August 29, 2014, 08:10:20 PM

Author Topic: Canon 40D to 5D Classic. Good upgrade?  (Read 8934 times)

drmikeinpdx

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 301
  • Celebrating 20 years of naughty photography!
    • View Profile
    • Beyond Boudoir Photo
Re: Canon 40D to 5D Classic. Good upgrade?
« Reply #30 on: June 30, 2013, 12:55:25 AM »
I used to use a 5D/40D pairing but replaced them last year with a 5D3/7D pairing.

Same here.  I'll say that once I got the 5D, my 40D got very little use.  I basically kept it around as a backup body and for any situation that required fast shooting, like sports.  Unfortunately, I never shoot sports!  I really did not get my money's worth out of that 40D.

Even after I got the 7D, the 5D classic was still my preferred camera until I was able to buy a 5D3.  I hope to keep the Mark 3 forever. :)

I complained a lot about the crappy autofocus on the 5Dc.  It was inconsistent and lacked AMFA.  Drove me crazy trying to do shallow DOF shots with fast, non-L primes.  If you generally used something like a 24-105, that would not be an issue. 
Current bodies:  5D3, 7D, 550D, S100
Favorite lenses: 135 f/2.0 L, 85 f/1.8 200 f/2.8 L, 50 f1.4 Sigma, 40mm pancake, 24-105 L.
blog:   http://www.BeyondBoudoirPhoto.com

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 40D to 5D Classic. Good upgrade?
« Reply #30 on: June 30, 2013, 12:55:25 AM »

dtaylor

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 572
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 40D to 5D Classic. Good upgrade?
« Reply #31 on: July 05, 2013, 03:18:07 AM »
You don't.  The 17-40 is just about acceptable on APS-C.  I say just about because I sold mine when I got an 18-55 is kit lens that outperformed it.

You had a bad 17-40L.

dtaylor

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 572
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 40D to 5D Classic. Good upgrade?
« Reply #32 on: July 05, 2013, 03:23:19 AM »
OK, so does the 6D have advantages over the 60D when it comes to printing big prints? I thought FF is the best way to go over APS-C when printing big prints for galleries.

At low to mid ISO with proper post processing? No. Not really. People will argue with me, but I'll take that bet any day. You're not going to be able to discern unlabeled, properly processed 24" or even 30" prints from both.

High ISO? Yes, definitely. No amount of processing will close the gap there.

T/S lenses or fast wide primes? Yes again. Those lenses work best on FF.

Outside of that? No.

Sporgon

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1797
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: Canon 40D to 5D Classic. Good upgrade?
« Reply #33 on: July 05, 2013, 04:50:46 AM »
OK, so does the 6D have advantages over the 60D when it comes to printing big prints? I thought FF is the best way to go over APS-C when printing big prints for galleries.

At low to mid ISO with proper post processing? No. Not really. People will argue with me, but I'll take that bet any day. You're not going to be able to discern unlabeled, properly processed 24" or even 30" prints from both.

High ISO? Yes, definitely. No amount of processing will close the gap there.

T/S lenses or fast wide primes? Yes again. Those lenses work best on FF.

Outside of that? No.

I agree with what you have said here 100%.

However there is another issue to be taken into account if you are wanting to achieve optimum results in certain circumstances.

Where aps and ff produce identical results ( with the exceptions you have pointed out) is when the primary subject or point of focus is large within the frame. However once you start to produce landscape pictures for example, where fine detail is very small within the frame you cannot beat the fact that the larger the size of the initial capture, the better the end result - in critical terms. This is why a 5D 'c' shooting at 100 ISO will produce a subtly better picture than even a modern aps camera such as the 650D, even though the digital image produced from the 650D s capture is larger than the 5D 'c'.

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: Canon 40D to 5D Classic. Good upgrade?
« Reply #34 on: July 05, 2013, 05:42:31 AM »
You don't.  The 17-40 is just about acceptable on APS-C.  I say just about because I sold mine when I got an 18-55 is kit lens that outperformed it.

You had a bad 17-40L.

So did the reviewers then.  Either not a great lens for FF, or a lot of bad copies floating around.

dtaylor

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 572
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 40D to 5D Classic. Good upgrade?
« Reply #35 on: July 05, 2013, 06:45:59 AM »
So did the reviewers then.  Either not a great lens for FF, or a lot of bad copies floating around.

Photozone 17-40L review on APS-C: The Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 USM L showed a very good to excellent performance in the lab as well as during the field tests. The lens exhibited very little vignetting and excellent resolution figures.

Photozone 17-40L review on FF: The lens is able to deliver a very high resolution for most of the image field but the corner performance is poor thus spoiling the game here...However, these rather critical comments apply to the 17mm setting only and from 20mm onwards it's actually a good to very good lens without any major weakness.

