5D or the new 40D

[micheleschanker]

I'm looking to upgrade my DSLR. I'm currenlty using the Rebel XT. Looking for some advice as to whether I should go with the 40D or the 5D. My shoooting is primarly portraits and landscapes. I'm thinking the full frame 5D would be nice, but the 40D seems to have some nice new features as well. Any words of wisdom would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Michele

[z_28]

For me - 5D :wink

I have 30D already, one is enough.

[LiquidAir]

It depends a lot on what you shoot:

For landscape or studio work, I'd get a 5D.

For wildlife or sports I get a 40D

For candid or event work they each have their merits. The 40D with a 17-55/2.8IS is the simplest answer, but if you are willing to live with a more complicated lens system, the shallow depth of field of the 5D offers some significant advantages when shooting in complicated environments.

I have a 5D now, but if I was shopping for a second body I'd think long and hard about the 40D.

[micheleschanker]

What would you recommend for someone who would eventually like to get into Wedding photography...the 5D?

[z_28]

I've chosen for wedding jobs 1D Mk.IIn ,
but 5D was other strong choice, maybe next time.
I used 20D for weddings for over 3 years and was OK too.

[philiphutson]

What would you recommend for someone who would eventually like to get into Wedding photography...the 5D?

If it was for wedding photography I would suggesting waiting until the 5d upgrade comes around. The 5d with the two new prime lenses is the utilmate setup but with 14bit in the 40d it would make it a lot easier to get detail in the white dress and the black tux. So if you can wait a while (I don't know when the 5d upgrade is due) I would wait. Something to think about.
-Philip

[LiquidAir]

What would you recommend for someone who would eventually like to get into Wedding photography...the 5D?

From a purely business point of view, I'd pick up a 40D and a 17-55/2.8 IS. That'll be easier to pay off and the Rebel can be your backup body.

I have a 5D and I love it. For landscapes, it is hard to beat the resolving power of a wide angle lens on the full frame body and for portraits and candids the depth of field control is wonderful. As much I love my 5D, I think in the work-a-day world of wedding photography those nuances probably don't justify the extra expense.

[bkriete]

This is a tough time to be comparing the two. If you can hold off a bit, I think you might be in a better position. The 5D is by all reports a great camera, and would meet your landscape and portrait requirements well, but if you intend on using it for other purposes like sports or concerts the higher frame rate and new autofocus of the 40D (plus I believe it's 14 bit image data) would be useful. It wouldn't surprise me if a new 5D comes out real soon.

[ziggy53]

I am hearing of too many failures of the Canon 5D in rainy conditions to make me long for it as a wedding camera. (Even if the failure is not permanent, it can still result in lost shots during an event.)

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=21535
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=58806
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00LryI

I agree with z_28 that the 1D MKIIn or MKIII is probably the best choice for a wedding body, but a lot of folks are using the Canon 20D/30D with great success.

The improved autofocus in the 40D looks interesting, but I would wait to see if there are any negative ramifications from reputable testers and the general public before recommending one.

[LiquidAir]

I am hearing of too many failures of the Canon 5D in rainy conditions to make me long for it as a wedding camera. (Even if the failure is not permanent, it can still result in lost shots during an event.)


I have a rain jacket for mine. Truthfully, no matter what body I had, I'd use a rain jacket in inclement weather. I'd like weather sealing for peace of mind, but in the end I don't think it would change how I shoot.

For shooting weddings where you need to be ready for anything from a wide angle close shot to a telephoto portrait at a moment's notice, I personally would choose to carry two smaller bodies (with different lenses) over one big one. Weddings have so many must-catch moments that I would rather not take the chance of missing one because I have the wrong lens on the body. As a result, everytime I design a professional wedding kit, I imagine two bodies, one with a 70-200/2.8 IS and the other with either a 24-70/2.8 or a 17-55/2.8 IS.

[micheleschanker]

Thanks for all the great advice. Currently I do a lot of weekend photography since my husband and I go away a lot (we live in california, so there are lots of places to go and see). I haven't done to much for sports and concerts. The most sports type of shots I do are horse racing photos a few times a year. I also do photos for friends and family.

