Does ‘better’ equipment make you a ‘better’ photographer? Without proper definitions of both instances of the word ‘better’, it’s a very ambiguous question. Is newer better? Is more expense better? Are more megapixels better? Are photographs that sell for more money better?
Anyway, the path from 40D to 5D is considered by most to be an upward one due to the increase in sensor size even though the 40D is 2 years the junior in terms of release dates.
Okay, bigger sensor size. What exactly does that mean?
Technically speaking, DPReview provides the following information about the difference in 40D and 5D sensors:
- 10.1 million effective pixels
- 3.1 MP/cm² pixel density
- 22.2 x 14.8 mm CMOS sensor
- 12.7 million effective pixels
- 1.5 MP/cm² pixel density
- 35.8 x 23.9 mm CMOS sensor
These spec’s tell us that the 5D’s sensor has a much greater area (855.62mm²) to capture light than the 40D’s (328.56mm²), approximately 20% more pixels, but that the pixels are spread less densely. We know that the individual photosites which collect the light from the scene are larger. This means they can collect more light than the photosites in the 40D sensor within the same period of time. More light means more information about the scene and less pixel density means each photosite is exposed to less noise-causing interference from other photosites.
In real-world terms, this equates to:
- Greater dynamic range
- Less image noise especially at higher ISO settings
- Easier to blur backgrounds due to shallower depth of field (no field of view crop factor)
For me and the type of photography I engage in, this means the sensor in the 5D is a better sensor than that in the 40D. There are, of course, other differences between the two camera bodies, but none are as important to me than the sensor. Now, with that out of the way, have I actually noticed any difference in the photos I take? The answer to that is most definitely yes!
In terms of user experience, some of the differences I noted 5 months ago are still prominent. The biggest ‘downgrade’ for me in terms of user experience is the lack of a permanent display of the current ISO setting in the viewfinder. Accidentally shooting at ISO 3200 when ISO 400 would have been a better choice is just too easy to do. Also, more of an issue is the amount of sensor cleaning that can be required. A lack of an automatic sensor cleaning feature costs time and money spent on cleaning tools. Less annoying are the lack of Live View and the smaller LCD on the back of the camera.
All in all, I’m very happy with the move I made from the 40D to the 5D. Even though the 5D Mark II has been release, I still feel very content with my Mark I. When teamed up with a selection of good quality lenses, it’s a combination I find difficult to falter.
