# moving from nikon D40 to Canon 5 D (classic)



## cluelessd40 (Oct 29, 2013)

Hello  

first post here. I live and work in India and photography is strictly a hobby. Over the last 5 years, I've taken about 20,000 photos with my nikon D40 and while I'm in love with the camera, I feel I've outgrown the camera mostly. 
I only have the kit lens 18-55, an additional 55-200 VR and the SB-400 flash. 

I analysed the exif data on about 5000 of my images and realized that about half the shots are at the 18 mm APS-C end. About 92% are in 18-85 mm range. Thus, my needs are at the wide end (photograph the ancient monuments of India more than anything else, very limited people, some street scene, flash usage is about 10% of the time so can dispense with that possibly?) 

I was contemplating upgrading to a nikon D7000 / D7100 (and a matching lens) when the thought of getting a canon 5D (classic) occurred. I reckoned I'd spend about $1200-1500 if I buy the nikon combination of D7100 with 18-140 or D7000 with 16-85 and for the same amount of money, I can look at a full frame if I get a canon classic! They're going on ebay for about $600 for a good piece and I could put the remaining $600 or so towards a good multipurpose lens (say a 24-105 L)? 

Is this combination still worth a purchase? Should I look at another lens? 

my primary considerations for making this move would be good image quality, reliability of equipment (lots of dust where i live and shoot) and usage for next 5+ years? 

Any suggestions would be great! 

thanks! 
- Vaibhav


----------



## hendrik-sg (Oct 29, 2013)

a 5d classic is far outdated by now, where a Nikon 7100 (or 5200, 3200) is state of the art. The Nikon 24MP Sensor has twice the resolution in good light and in bad light has even better per pixel performance than the outdated sensor of the 5d classic. you can compare this here:

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/865%7C0/(brand)/Nikon/(appareil2)/176%7C0/(brand2)/Canon

The only advantage of the 5d may be a thiner field of view (if you like this), on the other side the Nikon has much better autofocus, faster frame rate, video and numerous additional fetures etc. 

For crop cameras there are numerous good and affordable wide angel lenses, where for FF most options are more expensive, that if you wantwider than 18mm crop.

If you are on a budget, the Nikon 5200 and 3200 have the same sensor (means the same image quality) and are less expensive. 

i am to deeply invested in canon glass so i will stay with canon, but for a new start i would consider nikon at the moment


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 29, 2013)

Hello and welcome.

The 5D classic was and is a great camera, and an obvious advantage is the full frame sensor.

However it is now quite old tech. Any camera you buy will have had quite a bit of use, and some folk used the 5D as a working camera, so perhaps even high shutter counts.

Of course this is true of any used camera, but a more recent, more consumer orientated camera such as a D7000 may well be something that gives you better IQ and was cherished by an amateur rather than abused by a pro.

It would also make sense as your lenses and flashguns would work with it.

The 5D really demands good or great glass, APS-C cameras such as the D40 and D7000 use the centre of the image circle, or DX lenses, a full frame camera often goes right to the border, so expensive glass is really the order of the day.

The D7000 has a brilliant sensor, has more modern things like live view and video, if you put much faith in DXO then the D7000 comes out a bit better.

On balance, I would go for a Nikon. And I'm a very happy canon user.


----------



## Sith Zombie (Oct 29, 2013)

At this point in time i would stay with nikon, as others have pointed out the 5D is pretty dated and a d7000 or 7100 would probably better as you wont have to buy new glass. If you want full frame, try a D700? That's meant to be an excellent camera and you may be able to use some of your lenses on it, not sure though.


----------



## cluelessd40 (Oct 29, 2013)

Thank you for the quick responses. A few additional points: 

a) I was not thinking of going for a wide angle lens but the analysis on where my shooting preferences lie have forced me to think. Thus, wouldnt a full frame camera suit better? 
b) I do not value video, I'd be happy to improve my still photography skills. 
c) Even if I get into a D7000/7100, I'd have to invest in better nikon glass as the sensor is quite unforgiving. So the 1200-1500 USD budget includes camera + glass (the flash can be used still if I stick with nikon). I'm happy to let go of the telephoto end given the kind of photos I've been taking. 
d) I did check the D700 but the used bodies are in the region of 1200-1500 and I would have to buy new, expensive lenses, so that doesn't work. 

When I look at the flickr stream of Canon 5D, the photos appear almost magical to me. Is that due to a combination of expensive glass + camera or is significant post processing involved in each of those shots? I noticed many were taken with 50 mm f/1.8 or 24-70. 

I guess I was hoping to get into full frame cheaply .... doesn't seem easy. :-\

p.s. thanks again for the welcome!


