Reasons to get 5D over 30D

I came across this thread during a search because I want to upgrade from my 400D. I shoot wildlife, mainly birds, and splashed out on a 500mm f/4 L IS which is giving good results. The 400D is my first DSLR after becoming frustrated with "digiscoping" using a Nikon CP 4500 and a Swarovski ATS80 'scope. I am in the fortunate position of being able to afford any camera I want, but I don't "chuck money away" and don't want a load of features I will never use.

I have used a 20D with my long lens and didn't get any better results than with my 400D. Several friends use the 30D and I do not see their results being any better either. I suppose I got the 400D as an "interim" and have been reliably/unreliably(!!​) informed that the next sub-pro body will most likely be the 40D.

I was on the verge of getting the 5D but some posts here imply that for my type of work (long lens, maximum reach, moving subjects, etc.) the 30D would be better. Can anyone explain very simply why that is?

Colin

Accentor wrote in post #2300007
I came across this thread during a search because I want to upgrade from my 400D. I shoot wildlife, mainly birds, and splashed out on a 500mm f/4 L IS which is giving good results. The 400D is my first DSLR after becoming frustrated with "digiscoping" using a Nikon CP 4500 and a Swarovski ATS80 'scope. I am in the fortunate position of being able to afford any camera I want, but I don't "chuck money away" and don't want a load of features I will never use.

I have used a 20D with my long lens and didn't get any better results than with my 400D. Several friends use the 30D and I do not see their results being any better either. I suppose I got the 400D as an "interim" and have been reliably/unreliably(!!​) informed that the next sub-pro body will most likely be the 40D.

I was on the verge of getting the 5D but some posts here imply that for my type of work (long lens, maximum reach, moving subjects, etc.) the 30D would be better. Can anyone explain very simply why that is?

Colin

The 5D has about 50% more pixels (12.8MP to 8.1MP), but they're spread out over 2.5x the area, so if you were to crop a 5D image down to the full 30D image size, you'd only get about 5 MP, or about 60% of the pixels. The 30D, with its' 1.6x "crop factor" makes your 500 behave like an 800 mm lens would on FF as far as angle of view; you'd need to use an 800 mm lens on the 5D to fill the frame with a bird where you can use your 500 on the 30D. Cropping the 5D image to the point where you had the same 8.1 MP of the 30D, you'd have the AoV of a 650 mm lens on FF. What this comes dowen to is that from any given camera position, if you were to photograph a bird with your 500 mm lens and the 30D, you'd have more pixels of bird in your image than if you were to use the same lens and the 5D. This translates to resolution. The 400D has around 10 MP, so it's going to have still more pixels "on target".

For reference, if the 30D sensor scaled up to a full 24x36 mm, it'd be around 22 MP. The 400D sensor, scaled up to the same 24x36 mm would be about 25+ MP. Canon's largest FF sensor is currently the 1Ds II, with 16 MP.

Accentor wrote in post #2300007
I came across this thread during a search because I want to upgrade from my 400D. I shoot wildlife, mainly birds, and splashed out on a 500mm f/4 L IS which is giving good results. The 400D is my first DSLR after becoming frustrated with "digiscoping" using a Nikon CP 4500 and a Swarovski ATS80 'scope. I am in the fortunate position of being able to afford any camera I want, but I don't "chuck money away" and don't want a load of features I will never use.

I have used a 20D with my long lens and didn't get any better results than with my 400D. Several friends use the 30D and I do not see their results being any better either. I suppose I got the 400D as an "interim" and have been reliably/unreliably(!!​) informed that the next sub-pro body will most likely be the 40D.

I was on the verge of getting the 5D but some posts here imply that for my type of work (long lens, maximum reach, moving subjects, etc.) the 30D would be better. Can anyone explain very simply why that is?

Colin

The 1.6x cropping factor or free reach (in a sense) is the reason folks recommend the 20D/30D. Another reason would be the 5fps for fast game I would assume.

But if AF performance is good enough for you on the 400D I would likely say neither camera will improve your images. Perhaps you would need a 1D/1Ds to see a greater image. The 5D will have a larger pixel count and higher resolution, but you will likely need to loose a stop and use a 1.4x to get the same kind of view as you have now from the 400D. But I'm sure the files will be huge if you should need that for large prints.

