1D2 to 50D?

ThatCanonGuy

I'm considering moving from my 1DII to a 50D, or maybe a 40D. I really like my 1D2's sensor, the build, the 8fps, and the AF. But I'm not shooting as much sports as I used to, and the 50D should do fine with most of my sports uses anyway. I just don't like how heavy my 1D2 is for normal shooting. Most of the time it's handheld, and it's heavy. I just bought a 20D, which is much lighter. It's a fine backup camera, but I'd want the features of the 50D to replace my 1D2. I also like live view, and the 1D2 and 20D don't have that.

So I'm wondering, how's the 50D? Image quality, AF, high ISO, live view, etc. Is it worth it? Is it worth the extra over the 40D?

jhefti

The 50D was my first serious dSLR, and I still use it from time to time. It has a burst rate close to the 1D2, and the image quality is pretty good. I can't compare it directly to a 1D2 as the closest I have is a 1D3 that I use as a back-up at sports events. It is certainly lighter that a 1-series and performs well for the money. Low light performance is iffy, at least compared to a 1D4 and a 5D2, but still usable with good glass. It has a more solid feel on the shutter than my 5D2 has, but a clunky shutter is a well-known quality of the latter. I'm sure the build is not as solid as your 1D2, but that really only matters if you abuse your cameras as much as I do. (I once pulled my 1D out of a Pelican dry box, only to find it half immersed in river water! But I dried it out and it has worked fine ever since.)

ThatCanonGuy

Thanks jhefti . I've used a 5D2 before and liked the build and feel. From what I know, the 50D is similar to the 5D2. I think the 50D build is good enough.

jhefti

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

Thanks jhefti . I've used a 5D2 before and liked the build and feel. From what I know, the 50D is similar to the 5D2. I think the 50D build is good enough.

Actually, the 50D feels more solid to me than my 5D2, but it is very similar in size and feel otherwise aside from the much crisper shutter on the 50D.

Matthew Saville

In my opinion, unless you can find one used for an absolute steal, there are better ways to spend your money. What price point are you looking at, and is the 7D within your reach? I know there's probably a considerable price gap, but the 7D is just a more long-term choice.

Having said that, the 50D is the most affordable Canon DSLR to have the high-res LCD screen and AF microadjustment, two features which I find essential yet which the 40D does not have. So, if you're just looking for a general all-around camera, without too much concern for high ISO performance or the latest menu customizabilities, then hes the 50D is the PERFECT camera. What do you plan to shoot with the camera, by the way? A 50D plus something like the 10-22 EF-S would make a wicked landscape / architecture etc. camera setup!

=Matt=

ThatCanonGuy

Yeah, the 7D is out of my price range. I'll be shooting some PJ/street stuff, some nature, landscapes, etc (take a look at my website). I was thinking that I could sell a few lenses and get a 24 1.4L Mark I. I really like the 35mm focal length (24 * 1.6 = 38.4), and I really like wide aperture lenses. I'd like the 24 Mark II, since it's sharper wide open, but that's out of my price range. I can just use the Mark I at f2, or sharpen wide open images.

I've been using a friend's 5DII recently, and I really like the weight and screen compared to my 1DII (5DII shows banding at ISO 6400, I couldn't believe it .) The 50D is supposed to be similar. Of course, the smaller sensor... but it probably won't be that much of a difference from the 1DII sensor? Maybe a bit better IQ? The new sensors seem to have better colors, warmer tones... that's what I'm looking for.

Matthew Saville

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

Yeah, the 7D is out of my price range. I'll be shooting some PJ/street stuff, some nature, landscapes, etc (take a look at my website). I was thinking that I could sell a few lenses and get a 24 1.4L Mark I. I really like the 35mm focal length (24 * 1.6 = 38.4), and I really like wide aperture lenses. I'd like the 24 Mark II, since it's sharper wide open, but that's out of my price range. I can just use the Mark I at f2, or sharpen wide open images.

I've been using a friend's 5DII recently, and I really like the weight and screen compared to my 1DII (5DII shows banding at ISO 6400, I couldn't believe it .) The 50D is supposed to be similar. Of course, the smaller sensor... but it probably won't be that much of a difference from the 1DII sensor? Maybe a bit better IQ? The new sensors seem to have better colors, warmer tones... that's what I'm looking for.

Ya know, I too just LOVE the ~35mm equivalent for walk-around stuff. I've taken my D300 and an old 24mm f/2.8 everywhere, and done just fine with it as long as I don't need higher than ISO 1600 or 3200. I mean it's casual shooting after all, so I don't worry that much about the per-pixel sharpness in low light.

I don't know how big of a difference in price it would be but it sounds like you could also consider a 5D mk1 and the 35 f/2, that might treat you well. A little handicapped when it comes to sports though, and maybe the 50D is a bit more versatile since it has those AF microadjustment and LCD upgrades that I was mentioning. Personally, I'd go for a 24 f/2.8 or something on the 50D, and call it a day. If you could afford the 24 1.4 mk1, then that'd be sweet, but either way it sounds like a 50D might be a great casual shooter. I don't imagine it would keep you happy for as long as a 7D would, but it could still deliver amazing results for quite a few years.

