Worth it to upgrade 40D to 5D Classic?

[996GT2]

I'm currently shooting with a gripped Canon 40D and Tamron 17-50 lens most of the time. When I shoot sports events for the school newspaper, I use their Nikon D2h and 300mm f/2.8 AF-S, so I do not use my own equipment for fast action much of the time. Most of my shooting will be portraits, landscapes, and candids.

As a result, I have been considering an upgrade from 40D to the original 5D. With that upgrade, I was thinking of going more to prime lenses. This would give me a smaller, lighter kit but still give me all the advantages of FF.

My gripped 40D + Tamron 17-50 can probably fetch around $950 on POTN, so I'd only have to add $100 or so to upgrade to the 5D classic body. After I get the 5D, I thought of getting the 50mm f/1.8 first, then getting the 24mm f/2.8 and 100mm f/2. I already have a pretty good flash setup (580EX+430EZ+remote triggers), so I wouldn't have to invest more money in that area.

Reasons for wanting to upgrade to 5D :
1) Better noise characteristics/more detail
2) Better use of fast prime lenses for portraiture. The 85mm f/1.8 is a bit long on APS-C, as are the 100mm and 135mm f/2. On FF, they would be more ideal. Also, a 50mm lens on FF is more versatile than it is on APS-C.
3) Less DoF at any given aperture compared to APS-C is good for isolating backgrounds in portraits.
4) Much bigger viewfinder on 5D.

Concerns:

One of my concerns is regarding the age of the 5D. It's a 5 year old camera now, and there are rumors that the 5D Mark III will be out soon. Will this greatly affect the value of the 5D Classic after I get it? If so, would it be worthwhile to wait for the 5D III to come out before getting a 5D Classic?

The other concern I have is regarding the AF system of the 5D. I know the camera is not supposed to be a fast camera, and to be honest I rarely use the 6.5 FPS of my 40D. However, the 40D has a pretty nice 9 point (all cross) AF system, so would the 5D be able to match the AF performance? How is it in terms of accuracy? I've owned 2 40D bodies in the past, and both have had slight issues with front/back focus.

Lastly, having the older Digic II processing in the 5D Classic wouldn't matter if I shoot RAW most of the time, right?

5D owners, please help me out! Thanks

 

[jpeyton]

Less DOF is a good reason.

Not sure if the 5D is going to give you better noise/detail than a T2i. In fact, comparing the test scenes at Imaging-Resource, the T2i beats the 5D in noise (especially chroma noise) while pulling more detail because of the increased resolution. But this shouldn't be surprising; we're comparing a 5-year-old camera/sensor/processor to a brand-new one. Even if the old one is full-frame, Canon has made a lot of advances in image/noise-processing during that time period.

 

[996GT2]

Less DOF is a good reason.

Not sure if the 5D is going to give you better noise/detail than a T2i. In fact, comparing the test scenes at Imaging-Resource, the T2i beats the 5D in noise (especially chroma noise) while pulling more detail because of the increased resolution. But this shouldn't be surprising; we're comparing a 5-year-old camera/sensor/processor to a brand-new one. Even if the old one is full-frame, Canon has made a lot of advances in image/noise-processing during that time period.

Well, compared to my 40D, I'm pretty certain that the 5D would do better in terms of both noise and detail.

The T2i might have better detail, but I don't think I could downgrade to Rebel ergonomics after having a 40D. So then it would be a question of 5D vs. 7D, and the 7D is quite a bit more expensive than the 5D Classic at the moment (not to mention it's not FF, so I would lose some of the other advantages like a big viewfinder).

So, realistically speaking, I think it's either I keep the 40D or get a 5D. The 50D is not much of an upgrade, the T2i trades ergonomics for better image quality, and the 7D is just too expensive to justify for me.

 

[angry hampster]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2075592

 

[randomlinh]

Digic does still matter, it still effects how the raw image is captured. However, 40D->5D... you gain in the noise dept, I don't think Digic will be a concern.

AF points... how do you shoot on the 40D? Using AI Servo or just pick a point and shoot? And how much of it in lower light? I can't really answer your question, but it's important. I generally am a center point/pick a point shooter, and didn't notice much of a difference. Though, I have not tried any low light situations outside of the center point on the 5D.

waiting is a never ending game. The "5D3" might push the 5D1 down some in price, maybe down to ~850 give or take? But who knows. It also means you'll be buying yet an older camera. If it's something you really want, just get it now.