I didn't upgrade from my 300D for resolution, I upgraded for goodies, features, and build of a better body.

MrChad wrote in post #2300066
The 1.6x cropping factor or free reach (in a sense) is the reason folks recommend the 20D/30D. Another reason would be the 5fps for fast game I would assume.

But if AF performance is good enough for you on the 400D I would likely say neither camera will improve your images. Perhaps you would need a 1D/1Ds to see a greater image. The 5D will have a larger pixel count and higher resolution, but you will likely need to loose a stop and use a 1.4x to get the same kind of view as you have now from the 400D. But I'm sure the files will be huge if you should need that for large prints.

I didn't upgrade from my 300D for resolution, I upgraded for goodies, features, and build of a better body.

Thanks for that. This desire for more fps I find a little odd; I shoot now only in RAW and although the 400D has a reasonable buffer it chokes pretty quickly at 3 fps when I am doing "in flight" shots of birds. Until recently I was shooting in RAW + L fine JPEG which filled a 2GB card in no time.

Still hoping for miracles with the "40D" or whatever. As you can see from my "signature" I consider the camera the least important element of the equation!

Colin

Accentor wrote in post #2300097
This desire for more fps I find a little odd; I shoot now only in RAW and although the 400D has a reasonable buffer it chokes pretty quickly at 3 fps when I am doing "in flight" shots of birds.

The faster cameras have bigger buffers and therefore can handle the higher frame rate. They'll still fill the card as quickly though! Sandisk are about to release 12GB and 16GB CF cards, which may help!

I envy your ability to afford any camera, but you don't really make it clear why you feel the 400D is insufficient for your needs. Are you looking for better features or higher image quality (won't be easy to achieve, as others have pointed out)?

Accentor wrote in post #2300097
Thanks for that. This desire for more fps I find a little odd; I shoot now only in RAW and although the 400D has a reasonable buffer it chokes pretty quickly at 3 fps when I am doing "in flight" shots of birds. Until recently I was shooting in RAW + L fine JPEG which filled a 2GB card in no time.

Still hoping for miracles with the "40D" or whatever. As you can see from my "signature" I consider the camera the least important element of the equation!

Colin

Try packing an Elan 7 series or an Eos 3 film body, no buffer limit. You'll have no problems blowing off up to 36 frames until the roll ends

Seriously, I'm still waiting for a digital that can out frame rate my Elan for an affordable price. And the Eos 3, well that's would be just too nice.

Accentor wrote in post #2300097
Thanks for that. This desire for more fps I find a little odd; I shoot now only in RAW and although the 400D has a reasonable buffer it chokes pretty quickly at 3 fps when I am doing "in flight" shots of birds. Until recently I was shooting in RAW + L fine JPEG which filled a 2GB card in no time.

Still hoping for miracles with the "40D" or whatever. As you can see from my "signature" I consider the camera the least important element of the equation!

Colin

Get a 1dMKII, if you want to see improved quality, based on more keepers(if you know your body).

And don't forget the if your shooting with a wide angle, or most any fast prime wide open the FF on the 5D will vignette....it's the nature of a FF sensor with those lenses.....on my 17-40 I would of have to shoot stopped down to at least F8 to get rid of the vignetting. Even showed heavy signs of it on my 50 1.4. Personally that didn't work for me.

I'll stick with the cropped body and use any lens / F stop combo I want, and not have to post process, crop, or just try to work around that issue. But on a positive note, if I was shooting nothing but landscapes (stopped down), or portraits it's a great camera, I think the vignetting is cool in portraits.........I even add it in RAW. I just like to have that option, and not on every frame

30D......unless your printing large you will never know the difference. IMO the 5D is nothing but a 30D with a larger sensor anyway........oh and a slower drive.

Madweasel wrote in post #2300445
The faster cameras have bigger buffers and therefore can handle the higher frame rate. They'll still fill the card as quickly though! Sandisk are about to release 12GB and 16GB CF cards, which may help!

I envy your ability to afford any camera, but you don't really make it clear why you feel the 400D is insufficient for your needs. Are you looking for better features or higher image quality (won't be easy to achieve, as others have pointed out)?

