5D versus the 40D - My impressions

Hey y'all.

Not long ago I started the usual thread asking about the differences between he 40D and the 5D. I own a 40D, but now have had the opportunity to use a 5D for an extended period with the 50mm 1.4. Below are my observations. This is a totally non scientific comparison, as a majority of people in this forum feel the best way to compare a camera is in an everyday setting.


Image Quality

Cannot be beat. The 5D is amazing. I'd say the 5D's ISO 1600 is roughly equivalent to the 40D's ISO 800 in dark light. It's that good. My keeper rate was much higher with the 5D with the 50mm even when shooting below 1/50.

Let’s put it like this. I took the photos home on my CF card, opened the RAW's in DPP and couldn’t believe my eyes. Often noise I find removes depth from a photo. This did not at all.

That's not to dis the 40D though. It's performance is still stellar. But looking at the photos of the 5D, if low light non flash photography was your bag, it would be worth the extra money.

5D Sample Shot at 1600

40d Sample Shot at 3200

Finally. I do believe the 5D appears to capture more detail in low light with the 50mm 1.4. BUT as this is an un scientific observation it holds no real weight. There are plenty of tests out there that do that.

Auto Focus

The AutoFocus of the 40D in low light trumps the 5D.

There were times I found the 5D hunting around for a shot for quite a few seconds where the 40D would have no trouble what so ever.

Below is a link to a shot where in a dark room the 5D struggled to focus on his face, so I had to focus on his shirt instead.

5D AF Sample Shot

Interface

The 40D wins here again. Most people would know this, But it has a much better structred menu, making things easier to find. It also has the My Menu function allowing you to put your most used options under a particular tab.

The 5D just has a very long list style, which is same for the custom functions.

On the 40D the custom functions are split into topics, allowing you to find what you need much quicker if you are not familiar with the camera already.

ISO not being continuously displayed on the LCD is annoying. I have shot before and found I was on the wrong ISO after half an hour of shooting.

Also the buttons are all in different places, but that is of No Concern, as like all creatures of habit, we will learn the new button places very quickly.

Feel

The 5D feels chunky-er. It feels better in the hands. But in my opinion the 40D looks sexier. Hold both, there is not that large of a difference now. And if you are coming from a 350D, 400D, 20D, you will be taken aback by the feel of both cameras to the point where the feel between the two is irrelevant.

Conclusions

Well there are no real conclusions as it is all personal preference. For me the IQ on the 5D is killing me, I love to shoot low light and thus I want I want I want.

But I don't know if I am willing to give up the good parts of the 40D (Most of which were not summed up here, but you can find in the thread I linked to above).

Originally I thought I would wait for the 5D MkII and pick up a 5D cheap.

I think ill now actually buy the 5D MkII when it comes, to get the best of both worlds. Or Keep the 40D, because as much as its IQ doesnt live up to the 5D, it is such a nice camera to use.

Interesting.

I've had the 30D for a while, and while some of what you listed relative to the 5D is what prompted me to get one you also skipped what to me is a major feature - the viewfinder.

The 5D viewfinder is hands down far and away better than the 40D viewfinder.

Indeed, You are spot on, the viewfinder is marvellous. But unless I immediatly put one camera down and picked the other one up I didnt really notice that much. But the 40D is an improvement from the 30D, which is an improvement on the 400D etc etc.

agent.media wrote in post #4573542
Indeed, You are spot on, the viewfinder is marvellous. But unless I immediatly put one camera down and picked the other one up I didnt really notice that much. But the 40D is an improvement from the 30D, which is an improvement on the 400D etc etc.

To me all of the Rebel viewfinders are bad. period. Might as well get a rangefinder camera bad. I had an XT for some time and it took great shots but it was not a joy to use.

The 30D is better but still inadequate. The 40D is better yet, possibly even adequate. The 5D is good.

I would really like to look through a 1Ds3....but they don't seem to have any for me to paw down at Best Buy.

The 1Ds3 is 0.76X with 100% coverage

5D - 0.71X and 96%

40D - 0.59X and 95%

30D - 0.56X and 95%

XT - 0.50X and 90%

Your shot with the 40D is at 3200 ISO vs. a 1600 ISO shot from the 5D. I'd say the 40D fares very well considering that. Noise looks very reasonable for 3200 ISO.

Of course...I have a 20D and I really wouldn't want to shoot in 1600 ISO on it if at all possible. I am looking at adding a 40D to my bag and selling off the 10D and using my 20D as a backup.

agent.media wrote in post #4573542
Indeed, You are spot on, the viewfinder is marvellous. But unless I immediatly put one camera down and picked the other one up I didnt really notice that much. But the 40D is an improvement from the 30D, which is an improvement on the 400D etc etc.

it's the same way for me with the 5d and 30d. i know there is a difference but i really have to think about it to see it. thanx for taking the time to post your review.

ed rader

Interesting review. Thanks for posting that.

Nice read, thanks for that.

The 40D also has a bigger screen (2.5" vs 3") which is a noticeable size increase, though not as big a jump from 2" to 2.5" (20D to 30D), and it has the ultrasonic sensor cleaner.

Thanks for sharing Alex. I enjoy reading side-by-side comparisons - especially if I'm deciding between two different cameras or systems.

I'm not looking at buying the 5D - or, the 40D either...but I'm sure someone out there is. Perhaps your "impressions" may have confirmed some suspicions or questions that lay unanswered on the forum.

Thanks again

samnz wrote in post #4574105
I'm not looking at buying the 5D - or, the 40D either...but I'm sure someone out there is.

That would be me

I have a 40D and then I got a 5D with the 24-105L and the Pixma Pro 9000 for the rebate. Well, I wanted a new photo printer too so it was a good fit for me. I'd have to agree with the original poster pretty much down the line on his comparison. I tend to value each of them for the things they do well and I wouldn't want to give up either of them.

I just wish I had the money to keep both, because I have to keep one or the other

I sold my 40D for my 5D and never looked back.

I still have a 20D as a backup.


I wish I also could afford to have a 5D and 40D. They both have their uses.

Didn't know there's so much difference. Always thought why the hell do i need 3200 iso when 1600 iso's already so noisy. Always thought the lenses are going to make the biggest difference. Maybe i should borrow my mate's 30D to see the difference.

lovecolt wrote in post #4574958
Didn't know there's so much difference. Always thought why the hell do i need 3200 iso when 1600 iso's already so noisy. Always thought the lenses are going to make the biggest difference. Maybe i should borrow my mate's 30D to see the difference.

The difference for you will be the handling and the operation of the two cameras. It was actualy the 40D which tipped the scales and made me move from Consumer SLR to Prosumer SLR. Before then I thought the 20D/30D didnt add enough extra to make it worth while.

Also, there reaches a point where you feel as if you have got the most out of what you've got and want to move onto something else. Happens to all of us, just at different points.