 

[rivan]

If you have a local shop, maybe you can rent a 5D for a weekend?

 

[timswim78]

This is why we should do a Baltimore meetup. I've got a 5D, and some other people have some glass that I would like to try.

 

[996GT2]

This is why we should do a Baltimore meetup. I've got a 5D, and some other people have some glass that I would like to try.

We could try to get some people together for a B'more meetup on a weekend over the summer. I get back to college at the end of the month. I know Shocksyde and maybe a few others are from Baltimore.

 

[daniel1113]

I'd drive up to Baltimore for an AT photography meetup. I haven't been back to the city in 2 years. I'm curious what my hotel looks like.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I have enjoyed my 5D quite a bit. I rarely have problems with AF, but then I rarely shoot things that are moving. (I use "One Shot" AF and the center point 95% of the time.) As for what you will get out of it, well, there's a lot of things, but whether they're important to you is what you have to answer.

I decided to go FF fairly early on (even though I didn't actually make the leap until later) because I wanted a high-quality ultrawide lens and a normal zoom that went to 24mm equivalent. I know there are some decent crop ultrawides, but none have the build quality and constant aperture of an "L". There are also some pretty good normal zooms, but the constant-aperture ones all end at 17mm (28mm equivalent). I find 24mm to be pretty dramatic, while 28mm is just "blah". Very often I find that the 24mm wide end on my 24-105 is "good enough" for whatever shot I want to take, and I leave the 17-40mm in the bag.... and my 17-40mm tends to be used almost as a 17mm prime. (I wish that Canon sold a 17mm prime in the same price range!)

The high ISO performance is great, reduced depth of field is great. In general, you get more out of your lenses with full-frame. But on the other hand, you will want better lenses with full-frame. I bought all 3 of my "L" zooms and my 50mm and 100mm primes before I bought a 5D. In general, I think that it makes sense to have at least a couple of really good full-frame-compatible lenses before you move full-frame.

But hey.... all of this stuff is basically commoditized. Prices on used gear are pretty stable, even in the face of new product announcements. If you buy and sell used on POTN, it is hard to make too much of a mistake. Say you sell your 40D and 17-50 and switch to a 5D and 50/1.8. You try the 5D for a month or so and decide to switch back to a 40D and 17-50. The max you'd be out is $200 or so, and most of that will be in transaction costs (shipping and PayPal fees). Not that I'm saying you should be ready to throw $200 down the toilet; but what I AM saying is, don't put too much worry into this decision. You're not going to make a mistake so big that it's not fixable with a relatively small amount of time, energy, and/or cash. Same way with not doing it. Take your time, don't worry about it, don't let the gear coveting demon take control of you. If you decide to do it, take your time and wait for a good deal on a 5D -- you never know, somebody might be going the opposite direction and looking for a 40D and a fast crop zoom in a flat trade for their 5D.

 

[angry hampster]

Holy crap, slash, I agree totally with everything you said. ..Especially the bit about the 17-40. When I had mine, it was almost always at 17mm. Such an awesome lens for the buck.

 

[randomlinh]

if they made a 17L/4 prime, it'd need to be cheaper than the 17-40L =)

 

[996GT2]

if they made a 17L/4 prime, it'd need to be cheaper than the 17-40L =)

It would probably be a 17 f/2.8 prime if they ever made one.

Thanks for the advice, everyone! I'm going to post my 40D and 17-50 up for sale once I get back to school (where the boxes for all my gear are stored). Hopefully I can fetch $950-1000 or so for the gripped 40D, lens, and some accessories like a split-prism focusing screen. After that it would only cost about $200 more to upgrade to the 5D and get a 50mm f/1.8 to start.

 

[jpeyton]

You guys are in luck.

Link

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Yeah, I was thinking more along the lines of a 17mm f/2.8 or maybe even f/2.0. Hey, they've got the 24mm f/1.4, so maybe f/2.0 or f/2.2 is do-able. It wouldn't even have to be an "L"... if they made a 17mm f/2.8 USM for $500-$600, with the same build quality as the 28mm/1.8 etc., then I would definitely swap it out for my 17-40L.

I already knew about the TS-E lens, which I would GLADLY trade for my 17-40, but the money's a bit of a barrier

 

[randomlinh]

You guys are in luck.

Link

heh, ok, let me clarify, a normal 17mm/f4 with USM, no need to be L. but if anyone wants to give me a TS-E of any sorts, I'll take it