I'd like to get into do weddings eventually, but obviously I don't do this yet. I just keep thinking I should keep that in mind when I do make my next big purchase.

Thanks again. And consider everything that people have posted. Has anyone heard any rumors on a release of an upgrade to the 5D?

[mercphoto]

As a newly engaged man who has been shopping wedding photographer's along with my finance I'll throw my two cents worth in. Yes, lots of people are photographing weddings with 20/30D's. They can come out quite nice. But being someone who owns and shoots with a 1D Mark II, I really don't like the idea of my highly paid wedding professional using a 30D. To me that is low-end wedding photography.

That's fine, of course. Nothing wrong with low-end wedding photography, but I just wanted you to be aware of how a 30D comes across. And if you are doing low-budget photography then a less expensive 30D or 40D is a good choice.

As a 1D Mark II owner and a prior 20D owner I'll tell you why I think the 1-series is the camera to use for weddings. The performance difference in low light is hard to explain, but you'll recognize it the more you use the camera. And weddings have a lot of low light photography. Bigger, brighter viewfinder. Much, much improved auto-focus. The II-N should be a bit better. The III should just shine.

The photographer Amy and I chose uses the II-N as a primary camera and the 5D as the backup. Full-frame sensor makes for better wide-angle performance. The viewfinder is bigger, brighter still, a definite plus. The high ISO noise is wonderful. And the ability for shallower depth of field than with a 1.6 crop factor body.

For me, the 5D is much better suited to weddings than a 40D is. But if you can swing a used 1D Mark II-N, or a new III, I think you'd be happier still.

As per the suggestion for the image stabilized EF-S lenses I don't know that IS will help much in weddings. Image stabilization does nothing for shots where people are moving, such as during the ceremony, during the reception, etc. It helps if people are stationary, such as during posed shots. But for those you'd be better off using a tri-pod to keep the camera steady rather than an IS lens.

[Nikolai]

... As a result, everytime I design a professional wedding kit, I imagine two bodies, one with a 70-200/2.8 IS and the other with either a 24-70/2.8 or a 17-55/2.8 IS.

:agree
70-200/2.8 IS USM and 17-55/2.8 IS USM is my wedding couple! :deal

[LiquidAir]

As per the suggestion for the image stabilized EF-S lenses I don't know that IS will help much in weddings. Image stabilization does nothing for shots where people are moving, such as during the ceremony, during the reception, etc. It helps if people are stationary, such as during posed shots. But for those you'd be better off using a tri-pod to keep the camera steady rather than an IS lens.

I guess it depends on how you shoot. I often use a flash to stop motion in the foreground and drag the shutter to bring up the ambient light in the background. When I am using a strobe, I often put the 24-105/4 IS on my 5D for just this reason--it lets me get a bit more depth of field in the foreground and still retain some ambience in the background. When I can't (or prefer not to) use a flash, I usually switch to primes so I can shoot wider than f/2.8, but I am not at all sure I would want to shoot wedding candids with just primes for ambient light. I'd be very nervous about going into a paid wedding gig without a 2.8 zoom or two in my bag. The nice thing about the 17-55 is that it kills two birds with one stone, whereas with the 5D I am switching lenses when I pull out the flash.

For really low light without a flash, my favorite lens is the 35/1.4. I shot an entire ceremony with this one lens at ISO1600, 1/30 to 1/60s and f/1.4. Sure, I would have liked to have some other focal lengths at times, but given the no strobe restriction and the light level (EV3 at ISO100), no other lens would do.

[rpcrowe]

What would you recommend for someone who would eventually like to get into Wedding photography...the 5D?

I would not ever shoot or recommend anyone shoot a wedding or any other important, non-reshootable event, using one piece of any gear (camera - lens - flash).

I will guarantee that you will get better coverage from a pair of 30D/40D cameras if one goes down than the coverage you will get from one 5D if it goes down.

Remember: Murphy's Law states that the tendency for a piece of equipment to fail is in a direct relationship to the importance of that piece of gear and in an inverse relationship to the availability of back-up equipment.

However, if you are prepared to get a second 5D prior to shooting weddings - by all means go for the 5D. Either the 24-70 f/2.8L or the 24-105 f/4L IS are dandy lenses for weddings using a full frame camera.

