difference...
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 23,810
- Location
- South East
- Image sharpness/quality (Only proof I have is my recent photos compared to my previous photos - since getting the 5D I feel my photographs are better, sharper and have more of a 'kick' to them)
- Noise handling (I can actually shoot at ISO 1600+ and get usable pictures
- Wide angle lens options (There are more, 14L, 16-35L, 17-40L, 24L - These will be wide on a crop sensor but you lose the "ultra wide" ness. I hope this makes sense, some may disagree)
- Bigger, brighter viewfiender
- Lenses actually being their stated focal length
- Debatable better dynamic range
Whether to go full frame or APS-C really comes down to individual requirements and budget.
- Noise handling (I can actually shoot at ISO 1600+ and get usable pictures
- Wide angle lens options (There are more, 14L, 16-35L, 17-40L, 24L - These will be wide on a crop sensor but you lose the "ultra wide" ness. I hope this makes sense, some may disagree)
- Bigger, brighter viewfiender
- Lenses actually being their stated focal length
- Debatable better dynamic range
Whether to go full frame or APS-C really comes down to individual requirements and budget.
Have you properly looked at a full frame shot? The differences are unbelievable! The colours are so much fuller, just....everything is more.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 23,810
- Location
- South East
I recently sold one for £290 including delivery. I wish I had sold it 6 months ago as I could have got about £350 for it I think.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,302
The differences wont be noticeable enough in your shooting style. Take your recent portrait shots. The lighting cast massive shadows and you choose to illuminate half the models presence.
You're only going to get that same image just 2mp larger in size.
Simply for how much more its going to cost you I wouldn't. You'll be forced to only use the 17 - 40 L F4 as the other lenses are going to show very noticeable CA
You're only going to get that same image just 2mp larger in size.
Simply for how much more its going to cost you I wouldn't. You'll be forced to only use the 17 - 40 L F4 as the other lenses are going to show very noticeable CA
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 23,810
- Location
- South East
Check out this comparison shot between the 5D Classic and the 7D.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/820707/0#7603301
I know it is an uncontrolled test by one person, but I am extremely suprised at how much sharper the 5D images are.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/820707/0#7603301
I know it is an uncontrolled test by one person, but I am extremely suprised at how much sharper the 5D images are.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,890
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
That's 5D original ! 
Whoa !
Whoa !
1) There is no reason why an APS-C sensor is less sharp than a Full frame, if the pixel density was comparable. If the pixel density was the same and the quality of the glass the same sharpenss would be the same. In the end, you can take a photo just as sharp on an APS-C sensor, but you will have to be more careful abou the lens, the lens settings, and technique.
2) Yes. But again, this depends on the pixel density. if a FX and DX sensor have the same density then they will have the same noise performance under the same technology. There is currently about 1-1.5 stops advantage in a 12MP FX compared to 12MP DX sensor. For landscape photography this has no bearing.
3) Yes I agree. But it is not as if you have no reasonable DX options.
The Canon 10-22mm is ok for most.
4) Yes, bigger viewfinder is great, but wont change the quality of a photo (but maybe the probability of a well composed photo)
5) This isn't a reason, Focal lengths are easy to adjust. And in any case you are wrong. The lens is the stated focal length on crop, just that a crop sensor does just that, crop the image.
6) Better dynamic range, again depends on pixel density. If it is low like the Nikon D3 then the full-frame sensor will outperform. But you need to know how to make use of this DR.
Then don't forget the negatives:
Heavier, more expensive, heavier lenses, more expensive lenses, heavier more expensive tripods required, more expensive insurance, larger lenses with larger front threads and making more expensive filters. A heavier camera you might not take with you. Less reach for wildlife or sports photography (compare size and cost of 70-200 2.8 and 300 2.8). DoF is relatively shallower, which is not always a good thing.
That is very dubious.
I've compared D300 to D3 images. It is not easy unless you haver a 100% crop and you know what to look for. For webviewing you certainly wouldn't tell. Noise is one obvious difference but shot at ISO 200 a crop sensor does fine.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 23,810
- Location
- South East
1. Over my head
2. Over my head - yes I am a little out of my depth here
3. Fair enough, I guess this one is subjective
4. Again, probably subjective, personally I love the bigger viewfinder
5. Perhaps I worded my point incorrectly
6. Fair enough
As for the negatives,
- Weight - I am a bit weird in that I prefer the extra weight of the body/lenses
- Expense - Yes, this is tricky to deal with especially when you're not made of money, but then you get what you pay for. If you're prepared to pay a premium then you will notice a difference. Much like if you bought a £50,000 car instead of a £5,000 car, it will cost more to run, insure, buy parts for, but if I could afford it I know which I would choose.
- Heavier camera that you might not take with you - At the moment I have my camera with me every day, and it is accessible all day every day, although I appreciate not all people will do this.
- Reach - This is subjective, I don't do wildlife or sports, so I don't need it. For a wildlife or sports photographer then of course this may be a negative, especially if on a budget.
- Shallow DOF, personally this suits me.
I think all of this is down to the individual to be honest!
As I said, it was an uncontrolled, single test, by one individual, so I'd take it with a pinch of salt.