Good luck!
=Matt=

ThatCanonGuy

Yeah, I think I want the 50D. The 24 2.8 would be nice price-wise, but the 1.4 has that bokeh and USM motor. I could go with the 24 f/2.8, but if this is the lens I'll be using most of the time, I think I should buy something really good.

NeilL

The 50D does have some advantages over the 40D, as Matt said. However, my impression from a pretty extensive cover of online user comments is that the IQ from the 50D is not up to the 40D.

Between the two, it might come down to the condition of the actual camera you get in your hand - actuations, accidents, mainteneace, etc. A top condition low use sample of either camera would be very satisfying to have. Personally, all things being equal, I would favour a 40D. Over that I would favour a 7D. Can you wait a while, 6mo or so?

Neil

ThatCanonGuy

NeilL wrote: »

The 50D does have some advantages over the 40D, as Matt said. However, my impression from a pretty extensive cover of online user comments is that the IQ from the 50D is not up to the 40D.

Between the two, it might come down to the condition of the actual camera you get in your hand - actuations, accidents, mainteneace, etc. A top condition low use sample of either camera would be very satisfying to have. Personally, all things being equal, I would favour a 40D. Over that I would favour a 7D. Can you wait a while, 6mo or so?

Neil

Yeah, I have heard that the 40D IQ is better. But I think that for me, the higher-res screen and AF microadjustment would outweigh that. Unless it's a big difference in IQ, which it doesn't seem to be (?).

I could wait... in 6 months the 7D price will probably have dropped a bit, and I will probably have saved up a bit more... I could buy a 50D now and sell it then, hoping it doesn't devaluate much. Or I could do the same with a 40D... hmm, now I have some decisions to make. Thanks for the suggestion! I could try a 40D now, since it's cheaper than the 50D, and then sell it for a 7D later... or for a 50D sooner, if I wanted more LCD pixels. I've done without AF microadjustment so far. Something to think about.

OK, bring on the 40D vs 50D debate!

mrcoons

I'll add fuel to the fire. I loved my 40D and still do but a while back I picked up a used 50D to back up my 7D. But I was never quite satisfied with the image quality, nothing I could define they just weren't as good as the 40D. I recently decided to sell some gear to get a 5D2 and the 50D went first. But I still have my 40D. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

ThatCanonGuy

mrcoons wrote: »

I'll add fuel to the fire. I loved my 40D and still do but a while back I picked up a used 50D to back up my 7D. But I was never quite satisfied with the image quality, nothing I could define they just weren't as good as the 40D. I recently decided to sell some gear to get a 5D2 and the 50D went first. But I still have my 40D. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Thanks! Just curious, did you see a big difference in the 50D screen quality vs the 40D?

Also, if I remember correctly, the 40D was the first camera to have live view. Is the live view as good as the 50D's?

I would like the UDMA capability on the 50D. Then again, I've done without it so far.

NeilL

I chimp now mainly to check for gross problems of composition and focus. I have never used live view. So I have found the 40D screen to be adequate. The more experienced/able to predict I get with controls and the more intelligently I use the histogram, the less I fuss with the screen. I have also developed the habit, when I can, of shooting multiple versions of a shot, eg closer/wider crops, so to increase my chances of getting the right framing and also a well focused image.

I can control most factors in making an image, but the bottom line of IQ, what the camera and lens *can* give me, is out of my control. So I use gear where that bottom line is darned good

Neil

mrcoons

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

Thanks! Just curious, did you see a big difference in the 50D screen quality vs the 40D?

Also, if I remember correctly, the 40D was the first camera to have live view. Is the live view as good as the 50D's?

I would like the UDMA capability on the 50D. Then again, I've done without it so far.

I would say they are about the same. I actually never used Live View until I got the 7D. I don't recall ever using on the 40 or 50.

codrus

Keep in mind that to properly compare image quality of cameras with different pixel counts (like the 40D and 50D) you need to view images at equal print sizes, and avoid pixel peeping. When viewed at 100%, the 50D will show lens imperfections that the 40D cannot, due to the significantly higher pixel density. Most of the "50D is worse than 40D" threads from a few years ago focused on ISO noise when pixel peeping.

Used prices on the 40D and 50D are probably close enough that the AF microadjust and LCD are worth it by themselves. The 7D is a bunch more, but offers a bigger jump in useful features (video being the biggest, but also significant ISO noise improvement, better battery management, and I think it has the ETTL flash controller capability in the built-in flash).

Personally I haven't seen the 7D as being enough better than the 50D to be worth upgrading.

--Ian

paddler4

I haven't used the 40D, but faced with this choice 2 years ago, I opted for the 50D for three reasons: MFA, the better screen, and the freedom to crop more severely. My recollection is not all that clear now, but with respect to image quality, my recollection was similar to what codrus wrote: at equal image sizes, the image quality of the 50D is comparable. I have had no complaints.