----------



## docholliday (Oct 29, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> ...may well be something that gives you better IQ and was cherished by an amateur rather than abused by a pro.



Most times, I'd rather have something abused by a pro than cherished by an amateur. A true pro will get their gear routinely checked and maintained meticulously (CLA at least 1-2 times yearly). The slightest bit of oddness from a lens or body would usually get sent and fixed promptly. The amateur would usually not notice the variation or find it acceptable. And, if you've ever (really) dealt with estates, the amount of gear that's sitting around and rotting or found in a closet fungi-fied or with dried seals is mind-boggling.

I've almost always preferred used gear over new - get better equipment for less money. The key to is to getting it from a real used dealer with warranty. I tend to use the hell out of gear. Most of mine look like somebody's dragged it through mud and across a parking lot, paint missing off bodies, lenses with not a single screened character on the barrel visible. But, at least twice yearly, it all goes to Canon for check and clean. As soon as a piece sounds, feels, or seem out of spec, it gets sent to get repaired. Even the backup gear gets checked and rotated into service. And, there's pretty much backups for everything!

With that said, the hardest thing (and costly) is to change systems. If the OP's been a Nikon shooter, their best bet would be to stick to Nikon and invest in a newer body or something used like the D700. Yet, since they don't have much Nikon gear, they could always save up some and switch it all out for something like 5D2.

I don't personally care for video from SLRs - if I wanted motion, I'd go shoot an Arri (talk about a costly switch!). 

As for the color, there is a subtle difference between the outputs from Canon vs Nikon/Sony sensors. The Nikon's I've shot seem to have a more "pastel" like pallette, no matter how much post processing I do. The richest output has been from Canon and Leica.

Full frame is nice for wide work, boken, and crispness of an image (larger sensor=more surface area for equiv mp output). However, APS-C and APS-H can make the tele end nicer if needing the reach. There's always saving up a bit more money and going 5D2 w/ 50/1.8...


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 29, 2013)

docholliday said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > ...may well be something that gives you better IQ and was cherished by an amateur rather than abused by a pro.
> ...



We'll need to agree to disagree there. I worked in camera retail for a good number of years and still buy and sell kit for my own use. I guess my head is switched to 'what will folk actually want to buy back' when looking at used gear, if it was exceptionally tatty then I just wouldn't touch it. Yes i found cameras that looked like new with faults, mint condition lenses badly stored with fungus, iris diaphragms sticky with oil, bashed filters (usually a drop), etc etc.

Very generally, *I* would take an amateurs camera over a camera that had a working life any day, and so thats the advice* I *would give. Not saying you are wrong. The OP has the gamut of approaches to consider.

Re: The Arri, yep fair point from a purely video perspective. A nice wee add on if it interests the OP though (which it seems it doesn't in any case)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 29, 2013)

The 5D Classic will be a huge upgrade to the D40. Obviously, for a lot more money, you get more. A FF body adds a lot of capability. I would not hesitate to upgrade. With the 24-105mmL, you will be able to upgrade FF bodies in the future and still have a good lens.
12 MP is plenty of resolution, the only real use for more is if you have severe crops. 

Your thinking is correct in that spending money on a good lens is smarter than having a newer body and a poor lens. You might also consider the new Sigma 24-105mm lens for either Canon or Nikon.


----------



## cluelessd40 (Oct 29, 2013)

Thank you for the vote of confidence that moving from D40 to 5D is a step in the right direction. I'm not confident of buying on ebay though. Are there any reliable online dealers who sell used canon gear and can ship within the US? Keh.com or similar? 

The canon factory direct store seems to have only 5D mark ii which is about 1000 dollars more for the body than the 5Dc.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 29, 2013)

Buying on e bay is probably the best bet because of the selection. Go for a seller with a reasonable amount of positive feedback. Choose a camera where many detIled pictures are provided so you can see exactly the outside condition of what you're getting. Often having the original box is a good indication of lighter use. Generally if a camera is immaculate on the outside it's gonna be the same inside. 

Choose one with a serial number beginning with 2 or 3, not 0 or 1 as these were the early ones and had the poorer LCD and original glued mirror. 

If you are shooting at ISO 100 to 400 the 5D is still contemporary. At Building Panoramics around half our pictures have been shot on a mki. 

(That is about half the ones in the website )


----------



## cluelessd40 (Nov 14, 2013)

Hi 

Just reviving this. I've seen a good body (5D) with about 19K actuations going for 700 dollars. It looked like a good option to me. The serial number does start with 2. 

Any thoughts? I'd have to buy sight unseen. 

What lenses would you recommend within a total of 1100 extra? I prefer wide to medium range (walkabout). I was thinking of the 24-105 f/4 L OR the 17-40 f/4 but wouldn't know what else to pair with it. The 70-200 is too expensive. 

