30D, 40D, and 5D which has the best performance for the money?

[CCRII]

Currently I own a 30D. I was thinking of upgrading though to either the 40D or the 5D. Is it a worthwhile upgrade on either of these? What are the main differences? The most important feature I would like to gain from this upgrade, is better noise reduction at higher ISO settings in the 800-1600range.

TIA!

[ChrisSearle]

I am also pondering this question, except I am extremely happy with my 30D but want to add a second body. I'm also considering a 2nd hand 1D mk2n or a second 30D body. I've read as many reviews and forum threads as I can take and I still can't make up my mind. One day I'm thinking that I'm totally happy with the 30D and now is the time to pick one up second hand at a good price, next day I think 5D, good for macro and landscape, then theres 1D2n, solid and reliable ( and with a certain star quality) and the theres the 40D! However, I have definitely concluded that pretty much any of these choices would be good - Perhaps I'll just toss a coin!
One thing that does interest me is that the debate about IQ - which is 'best' seems to me to be pretty subjective with each camera having it's champions and detractors (although most people seem to agree that the 30D is a good 'un). I have seen many claims that the 5D is the ultimate IQ based choice but then I read that the 40D is virtually as good! Add to that the number of comments about the 40D not really being that much better than the 30D (IQ) and confusion starts to mount.... What I would love to see is a detailed comparison of image quality from each camera, however, I suspect that for all but the most critical situations such as making very large prints or extreme crops there would be very little to choose between them. If this is the case then I clearly need to apply some different selection criteria such as reliability, focusing and colour accuracy etc etc. As I personally have had no issues with any of the above with my 30D, and constantly find my own ineptitude rather than the camera, to be the ultimate limiting factor, maybe another 30D is the most sensible choice as I'm fairly sure that I wouldn't be able to take any 'better' photographs with any of the other options! I photograph birds with a 456, insects with a 150mm f2.8 macro, and landscapes with a 24-105 L and a siggy 10-20, the most common lens swap is 456 to 24-105. Any suggestions based on real world experience would be more than welcome!

Chris

[Roy C]

I am also looking at the same thing but my use for the 40D 0r 5D would be mainly for landscape work at low ISO and a tripod.
I currently have the 350D and the 30D and for landscape work there is very little difference in IQ IMO. The 30D is the better of the two for birding with a long lens and high ISO but for landscapes I can see no difference. So my next question is how much difference would there be between the 30D and 40D at say ISO 100 with a 17-40 lens on a tripod with remote release? Anyone have any experience of these two.

[Mil]

If you are looking for low noice camera then 5D is definetelly a much better choise then 40D. However take in mind that 5D is a full frame and you lols crop faktor.

[Roy C]

If you are looking for low noice camera then 5D is definetelly a much better choise then 40D. However take in mind that 5D is a full frame and you lols crop faktor.
Thanks for that Mil, I realise the 5D is full frame which would be an advantage to me as my 17-40 would be a true wide angle lens again.

[Keith Reeder]

What I would love to see is a detailed comparison of image quality from each camera

Like this (http://wyofoto.com/40D_Image%20quality/40D_shootout.html), perhaps?

[Harold Stiver]

One of the biggest differences I find between the 5D (which I picked up for landscapes) and the 20d, is the higher dynamic range. It routinely picks up shadows and retains highlights which would be blocked or blown by the 20D. I believe it also fairly compares with the 30 and 40d in this aspect, although I haven't compared them.

I think E.J. Peiker did some rigorous testing on the DR of all these camera bodies which shows the 5d superiority, but unfortunately I can't locate his article.

[CCRII]

Like this (http://wyofoto.com/40D_Image%20quality/40D_shootout.html), perhaps?

That was very helpful! That makes it look like a dead heat between the 5D and 40D. I don't know if I would want to pay $500 or more over the price of the 40D for a very slight increase in noise performance.

[postcardcv]

That was very helpful! That makes it look like a dead heat between the 5D and 40D. I don't know if I would want to pay $500 or more over the price of the 40D for a very slight increase in noise performance.

If you're planning to use it mainly for birds then the faster frame rate of the 40D would be an advantage... if you want a 5D it may be worth holding on for a while it's likely to be replaced next year so there could be some good deals on it.

