5d mk i vs 40d

right i currently own a canon 40d though will be able to afford the upgrade to a 5d mk1 (around 4 - 500 quid) on friday i am just wondering

1. would the picture quality be much better if any at all?
2. on the interweb iv noticed that its an ef lens fit and not a ef-s does that matter?, i have no idea what the difference in those lenses are...

another idea is to go t0 a 50d, but then would the 5d be better image quality...

any help much appreciated, phil

My friend just upgraded from 40D. I had a 30D and 40D before... 5Dmk1 IQ is just sooo clean. My friend just keep shooting at ISO1600 in lowlight... I just can't see noticeable noise. I think if I were to make a decision, I go with 5Dmk1

1. Yes the image quality will be noticeably better, especially at high ISO's. If you only make small prints the difference will be less noticable than in large prints though.

2. EF-S lenses are 'short back focus' lenses and have a smaller image circle. They will not work with the 5D because they are designed and optimized for the smaller sensors. You can only use EF lenses with the 5D.

I had a 5D classic and a 40D as backup for over a year and then upgraded to the 5DII, keeping the 40D. The 5D classic is wonderful, I wish I had it back. The images in FF are very rich and full, so you will see a difference. And EF-S lenses don't work on FF, so really think about it if you want to get the 5D. The 50D is very capable, and may be a good alternative. Just depends what you shoot and if FF is something you like.

Don't expect IQ to be night and day different at anything other than high ISO. It isn't.

Main reasons to swap for me would be the brighter, larger viewfinder (although the 40D's is very respectable...) and ability to use better quality wide angle lenses.

I've had 'em all...The 40D is a great camera, not sure you'll see a huge difference. The 5D does have that magical quality to it but if you want to see it, you need $$$$ glass like the 85L and what not. The 40D does very well with ultra wide lenses like the 10-22 or sigma 10-20, Tokina 11-16 etc. The 17-40L on the 5D is good but I'm not sure you'd see that much of a difference between that and the 40D+UWA combo.
I think the newer chips and processing technology in the 40D make it a great camera, plus it's af is a bit better over the 5D.

I'm waiting to see what's announced this fall, but I'm thinking of upgrading to a MKII over a 40D, I just don't see the quality I want from my 70-200 on this 40D and the Microadjustment, FF, Higher MP and 1080p are looking like great options on the upgrade. And keep the 40D when I need it as a backup.

With all due respect, if you don't see the quality of the 70-200 on your 40D, you won't see it on any other camera. The 5D does have a much weaker AA filter so, yes, the images will have more out of camera "sharpness" but nothing that can't be correced in 40D images with some sharpening and it's not night and day difference. Other aspects such as color/look/high ISO of the 5D are something else.

Maybe as you said "on THIS 40D". What other lenses have you used other than the 70-200 and the 50/1.8 ?

Edit: I noticed you said the MKII. My comment about being happy with the lens still stands.

I've used the kit lens besides that, got rid of it, didn't like it due to shooting a lot of low light stuff. And I plan on picking up more 2.8L series stuff and possibly a prime or two. Leaning heavily towards a 16-35.

It's mainly the high ISO for Low light and FF I want to swap to, I really don't like the 1.6x format... plus as mentioned the higher ISO will help with the low light. I think it's just my style of shooting that caters more towards the higher ISO.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining I hate my 40D, I just feel the need to upgrade to FF in the future and the 1Ds is out of my price range, so the 5DII is the best budget option. And will probably buy the glass before the body as everyone recommends. Plus I haven't had a real time to play with my 70-200 fully on the 40D as I only picked it up a few weeks ago. I'm still doing bi-cep curls to get used to it!

The best budget option is the 5D, imo. It offers a "real" improvement in IQ over the 40D, which I had before. I shoot ISO1600 at events all the time and sometimes forget to set it back to 200 when I am done and will be shooting during daylight hours. I am often hard pressed to notice (actually usually don't) any noise issues in "normal" light at ISO1600 and I am one that really hates NOISE above all else.

Good to know, but remember I also plan to keep the 40D as a backup body and possibly a Telephoto backup for when I need the reach and don't feel like getting anything larger than the 70-200!

I'm waiting to see what they announce this fall Especially for the UWA and 24+ range for lens before I decide what my budget will be.

Also one selling point for me personally on the 5DII is the Microadjustment function.

I have both cameras and use them in very different ways. Since I usually carry both on assignment,. I stick my MF lenses on my 5D and put my 24-70 on my 40d.
I do a bit of multimedia, so it is good to have the added frame rate of the 40d to show movement. The40d also has a better af than the 5d but that doesn't really matter because the only lenses I put on my 5d are all manual focus anyways. Also, the 5d is full frame which used in conjunction with my 17mm prime, makes it great for pj work.

I have a 40d and a 5d and I had the opportunity to test the same conditions with the same lens, same settings RAW file. If we talk about noise, so behave almost the same, but the 5D is much greater in detail. There are two machines with different processors for different generations. For a beginner recommend a 40D, also for sport photos for his 6 frames/sec, but if you want something more and not want to use too many ways to work automatically when the 5D is the perfect choice. 40D image Never remove the 5d! Only that the blame for shortcomings 5d are compared with 40D: ISO value is continuously displayed, the option to lock the mirror is well hidden in the menu, is sensitive to dust, AWB works poorly in artificial light. But who knows how to use the 5D is an excellent device. Sorry for my English language ...

I recently aquired a 5D, and I have thoroughly enjoyed using it for the past 10 days in the south of France. I could only bring one body and I decided to give my 5D a run for its money.

A big difference for me has been the image quality from 400-3200. 1600 shows almost no visible noise and virtually no loss of fine detail. My 40D is certainly no slouch at iso 1600, but there is a heavier textured grain in the shots, and a more apparent softening of detail, due to more noise reduction.

With a little noise reduction on the 5D you can eliminate all noise at 1600 and still have sharper, more detailed image than if it were taken with the 40D.

I am on the fence about selling my 40D at the moment, I dont need two bodies a whole lot, but there are some nice features on the 40D that are lacking on the 5D, I think both bodies compliment each other well.

This is an interesting link to compare different cameras on the same scene, to find the 5D you must select all cameras. You can see for yourself which is the cleaner more detailed image at iso 3200 between the 5D and the 5D. :/

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/CO​MPS01.HTM

Also see here for how the 5D looks against the D300 and arguably the best camera at high isos, the D700.

http://www.cameralabs.​com …ws/Nikon_D700/n​oise.shtml

Good luck with your decision!

Interestingly, but maybe not surprisingly, 13 responses and not one asking what your intended use is. The 40D and 5D are completely different bodies with different applications. I have both and use each depending on what I am shooting.

The 5D with its full frame is great for portraits and landscapes. When I shoot a portrait type shot that is what I use. I wish I had more time for landscapes, but I don't. The 5D, because of its sucky slow AF sucks for sports.

Up until recently I have used the 40D for sports. For anything fast moving you need a faster AF and quicker shutter button delay than the 5D. I actually recently went to a 1D MkII for sports and my 40D sets very lonely in my bag. But if you want to shoot sports I recommend against 5D and would steer you to a 40D.