5D vs 40D

Now, before I get slammed for putting up web sized images only, let me say that even at full resolution, I was hard pressed to tell which camera took which shot. I may print these 2 out using my HP Z3100 printer on the weekend just to see if I can tell anything from a large (20" plus) print. I likely will if I pixel peep enough but it's close.

Any guesses?

or

Canon EOS 5D & 40D, EF100 USM Macro, Modified Subal C10 Housing, Subal Flat port, Dual YS120s on Half power.

Images processed in ACR, resized in CS3 using Bicubic Smoother, slight capture sharpening using Fred Miranda Intellisharpen Level 3.

Stu

definitly the first one is from 5D !!!

that would be my guess too: but did you use the same iso, shutter speed, F stop etc.....the depth of field is much more on the first one.

Maybe the first one is the 40D after all...

Now, before I get slammed for putting up web sized images only, let me say that even at full resolution, I was hard pressed to tell which camera took which shot. I may print these 2 out using my HP Z3100 printer on the weekend just to see if I can tell anything from a large (20" plus) print. I likely will if I pixel peep enough but it's close.

 

Any guesses?

Interesting. Either camera looks like it does a nice job

I don't think you can judge based on depth of field. You can't really tell what the depth of field is in either shot objectively with just what is presented. Furthermore, we don't know subject distances or cropping so we can't assume aperture settings even though the same strobes and power were used. The 5D with the same lens, strobes, and strobe power can get roughly the same perspective, exposure, and DOF with a smaller f-stop and closer subject distance.

This subject is neither high power macro nor wide angle and it isn't using mixed light. I would love an explanation for how one could tell which camera took which shot if it were possible.

Incidently, bicubic smoother is intended for increasing image size. Bicubic sharper is better for downsizing.

Incidently, bicubic smoother is intended for increasing image size. Bicubic sharper is better for downsizing.

I've been to a couple of Adobe seminar including one done by Vincent Versace (He's one of Adobe's recognized gurus) and he strongly recommends using Smoother regardless. Testing using both methods scaled down to web size doesn't make a visual difference.

Aperture setting for both cameras was f8.

Cropping was similar (or as close to it as I could) given that the 5D has more resolution than the 40D. Vis was pretty bad during my week of diving so I do not have any wide angle shots to speak of. I may have some extreme macro images but no time to process at the moment.

s.

Really? I find that bicubic sharper makes a significant difference. I've also heard that Adobe created the two variants particularly for those two cases. Regardless, I doubt any subtle difference in detail would give away either camera.

If the cropping is similar and the aperture and strobe power were the same, was there a difference in exposure? You must have been closer with the 5D than the 40D.

I believe it won't be possible to tell which camera shot which image. I'd like to know why if it's not true ;-)

Really? I find that bicubic sharper makes a significant difference. I've also heard that Adobe created the two variants particularly for those two cases. Regardless, I doubt any subtle difference in detail would give away either camera.

 

If the cropping is similar and the aperture and strobe power were the same, was there a difference in exposure? You must have been closer with the 5D than the 40D.

 

I believe it won't be possible to tell which camera shot which image. I'd like to know why if it's not true ;-)

Hi Craig,

I do find that using Smoother to down size then a slight sharpening renders slightly better than a straight Sharper down sampling. So, true, a straight output from Bi-Sharp is better then a straight Bi-Cubic. B)

The 5D was shot at 1/100th, 40D at 1/125th... 5D at ISO 200, 40D at ISO 400. However, 40D had HTP turned on which effectively sets ISO to 200. If you looked at the histograms of the images, they're pretty much identical.

As I said in my original post, it's almost impossible to tell which camera took which image with the high res files, just wanted to see how folks react.

I did a similar test topside using a captive bald eagle as my model. Same settings, same view through the viewfinder, using the 100-400L. Again, both cameras gave stunning 20x24 size prints, only if you looked for micro detail (like the bird's iris) did the 5D win out.

Regarding DOF, I wouldn't use that as a measure because in the 2nd image, the mandarins were further away from the background.

Stu

The second image looks like it has a nicer blue on my screen, shows up the most in the tail area. Is this a function of the chip, or processing or distance when shot or ? Either way they both look great and I'm glad I just bought the 40. I'm still tryting to figure out how you got the mandarins to cooperate for exactly the same shot.

Thanks, Steve

So Stu, when are you going to give the answer. I already tried to cheat looking at the exif, but they are stripped :-)

Gerard

So Stu, when are you going to give the answer. I already tried to cheat looking at the exif, but they are stripped :-)

 

Gerard

Gerard,

No fair, but I thought of that and thus used "Save for Web" in PS to strip off the Exif.

