5dmk1 vs 50d

phildaintith

phildaintith

Messages
325
Name
phil
Edit My Images
No
right, i currently have a 40d and am looking to upgrade while payday has finally arived- i am unsure which to go for - i know that id have to change a few lenses if i was to go for the 5d but i really need to know which is better in low light conditions? as i generally shoot in low light
 
I have not used the 5d but currently own a 50d and i really like it. I am sure i have read numerous times though that it's not much of an upgrade from a 40d so i'm not sure whether that would be a big enough jump for you, although you would only be talking £100 more than you would get for your 40d.
 
Different people seem to have differentresults in low light with the 50D, in theory the greater number of MP over the 40D should make it 'noisier', I dont have a 40D but I have both a 1D (mk 2 - 1.3 crop & 8 MP) and a 50D, the 1D is much better at a high Iso than the 50D.
5D vs 50D will be even more noticeable in terms of IQ and noise at high ISO, BUT, no idea how good the 5D AF is in low light, so if it cant focus it wont get a better shot.
I wouldnt upgrade from a 40 to a 50 though as my 50 is noisier than an old 10D I have and from what I have read the 40D is better than the 10D, so a 50D will probbaly be a downgrade in terms of Iso performance. The 50D has some qualities over the 40D that means moving from say a 10/20 the 50D would be the better choice (caveta the Ios performance), but not a good move from 40 to 50 seems the conventional wisdsom. Might make sense to move to a 7D though.

Matt
 
I've owned both. 5D is a very capable camera. Well worth the upgrade. You say you do a lot of low light stuff, I presume using your 50mm hand held and Tripod, bean bag with the slower lenses. Keep the 50 and maybe try to get a 24-70 2.8 to go with the 5D. If the L is too expensive I've heard good things about the Tammy equivalent. I loved the 40 but the 5 suited my style better.
 
Hardly impressive in these 5-digit ISO times, but I find ISO 1600 very usable on my 5D.
 
Judging from the photo's in your Flickr stream the majority of the shots you create are essentially landscape shots with creative use of lighting.. So the ISO issue is less profound as you would normally use low ISO and long shutter speed to achieve the shots you are after anyhow. I also don't think a 50D would be an upgrade over the 40D consider the 7D more of a worthwhile upgrade IMHO.. The 5D has a cracking sensor and is probably more suited to the type of photography already mentioned. It will also give you greater control of depth of field being full frame. BUT I also feel you may be left a little disappointed by the features and focus system both being very basic!! Add to that the fact that you will be left with just one usable lens? I would consider the 7D. But of course only you can make the decision..:thumbs:
 
i went from a 40D to a 5D, and boy did I fall in love with the full frame sensor. For a fairly old camera, the 5D certainly packs a punch and is a bargain at current 2nd hand prices. As mentioned previously, I found 1600 ISO very useable. Granted the AF system is a bit off every now and then, but I never shot any fast action shots with it anyway, and found that I may need to focus/recompose a little more here and there.
 
combat squirrel said:
Thats a common misunderstanding 5D@3200 -1 exposure compensation = ISO 6400, and doing that on my 5D mk1 wipes the floor with my mates 50D at iso 6400.

Just so ya know ;)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here??:thinking:
 
onform said:
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here??:thinking:
Click to expand...

iso 3200 and 1 stop compensation recovered in photoshop after gives you iso 6400, sort of.
 
i don't think that technique is actually usable though in real world situations is it? Using that psudo ISO effect is all well and good on a flat white surface with lines on but in the real world if you don't have ISO 12800 you don't have it! Noise is at its worst in the shadows of a poorly exposed photo. Increasing the exposure in PP only highlights the problem even more! Surely! i'm going to try this later and see for myself..
 
mart77 said:
iso 3200 and 1 stop compensation recovered in photoshop after gives you iso 6400, sort of.
Click to expand...

I don't understand, if you're using compensation doesn't that mean it slows down the shutter or opens the aperture even more? Not exactly a true test.
 
The poster meant -1 stop (half shutter speed) at ISO 3200 is ISO 6400 in shutter speed terms (of course) - but you'd need PP to increase all the levels. Obviously noise will be very prevalent.
 
ofcourse it isnt an entirely accurate like for like substitute, however it is very similar in logic. ISO is an in camera process for increasing exposure overall at the expense of image grain/definition, and PP increase in exposure is a similar mathematical process for increasing exposure. Although you cannot say theoretical post PP 12800 ISO from one camera is better/worse than 12800 coming straight out of the camera, and should only serve as a proxy.
 
5d classic, no contest

UNLESS
no live view is a deal breaker
dodge screen is a deal breaker
1/160-1/200 is a deal breaker
 
pearce_jj said:
The poster meant -1 stop (half shutter speed) at ISO 3200 is ISO 6400 in shutter speed terms (of course) - but you'd need PP to increase all the levels. Obviously noise will be very prevalent.
Click to expand...
What they used to do in film days. Underexpose and push in development.
 
trencheel303 said:
I don't understand, if you're using compensation doesn't that mean it slows down the shutter or opens the aperture even more? Not exactly a true test.
Click to expand...

It means that but it is a fair comparison.

In literal terms you are creating 1 stop of compensation, wether you do this via shutter speed, aperture or iso does not have to matter, ISO just gives us a much clearer numerical comparison that shutter speed or aperture.
ie 6400 is double 3200 and is therefore 1 stop higher.

If you just see all 3 as entirely inter-related when it comes to exposure then you are testing the exposure possibilities of the cameras fairly as you are testing the exposure limits of each camera given what they can do.

AS the 5d mk1 cant do iso 6400 it cant be tested BUT it can perform the same exposure. either by adjusting shutter or aperuture or simply pushing one stop in PP.
 
MatBin said:
I wouldnt upgrade from a 40 to a 50 though as my 50 is noisier than an old 10D I have and from what I have read the 40D is better than the 10D, so a 50D will probbaly be a downgrade in terms of Iso performance.
Matt
Click to expand...

See I bang my head at misinformed stuff like this. I presume you were viewing both at 100%, so you're comparing a 6mp camera to a 15mp one. Try viewing each image as a like for like size on the screen then see which is better.

If you're shooting landscapes then ISO rating doesn't matter, it's just a longer exposure on the tripod. I'd go for the 5D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top