New 40d or used 5d?

[shocksyde]

I currently have an XTi. I'll probably keep it as a backup and use the new camera as my main one.

Is there any advantage to having a full frame camera? Are the sensors better or anything?

I shoot a lot of everything. I'm doing a wedding for a friend's brother in September, and I'd like to get more into macro.

I currently have a 70-200 f4L, sigma 10-20, 18-55 Canon something, and 50mm 1.8. If I were to go full frame I'd probably sell all of them and get a 70-200 f2.8L and 24-70 F2.8L.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: shocksyde

Is there any advantage to having a full frame camera? Are the sensors better or anything?

start reading

more reading

further

essay (read the conclusion first)

 

[alfa147x]

put up a poll

IMO i would personally get the 5d
I enjoyed using that camera more then i enjoyed the 30d (I own the 30d)

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: shocksyde
I currently have an XTi. I'll probably keep it as a backup and use the new camera as my main one.

Is there any advantage to having a full frame camera? Are the sensors better or anything?

I shoot a lot of everything. I'm doing a wedding for a friend's brother in September, and I'd like to get more into macro.

I currently have a 70-200 f4L, sigma 10-20, 18-55 Canon something, and 50mm 1.8. If I were to go full frame I'd probably sell all of them and get a 70-200 f2.8L and 24-70 F2.8L.

If these things are most important to you, I'd get the 40D:
- autofocus, in AI Servo and/or low light
- frame rate
- lens performance at the edges of the frame
- pixel density (especially for some sports, wildlife photography or macro)
- highlight tone priority / auto ISO
- Live View (don't see how this could rank high)
- budget

If these things are most important, I'd get the 5D:
- maximum resolution in a single frame*
- shallow depth of field
- very extreme wide angle perspective
- high ISO performance (where the 5D may still have a slight edge)

* Note that if you are doing lanscapes and interested in high resolution, best results can often be obtained with stitching anyway.

 

[shocksyde]

I've read about the 40d having the ability to control the camera from a computer. Anyone have experience with this? Can you use the computer to focus, and zoom in to get perfect focus? It would be awesome for macro!

 

[corkyg]

I have had the D50, 20D and 5D. Once you use the full frame 5D, you will find it diffuclt to go back to the 1.6X crop factor. Frame rate is unimportant unless you are doing mainly fast action sports photography. Autofocus works equally well. But, the 5D's larger sensor makes low light work better - you can use higher ISO for a given amount of graininess. I now use two 5D's - gave my 20D to my daughter-in-law.

Your Rebel XTi will give you most of what the 40D provides for telephoto advantage.

Lens performance at the edges of a frame depends more on the lens. You can crop a 5D picture and still have a bigger frame than the 40D without cropping.

Controlling the camera from a computer is not even on my radar. Why would you want to do that? My computer is nowhere near me when I shoot pics.

One of the best lenses you can have with the 5D is the 50mm f/1.4. Excellent quality and good macros.

Wedding photography is better done with available light - the 5D beats the 50D hands down in that department. Very few macros needed for a wedding unless you are into cake crumbs or, . . .

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: corkyg
I have had the D50, 20D and 5D. Once you use the full frame 5D, you will find it diffuclt to go back to the 1.6X crop factor. Frame rate is unimportant unless you are doing mainly fast action sports photography. Autofocus works equally well. But, the 5D's larger sensor makes low light work better - you can use higher ISO for a given amount of graininess. I now use two 5D's - gave my 20D to my daughter-in-law.

Any high-ISO advantage of the 5D over the 40D is minimal at best, and may not even exist. If it does, it's likely around 1/3 stop from what I've seen.

In addition, the AF of the 5D is inferior to that of the 40D in both AI Servo and low light, as well as accuracy of the outer points up to f/5.6.

Originally posted by: corkyg
Lens performance at the edges of a frame depends more on the lens. You can crop a 5D picture and still have a bigger frame than the 40D without cropping.

If you crop a 5D image to a 1.6x crop you will have only 5 MP.

Originally posted by: corkyg
One of the best lenses you can have with the 5D is the 50mm f/1.4. Excellent quality and good macros.

Not even close to true. The 50mm compact macro is far better for macros. Other lenses give far better quality-- and reliability (the 50mm f/1.4 has a kludgy AF clutch that breaks often).