[Clive Watson]

I stand to be corrected but my understanding was that the 5D, whilst giving higher quality, was a bit slow in terms of frame rate, image processing speed etc. for wildlife photography. Great for landscapes, not so good for birds.

[Roy C]

I stand to be corrected but my understanding was that the 5D, whilst giving higher quality, was a bit slow in terms of frame rate, image processing speed etc. for wildlife photography. Great for landscapes, not so good for birds.
Dont think anyone would argue with that - I certainly would not buy a 5D for Wildlife photography.

[Keith Reeder]

Me too, Clive.

Personally the above test - which is pretty compelling, and which closely matches the opinion of Michael Reichmann over at Luminous Landscape - tells me that the 5D and 40D are both very, very good, and that the differences between them are as much down to intended usage as any demonstrable overall IQ superiority of one over the other.

It fascinates me that both Michael and Miles are so positive about the 40D's high ISO performance compared to the 5D (which is supposed to be a stop better or more than the 30D) when other pundits have declared that the 30D and 40D are too close to separate in that regard - surely, if the 30D and 40D are much of a sameness at high ISO, the 5D would be as superior to the 40D as it is to the 30D.

All in all it seems really clear to me that of the cameras in question, maximum Bang For The Buck is found in the 40D.

[GYRob]

i do love my 5d and it can get BIF's but the 3fps is really to slow, i miss many shots because of it i.e say a bird landing / taking off and getting a nice wing beat 3fps can often miss the best shot.
if the 40d had being out i would have got that over the 5d. as i dont do many land scape shot's
Rob.

[Tannin]

40D would be my choice. Much cheaper than a 5D, not a lot more than a 30D, and although I don't really think that you get much if any benefit from the extra megapixels, there is a whole stack of minor changes that add up to a significant advantage.

Prime among these for me is the highlight tone priority (a real godsend in some circumstances). Also nice is the much quieter shutter, and the significantly improved viewfinder (both as compared to the 20D/30D).

[Roy C]

40D would be my choice. Much cheaper than a 5D, not a lot more than a 30D, and although I don't really think that you get much if any benefit from the extra megapixels, there is a whole stack of minor changes that add up to a significant advantage.

Prime among these for me is the highlight tone priority (a real godsend in some circumstances). Also nice is the much quieter shutter, and the significantly improved viewfinder (both as compared to the 20D/30D).
Would the highlight tone priority would be an advantage for landscapes?

P.S. I see that Dixons are doing the 40D for £707 (£657 with the Canon rebate) very tempting.

[postcardcv]

Would the highlight tone priority would be an advantage for landscapes?

P.S. I see that Dixons are doing the 40D for £707 (£657 with the Canon rebate) very tempting.

an excellent price - go on, get one... ;)

[Keith Reeder]

Yessss, buuuuy one...

You know you want one..!

;)

[Keith Reeder]

Re: HTP - I just wish it was recognised by other converters, not just DPP.

It does however, have a real effect on RAWs, you might wish to note.

HTP effectively under-exposes the RAW by one stop to protect the highlights, along with some other jiggery-pokery.

This is accounted for by DPP, but if you open the same file in another converter, it's very under exposed.

Still, as I say, DPP knows the recipe to that "Magic Sauce"...

[mjmw]

Re: HTP - I just wish it was recognised by other converters, not just DPP.

It does however, have a real effect on RAWs, you might wish to note.

HTP effectively under-exposes the RAW by one stop to protect the highlights, along with some other jiggery-pokery.

This is accounted for by DPP, but if you open the same file in another converter, it's very under exposed.

Still, as I say, DPP knows the recipe to that "Magic Sauce"...

I guess Breezebrowser Pro will support it soon (if not already?) as it uses the Canon API for processing RAW files.

[Keith Reeder]

Hopefully they'll get there, Mark - not as yet though, as far as I can see (I've had the latest BB Pro on my machine and couldn't get it to "see" HTP - that might have been me missing something, I admit).

I understand that what HTP does isn't documented, and figuring it out from the API seems like a real challenge.

[mark f]

if your due to fly soon, i got mine in dixons at stansted for £850 and that is the 17-85 lens kit aswell. A pretty good deal. Plus ive sent off for the canon cash back which will come off that price. The only draw back is they were not selling the body on its own of that is what you would rather.

[Tannin]

Would the highlight tone priority would be an advantage for landscapes?