As I have said elsehwere I am very pleased with the 400D's image quality in most situations but (especially for shooting birds in flight) spot metering would be the one other feature I would like to have. I'm fairly sure that the successor to the 20 & 30D's (whatever they decide to call it) will have spot metering.

Colin

Accentor wrote in post #2302576
As I have said elsehwere I am very pleased with the 400D's image quality in most situations but (especially for shooting birds in flight) spot metering would be the one other feature I would like to have. I'm fairly sure that the successor to the 20 & 30D's (whatever they decide to call it) will have spot metering.

Colin

30D has spot metering now...

10MP / 400D, it's going to be tought to find any crop body with better resolution. What did you use prior to the 400D?

SeanH wrote in post #2302201
And don't forget the if your shooting with a wide angle, or most any fast prime wide open the FF on the 5D will vignette....it's the nature of a FF sensor with those lenses.....on my 17-40 I would of have to shoot stopped down to at least F8 to get rid of the vignetting. Even showed heavy signs of it on my 50 1.4. Personally that didn't work for me.

I'll stick with the cropped body and use any lens / F stop combo I want, and not have to post process, crop, or just try to work around that issue. But on a positive note, if I was shooting nothing but landscapes (stopped down), or portraits it's a great camera, I think the vignetting is cool in portraits.........I even add it in RAW. I just like to have that option, and not on every frame

30D......unless your printing large you will never know the difference. IMO the 5D is nothing but a 30D with a larger sensor anyway........oh and a slower drive.

That "wide angle will vignette" just isn't true. A given lens design may have a light fall-off problem but it's not an across-the-board absolute. My Sigma 15-30 doesn't exhibit falloff; the 24-105 L seems to across its entire zoom range, unlike the 24-70 L. And you're just as likely to run into fall-off with a comparable f.l. on a crop camera (10-22 on APS-C vs. 16-35 on FF are equiv. f.l.)

Jon wrote in post #2303401
That "wide angle will vignette" just isn't true. A given lens design may have a light fall-off problem but it's not an across-the-board absolute. My Sigma 15-30 doesn't exhibit falloff; the 24-105 L seems to across its entire zoom range, unlike the 24-70 L. And you're just as likely to run into fall-off with a comparable f.l. on a crop camera (10-22 on APS-C vs. 16-35 on FF are equiv. f.l.)

I'm not sure why vignette is even an issue, we never worried about it in the film days and it was equally as present then? At least you can remove it if need be in PS, heck I add it to some photos!

Jon wrote in post #2303401
That "wide angle will vignette" just isn't true. A given lens design may have a light fall-off problem but it's not an across-the-board absolute. My Sigma 15-30 doesn't exhibit falloff; the 24-105 L seems to across its entire zoom range, unlike the 24-70 L. And you're just as likely to run into fall-off with a comparable f.l. on a crop camera (10-22 on APS-C vs. 16-35 on FF are equiv. f.l.)

Now I have no intention of turning this into the 10 page sh*t storm it turned into over on FM, I just don't want guys to get blind sided when they get the camera home and get stuff like this. Thank god my camera store was cool and I didn't lose a dime when I returned it. Again I am just posting this to inform, and not to try and degrade, or insult the 5D.

17-40L @ F4

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

Are you showing vignetting? Of course FF has more light fall off than crop. Its not the camera's fault but rather the lens'. Its usually alot less apparent in regular photos than pictures of white walls.

MrChad wrote in post #2303393
30D has spot metering now...

10MP / 400D, it's going to be tought to find any crop body with better resolution. What did you use prior to the 400D?

The 400D is my first DSLR; prior to that I was digiscoping using a Nikon Coolpix 4500 on a Swarovski ATS80HD 'scope. Still use that setup to get extremely long reach taking just "record" shots of scarce or rare birds, but digiscoping is a very frustrating, hit 'n miss technique.

I know that the 30D has spot metering now and was very tempted to get this body, but reckon that something a bit better might be on the horizon. The 400D was an "interim" which I will use with my zoom lens when I find something else to replace. But, all in all, it is giving me excellent images with the 500mm L lens.