5D vs 40D - why comparing?

Hello everybody,

In the past I've seen an endless amount of threads in this and FM forum, about "5D vs 40D".

Now - I ask, why are people comparing a $1200 10 megapixels 1.6 crop 6.5 fps body, to a $2200 12.7 megapixels FF 3 fps body? I think they're not at all similar and the IQ not either. For example - 5D with a 8.2µm pixel size and the 40D with a 5.7µm.

The price difference between them is quite big, and what they were intended to be used and are used is also different.

Could anybody tell me why those are always being compared, instead of, like, the 30D?


Many thanks,
Aero

Because thats the next level up.

You always want to see what your options are before buying and see what advantages are and if it's worth the extra money.

But with that look on the cameras you get much more in the 40D 'cause it's $1000 cheaper and better in everything except IQ.

Or, say you already have a 20D and are looking for a second body. You can get a new 40D, or for a little more a used 5D (around $1800 these days). So, if you CAN swing the 5D, you might want to decide if it is worth the extra cash. Put another way, is the all the hype about the magic of the 8.2um photosite to be believed, particularly since the 1dm2 and 1dm2n have exactly the same sized cell.

So, in my case I am looking at a new 40D, or used 1dm2 or 5d. As with everyone else I shoot a variety of subjects and my 20D does a very good job with all of them. So, it's a question of which areas I want to improve and those that I am content to let my 20D handle.

Besides it always interesting to hear what others have to say about different models. A bit like comparing two makes or models of cars.
Some people, I am one, may not agree that a 40D is

- I have read reports that say the IQ is definitely comparable - so maybe the 40D is the better camera? Nope - but FOR ME it was/is the better value for moneY. If I was anything but a hobbyist these days, then I would probably believe otherwise.

aero145,
To me they are similar, as they are both the top of the line Canon DSLR's in the standard size. All 1 series are not a standard size in the 35mm film or DSLR markets. One is the top of the 1.6 sensor, the other is the top of the 1.0 sensor.
In 13 x 19" prints they are identical in quality (most people print this size or smaller, seeing how printers in general still do).
They are even similar in looks and size
Here is a shot of both next to each other

Another 20D user here who is also interested in this question!

I'm thinking of buying a either a 40D or 5D soon and trying to figure out which would be most suitable for my photography.

Some reports suggest the newer technology in the 40D means that, unlikely as it may seem, there is actually little difference in image quality with the 5D. Yes, the 5D has more pixels and a full-frame sensor, but have things moved on in the two years since it came out? I'd like to read user's opinions on this.

If image quality really is similar, then I guess I'm drawn to the 40D's faster operation and new focusing system which gives it an advantage in some situations.

There are times I'd like the full frame sensor for portraits and wide angle shots - other times I like the extra reach with the crop sensors.

Right now I'm thinking the best option might be to go for the 40D. Then, when a 5D mk2 comes out, decide between it and the (presumably discounted) current 5D. If they increased a new 5D mk2 to 16mp, and 14-bit processing, that would mean massive file sizes that might be overkill for general photography and could be a good reason to hang on to a 40D.

aero145 wrote in post #4217148
But with that look on the cameras you get much more in the 40D 'cause it's $1000 cheaper and better in everything except IQ.

The 40D is also inferior in ISO noise performance... and IMO color tone accuracy- particulary skin tones

I'm getting a new camera Friday and to me there was no question or doubt- get the 5D.

aero145 wrote in post #4217148
But with that look on the cameras you get much more in the 40D 'cause it's $1000 cheaper and better in everything except IQ.

Actually, the only thing I can see of any worth that the 40D has and the 5D dosen't is the live veiw, and even that is something that might get used as much as the instant print button.

Wavy C,
I did a test between my 5D and 40D at high ISO 1600 with wide open apertures on my lenses and they were so close (almost identical).

sadowsk2,
It was just about equal in ISO noise to my 5D (this comes from someone that owns both and tested them). I also found them identical in color accuracy (when using manual white balance, in AWB the 5D is a bit more accurate in guessing). To top it off the 40D LCD was more color accurate too which helps when in the field
At least on my cameras

The question gets asked because people have money to spend and want help spending it.

Of course they're different, why else would people ask the question?

Hmmm ...

Hello again guys...

None of your replies have really made me understand why people compare the cameras - a FF just isn't a 1.6 crop, nevermind it's newer technology.

And now I want to ask - if the 5D and 40D are equal in noise performance, do you get more fine detail with the 40D or with the 5D?

And, if the 40D really is on the same noise-level as the 5D, how does the 1D3 compare then? Noticably better than both of those?

And also --> nobody said anything about IQ here, only noise performance. You think 40D resolves IQ as well as the 5D?

aero145 wrote in post #4217528
Hello again guys...

None of your replies have really made me understand why people compare the cameras - a FF just isn't a 1.6 crop, nevermind it's newer technology.

And now I want to ask - if the 5D and 40D are equal in noise performance, do you get more fine detail with the 40D or with the 5D?

And, if the 40D really is on the same noise-level as the 5D, how does the 1D3 compare then? Noticably better than both of those?

And also --> nobody said anything about IQ here, only noise performance. You think 40D resolves IQ as well as the 5D?

the 40D is NOT equal to the 5D in terms of noise performance... as a matter of fact, its NOT even equal to the 30D in terms of noise performance... You can even check out the tests in the 40D reviews here:
http://www.dpreview.co​m …ws/canoneos40d/​page18.asp
Note at 1200 and up the 30D exhibits less noise...

Search some of my past postings and you'll see my own study of identical shots on the 30D vs 40Dm, the 30D comes out on top for high-ISO noise performance...

John B- Perhaps you may have gotten then an exceptional copy of the 40D I dunno? Most everywhere I've looked, and with my own 2 eyes, the 5D is at least a stop better in terms of noise performance...

Regardless, they are both very fine cameras, I will argue they are distinctly different cameras with different advantages and disadvantages... It really depends what you typically shoot and what your budget is...

Cheers..

Sadowsk2 - this is funny...
I believe the 5D really has better ISO performance than the 1.6 crops - and that's talking about noise and resolving detail, not just smoothing out the details to get rid of the noise.

But many people say the 5D is just as good as the 20D and the 40D is better than the 20D. And some say the 1D3 is worse than the 5D in ISO, and some say it's vice-versa.

Seriously, very difficult to know what's right. It's not varying with people's opinions, one "solution" is for this discussion.