I'm ready to stand corrected here, but as I understand it, HTP isn't just for raw; nor does it simply under-expose by a stop. What it does is change the shape of the tone curve so that there is (yes) less range for the darker tones (= more noise, though not enough to worry about most of the time, especially if you use Neat Image or similar), but more headroom to fit the bright whites in.

The other day, for example, I was able to get much better shots of a Great Egret in full sun - blinding white breeding plumes, perfectly exposed without turning the background into a dingy, dark thing. Switch HTP on, point, click, easy as that. [i]Very[/i[ impressive.

I may or may not have the raw files - I usually shoot raw + JPG for landscapes, mostly (but not always) only JPG for birds - but straight out of the camera, the JPGs were as good as I could ask for. I haven't looked to see if I have raws or not. (Not being at home, I can't check just now.)

Now, to your question re HTP and landscapes: yes, but depending on the scene. If you are doing (for example) a scene with very bright white clouds making interesting shapes such that you don't want to blow the highlights out, there is a use. Another one came in handy for me last week and again today: landscape scenes with white salt lakes.

Overall, just the same, I don't see HTP as being as important to the landscape photographer as it is to, for examle, people doing weddings.

[Keith Reeder]

nor does it simply under-expose by a stop. .

Yep, correct - that's why I said:

along with some other jiggery-pokery

;)

I mentioned the "under-expose by a stop" point just to indicate what an HTP RAW would look like if you opened it in an non HTP-aware converter.

For the record, HTP was one of the first things that really got me interested in the 40D, and why I'm looking forward to it being recognised outside of DPP.

HTP is actually the very first Custom User Setting I saved to the Command Dial - to activate it, I simply turn the dial to C1 and it's on, along with all my other usual camera settings.

Very cool.

[ChrisSearle]

Like this (http://wyofoto.com/40D_Image%20quality/40D_shootout.html), perhaps?

An interesting read, I wish I could say that it helped! Clearly the 40D has it for birds, but I have seen the '3D' effect that he talks about with the 5D and for macro and landscapes it is fairly compelling. I say 'fairly' because clearly, the 40D is a wonderful, up to date general purpose camera that new, costs less than most second hand 5Ds.
Today, I am mostly favouring the 40D! (I think).

Chris

[K-Lex]

I am too in the exact same position. I have a 20D and fancy something new. I could justify the 5D because I do landscape work but I'm very reluctant as it's an old camera and there will be a new 5D mkII out next year. What turns me agains the 40D is the fact that in essence, it's the same camera as the 400D just a better processor and I think it would grieve me to spend almost double the price of the 400D for essentially the same camera. Between the two there is no difference in durability I don't think if you want that you're looking at the 1-series.
Every day I wake up and have changed my mind about which camera I want and it's driving me up the wall!!!
My choice is, do I buy the 5D and settle for my 24-70 as the widest lens I've got, or buy a 40D and buy a 17-40 as well. I've just sold my Sigma 18-50 as I'm in the process of converting entirely to 'L' glass. But then the 5D is next to useless for birding....... aarrrrrgh!!!!!!!

[Keith Reeder]

What turns me against the 40D is the fact that in essence, it's the same camera as the 400D just a better processor

It really, really, really isn't, you know.

In fact, it's not even a re-made 30D: every last thing about the 40D is completely new compared to the 30D, and is so different to the 400D that they might as well be by different manufacturers.

Seriously, all the 40D has in common with the 400D is the "40", the "D", the Canon badge, the sensor size and the colour.

And it is particularly wrong (before anyone says it! ;)) to suggest that they have the same sensor - that's fundementally incorrect.

[K-Lex]

It really, really, really isn't, you know.

In fact, it's not even a re-made 30D: every last thing about the 40D is completely new compared to the 30D, and is so different to the 400D that they might as well be by different manufacturers.

Seriously, all the 40D has in common with the 400D is the "40", the "D", the Canon badge, the sensor size and the colour.

And it is particularly wrong (before anyone says it! ;)) to suggest that they have the same sensor - that's fundementally incorrect.