[neens_wa]

As one who started shooting weddings about a year ago.. I am facing the same decision - 5D or 40D? :OP I think I'm going to become a double D. :ivar I'm going for 2 40D bodies.

I began with a 10D, moved to a 20D, and now a 30D Not only do I shoot weddings, but I shoot a lot of rodeos. Lots of crap light, and action in both events. I've grown to a level that has me seriously re-evaluating my setup. I've been thinking LONG AND HARD about that 5D... but OMG I am enamoured with the upgrades on the 40D.
Two 40s for a fiver is where I think I'm going (the better body construction - though I NEVER EVER shoot w/o protective gear!) the bufffer, mpixels, focus points, etc... How could you resist that????
I've resigned myself to wait for whatever comes out of the Canon kitchen as a 5D upgrade. In the interim, that means I need to get hopping and earn enough to buy the upgrade.

NEVER EVER EVER EVER consider a wedding without backup. My first wedding - I rented gear so I was covered.

I opted to buy a 500mm f/4L IS instead of a mark series body. A decision I have never regretted. Technology changes TOO quickly. Canon's intro'd the 30D and 40D bodies since I bought my lens!

It would just be PEAAAAACHY if we could run out, as new business owners, and sink mega cash into the Mark series Canon bodies! I know the Marks are awesome for weddings; however, when it all boils down to the bottom line - does it mean if you don't have a Mark series body, you can't shoot for $hit and provide high end images? NO, it doesn't mean that at all. Most folks will not discount you as a photographer because you don't shoot with an M-Series body either. Normally, people care about what you can show them as a portfolio, REAL physical photographs, albums and the like.

Just because someone shoots with something less than a Mark series body does NOT mean they will deliver substandard or lower quality. That is absurd, it's like saying someone can't run as fast in Pumas as they could in NIKEs. Monte Zucker shot with 5Ds, David Ziser shot with a 20D for eons, as have/do numerous quality photographers. IF you know your gear, AND you know your stuff, you can shine a beautiful event with bodies LESS than the Mark series. You can obviously have MAANY MANY advantages with these bodies, which could yield some amazing images, but please, don't let anyone poo poo you or your images because of your gear.

Right now, I shoot with a 20D and a 30D (a 10D in the sack). I keep a 70-200IS f/2.8 on the 20D, and a 24-70 L f/2.8 on the 30D. In the bag are a 100mm f/2.8, a Vivitar Series I 17-35mm 3.5, and a 50mm f/1.4.

580EX, and 580EXII on the cameras. One camera slung over my shoulder, the other (usually with the 24-70) is on a press-T stroboframe flip bracket. Formals are shot with a tripod, and a Quantum T5D flash.

I could NOT survive w/o the IS on the big lens. I buy only IS lenses if available. TRUST ME, it is worth the money. Obviously it doesn't help moving people - but guess what - YOU move... :O) That's what it's for!

LOVE to expose for fill flash and drag that shutter for some GREAT FUN reception images!

To me, my glass is far more important than my body. I'll be going wider with a 17-35mm f/2.8 or somethign along that line here in a month or two... I rented the 10-22 for the digital body - not impressed.

Get a pair of 40Ds. Work your fanny off for a year, and then move up to a Mark series if you must... but my honest recommendation is for quality glass, and all that other equipment you're gonna need, i.e. battery packs, extra batteries, portable HD (creative Labs Zen W is an amazing little tool!!!!!!!!!!), flashes, etc.. Spend every red cent you make on equipment so you have backups for your backup! While you spend that first year doing weddings and acquiring equipment, you'll learn whether weddings are what you REALLY want to do, and if that body is what you REALLy want to buy... And... if you learn weddings aren't your cup o'tea - you earned some amazing equipment for your kit! Get your 40s and have your Rebel converted to an IR camera for some REAL fun! LOL

I hear Canon's gonna blow us away with the eventual 5D replacement.

neens
http://www.westernimagephotography.com

[Scott_Quier]

As a newly engaged man who has been shopping wedding photographer's along with my finance I'll throw my two cents worth in. Yes, lots of people are photographing weddings with 20/30D's. They can come out quite nice. But being someone who owns and shoots with a 1D Mark II, I really don't like the idea of my highly paid wedding professional using a 30D. To me that is low-end wedding photography.
Let me start out my saying that I would never second guess anyone's decision - especially about something so important. My aim here is to help others consider all the criteria when making such a decision.

