30D, 40D, and 5D which has the best performance for the money? (1 Viewer)

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!

Also in the same, or at least similar boat....

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

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.

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.

Mil said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

ChrisSearle said:

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

Click to expand...

Like this, perhaps?

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.

Keith Reeder said:

Like this, perhaps?

Click to expand...

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.

CCRII said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Clive Watson said:

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.

Click to expand...

Dont think anyone would argue with that - I certainly would not buy a 5D for Wildlife photography.

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.

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.

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).

Tannin said:

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).

Click to expand...

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.

Roy C said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Yessss, buuuuy one...

You know you want one..!

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"...

Keith Reeder said:

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"...

Click to expand...

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

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.