Ok, I'll consider myself told!!! I think I'm pretty sold on the 40D to be honest, it would just hurt to buy a 5D and in 2 months a new one to be released. That would be annoying and the prices of the current 5D aren't a total bargain. The only remaining thing that is holding me back, all of my lenses (except 1) are fast 'L' glass and I'm just a wee bit concerned they'd shine on the 5D as opposed to just being good on the 40D.
My current thinking is buy a 40D and a 17-40 L lens and in 12 months when the 5D mkII has been released and all the initial hype has died down therefore prices have started to drop, replace it then. I wish I could just make the decision and buy it!!! I think about things too much!

[Keith Reeder]

It'd just be a shame to rule out a great camera on the basis of a misunderstanding, Keith - I haven't so much as touched my 30Ds since I got the 40D.

[K-Lex]

But would you choose the 40D if you could get the 5D for almost exactly the same price in a roundabout sort of way?

40D + 17-40L + BGE2N = £1232
5D = £1264

[alexf]

But would you choose the 40D if you could get the 5D for almost exactly the same price in a roundabout sort of way?

40D + 17-40L + BGE2N = £1232
5D = £1264


I have had the 40d for just over a week. I love it and wouldn't swap it for a 5d. My lenses would become shorter for birding with 5d and I think the 40d has slightly less grain, better fps, quicker autofocus and quieter shutter (which is better for birding or churches too).

[Keith Reeder]

But would you choose the 40D if you could get the 5D for almost exactly the same price in a roundabout sort of way?

Yeah, unquestionably. The 5D may have stellar IQ, but it's slow and clunky for a birding camera.

The 40D has all the IQ I could wish for, excellent noise performance, and is fast and purposeful.

Surprisingly (to me!) I also like the "bells and whistles" like Highlight Tone Priority, the Custom User Settings and - can't believe I'm writing this! - the dust shaker, which really does seem to work very well.

My "old" grip fits the 40D too.

5D? Great camera, but not my kind of camera.

[K-Lex]

Ok, I've now reached my momentus decision (subject to me having a play in my local camera store next week).

It's the 40D I'll get. 95% of the 5D at 50% of the price. For the same price as the 5D body I can have the 40D, a 17-40 L lens, a grip and a couple of odds and sods. My final decision was based on one factor - the 5D, although a top camera, is a fossil whereas the 40D is bang up to date. I'll get this kit now, then buy the 5D mkII when prices have come down from being sky high after it's released. Thanks everyone, particularly Keith Reeder for showing me the way!!!

Keith :)

[GYRob]

as said i have the 5d but im almost at the point of getting a 40d for birding as i really do think it will get shots the 5d wont not just in reach and FPS, but the clunk of the mirrow scare's birds away so easly ,When there close.
Rob.

[Modular]

It really, really, really isn't, you know.

In fact, it's not even a re-made 30D: every last thing about the 40D is completely new compared to the 30D, and is so different to the 400D that they might as well be by different manufacturers.

Seriously, all the 40D has in common with the 400D is the "40", the "D", the Canon badge, the sensor size and the colour.

And it is particularly wrong (before anyone says it! ;)) to suggest that they have the same sensor - that's fundementally incorrect.

Hello Keith,

The Really Really is'nt ... Is'nt exactly True,
I Am Buying a 40D and have
Tried One a Few Time's ... Excellent Camera I agree, But ... The 40D has
got Some Nice Extra's that the 400D already had ... The Difference
between the 400D and the 40D is not a lot when using it in Britain unless
you lean on the Iso Part of the 40D ... If you've only Seen the 400D and
not Owned One ... Then comparing It on Paper is'nt that much Different,
Personally the 40D does'nt give that much more and It is close to the
400D, The Lens will make the Initial difference at the end of the Day,

I admire Your Photography as much as the Next Person ... But to say that
the 400D compared to a 40D is ... I quote ...
all the 40D has in common with the 400D is the "40", the "D", the Canon badge, the sensor size and the colour.all the 40D has in common with the 400D is the "40", the "D", the Canon badge, the sensor size and the colour.and is so different to the 400D that they might as well be by different manufacturers.
Is absolutely absurd lol ... I'm hoping You were Exaggerating there Keith ...
If You was'nt ... Try a 400D for a Couple Of Day's and You'll see there is'nt
that Much between them ... Difference's Yes ... But Certainly not another
Camera,
Hope I did'nt Offend but what You say is'nt True ;) ,
Take Care,
John,

[Keith Reeder]

I'm absolutely not exaggerating, John.

The 400D has nothing in common with the 40D - this is no secret, and anyone who suggests otherwise needs to do some more research.