Originally posted by: corkyg
Wedding photography is better done with available light - the 5D beats the 50D [sic] hands down in that department.

Nope.

 

[alfa147x]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: corkyg

Originally posted by: corkyg
Wedding photography is better done with available light - the 5D beats the 50D [sic] hands down in that department.

Nope.

Might want to back that up with something

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: alfa147x

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: corkyg

Originally posted by: corkyg
Wedding photography is better done with available light - the 5D beats the 50D [sic] hands down in that department.

Nope.

Might want to back that up with something

Yes, corkyg-- back up your claim. Unless your typo was meant to refer to the Nikon D50, in which case I think you have a basis for your claim.

 

[shocksyde]

Originally posted by: corkyg
I have had the D50, 20D and 5D. Once you use the full frame 5D, you will find it diffuclt to go back to the 1.6X crop factor. Frame rate is unimportant unless you are doing mainly fast action sports photography. Autofocus works equally well. But, the 5D's larger sensor makes low light work better - you can use higher ISO for a given amount of graininess. I now use two 5D's - gave my 20D to my daughter-in-law.

Your Rebel XTi will give you most of what the 40D provides for telephoto advantage.

Lens performance at the edges of a frame depends more on the lens. You can crop a 5D picture and still have a bigger frame than the 40D without cropping.

Controlling the camera from a computer is not even on my radar. Why would you want to do that? My computer is nowhere near me when I shoot pics.

One of the best lenses you can have with the 5D is the 50mm f/1.4. Excellent quality and good macros.

Wedding photography is better done with available light - the 5D beats the 50D hands down in that department. Very few macros needed for a wedding unless you are into cake crumbs or, . . .

Controlling the camera with a computer would be cool for studio macro/portrait work. But only if you can view the "live view" on the computer screen, zoom in to confirm the focus, and control the focus from the computer as well. Is this the case?

 

[alfa147x]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: alfa147x

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: corkyg

Originally posted by: corkyg
Wedding photography is better done with available light - the 5D beats the 50D [sic] hands down in that department.

Nope.

Might want to back that up with something

Yes, corkyg-- back up your claim. Unless your typo was meant to refer to the Nikon D50, in which case I think you have a basis for your claim.

well actually i would be forced to side with corky but only because in my line of work (assistant to a nikon wedding photographer) i see others using 5D's and up (1Ds II \ III) and 30D\40Ds as their back up

explain your 'nope'

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: alfa147x

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: alfa147x

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: corkyg

Originally posted by: corkyg
Wedding photography is better done with available light - the 5D beats the 50D [sic] hands down in that department.

Nope.

Might want to back that up with something

Yes, corkyg-- back up your claim. Unless your typo was meant to refer to the Nikon D50, in which case I think you have a basis for your claim.

well actually i would be forced to side with corky but only because in my line of work (assistant to a nikon wedding photographer) i see others using 5D's and up (1Ds II \ III) and 30D\40Ds as their back up

explain your 'nope'

corkyg's the one making the wild claim, not me. My "nope" is easily explained-- it generally means "no" in that sort of context. You are forced to agree with corkyg based on nothing, eh? Compelling indeed.

 

[jpeyton]

If you're selling all your lenses, why not dump the XTi body too and pick up a D300 with a Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 + 70-200 f/2.8 VR?

At ISO 1600, the D300 and 5D both offer excellent performance: D300 IS1600 & 5D ISO 1600

At ISO 3200, the D300 loses some detail, but I prefer Nikon's NR to Canon, which removes all chroma noise to give the picture a film-like grain. D300 ISO3200 & 5D ISO3200

And if you're not pixel-peeping, both will give you clean 12MP images with great high ISO performance.

Beyond that, at lower ISOs, and in general performance, a D300 would be noticeably better than a 5D. The D300 has better AF, a LCD that is light-years better than the 5D (3" 920k pixel vs. 2.5" 230k pixel), Auto ISO (none on the 5D), 3FPS for the 5D vs. 6FPS for the D300, comparatively poor ergonomics on the 5D compared to any Nikon.

If you must stick with Canon, get a 40D. I'm a big fan of full-frame cameras, but if you need to get a full-frame Canon I would wait for their next upgrade (5DMk2?).

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: punchkin
- lens performance at the edges of the frame

at the same absolute aperture the 5D has the edge.

