Reasons to get a 50D....New question post #11

Robbo

Robbo

Messages
3,962
Edit My Images
Yes
Well I had a quick shot at some rugby tonight, about half 7. cloudy and dull

I had to bump the ISO to 1600 to get shutter of 1/400 to 1/600 ...which I wasnt raving about.

I also figured out that my camera is struggling to keep up with me during burst, then a few snap, few burs then a big pause while it sorts its buffer out. Resulting in a few missed good shots.

Noise reduction sorted out the high iso, But left it slightly softer than I had wished.

So......

my conclusion to convince myself into a new camera body :naughty:

I need higher iso up to 3200 in poor light to give me shutter speeds I need at dark times. And also less noise in other high ranges over my 450D

Faster fps, and also a faster buffer to keep up with more shooting etc.

Plus the other benefits I would get from the 50D.

:clap:
 
I got to the point where I was still happy with my 450D for the majority of the time, but the ISO performance just wasn't where I needed it. Now, if I'm doing sports, theatre, or anything in low-ish light (just did an election debate), I stick it onto ISO 3200 straight away and forget about it. Sometimes I lower it if my shutter speeds are comfortably high, but otherwise it's not a cause for concern, and I can just get on with shooting.

One word of warning, the 6.5 fps gets dangerous if over-used, I went through a whole card in a matter of minutes when I first got mine :D

Edit: Last term I shot a fair bit of sport on my 50D. Most notably floodlit rugby (:eek:), and I was SOOOO glad I upgraded!
 
You might get a bit of a let down with the 50D high ISO performance as well you know...
 
chris321 said:
I got to the point where I was still happy with my 450D for the majority of the time, but the ISO performance just wasn't where I needed it. Now, if I'm doing sports, theatre, or anything in low-ish light (just did an election debate), I stick it onto ISO 3200 straight away and forget about it. Sometimes I lower it if my shutter speeds are comfortably high, but otherwise it's not a cause for concern, and I can just get on with shooting.

One word of warning, the 6.5 fps gets dangerous if over-used, I went through a whole card in a matter of minutes when I first got mine :D

Edit: Last term I shot a fair bit of sport on my 50D. Most notably floodlit rugby (:eek:), and I was SOOOO glad I upgraded!
Click to expand...

dont get me wrong I love my 450D...but starting to find some parts I need to move up with...I am hoping to keep it as a back up, depending on money.

I can image! me being snap happy to lol lucky I have 3 8gb cards lol
 
DekHog said:
You might get a bit of a let down with the 50D high ISO performance as well you know...
Click to expand...

how do you mean a let down?

is there not much difference between that and the 450?

tbh, If I can get better noise up to 1600 than my 450 that will do be in most of my cases, its only been this once where I thought, hmm 3200 would be handy.
 
Ah, right...I thought you were expecting far better quality-wise from the 50D at 3200 than the 450 at 1600 - you obviously just want the 'extra stop' but without being too bothered about the quality... :bonk:
 
DekHog said:
You might get a bit of a let down with the 50D high ISO performance as well you know...
Click to expand...

Really? Not still quoting the often disputed initial reviews are you? I have no problems with mine at low light situations, it easily shoots one ISO up from my 40D and 2-3 up from my 400D backup.

If you do get one, read the hints on the custom modes to turn off.

The other thing of course is what lens are you using? I've switched from the 100-400 (f5.6 most of the time) to the 70-200 f2.8 (set to f2.8) and it's made a huge difference. Not only do you get to pop people out from the backgrounds, but also a higher shutter speed at a lower ISO.
 
the higher iso is mainly for my 70-300 4-5.6

the BG blur isnt a major issue for me at the moment, if needs be I blur the bg through various PP processes.

i was mainly after the 3200 for them tricky situations when it would be better to get the shot than totally miss it.

and lower iso compared to the 450 from 400-1600...

I really wanting the 70-200 2.8 IS but money at the minute is pretty non existent for that.

I am happy with the quality I can get with my 70-300, but its the body that limiting me on various things at the minute more than the lens. as in fps, faster buffer, iso etc. plus I get any general extras over the 450d
 
one daft question

as the 50D has a higher MP over the 450d, it has a little bit better crop factor.

so....on all the comparison test I have seen are shown at 100% crops.

So....if I am only cropping in the same amount as I would have done on the 450d pictures, the noise will be slightly less on the 50d as I wont be cropping in as far aswell?

as its when I crop that the noise starts to show more.

if that makes sense?
 
andrewc said:
The focal length crop factor for 35mm is still x1.6

It has higher pixel density so you can crop harder.
Click to expand...


yes so what I mean is...say I have to crop in 50% on the 450d, it would only be say 40% on the 50d.....so as im not cropping in as much, technically, then the iso wont show up as much either, as I dont have to crop in as far % wise.

That make sense at all?
 