It does not matter that they have the same-sized sensor - they don't have a single important component in common (I'm not talking about things like the CF card slot, I'm talking about components that have a bearing on IQ or performance).

I'll say this again: the 40D is a "from the ground up" new camera which is physically similar to the 30D on first impression, but is in fact nothing like the 30D internally either.

Given that the 30D and 400D are utterly different, it follows that the 40D is even further divorced from the 400D, and the similarities some people argue are there between the two just do not exist.

I'm not belittling the 400D as a camera, I'm saying that the 40D has bugger all in common with it at a component or design level.

This is fact, John.

The AF module, AF performance, frames per second capability, menu structure, ergonomics, LCD, sensor design (including brand new on-chip noise cancellation processing that no other Canon camera has), Highlight Tone Priority, Custom User Settings, "My Menu" options, optional on-camera High ISO NR... these are just some of the differences between the 40D and the 400D - it's utterly different.

[JohnZ]

Many thanks Keith. Nothing whatsoever to do with this thread.

[Modular]

Lol I Still Disagree Keith ... I know the Difference's Sir I promise You and You listed
only Half of Them but to say It's Totally different is Still in My Opinion not True,
Bet Your Glad You got that new Dust Shaker eh ;) ... I think You mentioned that ...
Good Ain't It ;) ,
I saw Your Post's about the 40D before You owned One ... You knew then the
Difference between 40D and 30D ... But You were Still Hesitant and Rightly so ...
I won't be a Tester for Any Company and Find the Fault's ... But Once You Bought
One You actually Saw the Difference ... This is What I'm saying with a 400D ... Unless
You Really own One You'll see there is'nt as much Difference as You may think,
As for FPS ... That all depend's on the Light ... I think 1/4000 is good enough for now
and I can Programme the 400d too ... Custom setting's aswell,
Menu Structure is'nt an arguement too ... Once You know the Camera that ain't a Deal,
I would'nt use 1600 never mind Higher ... I just would'nt but that's Me,
I've seen the Noise Level at It's Highest on the 40D and It is Incredible ...
But I'll never generally be in a Position to use that Much ...
800 is Great on a 400D,

Lcd has the same Pixels but the 40D Spread's them Half an Inch more ... So Half an
Inch more but same amount of Pixels, Image Size is also Identical, Mirror Lock up too
is on the 400D Through Custom setting's, There is 11 custom functions with 29 settings ...
Don't think I need anymore as I never use One lol,

Highlight Priority is an Excellent Feature ... That's One Reason I'm Buying It to be
Honest ... But You never mentioned the Drawback of using It Keith ... The Increase of
Shadow noise and of course Lower Dynamic range effect's on Lower end Exposures ...
Not also forgetting that "HP" WILL Effect ISO, These are Fact's that are never
Given ... But We can't have Everything Can we lol,

I'm not sure the 40D has a Proximity sensor ... Hope so as It's great on the 400D,
The 6 FPS, IQ and HP are what I'm after ... The rest i'm not too bothered with and I'm
also Happy that the 40D Has the Same Tab Menu as the 400D ... Better layed out,

We won't argue the 14 Bit compared to the 12 Bit of the 400D, as This IS a let down
on the 40D ... I was Hoping that would be better but It's not ... You won't see a
Difference between the Two, Post Processing is the Only Difference in 14 and 12 ...
Not in the Camera,

I could Go on about the Difference's All Day ... And so could You ... But as
for being Totally different Camera's is not right ... I wonder if the 40D took
any feature's from the 400D ... Truth is ... It did ;) ,
I appreciate your View's All the Time Keith ... But You ain't Right about It
being a totally different Camera ... You need to stop comparing the 40D
with The Prehistoric 30D Layout ( Not Quality of Course, ) and see what a
400D actually does In the Field and of course ... On Paper ;) ,

Hope You take this all as My Opinion and of course the Fact's ... I still Rate
You as a Top Photographer ... But not Your Comparison ;) ,

See You in the Field with My 40D :t: ,
Take Care,
John,

[Modular]

The 400D has nothing in common with the 40D - this is no secret, and anyone who suggests otherwise needs to do some more research.

I have ... You generally do when watching Your Pennie's Sir ... I do know My Research,
Take Care,
John,

[Harold Stiver]

But then the 5D is next to useless for birding....... aarrrrrgh!!!!!!!

