|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Canon 40D & 50D
What were the actual changes offered with the 50D when it came out. I'm buying a used camera and found a good deal on each. I'm just curious if spending an extra $100 is worth going with the 50D? Believe it or not, they both are real close in shutter count. Thanks, Gary May 18 13 10:17 am Link It's always good to view the comparison side by side. It's the only way I can usually decide between similar equipment. http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_4 … on_EOS_50D This comparison might be a lot better... http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech … able1.html If you're asking if I think it's worth the extra? Personally, I would say yes based on the increase in megapixel, improved high ISO range, and the upgraded sensor alone. May 18 13 10:24 am Link 50D is definitely a better camera than the 40D - I've owned both and at one time was using them interchangeably so I'm pretty familiar with their relative strengths and weaknesses. 1. 50D has better higher ISO performance. It's not great and obviously nowhere near as good as something like a 5d2, 7D or 5d3 but still a lot better than the 40D. 2. 50D has better AF, especially in poor light. 3. 50D's LCD screen is orders of magnitude better than the 40D both in resolution and also contrast, colour rendition etc. 4. 50D RAW files have better, cleaner pixels with more natural colours than the 40D. In this respect the files at 100% look a lot more like the old 20D or a 5d2, with the 40D files looking a bit 'smeary' and 'plastic' up close. 5. 50D's bigger files actually do seem a lot bigger and contain a lot more detail than 40D files. 6. 50D has AF micro-adjustment if you need it. 7. 40D shutters were arguably prone to early failure. My own 40D had to go back to Canon twice for a new shutter in less than 30k clicks overall whereas the 50D is still going strong. So yes, I'd certainly go for the 50D unless the 40D is really massively cheaper and you're willing to put up with its deficiencies to save a few dollars. Just my $0.02 Ciao Stefano www.stefanobrunesci.com May 18 13 10:37 am Link That was easy... Thanks! May 18 13 10:40 am Link I disagree. The 50D has 5 Million more megapixels. On Paper ( This is important!) the 50D has a higher ISO rating, however, Ive heard reports its quite noisy at high ISO settings. I went for the 40D end of line when I bought mine because Id read so many reports of people saying the higher ISO s were useless. To be honest the 50Ds may be better, but Ive never had the pleasure of using one,so maybe try both if you can. If you overexpose slightly, the 40D is good to 800 ISO. If you have a look at my website, all my Istanbul Street Photography at night was done on a 40D and they were the images I got straight out of Camera. I owned a 40D for 4 years and I think they are brilliant. Im a 5d2 owner now and in terms of ISO's its only a stop and a half better tops in order to get a clean image. May 19 13 04:19 am Link I owned both and the 50D was a better camera. The LCD was much better, liveview works just like any current DSLR, and the AF Microadjustment feature was a blessing if your lenses need adjusting. The 50D also felt more responsive. Even if you put the megapixel advantage aside, the 50D was a better camera. The 40D was good too and I'd have no problem using one, but I'd take a 50D over the 40D. May 19 13 03:38 pm Link I still use my 50D and often; over 30k clicks with no issues at all. The higher ISO is a bit noisy but if you aren't printing bigger than an 8x10 no one would notice it if you cleaned it up. I almost never use the higher ISO but it does have a better sensor as mentioned which is important. I also have installed Magic Lantern Firmware in it and it actually made the camera faster - focusing, shooting, and with hdr and a number of other features. Anyway, I wouldn't sell it. May 19 13 03:51 pm Link I have owned both cameras as well , purchased brand new at the time , LOVED the 40D , I was shooting weddings , Sports , Modeling and standard portraits with it. I needed a 3rd camera , and got the 50D and if I wasnt shooting sports I used this. Great solid camera all around , I myself could not notice much difference in the noise between the 2. The seemed very close all around. for a small price difference though def go with 50D May 20 13 06:19 am Link I owned a 40D and when the 50D came out most reviews said it was a bit of a dog. Canon hadn't yet figured out the microlenses on the sensor to allow for the higher resolutions. Canon has a track record of releasing cameras every 18 months, which is too short a cycle to really make huge improvements, so every other camera tends to be a bit of a dud. 20D was good, 30D meh, 40D good, 50D meh, 7D really good, 60D downgraded 7D. I would try for a 40D