I understand what you are saying, so sort of yes.

The mistake people make with the higher res cameras is to pixel peep at 100%, 15 or 18mp cameras are always going to show more noise at 100% than a 8-10mp one.
 
DekHog said:
Ah, right...I thought you were expecting far better quality-wise from the 50D at 3200 than the 450 at 1600 - you obviously just want the 'extra stop' but without being too bothered about the quality... :bonk:
Click to expand...

I wish the 450D went up to 3200 - it could easily manage it!


andrewc said:
The focal length crop factor for 35mm is still x1.6

It has higher pixel density so you can crop harder.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but using shoddy lenses (by comparison I mean; I don't know any 70-300s which are a patch on a good 70-200, which is why they are much more expensive) will just show up even more if you crop harder. So the guy will get a better body, and then realise he needs a new glass shortly after.

I think the real solution to this issue is better glass. Faster, better quality glass such as a 70-200 f/2.8 will allow higher shutter speeds, more subject seperation as well. You could stick a 1.4x on the 70-200, and STILL have the advantage! I don't believe in spray n' pray at the worst of times, (and I think high FPS bodies just encourage sloppy behaviour) but with a better glass, it shouldn't be needed, negating the need for a better body.
 
The thing is I don't have 1.5k spare to spend on glass...I would only want te 2.8 is and then another lumped to spend on the 1.4x...... Which would still leave me with a slow body which will make me miss shots after bursts.


I don't believe having fast fps makes you lazy, it's to capture the perfect moment in sports and other fast stuff.... Higher rate of keepers, try getting it on single shot. If that was the case all cameras should be 1fps

the 70-300 is considered very close to the 70-200mm f4, excluding build quality.
 
Robbo said:
the 70-300 is considered very close to the 70-200mm f4, excluding build quality.
Click to expand...

Trust me it's not. I had this lens and thought the same until I upgraded to the 70-200 F4 and was blown away by the difference, but really for low light you need the f2.8. It's two stops difference which will allow you to drop the ISO from 1600 to 400 for the same shutter speed.

You don't have to buy new, there's some great secondhand bargains around. I paid £1000 for a nearly new 70-200 f2.8IS and £300 for my 70-200 F4.

Keep an eye on the for sale forums on here and MPB
http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/
i.e. there's a 70-200 f2.8 IS for £849
http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/us...-fit-lenses/canon-ef-70-200mm-f/2.8-l-is-usm/

If you didn't want the IS, you could pick up the non IS for around £550-600
 
Only going from my research mate and a lot of comparison picture.

Brand new roughly the same price, except the 70-300 has IS and a extra 100mm...and from what I see in test, not much difference IQ, so for the same price I would rather go for 100mm extra and IS.
 
Byker28i said:
Trust me it's not. I had this lens and thought the same until I upgraded to the 70-200 F4 and was blown away by the difference, but really for low light you need the f2.8. It's two stops difference which will allow you to drop the ISO from 1600 to 400 for the same shutter speed.

You don't have to buy new, there's some great secondhand bargains around. I paid £1000 for a nearly new 70-200 f2.8IS and £300 for my 70-200 F4.

Keep an eye on the for sale forums on here and MPB
http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/
i.e. there's a 70-200 f2.8 IS for £849
http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/us...-fit-lenses/canon-ef-70-200mm-f/2.8-l-is-usm/

If you didn't want the IS, you could pick up the non IS for around £550-600
Click to expand...

You talking about the f/4 or the f/2.8? I've been looking at the f/4 on Amazon for that price, but if the f/2.8 can be had for that price I might try it and see how i get on with the weight!




Robbo said:
Only going from my research mate and a lot of comparison picture.

Brand new roughly the same price, except the 70-300 has IS and a extra 100mm...and from what I see in test, not much difference IQ, so for the same price I would rather go for 100mm extra and IS.
Click to expand...

Remember though that the IS won't help at all if you need to freeze the subjects. The only way you can freeze subjects in poor light is a fast lens - and as I said on't t'other thread, fast glass is pretty much synonymous with expensive glass.
 
trencheel303 said:
You talking about the f/4 or the f/2.8? I've been looking at the f/4 on Amazon for that price, but if the f/2.8 can be had for that price I might try it and see how i get on with the weight!






Remember though that the IS won't help at all if you need to freeze the subjects. The only way you can freeze subjects in poor light is a fast lens - and as I said on't t'other thread, fast glass is pretty much synonymous with expensive glass.
Click to expand...

yes I know the IS wont help, but I like it as it comes in handy for other shots etc.
 
If you are after the f/2.8 then it's worth considering the older 80-200mm 2.8L. They can be had for under £500 easily and the IQ is as good the current 70-200mm 2.8L in my opinion. It doesn't have IS but when you're shooting down at 2.8 and trying to freeze the action do you really need it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top