What are your thoughts on the two?  I have enough to get the 5d (which I believe is a better camera)--- but I haven't used the 40d either and think of it as an amazing camera.  

 What are your thoughts? 

Also if you could pick any lens-- what would it be?  What do you use as your
"standard" lens?

THANKS everybody!! 

 Both are great cameras.  Many articles on the internet (written by both experts and goof balls) suggest that real world image quality from either camera is probably indistinguishable for most photographers.  The 40D is newer, and has many newer features that the 5D doesn't have.  The 5D has some of the largest photo receptors available, and many experts say that has more to do with color quality, lack of noise, dynamic range, etc....  If you are shooting raw, and are very hands on in your processing you will probably be able to eek out slightly better results with the 5D.  If you are shooting jpeg, and/or relying more on software run processing it wouldn't surprise me if the 40D would be better.  If you already have a bunch of APS-C format lenses or could really take advantage of the newer 40D features then it would be a good choice.  Value per dollar it would seem to me that the 40D is a better deal.  That said, I'm about to buy another 5D.  It rocks!

I find a selection of lenses to be very helpful.  If I could only have one I'd choose a fast zoom:  f/2.8 & 17-50ish for APS or 28-75ish for 35mm.  My next choice would be a fast normal prime:  f/1.4 & 30ish for APS or 50mm for 35mm.  Brandwise I like both Canon and Tamron.  I'll usually choose Tamron at 1/3rd the cost, but the IS feature in some Canon lenses is nice.  I've tried Sigma, and image quality is fine, but I've worn out several Sigma lenses through normal use (internal parts wore out and broke).  So now I'm trying a Tamron f/2.8 28-75 on my 5D, and I'll see if it holds up better.

Thanks Matt-- I have done some more research this morning and am definatly leaning toward the 5d. 

I think I understand the difference in magnification between the lenses on my current camera (xti) and the 35mm (5d)  (I know-- big jump and I can't wait).  I want to make sure though that I will be able to use all my lenses with both --- is that correct?  Right now I have a 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8, 28-135mm f3.5-5.6, kit lens from the xti (hate this lens).  I have a 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 (which I am selling cause I don't like it in low light).  

I will look into what you have suggested.  I shoot weddings and try to do mostly natural light portraits (outside).  Given that info and my current equiptment what would you suggest? 

 add the 70-200 f2.8 (get the IS since you shoot weddings).

cksun5:

I think I understand the difference in magnification between the lenses on my current camera (xti) and the 35mm (5d)

There is no difference in magnification.  A given focal length lens magnifies the same whatever the format.  It's like if you set up a slide projector to fill a particular size projection screen, and then replaced that screen with a larger or smaller screen.  The projected image (magnification) remains the same, only the useful image area has changed. 

If you put a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera and a 50mm lens on a 4x5 camera, and stand in the same place a take a photo with each you could lay the 35mm film frame on top of the 4x5 sheet of film and the area captured on the 35mm would identically match a 1"x1.5" (approx dimensions of 35mm) rectangle in the middle of the 4x5 sheet film. If you enlarge both the same ratio, for instance x10, they would remain the same.  If you enlarge both to approx 8"x10" the smaller format may give the illusion of more magnification, but what you've really done is enlarge the 35mm by x8, and the 4x5 by x2.  So the difference really isn't magnification, it's mostly how the projected image is cropped.  The smaller format isn't getting you any closer to your subject, it's just filling more of the smaller available useful image area.

cksun5:

I want to make sure though that I will be able to use all my lenses with both --- is that correct?  Right now I have a 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8, 28-135mm f3.5-5.6, kit lens from the xti (hate this lens).  I have a 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 (which I am selling cause I don't like it in low light).

You need to check the format of the lenses.  The primes are probably 35mm format, meaning they will work on both.  The kit lens is almost surely APS-C format meaning it will only work on APS-C format DSLRs.  The other zooms sound like typical 35mm format designs.

cksun5:

I shoot weddings and try to do mostly natural light portraits (outside).  Given that info and my current equiptment what would you suggest? 

 

 
The 5D works great for weddings, but I'm sure the 40D would too, and most any other DSLR that came out in the last four years or so.  I think which would be better has more to do with your style, technique, and preferences than any technical differences in the cameras.  You don't absolutely need any new gear.  I shot weddings for years with only a small selection of wide, normal, and slightly telephoto prime lenses.  But I have to admit that fast zooms are very handy.  Start out with a f/2.8 standard zoom (17-50ish for APS-C, 28-75ish for 35mm).  At some point you'll probably want a f/2.8 70-200.
 

I bought my 5d about 2 years ago. I've loved it ever since. Before that i had a 20D it was a good camera but i just love my 5D.

The Extended iso is great. It handles much better than the 20D  and more substantial. True about the magification. The 5D covers a wider area. But image itself is still the same you just see more of it.  All of my lenses i still on the 5D.  I bought a great tamron 28-70 f2.8 lens close to L glass but not quite either. But still a great lens just ordered a 75-200 f2.8 to up my arsenal so to speak.

My opinion get the 5D you wont regret it.

I'm using a Tamron f/2.8 28-75, which I think is a fantastic lens, and I've had the new Tamron f/2.8 70-200 for a couple of weeks.  So far I'm loving it!  IS would be sweet, but it's an extra $1000, and I'd rather spend that on other toys...errrr...tools.  ;)

Honestly, I always recommend people spend the money on glass versus the body.  You'll have high quality lenses for life.  Camera bodies come and go.  Given the lenses you listed, I'd put my $ into upgrading them and go with the 40D over the 5D (and I say that as a 5D owner).

Thanks everybody.  I went with the 5d and bought it last night!!  Haven't had a chance to play yet-- but headed out after work today!

It's a great camera!  You'll love having it.  Now, you'll start lusting after new lenses!    It's a never ending process!

yay--- i hear you on that one!!!  I am lusting after the 16-35L now!!!  beautiful!!!

I don't shoot Canon anymore, but I had the 17-40L when I did and I think it is a very viable alternative to the 16-35. 

cksun5:

yay--- i hear you on that one!!!  I am lusting after the 16-35L now!!!  beautiful!!!