40D to 50D, worth it?
- Thread starter Dawn B
- Start date
- Messages
- 5,881
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I guess that depends on what you shoot.
If the 40D is holding you back in some way that the 50D won't then it is worth it.
I understand the 50D has better noise handling than the 40D and you also have greater potential for cropping while retaining detail.
If the 40D is holding you back in some way that the 50D won't then it is worth it.
I understand the 50D has better noise handling than the 40D and you also have greater potential for cropping while retaining detail.
cosmix3
David Sullivan
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Stuart
- Edit My Images
- No
Have thought of doing that myself, and was lucky enougth to get my hands on a 50D to try, to be honest I would say stick with the 40D unless you want the extra pixels, as for noise, with the settins right the 50 is better, but as of yet not had any real issues with noise on the 40.
Canon Bob
Loves the Enemy
- Messages
- 9,754
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Personally, I don't think on an image by image basis that the 50D's noise handling is noticeably better than the 40D. However, given that there's 50% higher pixel density with similar noise characteristics then it can be assessed as an improvement.
Bob
Bob
CT
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You must be thinking of the 5DMK2 with the movie mode.
I have a 40D and a 50D. I'd say the upgrade is definitely worth it, especially if you need the pixel/crop advantage. The 40D is an excellent performer, but the 50% extra pixels and better noise performance of the 50D is in another league quite honestly. I can get shots at high ISO's with the 50D which I just can't with the 40D - even with noise processing in editing.
- Messages
- 832
- Edit My Images
- Yes
CT
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Cedric, I think he must be thinking of the new 500D
As for the initial question, well, I would personally have the specs of both cameras side by side and see the differences and then decide if they are worth the upgrade!
Of course - I forgot about the 500D.
I think it's only with use that you'll appreciate the difference between these two cameras. I've been using the 50D for a few months now and I'm only just learning to get the best out of it.
- Messages
- 808
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Unless for reasons stated above (cropping and noise etc...) then I wouldn't go for it. I have a 40D and persuaded an (insane) friend to let me borrow his 50D, in all honestly I like my 40D more (perhaps its cos i'm more used to it?)
On that basis I would say its worth either spending the cash you have on some nice lenses, or keep saving till you have enough for the next level up -go "fully pro" with your gear?
On that basis I would say its worth either spending the cash you have on some nice lenses, or keep saving till you have enough for the next level up -go "fully pro" with your gear?
OP
- Messages
- 2,466
- Name
- Well Dawn of course!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Unless there is a specific feature you need, I wouldn't do it. In fact, I haven't done it. So far, my upgrade path has been to change with every-other new model, so maybe I'll go with the 60D someday.
If you have some dosh, the oufit in your profile does not go any wider than 28mm which most people would find very restricting. Sell one of those duplicate longer lenses.
If you have some dosh, the oufit in your profile does not go any wider than 28mm which most people would find very restricting. Sell one of those duplicate longer lenses.
- Messages
- 808
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thank you, sounds like good advice.
no probs! also the 50D and friends are all quite new, if you really want one it might be worth waiting a while until the price goes down a bit! anyway, so far I can't find anything that my 40D can't do that a 50D can!
hope you have fun with whatever it is you end up buying!
Canon Bob
Loves the Enemy
- Messages
- 9,754
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Interesting one Aleksander....what is it in its usage that you find different?
Bob
- Messages
- 808
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I dunno! I know that they are pretty much the same looks and interface wise...
I used the same lens on both models too. I think it was just subtle differences that I sub-conciously didn't like. Also I did notice that the weight-distribution was slightly different on the 50D. -I know thats one tiny incredibly anal point, but being used to the 40D i found it just slightly odd. but if I used it for any longer that would go away in no-time!
Perhaps its just my attachment to the 40D - I treat it as if it were the family pet
OP
- Messages
- 2,466
- Name
- Well Dawn of course!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thanks Hoppy.
I tend to do portrait stuff in the main, so the lenses I have suit well at present. I understand your point and will take it into account when pyrchasing a new lens. Thank you for your advice.
Canon Bob
Loves the Enemy
- Messages
- 9,754
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think you'd be better off looking towards a 5D rather than a 50D if portraiture is your thing.
