canon 50d

P

Photographic_l

Messages
123
Edit My Images
Yes
i posted before about getting a 40d, but now i think i'll spend a little extra and get a 50d. is it worth the extra money?
 
the 50d is a very capable camera, the metal body and higher FPS and larger rear screen are a big help, and the ability to microadjust lenses is also.

Personally i would look for a good quality second hand one HERE *cough*



:D
 
40D is better. There is less noise, and files come out sharper. I'd go 50D only if you shoot wildlife, use primes, or need microadjustment (not really good for zooms), or just want sharp and uber-saturated LCD. 40D is cheaper, so more cash left for the glass.
40D delivers perfect A3 prints, possibly A2 but I've never tried. It is suitable for Alamy, and others.

I have 40D in the classifieds. I will probably do away with 50 soon as I don't really shoot wildlife, and 1DsII puts it to shame at anything else.
 
admirable said:
larger rear screen
Click to expand...

40D and 50D have the same size screen, it's just the resolution that's different....;)

I've umm'd and ahh'd plenty of times whether to switch to 2 x 50D's but the differences just aren't big enough, to bother changing.....however if I was starting from scratch, I'd probably go with the 50D just because it's the newer camera. That said, the 40D is very hard to fault for the money! :thumbs:
 
The 40D does have a metal body and the same fps as the 50D
 
40D reportedly has better noise control over the 50D.

I wish I hadn't sold my 40D last year I should have kept it as a backup for my 5d2 which I'm growing less enchanted with :(
 
The 40d had higher fps than 50d I believe, 6.5 vs 6.3 ?
Oh and a larger frame buffer 75 vs 60 when shooting high speed :-)
 
Last edited:
leeboy22001 said:
The 40d had higher fps than 50d I believe, 6.5 vs 6.3 ?
Click to expand...

Another example of Canon marketing rubbish when 40D was released.

It was found the next day 40D did 6.3fps in the real life. Canon updated the manual for 50D to reflect the reality.
 
Photographic_l said:
so is it definately better to get a 40d?
Click to expand...

No. If you dont mind paying a bit more, the 50D is the better camera in my opinion - and its an unbias one!

I've just upgraded to one from a 400D. I was lucky enough to try 3 cameras in the run up to my upgrade, the 40D, 50D and 7D (the 7D of which I had on loan). I thought there wasnt much in it between the 40D and 50D until I pushed the ISO up past 800. At 1600 you could see significant noise on the 40D, but with the 50D I was shooting indoors at 2000 ISO plus with no signficant noise! Perfect for my indoor equine stuff. Even past 2000iso, I find the noise on the 50D to be very 'clean' if that makes sense, more like fast 35mm film grain than what we are used to seeing with digital noise. Its almost on par with the 7D in that repect.

I found the colour rendering better on the 50D, with far less colour noise, than the 40D and of course its a much higher resolution sensor, useful if you need to crop.

I ended up going with the 50D as I fell in love with it and its fast ISO capability, and got a barely used one for a complete steal (and I couldnt afford a new 7D body!)!

Oh and its as sharp as a very sharp thing, even with my 55-250 which I really must replace now with the 70-200L!
 
Last edited:
£535 not including the px with my 400D - and that was with London Camera Exchange. Only 6 months old with 2k shots on the clock. Most of the stuff in the box was still in its sealed wrapping! :)
 
Last edited:
Digitally speaking I've only used the 50D, however I have A3 & A2 prints which are perfect as far as I can see Probably quite a bit heavier than the 40D, but I can't fault mine at all.
 
jim_j said:
Digitally speaking I've only used the 50D, however I have A3 & A2 prints which are perfect as far as I can see Probably quite a bit heavier than the 40D, but I can't fault mine at all.
Click to expand...

Actually the 50D is 14g lighter than the 40D!
 
I can't offer much feedback on a 50D, but I was unsure what to go for a few months back.

A lot of people on here advised I go for the 40D, which I did, and to be honest, I love it.

When I do upgrade, I will be going to a 7D.
 
DP Review list them both, with battery, as being 822g.
 
The 50D is a great camera for wildlife particularly. For a while we shot with a 50D and a 40D side by side and there was no getting away from the fact that the 40D images suffered in comparison - so much so that we got another 50D. Hardly surprising really considering the 50D has 50% more pixels.

I'm not rubbishing the 40D by any means it's an excellent camera and if you can fill the frame with your subjects then a lot of these pixel count considerations are neither here nor there, but for reach and cropping the 50D will remain a great wildlife choice for quite some time to come.

The other thing is that with it's larger file sizes 50D images will need a lot less interpolation than the 40D to reach 50mb image library sumission sizes.
 