I've budgeted 200 for flash so as not to exceed 2000 total for the entire upgrade. 

thanks in advance 
- clueless.


----------



## drolo61 (Nov 14, 2013)

5Dc is a great tool with lots of good reputation still these days. I have one, and upgraded to 5D3 last year.
24-105 is a good starting point (consider a used 70-200 4,0 IS -it could be within your reach) Pair either of the two with an used 50 1,4 and you will have a great low-light combo.
Enjoy!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 14, 2013)

The cameras you mentioned, D7000 has the best value. The 5D classic is only good option with high quality lens (24-105 or more expensive). An important detail is that the JPEG images straight from the camera 5D classic are very poor, compared with any current model. Then you should shoot in RAW mandatory to get good pictures in this camera. If you find Canon T2i for a good price, is a great option. If you want a new camera, SL1 kit with 18-55 STM (great lens) is a very capable machine for a low value.


----------



## panicboy (Nov 15, 2013)

Recently, I moved from a 50d to a 5d and, so far, I am very happy.

For me, the most significant advantages of the 5d over the 50d are:

Less noise (the 50d was pretty noisy)
Shallow DOF
Better image sharpness
Better/more consistent metering
My EF lenses can now be used at their "real" focal lengths

The most significant disadvantages are:

Lack of live view (albeit, in most situations you find a way around it if you don't have it)
More size and weight
Lack of AFMA (albeit, I seem to be lucky: my lenses so far all focus spot-on)
The AF points are spread wider on the 50d, which I sometimes miss on the 5d

All in all, I prefer the 5d over the 50d. IMO, it delivers significantly better image quality, which is most important for me. In addition, I kinda like the 5d, because it feels so "pure" as a photography tool and it is a great joy to open the RAW files on your computer screen and see the quality it produced in the field. In contrast, the 50d output in difficult conditions often disappointed me and required much postprocessing to reach acceptable quality.


----------



## cluelessd40 (Nov 15, 2013)

panicboy said:


> Recently, I moved from a 50d to a 5d and, so far, I am very happy.
> In addition, I kinda like the 5d, because it feels so "pure" as a photography tool and it is a great joy to open the RAW files on your computer screen and see the quality it produced in the field. In contrast, the 50d output in difficult conditions often disappointed me and required much postprocessing to reach acceptable quality.



Thanks. Now, of the 20,000 images I've taken on the D40 so far, none were RAW. I didn't even think about it actually. I also didn't risk shooting raw + jpeg as the D40 gives the option of basic jpeg if Raw is used as the primary option. 

So basic questions - 
a) How long does it take to convert a single image into JPEG if shot in RAW? 
b) I assume I wont be able to view anything on screen if I shoot that format? So how do I check if the image came out 'OK'? I've been using the LCD on the back of D40 to check if the photo came out OK. 

p.s. based on the previous poster's suggestions, I'm leaning towards D7000 now as am so far shooting only JPEG.


----------



## panicboy (Nov 16, 2013)

cluelessd40 said:


> Thanks. Now, of the 20,000 images I've taken on the D40 so far, none were RAW. I didn't even think about it actually. I also didn't risk shooting raw + jpeg as the D40 gives the option of basic jpeg if Raw is used as the primary option.
> 
> So basic questions -
> a) How long does it take to convert a single image into JPEG if shot in RAW?
> ...



For me, RAW is the only way to go. If you shoot JPEG, you "throw away" lots of information, so your postprocessing capabilities are greatly reduced.

a) On my computer (Intel Core i7-3770K 3.50GHz) running Debian Linux with Canon DPP via wine it takes about 3 seconds per image from the 5d. But this number depends on the postprocessing steps selected for the image, e.g. if you enable noise reduction it will take longer. Unfortunately, DPP does not use the multithreading-capabilities of the CPU (yet).

b) Yes, you will be able to do so. Each RAW file (at least of Canon cameras) contains an embedded JPEG preview file, which is used by some programs for display (including the camera itself, which displays the embedded JPEG on the LCD). A program that I use for quick previewing the RAW files is geeqie (on Linux).


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 16, 2013)

As along time user of the 5Dc, I would have no qualms with going back if need be to it. I would like to mention these things about using it though. 

1. No live view. No biggie if your used to shooting with old film cameras. 
2. The LCD is horrid but I used the histograms only. 
3. Use the center AF point only and for fast primes buy an egs screen for it. It will raise your keepers a lot. 

You'll appreciate the 5Dcs color rendition and the massive viewfinder when you get one. It's a no frills, plano workhorse camera and very similar to shooting old film cameras relying on your skill to get results. I can't knock it's iso 100-800 files as tthey are still excellent to this day.


----------