The answers:

Top image is 40D, Bottom image is 5D.

Images were taken 1 day apart, Small La Laguna Bay, Puerto Galera. I spent 3 successive nights shooting these guys, hence had a lot of images to be able to find 2 similar ones.

I have to say that I used the 5D more underwater mainly because I found the 100 macro to be much more usable at it's true focal length than a cropped camera and conditions just were such that the 100 was the lens to have on most of my dives. For a general purpose lens, I still believe 40D with the EF28-105 behind a flat port to be a killer combo especially when doing a site for the 1st time. But since I knew the area extremely well, I opted for the 100. (I don't own any EF-s lenses)

The 40D snapped into focus much faster but it also lost focus quicker as well, this happened when I had a bunch of divers suddenly show up with their point and shoots when I had been waiting for the mandarins for over 30 mins! They used my aiming light to focus their cameras and when their flashes went off, it threw the 40D off focus!

Viewfinders on both were very similar, since I was using my modified 10D housing, controlling both cameras were identical, I never felt the need to access the rear buttons as I had a big CF card, set the Info display to a small thumbnail and histogram and had programmed the "SET" button for image playback. I was still able to change focus points though using the upper right button and the rear command dial.

Stu

Top image is 40D, Bottom image is 5D.

 

Images were taken 1 day apart, Small La Laguna Bay, Puerto Galera. I spent 3 successive nights shooting these guys, hence had a lot of images to be able to find 2 similar ones.

In addition to the comparison having the two shots look so close to the same is just as impressive

Viewfinders on both were very similar, since I was using my modified 10D housing, controlling both cameras were identical,

Getting a 5D and a 40D in a 10D Housing, that is also very impressive

I take it (if I read correctly) that you did not use live view U/W, did you try it all all above water? Appraently the 40D with live view has less lag than the 30D according to some sites.

There is some very interesting stuff towards the end of this article on Luminous Landscape regarding the IQ of the 40D compared to the 5D:

Canon 40D - Hands on Report

I take it (if I read correctly) that you did not use live view U/W, did you try it all all above water? Appraently the 40D with live view has less lag than the 30D according to some sites.

Hi Drew,

I have used Live View topside for static commercial shoots. But it's a fairly clunky set of steps that I feel it to be totally useless underwater. The mirror flipping up results in the rear LCD blanking out. It definitely would not have worked with the mandarins. I was able to set the camera to low speed (3fps) continuous shooting and the YS120's were able to keep up, so I'd get a sequence of 4-5 shots of the mandarins doing their mating swim.

Getting the 5D into the housing was more work, as the initial modifications were more complicated. James Wiseman has had it done to his 10D housing and there are I believe 3-4 more out there. The 5D to 40D transition simply required a new base tray machined....it helps that I have a friend who's a master machinist. 1 thing I like about the conversion kits is that you don't need to remove the rubber eye piece, at $15 a pop, they get expensive if you lose 1..or 2...or more! Heh heh.

There is some very interesting stuff towards the end of this article on Luminous Landscape regarding the IQ of the 40D compared to the 5D:

 

Canon 40D - Hands on Report

Gudge,

I agree with what Michael said, the 40D doesn't give anything up to the 5D in terms of image quality. Mind you, the 5D is older technology compared to the 40D. So it's more a testament to the 5D's staying power than the 40D's capabilities...IMHO.

However, it's when you frame a shot identically then the 5D's better resolution begins to show.

S.

I was able to set the camera to low speed (3fps) continuous shooting and the YS120's were able to keep up, so I'd get a sequence of 4-5 shots of the mandarins doing their mating swim.

Thanks for giving me an idea to shoot the mandarins when I have the opportunity on my big trip to Indonesia this fall. I haven't used continuous shooting yet underwater but I guess it's time for me to start.

Since I don't really know Canon models and the differences between them, I probably couldn't have guessed which image was taken by which camera, but I strongly prefer the second shot mainly because of the greater detail on the fins and the expressions on their faces.

Since I don't really know Canon models and the differences between them, I probably couldn't have guessed which image was taken by which camera, but I strongly prefer the second shot mainly because of the greater detail on the fins and the expressions on their faces.

Yes, aesthetically, the 2nd image is better as the fish had their fins more splayed out. But in terms of colour fidelity, sharpness etc, they're both pretty similar.

I've found continuous AF and multi-shot to work well, as long as the strobes keep up. 3fps at half power on my YS120s worked great and I simply adjusted ISO to ensure good exposure. The Fantasea 44 LED dive light proved to be really good at getting AF on these guys and didn't spook them at all.

Stu