Bob
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes, I wondered about that too, but on checking the very detailed test on DPReview
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/ then there's an explanation. Taken from the conclusion of that review it says:
"Conclusion - Pros
Detailed and clean image output (but not as detailed as we would have expected from a 15 megapixels sensor)
Chroma and luminance noise well controlled at higher sensitivities..."
and later:
"Conclusion - Cons
High ISO performance worse than 40D
Reduced dynamic range in the shadow areas compared to EOS 40D
Per-pixel detail not as good as on good 10 or 12 megapixel cameras..."
This seems to be saying that the 50D is better than the 40D at normal ISO settings, but not as good as you might expect from the very high pixel count. And at high ISO it is slightly worse. There is further explanation in the link.
Also in that conclusion, the review makes an intriguing point about this camera being more sensitive to camera shake: "Considering the disadvantages that come with higher pixel densities such as... increased sensitivity towards camera shake..." And furthermore, "High-end lenses [are] required to get the most out of the camera."
Which I take to mean that unless you are using the very best lenses, such as L primes, and shooting at around f/5.6 to get the very best out of them, then you're not going to realise the benefits of 15mp.
The point about camera shake is one rarely made in relation to pixel density, but it is a good one. That is, camera shake is always present to some degree but with high shutter speeds (and IS) it can be reduced to insignificant levels. However, if the sensor has exceptionally high resolution potential, then the threshold at which camera shake becomes a problem is correspondinly lowered. It's fascinating that we've now reached the stage where this until-now hypothetical problem has become a reality.
It would be very interesting to see what all this means in practise. Just how good does a lens have to be? Which lenses can actually cut it? And what exactly is the impact on camera shake, in terms of stops? Is it really significant?
CT
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The 50D was launched with an unheard of number of pixels on a crop sensor and all the doom mongers forecast disastrous noise with that pixel count. Canon actually claimed a one stop increase in noise performance over the the 40D. We now know that the 50D came with Highlight Tone Priority and Auto Lighting Optimiser enabled by default. Both these settings are intended for jpeg shooting only and have quite a severe effect on noise if enabled for RAW shooting. How many of those original reviewers were aware of this I don't know, but not many I'd wager, so the brickbats were inevitable.
Both the following shots were taken within seconds of each other, the first with the 50D, 500mm f4L and 1.4 TC - the second with the 40D, 300mm 2.8L and 2X TC.
Both were shot at 1600 ISO in dull light. Both are substantial crops. Both were shot in RAW format with no sharpening applied either in camera or at the RAW stage.
Both shots have had NR run just on the bg and the normal sharpening one would expect to have to apply to an image reduced to 800 pixels on the longest side.
The significant point is that I've started applying sharpening to the 40D image which is already showing pronounced noise in the bird's underbelly despite the fact that the image is still soft. Further sharpening will just further amplify that noise and any other noise present in the image.
The advantage here isn't just down to the 1 stop noise advantage (which I believe is real) it's due to the originally cropped image being dramatically physically larger in the case of the 50D. The smaller the original cropped image, the larger any noise is going to be even when the image is reduced in size to 800 pixels on the longest side, and that is bound to have a significant effect on the quality of the final result.
It's possible of course to produce a decent quality image from the 40D version, but it will require a lot more work in processing and even with further sharpening, it wont be resolving the fine detail of the 50D version.
I'm not trying to convince anyone that the 50D is the camera for them, but given my preoccupation with shooting small birds with long lenses - the advantages for me are real and very siginificant. Depending what kind of photography you're into, your mileage may vary and you may well be served better by a full frame sensor and less dense pixel count, but on this showing if Canon can give me more pixels on a crop sensor with this level of performance - I'll take 'em please.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Fair comment. But aren't the camera defaults and user settings only tagged to the Raw file as a template that can be removed in post processing? Sure, if they are not manually deleted in DPP or whatever then they will be indelibly applied to the JPEG, but Raw is still essentially Raw (ie unprocessed, uncooked if you like) and straight off the sensor in 100% original form, without these presets applied. Is that not the case with the 50D?
CT
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
NR = Noise reduction - software which reduces visible noise in digital images. There are stand-alone versions of NR software and plugin filter versions, some free and some not free.
They're all designed to be run on the entire image, but I've yet to see one which doesn't have an adverse effect on the main subject in the form of smoothing which reduces fine image detail. For that reason, I run NR just on the background, selecting the background only with the magic wand mask tool till I have tight mask around the main subject, then running NR just within the mask.