I disagree. I often use the 5d over my 20d for birding. The only downside is the frames per second. On the plus side, the image quality is better with the 5d, especially the dynamic range, there is a lot less chance of blocked shadows or burnt highlights. I especially like it for winter raptors from my car. I like to shoot as they take off from a perch, and the wider view of the 5d eliminates clipped body parts.

Also I feel the focus on the 5d is quicker and tighter than my other camera bodies (I haven't used the 40D though).

[GYRob]

i had the 400d and its a super little camera and got me some nice shots but like the 5d 3fps is just to slow for fast action bird shots you just miss far to many even when your ready for the shot even a swan taking off that is rather slow, 3fps will only get half the shots a 40d will get YES most will be very simalar but it will give far better chance of getting the peak action shot .
i have to say i see the 40d miles away from the 400d in user terms out in the field and even in some cases i think it will beat ( for reach and thereby get the shot )my mk2 or mk3 .
I think the detail from the 40d will beat the mk2 for sure and given that the image will be larger will slightly beat my mk3 in detail too.
Rob.

[Keith Reeder]

OK John, I'm willing to be educated - what have the 40D and 400D in common at a component or a design level?

;)

[bmarnell]

The other day, for example, I was able to get much better shots of a Great Egret in full sun - blinding white breeding plumes, perfectly exposed without turning the background into a dingy, dark thing. Switch HTP on, point, click, easy as that. [i]Very[/i[ impressive.

........ If you are doing (for example) a scene with very bright white clouds making interesting shapes such that you don't want to blow the highlights out, there is a use. Another one came in handy for me last week and again today: landscape scenes with white salt lakes.

.

Please let me put aside the context of this thread briefly just to get your opinions on the settings you might use to brighten a big bird ...

(a) perched on a rock against a bright (grey sky) background
(b) gliding above rocks against a bright (grey sky) background

I use Rebel + Canon EF 100-400 IS.

[Clarke Robinson]

Please let me put aside the context of this thread briefly just to get your opinions on the settings you might use to brighten a big bird ...

(a) perched on a rock against a bright (grey sky) background
(b) gliding above rocks against a bright (grey sky) background

I use Rebel + Canon EF 100-400 IS.

I'd say it depends a lot on the colour of the bird and how much of the frame it fills. Generally speaking though, perhaps try +1EV where the sky is much brighter than the bird and the bird comes out under-exposed.

[Clarke Robinson]

BTW, I tend to agree with Keith (Reeder) on the 40D = 400D cafuffle, IMHO 400d is more of an upgraded 350D, a different product line from the 10-20-30-40D. I'd say the 350D and the 400D have more in common. That's just my opinion of course, everybody has one ;)

Good luck to the other Keith on the new 40D purchase!

[kevindurose]

Please let me put aside the context of this thread briefly just to get your opinions on the settings you might use to brighten a big bird ...

(a) perched on a rock against a bright (grey sky) background
(b) gliding above rocks against a bright (grey sky) background

I use Rebel + Canon EF 100-400 IS.

Try using manual exposure, otherwise you will get black shapes against the sky. Point the camera at a similar coloured object or the bird in question and take a test shot, adjust shutter speed until you have the desired exposure then blast away. If the light changes e.g. if the sun comes out check your exposure and change shutter speed if necessary. For cloudy conditions use the coudy white balance setting.

[Gary Clark]

IMHO, there is a clear choice: If you're doing landscapes, get a 5D. If you're primarily interested in wildlife, get a 40D. The pixel density is highest on the 40D, and since you'll be cropping most wildlife shots, you'll have more pixels to work with. The 1.6 sensor factor means your lenses are effectively 1.6X in focal length, which is the same as spending thousands more on lenses. The pixel density (173px/mm) on the 40D is the same as the ($8000) Canon EOS 1DS Mark III.

With the 5D, you'll have less pixels for the typical cropped wildlife shot, but for landscapes you'll have more pixels (because you won't be cropping as much) and a wider variety of available wide-angle and "normal" lenses.

