Another 5D vs 30D/40D question

I currently have a 350D and I am considering upgrading. I shoot landscapes primarily as well as some portraits.

I don't shoot sports/action. I don't need > 3 fps.

I favor wide angle. I have a 10-22 now and love it.

400 is high ISO to me!; I rarely shoot above this.

My question is the following: At low ISO, would IQ from the 5D be noticably superior to that of the 30d/40d if printing at say 8X10 or 11x14?

So....

1. Get the 30d/40d, keep my 10-22 and consider upgrading my Sigma 17-70 to the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

2. Get the 5D, sell my 10-22 and 17-70 and replace with the 17-40 and 24-105.

I love the bigger viewfinder of the 5D and FF would be nice with primes, but really the only way I could justify the greater expense of the 5D is if low ISO IQ is noticably better in prints.

Got to say 5D, though I have a 30D/40D, and it is a hell of a lot more expense, but if you are looking for quality in prints, Large Landscapes the VF and FF will be indispensable, I should say everyone will vote for 5D, long term as well as you add other primes, you will love 5D even more.
The 10-22 is a great lens but it is 16mm on a crop, so not hard to replace on a FF, maybe instead of the 17-40, go for the 16-35L, and 24-105

Thanks for the input Proff.

I guess the real question is the following:

If I took several identical landscapes and portraits with the 30D/40D vs the 5D, printed them at 8x10 or 11x14 and then was forced to guess which print came from which camera, could I tell the difference?

I agree with MadProFF... My $.02...

versedmb, I am a similar shooter to you. I went from 400D to 5D. The 5D is a really rewarding camera for your type of shooting. It still blows me away after several months of shooting now.

And you can spill into ISO 800 and even 1600 without worry, even if you don't think you need it much. The prints from a 5D are astounding. My house is full of them now.

I guess all I am saying is it is a huge step up. Sure 40D has better menu and user tweaks, even 400D does, but when it comes to the final image, those things don't really matter. If you move to 5D, I think you will be blown away. You could rent one for a weekend to be sure.

Some want to wait for the next generation 5D. My advice is to buy now because the next gen 5D may not match the perfect and unique balance of the current 5D. It's kind of like those few very special film models of yesteryear that people kept for decades because none of the new models could beat the final image quality, despite the newer features and controls. Not just image quality, but some unique toning and crispness that no other DSLR matches.

For me anyway, image quality is first an foremost. 5D is the perfect choice for that priority. It is not necessarily because of mega pixels or FF, but rather the perfect balance of mega pixels on the FF frame sensor size. I am not convinced the 1Ds models are any better image quality than the 5D for most circumstances...

A must read --> http://www.butzi.net/r​eviews/EOS-5d.htm

versedmb wrote in post #4017878
Thanks for the input Proff.

I guess the real question is the following:

If I took several identical landscapes and portraits with the 30D/40D vs the 5D, printed them at 8x10 or 11x14 and then was forced to guess which print came from which camera, could I tell the difference?

TBH you prob could not with in reason, but whats to say that later on you want more from the camera or your technics improve, or you start using the camera for certain other things that is best suited to 5D/FF,

The 30D and 40D are great all round cameras but the edge tilted to action, the 5D is no doubts best for what you want, it is not all about the end result either, it is also the pleasure that you get using the camera getting to the end result

versedmb,
I haven't done a side by side print comparison of the 5D and the 40D with same photo but, with 11x14" prints I can't tell the difference at all in print quality when using a Canon I9900 printer. Both cameras produce excellent output.
Here is a photo I have printed at 13x19" with the 40D and it looks as good as prints I have of the same size taken with my 5D

White Store Falls

IMAGE LINK: http://johnbdigital.co​m …ls/white_store_​falls7.htm

For you I say 5D + 17-40L.

You really don't need f2.8 for landscape!

It's a big cost difference from getting the 40D and 17-55 ($2300) vs. 5D and 17-40 and 24-105 ($4200-700(selling lenses)=$3600).

And if you're concerned with making big prints, it may be worth your wait to see if the 5D2 comes out next spring and had 3+ MP, along with vibrating filter for sensor dust help, and the 40D autofocus system, and 14bit, more info available in the viewfinder, etc. that the 40D got and possibly the 1-series af-adjustment function.

John,

Very helpful information. Nice to hear from someone who has printed identical images from both cameras and compared them side by side. The 40D is certainly tempting and at a great cost savings compared with the 5D, especially considering new lenses.

One advantage of the 5D is that I would not feel the upgrade my camera for a long time. The only feature that the 5D does not have that I would like is an "anti-dust system" - seems like many people have issues with this with the 5D.

Also, the 5D and 24-105 would cover so much of my needs, with IS - equivalent to 15mm-65mm on a crop - the perfect range for me.

Though one other benefit of a 40D and many are starting to see the real advantage is Live View??? will almost certainly be on a 5D MK II, not sure what your thoughts are on that?

Reasons I added the 16-35L, it covers the range of existing 10-22mm and more, and useful in doors/low light

MaDProFF wrote in post #4018410
Though one other benefit of a 40D and many are starting to see the real advantage is Live View??? will almost certainly be on a 5D MK II, not sure what your thoughts are on that?

Reasons I added the 16-35L, it covers the range of existing 10-22mm and more, and useful in doors/low light

I just don't know if I would use live view for landscapes or not. Anyone using live view for landscapes with their 40D?

Go with the 5D and never look back If you want wide, nothing beats full frame! Purchase the 17-40L and you'll have a fantastic setup for ultra wide landscapes!

If it were me....with a new model maybe coming out....I would get the glass you want for FF....and wait for the new 5D. If the new 5D doesn't have features you feel are worth the upgrade...then you will be able to pick up all those older 5D's that will hit the market when others do upgrade. Get the 40D for now....and then get a used 5d...keep the 40D as a back up.

Jon

versedmb wrote in post #4017745
My question is the following: At low ISO, would IQ from the 5D be noticably superior to that of the 30d/40d if printing at say 8X10 or 11x14?

No, it won't. Unfortunately a lot of the replies have dodged this question of yours, even though you put it in italics to emphasize that this is your main criterion for deciding which camera to get There are other pros and cons for each camera of course as others have stated (and I would also choose the 5D for my own use), but since print quality at 8x10 or 11x14 with shots taken at ISO 400 or below is your main deciding factor, the 40D will do nicely especially since you already have a 10-22 (wider even than the 17-40 on a 5D, if the focal length numbers are to be believed).