400D vs. 450D vs. 50D

Kryptix

Kryptix

Messages
1,730
Edit My Images
Yes
I originally had a 400D and then a 450D. I'm mainly a motorsport photographer and got constantly told that a 50D is much more suited to the job. I was told it'd make my life a lot easier and produce better shots.

Can anyone explain why, and where I'm going to notice this?

Obviously 6.3fps will be nice, but I never used 3.5fps on my 450D so I can't see how that'd make a difference unless someone crashes.

Is it all to do with the focusing?
 
15mp allows more cropping

cross sensor focus spots and an extra sensative centre one for fast lenses

1/3rd ISO stops means more control over shutter and aperture
better noise handling considering megapixels

faster frame rate if you spray and pray

better weather sealing

magnesium body likely to withstand damage

the main thing is that the body is bigger and easier to handle with longer lenses, especially at cold and windy race tracks.
 
andrewc said:
the main thing is that the body is bigger and easier to handle with longer lenses, especially at cold and windy race tracks.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you will actually feel like your using a camera instead of a toy :lol:
 
fastworldimages said:
+1 I really feel the plastic fantastic bodies are more suited to fisher price :D
Click to expand...

These comments appear to be both barbed and insulting to those that own "plastic fantastic" bodies. I am hoping, however, that the comments are moreso tongue in cheek and if not, I think they dont sit comfortably in this forum.

Not all of us can afford metal bodies and most have probably bought the best they can, so to belittle these "lesser" cameras is at best out of place in this forum and at worst down right inciteful.

I know everyone is allowed an opinion, but this oversteps the mark :nono:
 
So basically you bought a 50D but have no idea why you did?
 
Euan said:
So basically you bought a 50D but have no idea why you did?
Click to expand...
Not at all, I'd like more megapixels, better ISO control, 6.3fps, a bigger body and all that jazz, but after reading tons of reviews I wondered why everyone said a 40D/50D would be a lot more capable than a 400D/450D taking shots of motorsport.

I never needed ISO control, more fps, or even more megapixels. I never needed more ISO control or anything like that, so I just wondered where it'd help me with motorsport photography.
 
nigpd said:
These comments appear to be both barbed and insulting to those that own "plastic fantastic" bodies. I am hoping, however, that the comments are moreso tongue in cheek and if not, I think they dont sit comfortably in this forum.

Not all of us can afford metal bodies and most have probably bought the best they can, so to belittle these "lesser" cameras is at best out of place in this forum and at worst down right inciteful.

I know everyone is allowed an opinion, but this oversteps the mark :nono:
Click to expand...

Its quite clear it is tounge in cheek tbh. Try not to take life so seriously.

Where do I state they are a 'lesser' camera exactly other than you trying to read into it for no reason?

Plastic bodies are smaller than the metal counterparts, and dont fit people with bigger hands so nicely.
 
nigpd said:
These comments appear to be both barbed and insulting to those that own "plastic fantastic" bodies. I am hoping, however, that the comments are moreso tongue in cheek and if not, I think they dont sit comfortably in this forum.

Not all of us can afford metal bodies and most have probably bought the best they can, so to belittle these "lesser" cameras is at best out of place in this forum and at worst down right inciteful.

I know everyone is allowed an opinion, but this oversteps the mark :nono:
Click to expand...

Calm down mate, I think your post is closer to overstepping the mark. A forum is just regular people talking, I reckon if someone had said the Fisher Price thing down the pub, you would have laughed. :shrug: I own and use a 400D, and regularly refer to it as a toy, because it feels like one. Still makes a decent pic though.

Kryptix said:
Not at all, I'd like more megapixels, better ISO control, 6.3fps, a bigger body and all that jazz, but after reading tons of reviews I wondered why everyone said a 40D/50D would be a lot more capable than a 400D/450D taking shots of motorsport.

I never needed ISO control, more fps, or even more megapixels. I never needed more ISO control or anything like that, so I just wondered where it'd help me with motorsport photography.
Click to expand...

:blinks: So, you knew why you wanted a 50d, but had no idea why you wanted any of the features it offered?

