Canon 40D to 5D Classic. Good upgrade?

[pulseimages]

Turns out I won't have the budget for the Canon 6D but I know a photographer that wants to sell a 5D Classic that was recently serviced by Canon not too long ago. The whole reason I want to go from a crop camera format to full frame is to print big. I asked a friend that has a 5D and 5D Mark II if I could obtain 20x30" prints from the 5D Classic and he said yes, easily. I'm assuming he means at 300 dpi since that is what WHCC uses.

So since I don't have the means to jump to a newer full frame Canon, the 5D Classic would be a good upgrade?

 

[wayno]

Yes. Although I would try desperately to scrape funds together for a 5d2 if you can.

 

[Drizzt321]

Haven't used it, but everything I've heard about the 5Dc is it's still a great camera. Plus FF will give you a nice perspective and quality than the 40D IMHO. If you can find a 5d2 cheap and in good condition I'd say go with that, even if it's a few $ more, but I don't know what your budget is. If you're not doing anything that needs better low light image quality, I'd say go for it. Most of what makes a good image is the photographer, not the equipment.

 

[sjp010]

I did the same upgrade two years ago and have barely touched the 40D since (which is a shame, because it's a fine camer). The IQ on the 5D is significantly better, and ultimately that is what matters most to me.

Things you will notice in the switch - these may or may not matter to you:
the 5D is much slower (both fps and overall responsiveness)
no liveview on 5D
no self-cleaning sensor on 5D
5D has older, clunkier menu system
LCD much nicer on 40D than 5D, even though resolution is similar
Of course, you will lose the APS-C "reach" - this is the only reason I pick up the 40D now

Enjoy the upgrade. I think the 5D is still a perfectly viable camera, assuming it is in good condition. Of course 5D2 would be better, but a significant price gap persists ($500-ish vs. $1200-ish used).

 

[Bob Howland]

I used to use a 5D/40D pairing but replaced them last year with a 5D3/7D pairing. The 40D was used almost exclusively with my 100-400 and 300 f/2.8, which is how I use the 7D now. I have two 20X30 landscape photos made with the 5D, with lots of tree leaves but a minimum viewing distance of about 30 inches. They look fine.

Biggest complaint with the 5D is that the focusing is not very fast and the highest ISO is 3200. It is definitely not a sports camera.

 

[Sporgon]

A used 5D mk1 sells for about half the price of a used mk2. Rather ironically the biggest difference between them isn't resolution though you would think that to the case from the specs. On screen the files from the Mk2 are much better but this all but disappears in print. The mk2 also has much better performance in the ISO 400 to 1600 range, but below 400 the mk1 is pretty much the same.

As has been said, the digi-2 is pretty slow and there is no video or live view. However having said all that the mki is probably the bargain out there now in Dslrs. IQ wise it is certainly current up to 400 ISO. At Building Panoranics we thought it was better than a recently aquired (and now sold) 650D.

If you get one go for one thats serial number begins with 2 or 3. They have the improved screen and modified mirror. Avoid ones that begin with 0 or 1.

 

[pulseimages]

I used to use a 5D/40D pairing but replaced them last year with a 5D3/7D pairing. The 40D was used almost exclusively with my 100-400 and 300 f/2.8, which is how I use the 7D now. I have two 20X30 landscape photos made with the 5D, with lots of tree leaves but a minimum viewing distance of about 30 inches. They look fine.

Biggest complaint with the 5D is that the focusing is not very fast and the highest ISO is 3200. It is definitely not a sports camera.

Thanks Bob. If you decide to stick your nose right up to the 20x30" print how does it look?

 

[pulseimages]

A used 5D mk1 sells for about half the price of a used mk2. Rather ironically the biggest difference between them isn't resolution though you would think that to the case from the specs. On screen the files from the Mk2 are much better but this all but disappears in print. The mk2 also has much better performance in the ISO 400 to 1600 range, but below 400 the mk1 is pretty much the same.