or a 7D Now that nikon has figured out how to cram 24 MP into a crop sensor maybe canon can do the same. They've been stuck on 18 for awhile. May 20 13 09:15 am Link I own a 40D. It's been a great camera, and I'm going to upgrade soon. But I'll be skipping the 50D and will be looking at either the 60D or 7D. May 20 13 09:25 am Link All of my pictures were shot with a 40D, love it. Not sure how much better the 50D is, but the 40D is "good enough". lol May 20 13 04:50 pm Link 40D is the camera that I use. It's even good up to iso 3200 as long as you don't plan on doing poster sized prints. I'd say you can even push it to iso 6400 in PP (I had to do this recently and the prints came out clean) and can get good clean prints as long as you don't print too big. May 20 13 11:11 pm Link I own and use both the 40D and the 50D. The 50D was slated by some reviewers because of it's ISO performance. My experience is that its high-ISO performance MAY be slightly worse on a per-pixel basis, but is equal to the 40D on a per-image rating (so when you print or resize for display, the 50D images will be at least as good as the 40D images, even in low-light). The 50D has a few advantages such as - LCD screen has twice the resolution - better live view mode - compatible with Magic Lantern (look it up if you like - firmware update that includes video recording, focus peaking and intervalometer) - significantly higher pixel count (giving bigger print sizes or more cropping options, at least at ISO 800 or below - see above). - microadjustment for lens focusing They are both very competent bodies, but the 50D is significantly better. May 21 13 05:18 am Link That Italian Guy wrote: +1 May 21 13 05:32 am Link I have a 40d as a back up to my 7d when doing weddings, I admit it gets very limited use but it preforms very well. I wouldn't dare shoot it over 640 iso but if its just studio and good lighting then you will be fine with it. May 21 13 05:35 am Link Ive had a 40D for 3 years and its a great camera. Have used it for a lot of concert photography too and had no problem shooting at 800 ISO. Most of my port is shot with the 40D. current shutter count is over 185,000 and still going strong. Have used the 50D too and to me it feels more clunky and no great improvement over the 40D. I now have a 2nd hand 5Dmk1 as my main cam and still use the 40D as a backup May 24 13 11:13 pm Link I've been using a 40D for all of my shoots up until the beginning of this year, and I've been really happy with it. Most of my port was shot with a 40D... One of the only things that made me upgrade was the ISO performance, but you are still able to get pretty decent results at ISO 800 (so long as you don't under expose and try to increase your exposure too much in post).  This shot was taken with a 40D at ISO 800, though I probably wouldn't want to go any higher than that to be honest with you. Another thing is the resolution of the LCD Screen. Although the screen size is the same as the 50D (3 Inches) the resolution of the screen on the 50D is higher. I used to find that my shots looked slightly out of focus on the back iof the 40D, but they were fine when I viewed the same photos on my computer. The 50D (though I've never used one in the field personally). Has more megapixels, and is capable of higher ISOs, but having never used one, I can't really comment on the ISO performance difference. They are both great cameras, but I think that if you're going to be shooting in low light, I'd swing more towards the 50D. If you can afford to, go for a 60D. May 25 13 02:52 am Link AMCphotography2 wrote: I have the 60D and it's been a good, reliable camera thus far. In the reviews I read there was not much difference between the 60D and 7D except that most reviewers lauded the better video quality of the 7D and I was not so much interested in that. May 25 13 10:17 am Link Well I just ended up buying both since I got a good enough deal on the two ($700.00). I hate it when I can't make up my mind. May 25 13 06:18 pm Link Warrenjrphotography wrote: The camera only goes up to 1600 ISO May 25 13 07:13 pm Link the af micro adjustment is reason enough to go with the 50 May 25 13 07:25 pm Link Gary Blanchette wrote: Congratulations! May 25 13 07:38 pm Link Yingwah Productions wrote: I hope you are right about canon figuring a way to get past the 18 megapixel mental block. May 25 13 07:46 pm Link Yingwah Productions wrote: 40D goes to ISO 3200 in-camera, with ISO expansion enabled and highlight priority disabled. May 25 13 07:49 pm Link HHPhoto wrote: Actually my main camera is a 5d. I'm going to use the 50D as a back-up and giving my son the 40D. There have been a couple of times I have considered moving up from the 5D but haven't simply because it has become such a part of me that I can't bring myself to part with it. May 25 13 09:10 pm Link |