Originally posted by: punchkin

corkyg's the one making the wild claim, not me. My "nope" is easily explained-- it generally means "no" in that sort of context. You are forced to agree with corkyg based on nothing, eh? Compelling indeed.

the 5D takes in 2.56 times the amount of light as the 40D due to the sheer size of the sensor. it had a 1-1/3 to 2 stop advantage over the 20D, and the 40D with it's higher pixel density can't have improved on the 20D that much.



switching from 20D to 5D would make the 70-200 f/4 L that you have perform like the 70-200 f/2.8 L does on the 20D.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: punchkin
- lens performance at the edges of the frame

at the same absolute aperture the 5D has the edge.

Absolutely untrue at the edges of the frame. In the center, possibly due to its larger pixels.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the 5D takes in 2.56 times the amount of light as the 40D due to the sheer size of the sensor. it had a 1-1/3 to 2 stop advantage over the 20D

Nope, although some 5D users may believe this enough if they repeat it amongst themselves. In addition, though the 5D takes in more light it spreads it over a larger area and is far more susceptible to vignetting at larger apertures, so your "argument" is a fallacy.

http://wyofoto.com/40D_Image%2...lity/40D_shootout.html

Beware of fanboys bearing... unfounded opinions, I guess.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
If you're selling all your lenses, why not dump the XTi body too and pick up a D300 with a Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 + 70-200 f/2.8 VR?

At ISO 1600, the D300 and 5D both offer excellent performance: D300 IS1600 & 5D ISO 1600

At ISO 3200, the D300 loses some detail, but I prefer Nikon's NR to Canon, which removes all chroma noise to give the picture a film-like grain. D300 ISO3200 & 5D ISO3200

And if you're not pixel-peeping, both will give you clean 12MP images with great high ISO performance.

Beyond that, at lower ISOs, and in general performance, a D300 would be noticeably better than a 5D. The D300 has better AF, a LCD that is light-years better than the 5D (3" 920k pixel vs. 2.5" 230k pixel), Auto ISO (none on the 5D), 3FPS for the 5D vs. 6FPS for the D300, comparatively poor ergonomics on the 5D compared to any Nikon.

If you must stick with Canon, get a 40D. I'm a big fan of full-frame cameras, but if you need to get a full-frame Canon I would wait for their next upgrade (5DMk2?).

The D300 is not close to the 5D in picture quality at higher ISOs. It loses much resolution in addition to other problems. The AF seems nice. The claim about ergonomics is pure bunk. Canon users and Nikon users consistently prefer the ergonomics of their own system.

 

[shocksyde]

Throwing Nikon into the mix? I'll admit I hadn't even considered it, but I'll read up on the D300

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: punchkin
- lens performance at the edges of the frame

at the same absolute aperture the 5D has the edge.

Absolutely untrue at the edges of the frame. In the center, possibly due to its larger pixels.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the 5D takes in 2.56 times the amount of light as the 40D due to the sheer size of the sensor. it had a 1-1/3 to 2 stop advantage over the 20D

Nope, although some 5D users may believe this enough if they repeat it amongst themselves. In addition, though the 5D takes in more light it spreads it over a larger area and is far more susceptible to vignetting at larger apertures, so your "argument" is a fallacy.

http://wyofoto.com/40D_Image%2...lity/40D_shootout.html

Beware of fanboys bearing... unfounded opinions, I guess.

read my links in the first reply to this thread. my 'opinions' are backed by math and empirical testing. there are reasons to get crop bodies; sheer optical performance is not one of them.

in the 'test' you linked to, the biggest problem is that the experiment does not use the same images for each test. using a 5D with the same lens as a 40D and then moving the 5D around to compensate for crop factors does not give the same FOV and the same DOF. the 5D's DOF will be more shallow because it is closer to the scene.

and nothing in your test disputed that the 5D takes in 2.56 times the amount of light and has a 1-1/3 to 2 stop advantage over the 20D. so, based on the 'evidence' you presented, you haven't refuted what you were replying to.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: punchkin
- lens performance at the edges of the frame

at the same absolute aperture the 5D has the edge.