As has been said, the digi-2 is pretty slow and there is no video or live view. However having said all that the mki is probably the bargain out there now in Dslrs. IQ wise it is certainly current up to 400 ISO. At Building Panoranics we thought it was better than a recently aquired (and now sold) 650D.

If you get one go for one thats serial number begins with 2 or 3. They have the improved screen and modified mirror. Avoid ones that begin with 0 or 1.

Good to know about the serial numbers. Thanks!

 

[pulseimages]

Haven't used it, but everything I've heard about the 5Dc is it's still a great camera. Plus FF will give you a nice perspective and quality than the 40D IMHO. If you can find a 5d2 cheap and in good condition I'd say go with that, even if it's a few $ more, but I don't know what your budget is. If you're not doing anything that needs better low light image quality, I'd say go for it. Most of what makes a good image is the photographer, not the equipment.

My budget is about $500 - $700 for a used FF body.

 

[pulseimages]

I did the same upgrade two years ago and have barely touched the 40D since (which is a shame, because it's a fine camer). The IQ on the 5D is significantly better, and ultimately that is what matters most to me.

Things you will notice in the switch - these may or may not matter to you:
the 5D is much slower (both fps and overall responsiveness)
no liveview on 5D
no self-cleaning sensor on 5D
5D has older, clunkier menu system
LCD much nicer on 40D than 5D, even though resolution is similar
Of course, you will lose the APS-C "reach" - this is the only reason I pick up the 40D now

Enjoy the upgrade. I think the 5D is still a perfectly viable camera, assuming it is in good condition. Of course 5D2 would be better, but a significant price gap persists ($500-ish vs. $1200-ish used).

Aside from the things that the original 5D is missing. Is there a big difference between the 5D and 5D Mark II in terms of IQ?

 

[jdramirez]

I've been mulling around the idea of getting an older 1D mkii... 8 megapixels... and feel free to laugh, but I think if I were to get an older full frame... I'd opt for a 1D. $425...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B0001G112O/ref=dp_olp_used_mbc?ie=UTF8&colid=PZQ76SHP457E&coliid=I2ABPNRZAWSOPB&condition=used

I haven't bothered, but I would guess AF would be better, more frames per second... and I'm sure there are other differences, but I despite kinda wanting one, I haven't done all of my homework.

 

[Jamesy]

They are both nice cameras. I have owned a 40D for five years and have had opportunity to shoot with a 5Dc and test the two side by side. The IQ is clearly better on the FF while the software is a generation older. One thing your 40D can do, aside from what has already been mentioned, is control a flash from the camera body.

I struggled with your same dilemma and there were pros and cons for each.

 

[Nick Gombinsky]

You will love the 5Dc. I have one, used to have a 7D and a 20D as a backup, and then got the 5D to replace the 20D. The difference was huge, and I fell in love with full frame. Now I don't even want to use the 7D anymore.

As a side note, my 5Dc's mirror popped out last week while on a job. I was surprised to see that Canon still fixes it for free, even though we are now at the third generation of this camera.

You can't go wrong with the 5D mark I.

 

[dickgrafixstop]

There are all kinds of reasons to upgrade to full frame, but printing 20X30 isn't one of them. If you do your post processing in photoshop, buy genuine fractals and you can print as large as you'd like. I routinely do posters
at 40X60 from 10 meg files after processing them.

 

[Matthew19]

I've heard of people preferring the 5DC to the 5d2 for lower ISO pictures. Each pixil is bigger because it is a lower megapixil body and that can give the shots a different look. I know of a wonderful local photog who uses the 5dc and the shots are beautiful.

 

[Matthew19]

Here is what I mean : http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1180824

 

[The Bad Duck]

Going from 40D to 5Dc, is it a good upgrade? Well, for portraits @low iso then yes, it´s a great upgrade and a 5DIII would not do any better, not even for printing really big. For landscapes, you need resolution if your landscape is very detailed and you want to print big and let the viewers come close.