OK - my point --> I don't believe one should, as a primary decision criteria, look at the equipment a professional, in any profession, uses to produce his/her work. One should look at the quality, style, etc of said work. Does the style and quality meet with your expectations. Then, look to see that the professional is adequately equipped to handle the "what-ifs".

For example, take a look at some of the work Shay Stephens produces? You can see some of it here (http://www.shaystephens.com/proof_gallery.php?c=example&sp=1).

I'm not sure I would call that "low-end wedding photography". Oh, did I mention that he shoots with Canon 20D camamers (he has more than one), each of them more than a year old?

[Phil Hawkins]

What would you recommend for someone who would eventually like to get into Wedding photography...the 5D?

Yes, absolutely. The 5D is one amazing camera.

[BigAl]

OK - my point --> I don't believe one should, as a primary decision criteria, look at the equipment a professional, in any profession, uses to produce his/her work. One should look at the quality, style, etc of said work. Does the style and quality meet with your expectations. Then, look to see that the professional is adequately equipped to handle the "what-ifs".

For example, take a look at some of the work Shay Stephens produces? You can see some of it here (http://www.shaystephens.com/proof_gallery.php?c=example&sp=1).

I'm not sure I would call that "low-end wedding photography". Oh, did I mention that he shoots with Canon 20D camamers (he has more than one), each of them more than a year old?Well said Scott! Both Shay and Andy used to shoot with Sony F707s (as did a whole host of folks on this forum). I don't think you'll find any of their customers from those days who would have looked down their noses at the equipment they were using. They would rather be speechless at the results they got...

[Nikolai]

...OK - my point --> I don't believe one should, as a primary decision criteria, look at the equipment a professional, in any profession, uses to produce his/her work. One should look at the quality, style, etc of said work. Does the style and quality meet with your expectations. Then, look to see that the professional is adequately equipped to handle the "what-ifs"...
Totally :agree!

[Andy]

As a newly engaged man Congratulations! :clap :barb :ivar

But being someone who owns and shoots with a 1D Mark II, I really don't like the idea of my highly paid wedding professional using a 30D. To me that is low-end wedding photography.

Bah! Poppycock! Hogwash! Nonsense!
http://www.smugmug.com/artist-in-residence/shay-stephens/

[mercphoto]

Bah! Poppycock! Hogwash! Nonsense!
http://www.smugmug.com/artist-in-residence/shay-stephens/
I stand corrected.

[Manfr3d]

For landscape or studio work, I'd get a 5D.

Nah, get the 40D. There is a wlan grip available as an accessory for it,
ideal for studiowork. And when hiking for traveling to remote locations
the weight of the 40D is also smaller. Excellent wide angle lenses
are available for apsc format also. I dont think the line for applications
can't be drawn that easily anymore.

[evoryware]

That's fine, of course. Nothing wrong with low-end wedding photography, but I just wanted you to be aware of how a 30D comes across. And if you are doing low-budget photography then a less expensive 30D or 40D is a good choice.


I guess it's low budget when you can afford a Mark II or III and a 5D for backup:dunno. I was being told put the money into the lenses, not the camera, and being told that it's not the camera, it's what the photographer does with it. Then after being introduced to this forum and seeing the wedding images people are putting out with 350, 400, 20, and 30D's, I'd question this low budget line of thinking. I'd like to have two 40D's, a 70-200F2.8 IS, 2 x 24-70 f2.8 IS, 50mm 1.4, two 580EX II Speedlights, extra batteries, grips, filters etc...
One 40D with one 70-200 IS alone already is over $3000. Start adding a second camera and extra lenses and it's hardly low budget when $3000 is more than many people put down on a new car. :scratch
I'd let Shay or Urbanaries or Scott shoot my wedding anytime with a 400D and a kit lens.

