Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 9, 2007, 6:52 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
surfnron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 578
Default

My 20D died the 3rd week of July. I had heard rumors that the 40D would be announced shortly, and I figured it would be several months after the annoucement before body became available. So I bought a refurb 30D with the intention of selling it when the 40D came out. I read on another forum that Amazon had jumped the gun, and was offering the 40D before Canon made the official announcement, so I got in line. My camera arrived Sept. 5th.
The big thing for me is image quality. The bells and whistles are nice - some are really nice, but there is not as much increase in IQ as I would have hoped for. Still, I'm glad I got it. But if my 20D had not died, I'd still be using it.
BTW, I just got a deal on a Canon 400 F5.6 and I'm posting a shot with the new combo in "Canon lenses" when I finish this post.
Ron
surfnron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2007, 7:43 AM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 22
Default

Thanks, looking forward to your photos, and I appreciate your input. I am still up in the air. . . Maybe I'll get a new spiffy lens first and then work my way backward into a new camera.. . I would like to hear from people that have both the 20D, 30D, or 40D and the 5D.
kbryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2007, 2:18 AM   #13
Member
 
Hank355's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 63
Default

I wish I had the 5D, but I agree with the fact that the 5D is a dinosaur in the realm of digital photography. In other words, I would be waiting for the newer version of the 5D. Also, the 40D is 10mp and the 5D is 12mp. And I know that the 5D sensor is bigger/35mm equiv. So noise is a bit lower. But the LCD is smaller than the 40D and it only shoots at 3fps. I do have the 40D and let me tell you, the 6.5fps is amazing. Esp. if you want to shoot candids, or sports and with the 3200 ISO you can shoot indoor sporting events, or candids. And I don't know about the size of the 5D, but the 40D feels much more solid than the 20D.And it is bigger than the 20D.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"Being that I have the 20D and now the 40D (I have barely shot with it, mind you). I can honestly say that there is a big difference. I wouldn't recommend someone going from the 20D to the 30D. But if you have the 20D, and you are thinking of upgrading, go for it. Esp. if you can take advantage of the 6.5fps. You have a bigger LCD, and for my hand size (medium to large) the 40D feels better in my hands and I can handle it quicker (from the few shoots I have done with it). Also, for the vacationer, you have the auto ISO which is cool and functional. I have the Panasonic FZ50, and in low light it won't set itself above ISO 200 being that it is incredibly noisy. So the pics come out blurry and unuseable. The 40D when setting the ISO to auto, can shoot in candle light and the picture is crisp and comes out, useable. So far, (and I barely use it in auto) the ISO was set as high as 1600, and as you know 1600 on the 40D (even the 20D) has very little noise comparative to any camera out there. I frequently shoot at 3200 indoors rather than ruin the shot with an on camera flash. There is a bit of noise, but I have gotten my best pics that way. Also, I love the sensor cleaning feature. I have heard that it isn't perfect, but I now feel confident in switching lenses, which I really need to do esp. now that I am doing more pro shoots. In my professional opinion, I feel that there are enough improvements btw the 20 & 40D that it is worth the investment. Remember too, there is improved color due to the digic III processor. So you are getting a better image, your ability to capture the image has greatly improved btw the 6.5fps mentioned earlier and what I haven't mentioned is the improved autofocus, and it is very noticeable. You can get the picture you want, you can get it easier, faster, and the picture will be better quality. It's a no brainer, really. Get the camera, esp if it meets your criteria. EX. if you are shooting photos exclusively for the web (so low quality is fine) andyou are shooting still lifes (so you don't need 6.5fps and you don't need any special autofocus), then there would be no reason to upgrade. Otherwise, go for it!
Hank355 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2007, 4:46 PM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 22
Default

Thank you for the very informative post. I am leaning towards the 40D. . . . The 5D does make a lot of sense, but I do feel that an upgrade to that model can't be too far away, and when it comes out, it'll probably be more than I can pay. (See how I am talking myself out of it?

You all have been very helpful and I appreciate all of your input. Can't wait to get a new toy!
kbryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2007, 11:12 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,699
Default

i have seen several reviews that compare the 40D's image quality very favorably to that of the 5D. i've also seen side-by-side image comparisons with photos from the 20D, 40D, and 5D. it's almost impossible to tell the difference between the 40D and the 5D images, while the 30D pictures look flat and washed out by comparison. in short, the 40D produces image quality very nearly the equal of the 5D, and at half the cost. plus, you get more than twice the frame rate, auto sensor cleaning, and the added magnification of the 1.6x crop factor with telephoto lenses. yes, it's harder to get wide-angle shots with the APS sensor, but with a 10-20 or 12-24 lens, you can get the same shots as the 5D with a 24 or 28mm lens. the 5D isa wonderful camera for landscapes and portraits, but if you shoot much of anything else, its advantages are pretty much nullified. giventhat, why pay $2500 or more when you can get a more versatile camera with virtually identical image quality for half the price?
squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2007, 1:40 AM   #16
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

The 5D had a number of advantages over the 20D for me.