I had the misfortune to own a 50D - worst body I've ever owned - low ISO noise is apparent in the background area's of a photo , i didn't like the metering. Have a look here to compare sensor info
 
CT said:
The other thing is that with it's larger file sizes 50D images will need a lot less interpolation than the 40D to reach 50mb image library sumission sizes.
Click to expand...

No need to do anything to them, out of camera RAW convert to 16bit tiff I get 86Mb from a 19Mb RAW file
 
50d is nicer handling with its MUCH better screen and has a few incremental improvements in terms of AWB and AF.

The high noise thing was fixed by firmware in mine, one of the updates gave me basically a stop better results (not using any NR inc the in camera)
 
I liked my 50D. Regarding print sizes, I have poster size print from the 50D, taken in low light and there is no noise on it at all. The resolution is excellent.
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
Firmware never did **** for me.........
Click to expand...
I find most problems are more about how you use equipment, understanding it and getting the max out of it. one how was this test done? was it jpg right out of camera? I bet it was. was the camera setting at default if so not a good thing.
I do not find may of the test down to be much help look at the ones in mags how often do they say one thing one day and different the next..
The only real truth is try it yourself. and get to know how to use it. I have tested my 7D and posted 100% crop of ISO 12800 I look out some high ISO from teh 50D and look at then asap
 
Chaz Photos said:
I find most problems are more about how you use equipment, understanding it and getting the max out of it. one how was this test done? was it jpg right out of camera? I bet it was. was the camera setting at default if so not a good thing.
I do not find may of the test down to be much help look at the ones in mags how often do they say one thing one day and different the next..
The only real truth is try it yourself. and get to know how to use it. I have tested my 7D and posted 100% crop of ISO 12800 I look out some high ISO from teh 50D and look at then asap
Click to expand...


Chaz why post high ISO shot i had issues with low ISO - Ive not had any issues with any other bodies over the last 30yrs - if you want to understand how the test were carried out why not read the definition on the site ?

looking at their customers i would think they know what their doing

Our current customer base is worldwide and includes key players from the digital imaging industry:

Most DSC/D-SLR manufacturers use DxO Analyzer today:
Fujifilm
Kodak
Nikon
Olympus
Panasonic
Pentax
Ricoh
Samsung
Sigma
and others...
 
You can shoot and get poor noise from any camera, I managed it from a 5D mk2 I borrowed last week. Thought my 50D was performing much better. Noise was clearly visible at ISO 100 but it was down to the way I was exposing.

I've had a 40D, now got a 50D. Overall the noise is at least one stop better over the 40D. I'll happily shoot 1600 ISO with the 50D and push to 3200 with some noise software. I found both cameras similar at low ISO's in everyday use.

I had no issues after turning off the noddy settings, as documented on a thread on here somewhere
 
to back up my comments here are photos of the same image taken at 1000 ISO
first is full image second is 100% crop from a dark part which shows more noise then any other lighter parts
5084118540_8bde9bc2da_o.jpg

100%crop
5083524225_af088c330c_o.jpg
 
I've not had any issues at all with low iso noise. I havnt seen any noticeable noise until I push past 1600 iso on mine, and this is looking at an unprocessed raw.
 
Threads like this are always frustrating, because unlike the many great images we see on the board taken with the 50D, the detractors never seem to publish examples of these terrible noisy images or link to raw files where the possible cause might be established. I'm the first to admit you can get a bad example of any camera, but that apart some of the views on the 50D are the polar opposite of my experiences using two of them very regularly.

This is a link to a full size 50D file - straight from the RAW with no processing whatsoever. Taken at 800 ISO which I used with the 50D by default a lot of the time.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4108/5083524377_d37895739c_o.jpg
 
CT said:
Threads like this are always frustrating, because unlike the many great images we see on the board taken with the 50D, the detractors never seem to publish examples of these terrible noisy images or link to raw files where the possible cause might be established. I'm the first to admit you can get a bad example of any camera, but that apart some of the views on the 50D are the polar opposite of my experiences using two of them very regularly.

This is a link to a full size 50D file - straight from the RAW with no processing whatsoever. Taken at 800 ISO which I used with the 50D by default a lot of the time.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4108/5083524377_d37895739c_o.jpg
Click to expand...

how true

shame you striped the EXIF from it..
 
Chaz Photos said:
Because if you have noise you get more in high ISO and if you can get good low noise at high ISO then any lower will be better... easy.
Click to expand...

Yes Chaz i had worked out a low ISO produces less noise than a High ISO - posting a ISO 1000 picture has no relevance to a ISO200 image though does it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top