SLRGear.com on APS-C: The Canon 17-40mm f/4 L is a high quality lens with a full-frame image circle that showed really exceptional performance on the EOS-20D we used to test it with.

These are not "just about acceptable" results. They're good to very good on FF, and very good to excellent on APS-C. And while the 18-55 IS kit is surprisingly good and should not produce significantly worse results then the 17-40L, it shouldn't be significantly better either.

I've seen very good large prints from FF + 17-40L. Granted, it was stopped down. And granted, I believe crop + Tokina 11-16 would actually yield more detail and sharpness at the edges and corners. (Talking about 21 MP vs. 18 MP sensors.) But it's not night and day, and the 17-40L is neither a bad lens nor a lens incapable of 24" prints.

tron

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1816
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 40D to 5D Classic. Good upgrade?
« Reply #36 on: July 05, 2013, 08:27:06 AM »
I hope to keep the Mark 3 forever. :)
Me too but forever is too long. If 5DMkIV has the same number of megapixels, lower noise, higher DR and 1 or 2 fps more I would certainly get it. Until then I enjoy using my 5D3  :)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 40D to 5D Classic. Good upgrade?
« Reply #36 on: July 05, 2013, 08:27:06 AM »

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: Canon 40D to 5D Classic. Good upgrade?
« Reply #37 on: July 05, 2013, 12:28:49 PM »

I've seen very good large prints from FF + 17-40L. Granted, it was stopped down. And granted, I believe crop + Tokina 11-16 would actually yield more detail and sharpness at the edges and corners. (Talking about 21 MP vs. 18 MP sensors.) But it's not night and day, and the 17-40L is neither a bad lens nor a lens incapable of 24" prints.

Whilst I agree, please read back to the start of the answer for full context.

I had a 17-40 on APS-C for around 3 years and loved it's build, and it's af speed. We are dealing with a particualrly demanding OP here, wants to view his prints with his nose touching the print etc..

I just don't think the 17-40 is going to live up to his expectations, in that context.

Would I have a 17-40 again? probably not, I need the f2.8 for video now, and as good as it was on APS-C the 18-55 IS was better.

kennephoto

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 40D to 5D Classic. Good upgrade?
« Reply #38 on: July 05, 2013, 12:53:36 PM »
Just my 2 cents a little late but I've printed bigger than 20x30 with my 40d with a 18-55 and a 70-200 f4 and I don't notice any difference between those prints and my 5d2 prints. I no longer have the 40d as I needed a body with AFMA for use with some older lenses. Just keep saving for that 6d and keep using that 40d. 40d is an awesome camera no doubt underrated. If it had AFMA I'd still have it!
Canon 5d Mark II Canon 1D classic EOSM 20-35 2.8L 50 1.2L 135 2.0L 80-200 2.8L 40 Pancake and a bunch of old film cameras

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2263
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 40D to 5D Classic. Good upgrade?
« Reply #39 on: July 05, 2013, 09:47:37 PM »
You don't.  The 17-40 is just about acceptable on APS-C.  I say just about because I sold mine when I got an 18-55 is kit lens that outperformed it.

You had a bad 17-40L.

So did the reviewers then.  Either not a great lens for FF, or a lot of bad copies floating around.

soft at the corners, not sharp overall until you get to f/8.  But a solid performer if tripod mounted and comparable to the 16-35 mk whatever at a fraction of the price.  It is what it is... an entry level L lens.
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100 f/2.8L->85mm f/1.8 USM->135L -> 8mm ->100L

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: Canon 40D to 5D Classic. Good upgrade?
« Reply #40 on: July 07, 2013, 07:52:03 PM »
..and what it is, is clearly not what the OP needs if he is going to print very large prints and view very close up.

I don't think the 5D is the camera either for what it's worth.

It's not that I'm down on the lens. I'm down on the OP's expectations.

pedro

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 773
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 40D to 5D Classic. Good upgrade?
« Reply #41 on: July 08, 2013, 02:26:46 PM »
..and what it is, is clearly not what the OP needs if he is going to print very large prints and view very close up.

I don't think the 5D is the camera either for what it's worth.

It's not that I'm down on the lens. I'm down on the OP's expectations.

I'd go 6D instead.
30D, EF-S 10-22/ 5DIII, 16-35 F/2.8 L USM II, 28 F/2.8, 50 F/1.4, 85 F/1.8, 70-200 F/2.8 classic,
join me at http://www.flickr.com/groups/insane_isos/

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 40D to 5D Classic. Good upgrade?
« Reply #41 on: July 08, 2013, 02:26:46 PM »