Absolutely untrue at the edges of the frame. In the center, possibly due to its larger pixels.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the 5D takes in 2.56 times the amount of light as the 40D due to the sheer size of the sensor. it had a 1-1/3 to 2 stop advantage over the 20D

Nope, although some 5D users may believe this enough if they repeat it amongst themselves. In addition, though the 5D takes in more light it spreads it over a larger area and is far more susceptible to vignetting at larger apertures, so your "argument" is a fallacy.

http://wyofoto.com/40D_Image%2...lity/40D_shootout.html

Beware of fanboys bearing... unfounded opinions, I guess.

read my links in the first reply to this thread. my 'opinions' are backed by math and empirical testing. there are reasons to get crop bodies; sheer optical performance is not one of them.

Your opinions may be backed up by testing by a couple of people on dpreview, etc. Most opinions can be found on the web, of course... in fact, I think there are people out there who believe the earth is flat! Go figure. Anyone who has used a full-frame camera has seen first-hand how their lenses perform at the edges and various f/stops, and will know you're wrong. Don't trust me-- actually shoot on a full-frame camera and report honestly what you see.

Here's another on-point comparison that may actually help the OP:
http://picasaweb.google.com/gseitz/5DD30040DDaylight

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Here's another on-point comparison that may actually help the OP:
http://picasaweb.google.com/gseitz/5DD30040DDaylight

hey look, another person who botches the 'test'

Originally posted by: punchkin
Anyone who has used a full-frame camera has seen first-hand how their lenses perform at the edges and various f/stops, and will know you're wrong.

at the same f-stop using the same focal length of the same lens the 5D is going to have a more shallow depth of field than a canon crop and is going to have more light fall off. ANY 35 mm camera will have the same 'issue'. that is why the corners often look poor on the 5D. test the 5D with the same resulting image as the crop, say, 30 mm, f/2.8 on the crop body and 50 mm, f/4.5 on the 5D, and i think you'll find the 5D at least matches, if not beats, crop cameras (at least to it's sensor limit, which, if it's already beating the crops in the center, it won't be any more limited in the corners. of course, if it's beaten in the center, it probably won't win in the corners). also, light fall off isn't as bad as people think (and, again, often beats the crops).

what to do is really a photographic decision because a 35 mm camera made with the same technology, which i admit the 5D is two generations behind the 40D, will have essentially the same sensor performance. could be that the 40D really has caught up to the 2.56x light advantage that the 5D has. the 5D mk II will assuredly reset the bar back up, then. (and oh what a camera that will be)

the problem is people make comparisons based on non-equivalent images, then they run around saying 'oh my god the 5D and 35 mm in general sucks, look at this 'sweet spot.'

now, one advantage that crops have managed to erase over the 5D is sheer detail. used to be that, because the 5D had 20% to 50% more detail than crop bodies of its time, even when the 5D had the same amount of noise, you could apply NR, resize the image, and come out with the same detail and less noise. it doesn't have that advantage over the D300, but it still does over the 40D (which is a problem with your cuervo example, take a look at the kahlua bottle, the 5D is pulling in more detail)

the 40D is a great camera, don't get me wrong (i've put my money where my mouth is, i've got one sitting less than 10 feet from me). but you can't compare it and the 5D to determine image quality if you're not going to take the same picture to begin with


now, the 35 mm equivalent of the 400 f/4L on a 40D is a 640 f/9. they don't make that. you could do it yourself with a 1.6x teleconverter (if one is made, might not) but i'm almost certain that the 5D wouldn't autofocus with it. advantage: crop.

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the 5D takes in 2.56 times the amount of light as the 40D due to the sheer size of the sensor. it had a 1-1/3 to 2 stop advantage over the 20D

Nope, although some 5D users may believe this enough if they repeat it amongst themselves. In addition, though the 5D takes in more light it spreads it over a larger area and is far more susceptible to vignetting at larger apertures, so your "argument" is a fallacy.

http://wyofoto.com/40D_Image%2...lity/40D_shootout.html

Beware of fanboys bearing... unfounded opinions, I guess.

I'm sorry, but WRONG. a cropped-frame body lets the same amount of light hit the same unit of area. the light that doesn't hit the sensor just gets absorbed by the black walls of the mirror box. in a full-frame body, that wasted light instead hits the sensor, allowing the same number of pixels to be spread over more area, resulting in larger pixels. this is how the Nikon D3 gets such insanely high ISOs, and why the 5D (a two-year-old camera) gets the same performance as the 40D at high ISO. the 5D, because it is full-frame, puts 2.56 times more light onto a sensor 2.56 times the size of the 1.6x crop bodies. thus, 2.56 times more light hits each pixel of the 5D than the 40D, but the 40D's pixels are newer, so it balances out.



