Image quality: 5D vs. 400D (dig. rebel)

[ride_the_spiral]

I have done a bit of research and asking around on the topic, but would like to hear from you guys as I am still a bit unsure...

If I were to take 2 photographs of the same scene - one with the 5D and one with the 400D (using the same lens and the same variables) - what differences in image quality would I be noticing (if any at all)?

Thanks in advance for any insight into the matter

[simplephotography]

The 5D will give better results, as it has less pixel density. So every pixel is bigger, holds more contrast and detail. It's also less prone to noise on high ISO. Why not do a search here on Pbase to find samples?

Oh: also the photographer should be the same, because he/she is the most important element in making a good photo!

[ride_the_spiral]

The 5D will give better results, as it has less pixel density. So every pixel is bigger, holds more contrast and detail. It's also less prone to noise on high ISO. Why not do a search here on Pbase to find samples?

Oh: also the photographer should be the same, because he/she is the most important element in making a good photo!

Thanks

I have done a lot of sample surfing with the 5d on here.. however if there is nothing to compare it to.. i.e. the same photo taken with a 400D then it is hard to compare.

[bruce46]

The 5D will give better results, as it has less pixel density. So every pixel is bigger, holds more contrast and detail. It's also less prone to noise on high ISO. Why not do a search here on Pbase to find samples?

Oh: also the photographer should be the same, because he/she is the most important element in making a good photo!

Thanks

I have done a lot of sample surfing with the 5d on here.. however if there is nothing to compare it to.. i.e. the same photo taken with a 400D then it is hard to compare.

The next thing to do is compare the reviews that you can find for both cameras. There are reviews coming from the experts and the ones from the users. Compare them and maybe you will get an idea which one is better. It's very hard, if not impossible, to find photos of the same scene taken by different cameras.

[dougj]

I have done a lot of sample surfing with the 5d on here.. however if there is nothing to compare it to.. i.e. the same photo taken with a 400D then it is hard to compare.

Dpreview.com shoots 2 of the same test images when they do their camera reviews. Although they didn't do a side by side of the 5D and 400D, the test images are the same.

Pick the camera to review, then start with the second 'compared to...' and the top image is the first of the two. These are JPGs you can download to compare. You can check the lens, RAW v. JPG & processing used, etc. There is a resolution chart at the end as well.

This might help.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/

[ralf]

http://imaging-resource.com does a whole series of standard test shots with each camera, and even has a feature where you can compare test shots side by side at http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM .

[drflet]

The ISO makes the biggest difference.

[sheila]

5D: Handles high ISO well; little or no need for any post processing sharpening; full frame enables your wide angle to actually be a wide angle; higher resolution; better build.

400D : cheaper!

Cheers
Sheila

[ride_the_spiral]

http://imaging-resource.com does a whole series of standard test shots with each camera, and even has a feature where you can compare test shots side by side at http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM .

Thanks Ralf and Doug, that is exactly what I was looking for..

In comparing the two, I noticed the dynamic range is superior in the 5d. There was one particular shot done with a poster of some musicians, and the 5d really brought out all the rich tones as compared to the 400d which looked a little flat (in terms of richness). Obviously the 400d is a great camera for what it is, but in the true spirit of mankind, I want more more more


Poster with 5d http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E ... MUSWBA.HTM

Poster with 400d http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/X ... TIhMUS.HTM


Also, as Sheila and Simplephotography mentioned, the 5d produces much better results at higher ISO speeds.

My only sadness is that my 10-20mm will not be compatible with the 5d.. and from the tests that I have seen 10-20mm on a crop body has better corner and edge sharpness than a the 16-35mm L or 17-40mm L on a 5d

This is the test for anyone interested http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Reviews ... otout.html

[ride_the_spiral]

Hmm.. on revisiting the wide angle comparison site, I'm not sure.. tell me what you guys think..

Thanks everyone, for the input

[brickfielder]

To some extent it depends on what the subject is. The 5D will normally have better dynamic range with dark areas having more detail and light areas less prone to being blown out. You would have better definition of high contrast edges and would at a minute level capture more texture (more accurate light intensity capture).
On the downside anything photographed will cover a smaller area of the resulting photograph. This means that you might capture less detail of an individual object by nature of it being smaller on the resulting shot. This can be compensated for by moving closer and filling more of the frame with the object. This tends to imply that the obvious advantages are somewhat lessened for long distance shot of wild life and birds, unless you are prepapred to get a longer and heavier lens.
The other area where the advantages can be lessened is with macro photography where to fill the frame you need to get closer which will reduce your depth of field unless you close your aperture down. Obviously better ISO will help and it makes no difference for flash shots.

Overall the 5D will produce the better shot most of the time especially with portrait or landscape shots. The advantages of better focusing and exposure control will also mean more of your photos turn out the way you intended.

[ride_the_spiral]

To some extent it depends on what the subject is. The 5D will normally have better dynamic range with dark areas having more detail and light areas less prone to being blown out. You would have better definition of high contrast edges and would at a minute level capture more texture (more accurate light intensity capture).
On the downside anything photographed will cover a smaller area of the resulting photograph. This means that you might capture less detail of an individual object by nature of it being smaller on the resulting shot. This can be compensated for by moving closer and filling more of the frame with the object. This tends to imply that the obvious advantages are somewhat lessened for long distance shot of wild life and birds, unless you are prepapred to get a longer and heavier lens.
The other area where the advantages can be lessened is with macro photography where to fill the frame you need to get closer which will reduce your depth of field unless you close your aperture down. Obviously better ISO will help and it makes no difference for flash shots.

Overall the 5D will produce the better shot most of the time especially with portrait or landscape shots. The advantages of better focusing and exposure control will also mean more of your photos turn out the way you intended.

Can you elaborate on the better focusing control.. Will the 5d achieve faster focusing, more accurate focusing, or both?

[brickfielder]

accurate more times in lower light conditions.