Although I'm relatively new to this website, I believe this is probably the best forum to ask my question.
I have the opportunity to upgrade my camera in February (have a Canon 350D now) and can't decide between the 40D and 5D. Both have features I really like. As far as lenses, I have EF anyway, so that's not an issue. Somewhere down the road (and over the rainbow LOL) I'd like to sell prints (stock or otherwise) and enter the professional realm. Sooooo, is the 40D as good as a full-frame camera, or should I invest a little more for the long haul? The 5D is really reasonable right now, so it wouldn't be a huge jump in cost. Any opinions/help would be greatly appreciated!
Posted by Josh Anderson on January 3, 2008 at 11:37 PM
My first question would be, what do you shoot most? Landscapes or wildlife/birds? I think the quickest and easiest answer would be that if you shoot mostly landscapes I would go for the 5D, but if you shoot a lot of wildlife/birds the 40D would be your better choice. I shoot both, but slightly prefer wildlife/birds (because I sell more) so I opted for the 40D. Just my 2 cents.
Thanks, Josh. I really don't shoot wildlife. Mostly landscape, still life, etc...
Posted by Don George on January 3, 2008 at 11:58 PM
If you only shoot landscapes then the 5D would be the choice of bodies since its a full frame.
Posted by ian dugdale on January 4, 2008 at 2:17 AM
Joshua, I'm in a similar situation but mainly shoot birds. Why is the full frame sensor more important for landscapes?
I'm currently waiting to see if the expected announcement from Canon on the 24th of this month is about the successor to the 5D.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on January 4, 2008 at 6:23 AM
Ian asked;
Why is the full frame sensor more important for landscapes?
One reason is the full frame sensor will allow full use of wide angle lenses (no cropping factor like with my 10D). The smaller sensor/cropping factor of the 10D (and 40D) is great for telephoto work, a handicap for wide angle.
Posted by Basil Greber on January 4, 2008 at 6:24 AM
Ian - with a crop sensor camera, you have higher pixel density. This is what you want for "long reach" (bird & wildlife) shots. Squeeze out every bit of detail your longest lens can deliver. Since you can get lenses with equally wide field of view (even wider for full frame by virtue of the Sigma 12-24 EX, actually, but let's forget about that for a second), you'll choose the camera with the larger pixels for landscapes (lowest noise, best image quality, most detail, best dynamic range). It might be a bit of an oversimplification, but that's the general line of thought.
Basil
Posted by Kah Kit Yoong on January 4, 2008 at 10:31 AM
If you shoot landscapes, get the 5D, no question. While you may not be using an L wide-angle lens now, if you get a 40D you will never be able to upgrade and get full use of the wide focal length. Noise performance is similar and the increased resolution translates to bigger prints from the 5D.
Posted by Greg Cope on January 4, 2008 at 11:46 AM
I am in quite a similar situation. Undecided between the two. Both are somewhat within my budget but I have yet to jump at either. Unfortunately for me, I shoot landscapes and wildlife/birds about the same amount, making the decision between the two harder - especially since I've been drooling over the thought of a 5D for about a year now. If I were to go with the 40D, I would definitely get a 10-22mm canon lens to give me that wider angle. I think now I am going to wait to see what canon has in store as far as new releases, and if the '5D mark II' comes out, hope it perhaps has features that are better than the 5D with respect to wildlife photography. Or, just save up over the next few decades so I can afford the 1Ds markIII ;)
Posted by Dan Borzynski on January 4, 2008 at 12:07 PM
If you don't need the effective longer focal lengths due to smaller sensor, I'd pick the 5D or its successor model. As big of a fan of long lenses as I am, I still occassionally miss the wide end of my 24-70.
I have the 20D and for a lot of the work I do, mainly macro and closeups with an unnatural desire for the 65 mm 1x-5x lens, the cropping/telephoto/magnification it provides is really nice. But since you mention landscape and still life, this really isn't a factor for your interests. I'd pick the 5D for your photographic interests over the 40D.
If you can keep the 350 you currently have, I'd do so. Main reasons: backup, macro magnification/telephoto cropping and sometimes it is nice to have two cameras and lenses immediately available rather than having to switch lenses.