I'm not preaching, it's your cash. Just curious I guess.
 
MJ Stebbings said:
Yeah, you will actually feel like your using a camera instead of a toy :lol:
Click to expand...

Totally over stepped the mark to a ll of us who have the 450 D we all don't have t use the same camera each to their own now be quiet :bang:
 
It wasnt a dig, it was something similar to what i did by going from 400d to 50d. It will make the 450 look and feel like a toy when you see them together. Shove a grip on and when you get the 24-105 in your sig and shove it on, it both looks and feels brilliant.

I have noticed a huge difference in my photography since swapping.
 
Surely the "plastic fantastic" comment is meant in the same context as canon v nikon or mac v pc?
 
Jayst84 said:
:blinks: So, you knew why you wanted a 50d, but had no idea why you wanted any of the features it offered?

I'm not preaching, it's your cash. Just curious I guess.
Click to expand...
Ugh! No, I want those features for general photography, but people kept saying that 40D/50D is a brilliant motorsport body so I wondered why. That's all.
 
Kryptix said:
Ugh! No, I want those features for general photography, but people kept saying that 40D/50D is a brilliant motorsport body so I wondered why. That's all.
Click to expand...

Ah, sorry. Well, I guess mainly for the auto-focus when compared to xxx bodies. It's much better. I can imagine many people will enjoy the frame rate as you mentioned, but that's more dependent on shooting style.
 
I went from a 300D to a 30D, the photos look just the same but I now get 20% in the bin instead of 20% keepers :)
 
Kryptix said:
I originally had a 400D and then a 450D. I'm mainly a motorsport photographer and got constantly told that a 50D is much more suited to the job. I was told it'd make my life a lot easier and produce better shots.

Can anyone explain why, and where I'm going to notice this?

Obviously 6.3fps will be nice, but I never used 3.5fps on my 450D so I can't see how that'd make a difference unless someone crashes.

Is it all to do with the focusing?
Click to expand...

Kryptix said:
Not at all, I'd like more megapixels, better ISO control, 6.3fps, a bigger body and all that jazz, but after reading tons of reviews I wondered why everyone said a 40D/50D would be a lot more capable than a 400D/450D taking shots of motorsport.

I never needed ISO control, more fps, or even more megapixels. I never needed more ISO control or anything like that, so I just wondered where it'd help me with motorsport photography.
Click to expand...

Answered your own question [i do it sometimes lol]

I upgraded to the 40D for ISO control, 3" Screen, Bigger Body, Weather sealing to help with sand and occasion water splash, more functions, Live view[yes i do use it] & General Erginomics of it feel better button locations, big wheel, top screen etc..
 
mrgubby said:
I went from a 300D to a 30D, the photos look just the same but I now get 20% in the bin instead of 20% keepers :)
Click to expand...

LOL - I went from a 300D to a 40D and had to readjust my shooting as I was anticipating and compensating for the 300D's shutter lag.

I have recently upgraded from a 40D to a 50D and have a 400D as backup/son's camera. I mostly shoot sport and had to use the 400D for two months when my 40D broke.

I can understand the 'toy' comment. With the 100-400 lens on a 400D it felt 'wrong' just too small for such a big lens. It still produced the shots though.

The size and weight is also the reason I bought it though as I wanted a light camera for my son. The 40D/50D is around 25% heavier than the 400D.

So useful things to have 40D/50D over the 400D.

Bigger screen - it really makes a difference, especially when showing someone the shot.

Live preview - I've used it a few times when it was invaluable (and should have a couple of times but forgot about it). It's improved on the 50D.

Higher ISO on the 40D/50D. I've used the really high ISO on the 50D in caves as a test. Noisy but gets the shot. The ISO performance of the 40D is better than the 400D in my opinion, the 50D is better still. That may be down to the Digic processor, digic2 in the 400D, digic3 in the 40D and digic4 in the 50D.

Battery life - I can shoot over 900-1000 raw images on my 1500mah batteries in my 40D/50D, but only around 350-400 on the 750mah 400D batteries. Smaller batteries so lighter, but caught me out a couple of times as I wasn't expecting it so soon on the 400D.