@OP:
If you're going to do a complete swap of all your gear, I would consider Nikon. The D300 is an amazing camera, although sadly out of my budget.
Although, wait until Canon releases a 5DmkII, because that way you could keep your 70-200/4 and 50/1.8, while only buying the new body and 24-70/2.8.



I'm interested in a possible D90 from Nikon sometime this year: 12-bit D300 sensor (same sensor as A700, with same high-ISO performance as D300 without 14-pit ADCs), 5fps, 11-point AF, 3.0" VGA screen.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: shocksyde
Throwing Nikon into the mix? I'll admit I hadn't even considered it, but I'll read up on the D300

Text

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: soydios

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the 5D takes in 2.56 times the amount of light as the 40D due to the sheer size of the sensor. it had a 1-1/3 to 2 stop advantage over the 20D

Nope, although some 5D users may believe this enough if they repeat it amongst themselves. In addition, though the 5D takes in more light it spreads it over a larger area and is far more susceptible to vignetting at larger apertures, so your "argument" is a fallacy.

http://wyofoto.com/40D_Image%2...lity/40D_shootout.html

Beware of fanboys bearing... unfounded opinions, I guess.

I'm sorry, but WRONG. a cropped-frame body lets the same amount of light hit the same unit of area. the light that doesn't hit the sensor just gets absorbed by the black walls of the mirror box. in a full-frame body, that wasted light instead hits the sensor, allowing the same number of pixels to be spread over more area, resulting in larger pixels. this is how the Nikon D3 gets such insanely high ISOs, and why the 5D (a two-year-old camera) gets the same performance as the 40D at high ISO. the 5D, because it is full-frame, puts 2.56 times more light onto a sensor 2.56 times the size of the 1.6x crop bodies. thus, 2.56 times more light hits each pixel of the 5D than the 40D, but the 40D's pixels are newer, so it balances out.

You are an absolute numbskull if you think that 2.56 times the light hits each pixel of the 5D sensor. You haven't compared the light-absorbing area of each pixel, and they have different numbers of pixels.

In any event, the full-frame-smitten almost infallibly advance your idea alongisde the notion of greater room for cropping on a full-frame sensor. Cropping, of course, would destroy any such advantage actually gotten.

The main reason the D3 gets insanely high ISO "performance" is aggressive in-camera noise reduction. It often obliterates the shadows, for instance.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: soydios

I'm interested in a possible D90 from Nikon sometime this year: 12-bit D300 sensor (same sensor as A700, with same high-ISO performance as D300 without 14-pit ADCs), 5fps, 11-point AF, 3.0" VGA screen.

i don't know why i was expecting a D90 at PMA. it'd eat D300 sales.

note to self: never expect makers to introduce a second camera right below another camera within 6 months of the first camera's introduction (5D 2, D90, but see 450D)

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: shocksyde
Throwing Nikon into the mix? I'll admit I hadn't even considered it, but I'll read up on the D300

Text

as much as jeff likes to complain about the cost of proprietary batteries you'd think he'd get a sponsorship from sterlingtek

 

[spikespiegal]

Anyone who has used a full-frame camera has seen first-hand how their lenses perform at the edges and various f/stops,

I've used a 1DsII quite a bit, and the only time I saw vignetting is using legacy Canon L glass at wide F-stops. Go figure........If you're able to use the same Canon glass without having to stop down on your 40D I have a large body of fresh water in Georgia I want to sell you.

Otherwise, the logic of using a cropped sensor camera to avoid vignetting by cropping out the lens circle might be among the most illogical one I've ever heard of. In order for this to make sense, it would assume that optical quality improves along with magnification of the image circle, and given my experience with most Canon glass I know this isn't the case. Nobody brings this up becuase they are in fear of not being a mindless fan of the brand they shoot.

Also, pixel density has less of a factor in this discussion than relative anti-aliasing and bayer issues that 'fuzz-up' what ever data you have. The bigger the sensor, the less this is an issue. This is why some of those comparisons on Dpreview show such an extreme advantage for the 5D -vs- 30D/40D when it comes to really detailed subjects with high contrast areas.

I don't have much interest in shooting birds and little kids playing soccer anyways. Seems to be 99.99% of all the 'marquee' images of the 40D if you ask me.