[NecipP]

I have used the 5D for about 9mths now and recently I had a day out with my friends 40D. I used my Canon 300mm f2.8LIS. plus combinations of 1.4xII and 2xII Image Quality is no comparison 5D is still much better even if you have to crop a little more, I did find the focussing to be a little quicker in the 40D though for birds in flight using AIservo the 9 cross points on the 40D are excellent. 5D is still more sharper and accurate it has less AA filtering pixels are cleaner. I had thought of purchasing a 40D to complement the 5D I decided it would not be used in preference to the 5D in the end.

http://www.treknature.com/members/NecipP/photos/
http://www.treklens.com/members/NecipP/photos/

[CCRII]

IMHO, there is a clear choice: If you're doing landscapes, get a 5D. If you're primarily interested in wildlife, get a 40D. The pixel density is highest on the 40D, and since you'll be cropping most wildlife shots, you'll have more pixels to work with. The 1.6 sensor factor means your lenses are effectively 1.6X in focal length, which is the same as spending thousands more on lenses. The pixel density (173px/mm) on the 40D is the same as the ($8000) Canon EOS 1DS Mark III.

With the 5D, you'll have less pixels for the typical cropped wildlife shot, but for landscapes you'll have more pixels (because you won't be cropping as much) and a wider variety of available wide-angle and "normal" lenses.

The 1.6 crop factor does not equate to a 1.6x boost in focal length. It just widens your field of view. I guess if your shooting for the web only then yeah you could maybe make this argument as you can crop around a bird that does not fill a frame to make a much smaller web shot. But if your printing A4 it just doesn't work. See the thread on crop factor in the canon section for more.

[Modular]

There's nothing Like a Juicy Comparison is there lol,

First off please don't think I'm "Rocking the Boat" ... I really ain't, And to
"Argue" Fact's etc amongst such a close Knit Family of Photographers is'nt
the Clever thing to do ... Especially when I know non of You lol,

Okay ... Anyone saying that a 350D or 400D does'nt capture Bird's well
in Flight or Perched need's to do there Homework ... Because we only
have to look at Gallery's to see that ... No arguement there, And I won't
argue that there's better Dslr's to do It ... Because there is ... The 30D and
the 40D are better, That's why I'm Buying a 40D,

Please let me put aside the context of this thread briefly just to get your opinions on the settings you might use to brighten a big bird ...

(a) perched on a rock against a bright (grey sky) background
(b) gliding above rocks against a bright (grey sky) background

I use Rebel + Canon EF 100-400 IS.

Just to Echo what has already been said ... If Your Bird Appear's Dark
against a Sky ... Just Crank UP the Exposure and this with Level the
Brightness between the Two ... Same goe's the reverse, You can do a
few Other thing's to get the balance Right but concentrate on Exposure First,

Hello Mr G.Clark ... Hope Your Fine Sir ... Your right about the 5D and 40D,
But the Argument that the 40D has all You said ... Is exactly the Same as
the 400D ... Pixel Density is'nt an arguement ... The 40D and 400D win
that Hand's down compared to a 5D ... The 40D and 400D are pretty
much the Same but the 40D Work's Much better at handling the Noise, And
has a Much better Sensor, Fact is the 40D sensor IS based on the 400D
sensor ... But has been massively improved,

I alway's thought that Canon should have included a Dust Blower with the
5D ... As an accessorie in the Box, All the People I know that use 5D's will
have to "Blow" the sensor at least Once a Week ... THATS why the new
40D COPIED the 400D's Dust Shaker ... Which if my memory serve's Me
right ... Olympus Invented ... I know Canon was'nt the First with
this Feature ... But We know that the 40D is using the 400D's cleaning
method,

OK John, I'm willing to be educated - what have the 40D and 400D in common at a component or a design level?

;)

Hello Keith ;) ,

How could I educate You?, Your Picture's show Me your Educated in This
Field We all Call "Photography", It surely is'nt Luck eh?, Can We all stick a
100-400 on a 30D and take the Forum by storm? ... Of course not!,
Does Post Processing Improve Your Photo's? ... Of Course!,
Does "IS" help the Photo? ... Sure does ;) , But were not talking about
Your Photo's are We Keith ... No were Talking about Comparison's between
the 40D and 400D ...

