40D or take the leap to 5D?

I'm finally ready to add a good quality second body to my equipment. Have been thinking that I would pick up a 40D, but shopping at B&H looks like the 5D is within range of consideration. Is there anyone out there who feels that the 5D is worth the extra $$$ up from 40D? (I'm not a full-time photographer, but in addition to nature, I do weddings, sr portraits, etc.)

Janet, what's your primary body now? That could make a difference.

Janet, I sold all my 35mm Canon stuff and went digital with the Rebel XT. Bought the kit and a mid-tele zoom. All for a trip to Alaska, learning digital along the way.

That was OK, and I got hooked on digital and wanted more.

I bought the 5D...actually after talking to a Canon rep. I told him I was looking at the 30D..but he urged me to look at the 5D. I did, and I bought it.

I love it. The photos are beautiful. I particularly like the full frame capability. But since I was starting over in digital and wasn't restrained by previous investments in lenses, it was a natural for me.

Since then I've added a number of lenses, filters, flash, and other accessories and haven't regretted it.

I still use the Rebel XT for light duty, but when I really get serious about landscapes and nature I pull out the 5D.

Steve, I have been shooting my 20D and loving every minute it's in my hands. My thinking is that the 40D will be the improved version of what I already appreciate and I could consider adding a piece of glass... but that 5D seems pretty nice

Either way I'll suggest you wait and see what Canon comes up with to replace the 5D (I'm guessing it's next in line now that they upgraded the 30D, 1D, and 1Ds). For starters it will drive the current 5D prices down on the used market, and it may also give you a better option than the 2 you're considering.

Guy

FWIW, Janet, I think you'd be better off with the 5D or its successor. That way you'll have full frame capability with your wide-angle photography without the 1.6 crop 20D to compromise things, but that same 1.6 crop will continue to be a blessing for your telephoto lenses.

And while the 10 Mp of the 40D looks a lot like the 12 Mp of the 5D, it's really no contest. Cramming 10 Mp into that 1.6 crop sensor makes the 40D noisier in some situations (the Digic III processor helps mitigate some of that) than your 20D, and the 12 Mp of the 5D's full-frame sensor will yield better IQ, significantly lower noise, and ulimately larger print size than either the 20D or 40D.

I most often shoot the 30D with an XT backup these days (weddings and portraits and other commercial shooting, like you, along with my nature work) and it's for all the reasons listed above that my next body will be the 5D. I expect that, in situations where the 1.6 crop factor and faster burst rate capability of my 30D aren't a factor, I'll be using the 5D for lots of telephoto nature work, too.

You should ask yourself, what can the 5D do for you that your 20D or the 40D can't do. The full frame sensor of the 5D will allow you to take full advantage of your wide angle lenses. If you're a landscape specialist. The 5D is for you. I you shoot birds and wildlife, the faster frame rate and crop factor of the 40D will be to your advantage. The 40D also has live view, useful for macro or studio work, anti-dust, larger LCD, and a significant price advantage.

You should choose the one that adds features you want but that your 20D doesn't give you.

If you shoot avian/wildlife go the 40D for the extra speed and the crop factor is in your favour. Otherwise the 5D is a much better instrument. You'll be able to use wide angle L lenses and at full frame they will still be wide. If you are prepared to wait up to 9 months, then you could look at the 5DMkII.

I recently was in a position similar to you, trying to decide on a new backup to my 1Ds. After agonizing over it, I went with the 40D. Reasons included that the 40D has a number of "modern" features I suspect I will want later, including anti-dust and live view (both useful as I do a great deal of macro). Also, since my 1Ds has a relatively low frame rate and low pixel density, I liked the idea of 6 fps and 10 megapixels in a 1.6 crop factor for wildlife shooting.

My aspiration is to eventually buy the long-predicted 5D replacement (it WILL eventually happen unless for some reason Canon decides to go directly from X0D to 1D Mk X, which I doubt will occur) and then I'll have two different styles of cameras both of which will have the newest add-on features. Till then my 1Ds is great.

What Guy said. I have not seen anything like a consensus on 12 bit vs 14 bit, but with all of the new Nikons coming out, I have a feeling we are going to see a lot of discussion on this subject. Otherwise, the 20D and 40D seem a wee bit redundant.

I suspect that the 12 bit vs 14 bit does translate to some extra dynamic range. I noticed that when using the 40D I was using less heavy ND grads as the highlights were blowing out less on my histogram. Maybe 1/2 a stop worth. This is supported by a recent technical review I read.

Very much appreciate the thoughtful responses. Thanks for the input.

As far as the 12 vs. 14 bit goes, there has been very intensive and rigorous technical discussions on some other sites. To simplify it some (from memory), the consensus seems to be that the extra 2 bits are more precise than the sensor can really record due to noise - there is no dynamic range increase. There is some extra processing leeway, but it's not really different than just having the tool work in 16-bit mode. There may be some advantage in very specific circumstances where the noise could be cancelled out, but overall, the analysis seems to think that 14-bits is currently something of a marketing concept.

I think all the replies have a common theme: it depends on what is most important to you in your shooting. If you shoot mostly wildlife, then I would go with the 40D for the higher frame rate and crop factor (never seem to have enough magnification), but if you shoot mostly landscapes, weddings, portraits, etc. then I would go with the 5D for the higher resolution and better wide angle performance for a given w.a. focal length. I don't know about the 12 bit vs 14 bit argument, but I would think that the full frame sensor vs APS-C size sensor would be much more important, so David's post above sounds very logical.