Better Dynamic Range (which it still has over the 40D).

Better viewfinder (but the 40D is now almost as good.)

Better functions and LCD (but the 40D is now better still.)

Higher resolution (but the 40D has closed the gap.)

The 40D has the anti-dust thing (nice in theory, in practice not an issue for me- I haven't cleaned my 5D sensor in 6 months and it's fine.)

Deeper buffer (but the 40D is now as good).

FTPS - (3 is plenty for me, but if you want more ...)

Better AF (- not sure here compared to 40D - the 5D seems better in some ways -has 9+6 AF points - but the 40D has other advances. Probably 40D better for sports.

Better lens selection (well the 5D still has that for sure at the wide & normal end, telephoto reverses the situation of course)

Shallower DOF possible - from all the normal factors of increased format.

Overall you'd have to say that the 40D is obviously better for sports and wildlife shooting. For landscape and portrait the 5D still has the edge, but it's a gap the 40D has closed considerably. I shoot landscape and portrait so I would still choose the 5D, but whether the price difference is worth it is something only you can decide. It has a great deal to do with the marginal utility of that £700 for you.




peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2007, 4:43 AM   #17
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48
Default

A way wiser choice for big improvement is to invest in lenses. With 28-135 your usage of smaller sensor 20D is quite limited. I would've swapped 28-135 to 17-55 f2.8 IS plus 70-200 f4 IS instead of going up to 40D with this old lens.
nidza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2007, 4:53 AM   #18
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

nidza wrote:
Quote:
I would've swapped 28-135 to 17-55 f2.8 IS plus 70-200 f4 IS instead of going up to 40D with this old lens.
Now that depends on the shooting style of the individual. While these lenses are better than the 28-135, 55mm is awfully short. So depending on the shooting style you could be swapping lenses quite a bit. Which might make this a WORSE solution because it requires you to carry two lenses all the time. Some people don't mind that but others do. I'll take myself for an example - i would find this combo frustrating because 55mm is too short for many of my 'walk around' shots. Lenses like the 28-135, 24-105 offer a very nice focal range for people that like a little reach.

And while 2.8 is very nice (I own 2 2.8 lenses and a couple fast primes) - if wide apertures aren't your cup of tea your paying a lot of money for something you're not going to use. Not everyone needs a 2.8 lens - and $960 is a lot to spend for a feature if you don't need it - especially for an EF-S lens which you'll have to sell off if you move up to a aps-h or full frame in the future. Now, if you need a short 2.8 lens and you're confident you'll stay with aps-c cameras then the 17-55 is a fantastic lens by all accounts.


JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2007, 5:34 PM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 22
Default

You guys have offered some very good advice. peripatetic- thank you for the line by line comparisons you made - very imformative. As far as lenses, I do plan on getting the 24-105mm f/4L IS lens, and at some point I'd like to get the 70-200mm lens.

Thank you all for your helpful comments.
kbryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2007, 5:48 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,699
Default

i own 3 lenses... a 17-35 that ibought specifically for landscapes and use for very little else; a 24-135 that is outstanding as an all-purpose lens, and an 80-400 that covers my telephoto needs for wildlife shots. i very seldom change lenses in the field. and now that i have the 40D, i can use one lens on that, and another on my 30D, to cover just about anything that comes up without changing lenses at all.

nidza alluded to an important point, though... if you're not happy with the image quality you're getting now, the best and fastest way to improve that would be to get a couple of GOOD lenses. the 20D is capable of excellent image quality, but with kit lenses, it's mediocre. (the same is true of the 40D and 5D, of course...) if you want more features, then by all means upgrade. but make sure that you're using the best lenses you can afford, regardless of which body you use, because lenses have more impact on image quality than anything else you can buy.

all that said, whether you choose the 40D or the 5D depends largely on two things... what you're going to use it for mostly, andwhether you're willing to pay almost double the price of the 40D for the marginal advantages in IQ and dynamic range that the 5D offers...


squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:34 PM.