You mention the possibilty of shooting stock or for prints somewhere down the road. The trend is towards accepting only higher megapixel cameras, at least at the higher end agencies. (Before anyone complains about that an 8-10 megapixel camera is good enough for the vast majority of publishing needs so why buy more? You know that, I know that, but we don't set the rules ) The 5D might give a longer life for stock images down the road.
In all honesty, both are great cameras. You won't go wrong with either, but I think the 5D is more "right".
Posted by Greg Barteluk on January 5, 2008 at 11:57 AM
I recently purchased a 5D and am amazed by the leap in IQ from my 20D for landscapes and birds. Yes there are downsides to shooting wildlife with the 5D, such as the slower frame rate and losing the 1.6 lens factor. But the increased IQ and ability to push ISO far higher are, to me, worthwhile trade offs. And there are always tradeoffs in photography. With the great 5D prices avail now I say go for it, though I wonder if the price drop isn't intended to clear the shelves prior to the intro of something like a 5D mk I.
Thanks for the replies everyone! The input has helped a lot.
I'm leaning toward the 5D but needed a little assurance, I guess. My upcoming tax return is already burning a hole in my pocket, so I'm not sure I can wait on a 5D successor. I'm sure it would be out of my price range again anyway. Has anybody actually heard a date as to when the newer 5D news will come out - if it does?
Posted by ian dugdale on January 5, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Posted by Tim Stenning on January 7, 2008 at 4:34 PM
In the last few days, I have spoken to salespeople at two Pro. camera shops (Vancouver and Seattle) regarding any sign of a replacement for the 5D. They say that there are no signs of a replacement any time soon. I have the 40D. So far, the 40D does not show me the detail I would like for Landscapes.
I bought the 40D because I thought the 5D was soon to be replaced. I believe I would be happier with the 5D.
Tim Stenning
Forks, Washington
Discussion
14 repliesAlthough I'm relatively new to this website, I believe this is probably the best forum to ask my question.
I have the opportunity to upgrade my camera in February (have a Canon 350D now) and can't decide between the 40D and 5D. Both have features I really like. As far as lenses, I have EF anyway, so that's not an issue. Somewhere down the road (and over the rainbow LOL) I'd like to sell prints (stock or otherwise) and enter the professional realm. Sooooo, is the 40D as good as a full-frame camera, or should I invest a little more for the long haul? The 5D is really reasonable right now, so it wouldn't be a huge jump in cost. Any opinions/help would be greatly appreciated!
I'm currently waiting to see if the expected announcement from Canon on the 24th of this month is about the successor to the 5D.
One reason is the full frame sensor will allow full use of wide angle lenses (no cropping factor like with my 10D). The smaller sensor/cropping factor of the 10D (and 40D) is great for telephoto work, a handicap for wide angle.
Basil
I have the 20D and for a lot of the work I do, mainly macro and closeups with an unnatural desire for the 65 mm 1x-5x lens, the cropping/telephoto/magnification it provides is really nice. But since you mention landscape and still life, this really isn't a factor for your interests. I'd pick the 5D for your photographic interests over the 40D.
If you can keep the 350 you currently have, I'd do so. Main reasons: backup, macro magnification/telephoto cropping and sometimes it is nice to have two cameras and lenses immediately available rather than having to switch lenses.
You mention the possibilty of shooting stock or for prints somewhere down the road. The trend is towards accepting only higher megapixel cameras, at least at the higher end agencies. (Before anyone complains about that an 8-10 megapixel camera is good enough for the vast majority of publishing needs so why buy more? You know that, I know that, but we don't set the rules
In all honesty, both are great cameras. You won't go wrong with either, but I think the 5D is more "right".
I'm leaning toward the 5D but needed a little assurance, I guess. My upcoming tax return is already burning a hole in my pocket, so I'm not sure I can wait on a 5D successor. I'm sure it would be out of my price range again anyway. Has anybody actually heard a date as to when the newer 5D news will come out - if it does?
I bought the 40D because I thought the 5D was soon to be replaced. I believe I would be happier with the 5D.
Tim Stenning
Forks, Washington