5D vs. 40D iso 1600 with wide aperture

Nice. Now I am considering getting the 40D this year over the 5D next year... (I am "poor").

On that web page there the text says 5D to "10D" comparisons to all but one set-- is that right, or is it to be "40D"?

40D is looking good .... for the price also ...I would love to get 40D now .

You might all think Steiglitz is being an ass, but what he said is true, and I am sure he didn't intend to be rude.

The problem is that most people here are photographers first, and scientists... well, way down the line. So, when you have "tests" like this, they may not really be worth much.

BottomBracket,
Thanks but it made my 5D feel down

Tee Why,
For image quality to my eyes it seems to match up to the 5D which is pretty darn good As for speed well its over twice as fast in fps then the 5D. For AF speed I haven't really used it enough to notice a difference, besides I still manually focus most (really all) of the time.

MikeI,
Thanks I was so shocked at the quality of it compared to my other 1.6 DSLR (Canon 10D).

DanteCaspian,
Thanks, and oops..... a typo and I think its now corrected. Thanks for pointing that out to me It was with the 40D not the 10D

If it were me, I'd probably foot zoom to get the same FOV with the same lens on each body. At least that way you aren't introducing the variation in lens quality.

John_B wrote in post #3868108
Just a note: all photos were taken as jpeg, no raw was used.

no raw = worthless comparison.

kpt4321 wrote in post #3868682
You might all think Steiglitz is being an ass, but what he said is true, and I am sure he didn't intend to be rude.

The problem is that most people here are photographers first, and scientists... well, way down the line. So, when you have "tests" like this, they may not really be worth much.

If anything, using the same lens IS the right way to compare these qualities. You really don't want to introduce another variable when comparing camera bodies.

John, thank you for taking the time to do these comparisons, they are very helpful.

I do wonder about the crop effect though because that makes the comparison harder to judge fairly. The 40D pictures are magnified and detail/noise is easier to see.

Or am I out in left field here and don't know what I'm talking about???

Please don't take what I'm saying as criticism because you've done a wonderful job putting this together and it makes my decision on the 40D even better. I don't think anyone really thinks the 40D is better than the 5D but to see it on a par with it in some instances at half the price is a real stunner in my opinion. I also don't feel any bias in your tests and that's wonderful. I'm sure you've seen tests where the bias is blatant! When the 40D first came out way back a week or so , there were people saying it was crap and it really bothered me a lot. Now the pendulum seems to be swinging the other way and I'm glad. Maybe the 40D really is a "baby Mark III" as some have called it I've only had mine for 24 hours and I'm pretty darn impressed!

Thanks again,

John

Second bag of Popcorn is finished. Sitting back and putting feet up for round 2

cdifoto wrote in post #3868788
If anything, using the same lens IS the right way to compare these qualities. You really don't want to introduce another variable when comparing camera bodies.

i'm with you. the test would only be valid using the same lens.

thanks John!

chinch wrote in post #3868773
no raw = worthless comparison.

Geez. RAW zealots.

If it's worthless, then you should demand a refund of your money.



-js

JohnnyG,
Thanks, there is no difference in the magnification, both are 100% crops (when a file is viewed at 100% magnification on the monitor, then the 600 x 400px crop is made) from the original photo and the original is resized to 600 x 400px. A 5D puts out a 4368 x 2912px (the 100% crop is the equivalent of a 8 x 5 inch taken from a 60.6 x 40.4 inch print) file where the 40D puts out a 3888 x 2592px (the 100% crop is the equivalent of a 8 x 5 inch taken from 53.9 x 35.9 inch print). It is often referred to as the 1.6 factor
Hope that helped

IB///M,


number six,
Thanks for defending us Jpeg users

Thanks for the great comparison - they look nice and close to my eyes for the most part

to my very unsophisticated and age_ED eyes [pronounce it properly! ], both look very close and as to which is "better" seems to change with the subject being photographed.

did anyone else get this perception?

Thanks for the test