# Canon 40D to 5D Classic. Good upgrade?



## pulseimages (Jun 27, 2013)

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 (Jun 27, 2013)

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


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jun 27, 2013)

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 (Jun 27, 2013)

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 (Jun 27, 2013)

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 (Jun 27, 2013)

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 (Jun 28, 2013)

Bob Howland said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2013)

sjp010 said:


> 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)
> ...



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 (Jun 28, 2013)

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 (Jun 28, 2013)

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 (Jun 28, 2013)

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 (Jun 28, 2013)

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 (Jun 28, 2013)

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 (Jun 28, 2013)

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


----------



## The Bad Duck (Jun 28, 2013)

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 (Jun 28, 2013)

pulseimages said:


> 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 (Jun 29, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


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



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 (Jun 29, 2013)

pulseimages said:


> 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.


----------



## Alrik89 (Jun 29, 2013)

pulseimages said:


> 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.



Conclusion: You've never been making a 20x30"-print
Recommendation: Make a 20x30"-print and see the result. Then make your decision.


----------



## pulseimages (Jun 29, 2013)

Alrik89 said:


> pulseimages said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



You mean make a 20x30''print from my 40D? At that size and at 300 dpi I know it will look like crap.


----------



## Alrik89 (Jun 29, 2013)

pulseimages said:


> Alrik89 said:
> 
> 
> > pulseimages said:
> ...



Hmmm... i thought, only another person does know it and you don't.
And as you said: it depends on the viewing distance. They guy above mentioned, his clients are sticking their noses close to the poster.
What are your clients doing?


----------



## pulseimages (Jun 29, 2013)

Alrik89 said:


> pulseimages said:
> 
> 
> > Alrik89 said:
> ...



The same thing. Even I do it when I see a photograph hanging on the wall. I can't tell you how many big printed images I have seen up close on a wall that makes me think who are they kidding with this sub par quality.


----------



## Alrik89 (Jun 29, 2013)

pulseimages said:


> The same thing. Even I do it when I see a photograph hanging on the wall. I can't tell you how many big printed images I have seen up close on a wall that makes me think who are they kidding with this sub par quality.



And then you think, the 10% more pixels on the length and on the width of your poster (12.8 MP vs 10.1MP) will make you happy?


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 29, 2013)

pulseimages said:


> The same thing. Even I do it when I see a photograph hanging on the wall. I can't tell you how many big printed images I have seen up close on a wall that makes me think who are they kidding with this sub par quality.



The 5Dc is not going to provide a significant IQ boost over the 40D. It will be sharper out of camera (but not after post work), it will yield a bit more detail, and less noise at upper ISOs. But that's it. Nor does it have the pixels for a 30" print of challenging subject matter (i.e. landscape) critically viewed at a close distance. I'm not saying such a print would be bad. But if you're as picky as you claim, you will want more.

I consider Canon's 18 MP crop and 21 MP FF sensors to be 24" print sensors given those conditions. And yes, I do regularly print 20" and 24" from an Epson 3880. They're still good at 30", but at that point you start to cross over into territory where higher resolution sensors (or stitched images) are clearly better.

Again, this is for critically reviewed prints of subject matter with challenging fine detail. If you have less challenging subject matter or viewing conditions, then you can go larger. For example, even the 8 MP generation could produce great 1-2 person portrait prints at 24-30".

If you must have FF, save your pennies and get a current >20 MP FF body. If you're fine with crop, get whatever 18 MP body you can afford. (Bummer being this generation sensor is due for replacement. But it's still quite good.)


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 29, 2013)

pulseimages said:


> 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.



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. Seriously. I have never used it on full frame, but do read some reviews before you think it is a lens suitable for a full frame camera:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/427-canon_1740_4_5d?start=2
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/31/cat/all (check out the full frame results)

Remember what I said about the 5D needing great glass, and remember that you want to print it large. You can make your own call, but I don't think these discerning clients are going to be happy with a full frame image printed very large from the 17-40.

Re: can the 40D print big enough. Print it and see. Got to be cheaper than blindly buying a new body. It's great to take opinions, but other folk, including me, aren't always right...


----------



## pulseimages (Jun 30, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> pulseimages said:
> 
> 
> > The same thing. Even I do it when I see a photograph hanging on the wall. I can't tell you how many big printed images I have seen up close on a wall that makes me think who are they kidding with this sub par quality.
> ...



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.


----------



## G-V (Jun 30, 2013)

pulseimages said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > pulseimages said:
> ...



Of course the 6D has an advantage - it's FF plus it has a much better sensor.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Jun 30, 2013)

Bob Howland said:


> 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.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 5, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> 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 (Jul 5, 2013)

pulseimages said:


> 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 (Jul 5, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> pulseimages said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Jul 5, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 5, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> 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 (Jul 5, 2013)

drmikeinpdx said:


> 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


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 5, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> 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 (Jul 5, 2013)

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!


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 6, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > paul13walnut5 said:
> ...



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.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 8, 2013)

..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 (Jul 8, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> ..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.


----------