50D, 100mm L macro, single shot:

Matthew Saville

codrus wrote: »

Keep in mind that to properly compare image quality of cameras with different pixel counts (like the 40D and 50D) you need to view images at equal print sizes, and avoid pixel peeping. When viewed at 100%, the 50D will show lens imperfections that the 40D cannot, due to the significantly higher pixel density. Most of the "50D is worse than 40D" threads from a few years ago focused on ISO noise when pixel peeping.

Used prices on the 40D and 50D are probably close enough that the AF microadjust and LCD are worth it by themselves. The 7D is a bunch more, but offers a bigger jump in useful features (video being the biggest, but also significant ISO noise improvement, better battery management, and I think it has the ETTL flash controller capability in the built-in flash).

Personally I haven't seen the 7D as being enough better than the 50D to be worth upgrading.

--Ian

I'm also a believer in the "pixel density factor" that can skew many reviews. People don't realize just how INSANE it is to cram +10 megapixels into a crop sensor, and what that does to exaggerate both lens defects and camera shake. Nikon users went through this when they jumped from the 4 megapixel D2H to the 12 megapixel D2X; they had to re-learn how to hand-hold all over again. You basically have to DOUBLE your "shutter speed rule", at the least. If you're rockin' 15-18 megapixels on a crop sensor, gone are the days of casually popping off 50mm shots at 1/60 sec and expecting every shot to be tack-sharp. Remember, the shutter speed rule was invented back in the days of FILM, when resolving power was a totally different ballgame, and when 99% of photos were only ever viewed as 4x6-8x10 prints.

So, while I agree that there may be a slight difference in per-pixel image quality in favor of the 40D, (AA filter, ISO performance, whatever) ...I'm still largely in favor of the 50D's sensor for general shooting. The extra resolution is worth it both when cropping candids, and when NOT cropping landscapes. ;-)

Practicing good hand-holding technique, nailing your exposures, and being carefully generous with sharpening / noise reduction....these things will take you a LOT further than simply deciding to go with one camera over another...


=Matt=

ThatCanonGuy

OK, one thing I hadn't considered was the DOF difference between the 50D and the 1DII. Would the 24mm f/1.4 on a 50D be close to a 28mm f/2.8 on a 1D? I'd rather have option 1, but it's a lot more expensive... just looking for options.

jhefti

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

OK, one thing I hadn't considered was the DOF difference between the 50D and the 1DII. Would the 24mm f/1.4 on a 50D be close to a 28mm f/2.8 on a 1D? I'd rather have option 1, but it's a lot more expensive... just looking for options.

The DOF should be the same on both cameras. It's tempting to believe that, since a crop sensor appears to give you a longer focal length (which it really doesn't), that the DOF will behave accordingly. Think of it this way: If you take a shot on a FF sensor and do a 1.6 crop in the post, will your DOF change? No, for obvious reasons. Apply this same logic to different crop sensors and you'll get to the same conclusion. DOF is only a function of aperture, focal length and distance to subject, nothing else.

ziggy53

jhefti wrote: »

The DOF should be the same on both cameras. It's tempting to believe that, since a crop sensor appears to give you a longer focal length (which it really doesn't), that the DOF will behave accordingly. Think of it this way: If you take a shot on a FF sensor and do a 1.6 crop in the post, will your DOF change? No, for obvious reasons. Apply this same logic to different crop sensors and you'll get to the same conclusion. DOF is only a function of aperture, focal length and distance to subject, nothing else.

While that's entirely true, when you work with the same subject and try to keep the same size relationships in the image frame, "your" position, relative to the subject, must change. The result is that the apparent DOF will change. That's why there is the "conception" and "perception" of a different DOF. It is a result of the shift in relative position to the subject.

ziggy53

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

OK, one thing I hadn't considered was the DOF difference between the 50D and the 1DII. Would the 24mm f/1.4 on a 50D be close to a 28mm f/2.8 on a 1D? I'd rather have option 1, but it's a lot more expensive... just looking for options.

These are 2 very different lenses. The Canon EF 24mm, f1.4L USM (or version II) will give very good DOF control on the Canon 50D body. I believe that the combination will yield more DOF control than a Canon 1D series body* and Canon EF 28mm, f2.8.

When in doubt check with:

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

---

*(Excluding the Canon 1D X, of course.)

ThatCanonGuy

Thanks guys. The DOFmaster link helped

The I would definitely prefer the 50D + 24L, but it's $700 more. I've just spent a solid hour looking around at my options, and I think I've decided. I used my 1DII + 20/2.8 today. I could deal with the weight. I think I'll keep my 1DII for now. I'm going to sell my 20/2.8 and 28-105. I'll buy the 28mm f/1.8 - that will be a great walkaround lens (close to 35mm) on my 1DII. I'll also get a 17-40L as my standard zoom. My setup will look like:

1DII
17-40L | 28mm f/1.8 | 50mm f/1.8 II | 70-200 f4L | 100-300 USM

Then next year, hopefully I'll be able to get a 50D and a 85mm f/1.8.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!