I use Paint Shop Pro and just use the noise reduction filters within the package.
CT
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's not the case when using DPP software. Any Picture Style settings applied within the camera will be tagged and applied to the RAW file along within any sharpening within that Picture Style Setting. Certainly the settings can be 'untagged' within DPP, but many people just don't realise these jpeg settings are being applied initially to the open RAW image.
The same appears to be the case with ALO settings with the adverse effect on noise we're now aware of. Whether it can be 'untagged' from a RAW image once applied I'm not sure, I'll have a look later, but it's something you just don't need applying with RAW images in the first place.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Thanks CT. That is how I understood it, and I assume that ALO etc can indeed be untagged, surely it can be in DPP at least? And I cannot believe that DPReview were not fully aware of all this when they did their test and arrived at those conclusion I posted quotes from earlier.
TBH, it was DPR's conclusions that led me to believe that the 50D was not much of a step up from the 40D for me. I await the result of your investigation with interest
CT
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well I'm off out Hoppy, but I'll have a look later. On a quick look it's interesting that the only control within DPP for ALO settings isn't accessed via the RAW image tab, so there may be no 'undo' function for a RAW image.
The DPR review was probably the worst review of the 50D - not all reviewers came to the same conclusion.
The DPR review was probably the worst review of the 50D - not all reviewers came to the same conclusion.
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've recently gone from a 40D to a 50D. My 40D shutter broke after approx 35-40K actuations and I had it replaced under warranty so took the opportunit to upgrade.
So I've put about 2500 shots though it in 3 weeks in all aspects of shooting, football, rugby, motorsport, portrait, party/nightclub etc and I'm very happy with it.
It's supposed to be 10grams lighter but I don't notice, it feels exactly the same and significantly better balanced with my lenses than the 400D I had to use as a spare. It just feels right. Battery life is as good as the 40D with both original Canon and my enhanced batteries.
The added sensor size means you can crop harder, so you get better shots over a distance - i.e. birds. ISO performance is excellant, even at high settings i.e. 3200, especially since I've changed the default settings as mentioned on here. I'd say noise is better on the 50D. Shots I took at a party on Saturday night were great.
Write speed to the CF cards is faster, but file size is significantly larger, meaning I've gone from approx 280 shots on a 4Gb card to 180 shots. Allow for extra disk space on your computer accordingly.
I thought the info screen (press in the joystick) was a gimmick, but it's actually really useful.
I'd say it's definitely an improvement.
So I've put about 2500 shots though it in 3 weeks in all aspects of shooting, football, rugby, motorsport, portrait, party/nightclub etc and I'm very happy with it.
It's supposed to be 10grams lighter but I don't notice, it feels exactly the same and significantly better balanced with my lenses than the 400D I had to use as a spare. It just feels right. Battery life is as good as the 40D with both original Canon and my enhanced batteries.
The added sensor size means you can crop harder, so you get better shots over a distance - i.e. birds. ISO performance is excellant, even at high settings i.e. 3200, especially since I've changed the default settings as mentioned on here. I'd say noise is better on the 50D. Shots I took at a party on Saturday night were great.
Write speed to the CF cards is faster, but file size is significantly larger, meaning I've gone from approx 280 shots on a 4Gb card to 180 shots. Allow for extra disk space on your computer accordingly.
I thought the info screen (press in the joystick) was a gimmick, but it's actually really useful.
I'd say it's definitely an improvement.
- Messages
- 144
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
All very interesting and thank you for the comments.
I think then, in summary, the additional pixel count gives you a better picture when cropped giving you more flexibility.
With regard to noise, if you have more pixels to play with in your crop then noise will also be better.
I have found with the 40D that I have got reduced noise by turning off the Highlight Tone Priority for RAW images. I do not use Jpeg. This also opens up ISO 100 which I use whenever possible.
An interesting debate though!
I think then, in summary, the additional pixel count gives you a better picture when cropped giving you more flexibility.
With regard to noise, if you have more pixels to play with in your crop then noise will also be better.
I have found with the 40D that I have got reduced noise by turning off the Highlight Tone Priority for RAW images. I do not use Jpeg. This also opens up ISO 100 which I use whenever possible.
An interesting debate though!