5D vs. 40D iso 1600 with wide aperture

thanks

John B thank you for that comparison I know I love my 40D, but I have one question did you have the Noise reduction turned on in the 40D?

Good tests John! I think you did great here. And the 40D looks good here. If people are so OCD about it and want to knit pick these tests they shouldn't bother commenting.

i'm extremely impressed w/ 40D

I was really hoping the 40D would suck big time, but now that I know it's so good it means I'll be spending more money before the years end.

So thanks for the great review, I appreciate it, but my wallet hates you.

Steiglitz wrote in post #3868337
Those photos are not ideal to compare noise performance. Choose better pictures that show more shadow graduations. Also DON'T use the same lenses as doing so changes the perspective....put a 50mm on the 40D and 85mm on the full frame, for example.

Why would you omit one variable just to introduce another? Most of us understand the logic but it certainly makes no sense to introduce another lens altogether for a comparison.

Thanks for the info, OP. *Most* of us here truly appreciate the effort.

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.

Shadows aren't anything more than tonal values. A frickin' camera doesn't know the difference between a shadow and black.
There's a lot of tonal values represented there in those picture. Look at the Sandisk pictures. You really need to ook to see a lot of difference.

Additionally, it's a comparison. RAW, JPEG, doesn't really matter.

You know it's getting retarded when Canon people start arguing about Canon products...

Sweet jesus again...

Steiglitz has a point, despite his somewhat "harsh" demeanor - equal framing is essential, as is equal perspective. The only way to achieve this is to use lenses that allow equal framing from the same location. The differences between reasonably good lenses isn't significant as long as they aren't shot at their weakest aperture. Stop them down a bit, say, f/4.

Equalizing depth-of-field might make some sense if the subject has a good amount of depth also.

Anyway, thanks much for the test. I can see room for improvement in the technique, but it takes a good deal of effort to set up and compare cameras. That effort is appreciated.

Tom W wrote in post #3869934
equal framing is essential, as is equal perspective.

Not for noise.

Tom W wrote in post #3869934
Steiglitz has a point, despite his somewhat "harsh" demeanor - equal framing is essential, as is equal perspective. The only way to achieve this is to use lenses that allow equal framing from the same location. The differences between reasonably good lenses isn't significant as long as they aren't shot at their weakest aperture. Stop them down a bit, say, f/4.

Equalizing depth-of-field might make some sense if the subject has a good amount of depth also.

Anyway, thanks much for the test. I can see room for improvement in the technique, but it takes a good deal of effort to set up and compare cameras. That effort is appreciated.

I can't disagree enough. The comparison was comparing noise. Framing has nothing to do with it. You're looking for noise throughout the tonal range of the pictures.
Good lord. I honestly wish Canon would never release a new camera, or I need to avoid these threads like the damned plague.
Or dpreview needs to hurry up with their technical examination so people can pixel peep at the ridiculous differences there.

Tom W wrote in post #3869934
Steiglitz has a point, despite his somewhat "harsh" demeanor....

Actually, he loses he loses any persuasive leverage he has by being 'harsh' (for lack of a better word). OP has taken the time to set up an initial comparative test and the effort should be appreciated by the community. Steiglitz envisions himself to be the local curmudgeon here which I think we can all do without that.

BottomBracket wrote in post #3870029
Actually, he loses he loses any persuasive leverage he has by being 'harsh' (for lack of a better word). OP has taken the time to set up an initial comparative test and the effort should be appreciated by the community. Steiglitz envisions himself to be the local curmudgeon here which I think we can all do without that.

Nonetheless Steiglitz makes a valid point.

Comparing different size shots is very difficult; in fact it illustrates the difficulty in comparing different formats.

Likely the only way to do this is to print large images to the same size and compare them.

But as a preliminary assessment, the tests were useful.

John great job! I think the 40D is very good but I'm not sell'n the 5Ds anytime soon. The noise seems very good on the 40D but it looks to me the 5D is better but the 40D is very good and for the price look to be a good buy. Thanks again John for going thru all the work.

Alfred has just been spending to much time with that nasty Georgia. Man she can be mean but man can she paint and lives in a BEAUTIFUL place...

Woah, flashbacks to gamer forums... Who knew photogs could be just as bad?

Anyways all technicalities aside I think the original poster did a very good test and pretty much showed me what I needed to know. So I thank the original poster, I appreciate it a lot.

If the original poster did everything people complained about on here, I really doubt their would be much of a difference.