[mercphoto]

Then after being introduced to this forum and seeing the wedding images people are putting out with 350, 400, 20, and 30D's, I'd question this low budget line of thinking.
Did I not say "I stand corrected" two posts above yours? Not sure what else I should say?

[Scott_Quier]

....


I'd let Shay or Urbanaries or Scott shoot my wedding anytime with a 400D and a kit lens.So, is that a proposal? :rofl

That's pretty high praise, indeed!

But I don't think you'll find any of us (and I know what Shay and Lynne shoot with) shooting a wedding with a kit lens, unless ALL other options have been exhausted (like the kit bag fell into the river, taking every lens with it:D )

[evoryware]

(like the kit bag fell into the river, taking every lens with it:D )

:rofl


Re: Merc,

I apologize. You did. I just wanted to post my thoughts on it as I had been thinking about this thread since it started.

[Nikolai]

http://wyofoto.com/40D_Image%20quality/40D_shootout.html

[mercphoto]

http://wyofoto.com/40D_Image%20quality/40D_shootout.html
Very impressive shoot-out. I expected to see a large difference between the 20D and the 5D, and I did. I did not expect to see the 40D nearly match the 5D though. :O

[claudermilk]

It is surprising...and has me thinking...:scratch 40D or hold out for a Mk II N? Not that the budget allows a "new" body right now, but it is fun to dream and plan.

[Manfr3d]

It is interesting to see that most photographers
are very conservative when they try to forsee
what the next product generation will bring.
Cameras are like computers nowadays and will
continue to evolve equally fast as such in the
future. I think it is no surprise that the 40D measures
up with the 5D so well and before we know it there
will be a camera that is noise free at ISO 1600 and
resolves even more detail.

just my very personal 2 cents

[ziggy53]

... before we know it there will be a camera that is noise free at ISO 1600 and resolves even more detail.

just my very personal 2 cents

Wow, all that and it only costs 2 cents? WooHoo!

[Manfr3d]

Wow, all that and it only costs 2 cents? WooHoo!

You're making fun of me :rolleyes

I say ney to punch card area style
discussions in pixelpeeping awe :D

[LiquidAir]

I think it is no surprise that the 40D measures
up with the 5D so well and before we know it there
will be a camera that is noise free at ISO 1600 and
resolves even more detail.


The primary reason I like the full frame sensor of the 5D is the way lenses perform on it. Put a 50/1.4 on 5D and the image is noticably soft at apertures from f/1.4 to f/2.2 or so. While the 40D has nearly as many pixels as a 5D, they are 50% closer together. Packing the pixels closer together doesn't really gain you anything when your resolution is limited by the lens. So, while the 40D may have slighly lower noise, the 5D will still have a sharper image when shooting with fast lenses wide open simply because the lower pixel pitch of the sensor is less sensitive to lens softness. Personally, I think one of the primary reasons the 5D is considered a reference body for image quality is actually because its low pixel pitch makes most lenses look better. That said, unless you make big prints this distinction doesn't matter a great deal.

[Manfr3d]

The primary reason I like the full frame sensor of the 5D is the way lenses perform on it. Put a 50/1.4 on 5D and the image is noticably soft at apertures from f/1.4 to f/2.2 or so. While the 40D has nearly as many pixels as a 5D, they are 50% closer together. Packing the pixels closer together doesn't really gain you anything when your resolution is limited by the lens. So, while the 40D may have slighly lower noise, the 5D will still have a sharper image when shooting with fast lenses wide open simply because the lower pixel pitch of the sensor is less sensitive to lens softness. Personally, I think one of the primary reasons the 5D is considered a reference body for image quality is actually because its low pixel pitch makes most lenses look better. That said, unless you make big prints this distinction doesn't matter a great deal.

No doubt about it. You could go on and include DOF and corner
performance differences betwen APSC and FF format. Each camera
has its own purpose and place in the market. Thats why they are
there. Maybe the statement with no noise at ISO 1600 is bold,
but essentialy thats the direction technology is heading. Noise behaviour
is just one aspect of this. Dynamic range and contrast will improve
with new camera generations and each time we will look back and
compare an older "reference" model (5D) with a newer one (40D)
end be "surprised" by how close these two different animals are.