Other bit's are very useful once you get used to them, such as the joystick, big wheel etc. I struggle sometimes to find the settings I want on the 400D as I'm used to them being available.

Write speed to CF. 50D is blisteringly fast compared to the 400D, however you need bigger, or more, CF cards as it's a much bigger raw image.
 
Byker28i said:
LOL - I went from a 300D to a 40D and had to readjust my shooting as I was anticipating and compensating for the 300D's shutter lag.

I have recently upgraded from a 40D to a 50D and have a 400D as backup/son's camera. I mostly shoot sport and had to use the 400D for two months when my 40D broke.

I can understand the 'toy' comment. With the 100-400 lens on a 400D it felt 'wrong' just too small for such a big lens. It still produced the shots though.

The size and weight is also the reason I bought it though as I wanted a light camera for my son. The 40D/50D is around 25% heavier than the 400D.

So useful things to have 40D/50D over the 400D.

Bigger screen - it really makes a difference, especially when showing someone the shot.

Live preview - I've used it a few times when it was invaluable (and should have a couple of times but forgot about it). It's improved on the 50D.

Higher ISO on the 40D/50D. I've used the really high ISO on the 50D in caves as a test. Noisy but gets the shot. The ISO performance of the 40D is better than the 400D in my opinion, the 50D is better still. That may be down to the Digic processor, digic2 in the 400D, digic3 in the 40D and digic4 in the 50D.

Battery life - I can shoot over 900-1000 raw images on my 1500mah batteries in my 40D/50D, but only around 350-400 on the 750mah 400D batteries. Smaller batteries so lighter, but caught me out a couple of times as I wasn't expecting it so soon on the 400D.

Other bit's are very useful once you get used to them, such as the joystick, big wheel etc. I struggle sometimes to find the settings I want on the 400D as I'm used to them being available.

Write speed to CF. 50D is blisteringly fast compared to the 400D, however you need bigger, or more, CF cards as it's a much bigger raw image.
Click to expand...

Having said that was it worth you upgrading from the 40D to the 50D is it worth the extra £3-400 ??
 
I dont get it, according to your profile you have a 50D so why are you asking? Personally I find the smaller grip on the 450d a little annoying if you are holding it for a long time, but this can be remedied by supporting most of the weight with your left hand on the lens. Maybe a grip would sort that out.
 
Blue Eagle said:
I dont get it, according to your profile you have a 50D so why are you asking? Personally I find the smaller grip on the 450d a little annoying if you are holding it for a long time, but this can be remedied by supporting most of the weight with your left hand on the lens. Maybe a grip would sort that out.
Click to expand...
I have a 50D but it's not been delivered yet.

And yes, 450D with a grip is pathetic, but once you add a grip it makes it a lot more manageable.
 
The reason why the 50D is recommend over the 400D/450D for motorsport is related to the shutter and autofocus lag for each camera. Basically the time it takes once the shutter has been depressed for the camera to recover before taking another image and probably the main difference between the 2.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=133929

Link posted by Desantnik on above thread.
http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/shutter-lag.html

There are other advantages between the 2 camera's, but personally its also down to the photographer at the end of the day getting the most out of his camera, a friend is still happily shooting away motorsport/aircraft on a 350D with a sigma 80-400mm lens, he's adapted to the limitations of the equipment and is still taking fantastic shots, it's not always down to the camera with all the bells and whistles, but the person using it.
 
Motorsport photography relies on the technical performance of your kit. Faster AF, longer sharper glass, high FPS and smallest possible shutter lag.

Other forms of photography maybe aren't quite so technically focused, but in this game if you want to turn in a large amount of good and sharp photos like you see in the magazines, you need the best equipment out there.

You won't get the high volume of keepers without the expensive kit and you won't get the magazine style without the expensive long glass either.

I'm sure people will argue, but its true.

Is it possible to take a satisfactory motorsport photo with lesser kit? Yes certainly, but it will be *more* hit and miss than with the better kit. Just depends how much money you have and how serious you are about the subject.

Thats what the better kit does- it takes the hit and miss out of it, because in journalism you don't want to miss the shot because it can't be recomposed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top