I never said Once that they are the SAME or they are totally DIFFERENT,
You said they are totally a Different Camera ... That I will still state your
wrong ... You are Wrong lol ... They have too much in common to be
Totally different, I'll never argue the Difference's ... I know there is and
that's why I'm purchasing a 40D ... The Dust Shaker alone IS passed on
from the 400D ... Please don't tell Me that it was'nt ... The Menu is the
Same ... Again from the 400D, There is a lot more the "Same" But mostly
improved,
See ... I did'nt Educate You at all lol ... Maybe You should Line the Spec's
of the 40D and 400D side by side and Show Me that there's nothing at all
in Common with each other ... Or Passed over from the 400D ... Once You
have done this ... Which You can't lol ... I'll Convert to what You think ;) ,

Remember Keith ... Show Me How they are Totally a different Camera ...
NOT the Difference's or Improvement's that the 40D has ... BUT the
Absolutely uncomparison Of Both Camera's, I will await Your TOTAL
absolutely "Different Badge" Comparison to make them "Chalk and Cheese" ,

Got to say Keith ... I still Chuckle at this ;) ,
In fact, it's not even a re-made 30D: every last thing about the 40D is completely new compared to the 30D, and is so different to the 400D that they might as well be by different manufacturers.Happy Snapping ;) ,

Take Care,
John,

[ChrisSearle]

The fact that this issue is so endlessly discussed, both here and on other forums indicates to me that there is no clear winner overall. They're all wonderful pieces of kit and by far the largest limiting factor is the user. My mates just got a new 40D and the photographs he's been taking with it just blow me away, they look miles better than the ones I get with the same glass on my 30D. If the difference between the two camera bodies were really that big there would be no argument, however, the real reason they look so much better is that he's simply a better photographer than I am! Sickening, but true.

Chris

[CCRII]

From seeing test photographs looks like the 40D is at least 50% better at noise handling in all ISOs over the 30D. Which is enough to sell me. It is also right there with the 5D in terms of noise handling. The 5D needs to come down quite a bit for it to even be considered here. I cannot believe how bipolar the pricing is on these things sometimes.

[Roy C]

From seeing test photographs looks like the 40D is at least 50% better at noise handling in all ISOs over the 30D. Which is enough to sell me. I.
I cannot see that myself - I have both and reckon there is not a lot in it as far as noise is concerned. I have read scores of reviews and comments on the 40D but have never come across anyone making a claim like this.

[CCRII]

I cannot see that myself - I have both and reckon there is not a lot in it as far as noise is concerned. I have read scores of reviews and comments on the 40D but have never come across anyone making a claim like this.

To my eye it looks loads better.

[ChrisSearle]

To my eye it looks loads better.

And this in my view is a very valid statement. You can do all the measurements, all the analysis but there undoubtedly is still an intangible 'X' factor going on here. I'm always extremely impressed by well exposed 5D images although all the 'scientific' analysis suggests that there should not be that much difference, particularly at 8x10.

Chris

[Roy C]

To my eye it looks loads better.
That's fair enough then if that's the way you see it. If I was really pushed to say what had the best low noise at say ISO 800 I would say that the 30D is very slightly better.

[Modular]

:cat: Your back Keith ;) ... I await Your answer Sir,
Take Care,
John,

[K-Lex]

Just an update to this fascinating thread. I've just bought the 40D this morning. I'm very impressed so far, how quick is 6.5fps?!!!!! I compared it to a 5D in the shop and by comparison almost got bored waiting for the next one to fire on the 5. It feels different to my 20D, can't quantify why and some of the buttons have moved. Feels well built and like it'll withstand a knock or 3. Have yet to give it a good thrashing in the field or my studio but will let you know how it performs in comparison.

Thanks Keith Reeder for the tip, you were right.

Keith :)

[Tannin]

I cannot see that myself - I have both and reckon there is not a lot in it as far as noise is concerned. I have read scores of reviews and comments on the 40D but have never come across anyone making a claim like this.

I agree - and I own both the 40D and a 20D (same sensor as the 30D, for current purposes, the same camera). So far as noise is concerned, my ID III is the best, followed by the 20D, then the 40D (very small gap between these two), with the 400D last - but (let us note carefully), still very good even so.

I see that the new 1Ds III has the same pixel pitch as the wonderful old 20D/30D, and the same body as the 1D III .... that is tempting. very tempting. But I'm tired of battling to pay off the damn credit card all the time, only to see it go through the roof again. Might wait a while.

[christineredgate]

Having read a review of the 40D in Digital Cam mag today,it seems that the 40D wins hands down.From the reviews,it seems to to be better than the 5D.