What do you want to photograph?

 

[paul13walnut5]

Thanks Bob. If you decide to stick your nose right up to the 20x30" print how does it look?

I can't speak for Bob, but I would guess that unless your eyes can focus abnormally close it will be very blurry.
I can guarantee you wont see any noise or details or anything apart from a coloured mush at this distance, so a canon d30 would probably be ok for this.

Do beware of either smudging the print or getting ink on your nose, or knocking the print off of a level hanging.

Sorry to facetious about it, but 100% viewing is a digital era trait, people have and never will view images naturally at this kind of scale. Any DSLR is going to struggle to fill a 20x30 at 300dpi lovely and sharp, noise free etc.

When you magnify, you magnify faults, lens aberations, moire, shadow noise etc.

You mentioned money was tight. What lenses do you have for your 40d? You know your ef-s lenses wont mount? Right? If you have a 17-85 or 18-55 it ain't gonna work, you'll need a new WA zoom that covers full frame. The one thing folk always say about the 5dc is that it really shames cheap lenses...

Not saying don't do it, but a new body is only part of your new system.
What about a fast portrait lens? Do you have an 85 or 100 already?

I will say don't view finished prints nose to glass. You'll only ever be frustrated.

 

[pulseimages]

Thanks Bob. If you decide to stick your nose right up to the 20x30" print how does it look?

I can't speak for Bob, but I would guess that unless your eyes can focus abnormally close it will be very blurry.
I can guarantee you wont see any noise or details or anything apart from a coloured mush at this distance, so a canon d30 would probably be ok for this.

Do beware of either smudging the print or getting ink on your nose, or knocking the print off of a level hanging.

Sorry to facetious about it, but 100% viewing is a digital era trait, people have and never will view images naturally at this kind of scale. Any DSLR is going to struggle to fill a 20x30 at 300dpi lovely and sharp, noise free etc.

When you magnify, you magnify faults, lens aberations, moire, shadow noise etc.

You mentioned money was tight. What lenses do you have for your 40d? You know your ef-s lenses wont mount? Right? If you have a 17-85 or 18-55 it ain't gonna work, you'll need a new WA zoom that covers full frame. The one thing folk always say about the 5dc is that it really shames cheap lenses...

Not saying don't do it, but a new body is only part of your new system.
What about a fast portrait lens? Do you have an 85 or 100 already?

I will say don't view finished prints nose to glass. You'll only ever be frustrated.

I have two 40D bodies and I'm planning on selling one of them. For lenses I have the EF-S 10-22, EF 17-40 L, EF 28-80 L, EF 70-200 2.8 L and EF 100 2.8 Macro. So I have the glass to migrate to Full Frame.

I shoot classic cars, landscapes, cityscapes and people. I have shown my car images to a few galleries in the past month and have show them 12x18" images on 16x20" paper and they all told me I need to go bigger print wise. I had one person visibly disappointed saying he wish he could print one of my 40D images to 20x30" but he knows it would look like crap.

I said to this guy I thought in general the bigger the print the farther away the viewing distance. His reply was "you would hope so, but the majority of my clients stick their nose right up to the glass and want to see detail in the prints." In fact he says everyone does it including himself.

 

[G-V]

Turns out I won't have the budget for the Canon 6D but I know a photographer that wants to sell a 5D Classic that was recently serviced by Canon not too long ago. The whole reason I want to go from a crop camera format to full frame is to print big. I asked a friend that has a 5D and 5D Mark II if I could obtain 20x30" prints from the 5D Classic and he said yes, easily. I'm assuming he means at 300 dpi since that is what WHCC uses.

So since I don't have the means to jump to a newer full frame Canon, the 5D Classic would be a good upgrade?

Of course the 5D will be better than your 40D, but both cameras are very old so of course it would be better to save up and get a 6D.