Should I get a 40D or 50D ??

I am about to buy a 40D or a 50D. I can still get both brand new from retailers here in the UK and I am lucky enough to be able to afford either, but which one should I get?

A few months ago I read a number of different threads here which seemed to suggest that the 50D is not as good a the 40D, taking all factors into consideration.

Please help. Thanks.

--
Lid

Probably you should wait till the end of August to check if a new 60d will come out as all rumors around say.

If you dont want to wait you just need to check if the price difference from 40d to 50d is worth for you.

Ill have to say that it really justifies! 50d is better than 40d in every aspect except number of pictures with a fully charged battery.

--
http://www.pedroxmoreira.com

lid said:

A few months ago I read a number of different threads here which seemed to suggest that the 50D is not as good a the 40D, taking all factors into consideration.

Please help. Thanks.

Click to expand...

It's always dangerous to try to speak for other people, but as a 50D owner (who didn't own a 40D, but has used one) I think the 50D is a clear improvement. At the image level, it is no worse, and in some circumstances clearly better.

The concensus (such as it was) was probably that the 50D was an improvement over the 40D, although for many people not enough of an improvement to justify an upgrade if you already had one.

The only thing about the 50D that may be worse is high ISO noise. It is clearly worse at the pixel level, but with good NR software, at the image level, it appears that you can end up with a similar amount of noise while retaining more detail.

That has to be balanced against more megapixels, focus microadjust, and an improved LCD, as well as some minor improvements to autofocus, weathersealing, and live view.

Apart from the agreed virtues of the 50D such as the better rear screen, lens focus microadjust and the quicker Digic 4 processor, the 50D's 15 megapixel sensor provides unrivalled resolution for an APSC Canon.

Much has been written about high ISO performance but with RAW conversions through DPP and judicious use of NR, the 50D produces images with very similar noise characteristics to the 40D but with better detail.

In my opinion the 50D is clearly superior to the 40D - not enough of an improvement for someone to upgrade, but certainly enough of an improvement to be the best choice between the two.

If you can save a few hundred dollars, I would get the 40D and put the difference towards more lenses, flash, etc.

I do not have the 40D. I do have an XTI with the same sensor and similar processing. I do have the 50D. on a subjective level and with the right lenses, the 50D has a significant increase in resolution with remarkable image quality. You need to consider the glass you are using on the 50D and make sure that it matches the resolution of your sensor. check out photozone.
--
http://digitalphotonut.zenfolio.com/

DPR review said that dynamic range not as good as 40D and high ISO worse than 40D.

lid said:

I am about to buy a 40D or a 50D. I can still get both brand new from retailers here in the UK and I am lucky enough to be able to afford either, but which one should I get?

A few months ago I read a number of different threads here which seemed to suggest that the 50D is not as good a the 40D, taking all factors into consideration.

Please help. Thanks.

--
Lid

Click to expand...

I sold my 40d and bought a 50d for one feature, AF micro adjust.
I will not own another phase detect autofocus camera without this feature.

If you own or plan to buy any high speed lenses tbs feature is critical to avoid disappointment. I got on the micro focus bandwagon after testing 2 40d's and noting a pretty significant difference in where each camera focused the same lens.

I expect phase detect autofocus to be obsolete at some point in the not to distant future. The system is incredibly complex, expensive to manufacture, and really doesn't work that well when compared to contrast detect autofocus for accuracy. Also phase detect does not support autofocus during video recording.

I think the handwriting is on the wall for the demise of phase detect autofocus.

the DPR review is wrong. I kept the 40d when I purchased the 50d to do my own comparison. After shooting youth sports in poor lighting I sold the 40d, I found the 50d to be better in all areas. But, that's my experience only, I'm sure others will disagree.

Danny

I agree with Pedro. At this point, if you can, you might as well wait a few weeks to see what the 60D may bring to the table.

As for 40D vs 50D, it really comes down to personal preference and price. For my use, the upgrades in the 50D were not important enough so I opted for the savings and put that money towards a better lens. The one feature I wish the 40D had is AF microadjustment, but for me it was not worth the $400 more the 50D cost at the time (now I think the difference is less).

There are many drama queens on this forum who endlessly debate the image quality differences between the 40D and 50D but in actual use the differences are really minimal. Each may have a slight advantage over the other in some situations but I wouldn't get hung up over this issue.

Either way, they are terrific cameras and you can't really go wrong with either. As for the 60D, who knows?

you are absolutely right DPR Blew it on this one and now will not admit the mistake but that's OK. It let us know they are human and make mistakes just like the rest of us....

Cal

Put a Canon to your head, You deserve it....

http://funshots.smugmug.com/

I've owned the 40D and the 50D. I would buy the 50D over the 40d if I had to make the choice again. I really like the my 50D. It's a great camrea!

2005magnum said:

I do not have the 40D. I do have an XTI with the same sensor and similar processing.
...

Click to expand...

Not arguing with the main point of your post, but the difference in image quality between the XTi and 40D is very significant. I have both cameras. The XTi has poor noise performance. I would not use the XTi above iso 800, but regularly shoot my 40D at 1600.

14-bit processing was introduced with the 40D, and it seems to have made a huge difference in high-iso IQ.

--
JerryG

My galleries at:
http://www.pbase.com/jerryg1

The measured the camera's default tone curves when you shoot JPG.

They also used a clearly inferior RAW converter for their noise tests, and focused on pixel-level analysis.

If you want to know what the sensor is capable of, go to DXOmark.com. They do both full-sized and normalized-size analyses, and indicate that the 50D is actually better than the 40D for DR when image-sizes are normalized. (Although the difference is very small.

Quite frankly, I don't think any of those differences are large enough to be noticeable in practical use - essentially, the cameras are identical in noise and DR characteristics at the image level.

All else being equal, get the 50D. No the IQ isn't much different, but I don't think it's worse overall. And the bigger LCD screen and, more importantly, microadjustment, is worth a few bucks.

Now if the price difference is substantial - more than 2-300, then it's a different story.

Although I may know what you mean by ( Image Level ) could you explain that for clarity sake? I am thinking you mean at the size it will actually be printed vs. at 100 percent view on the monitor.

HotspurJr said:

The measured the camera's default tone curves when you shoot JPG.

They also used a clearly inferior RAW converter for their noise tests, and focused on pixel-level analysis.

If you want to know what the sensor is capable of, go to DXOmark.com. They do both full-sized and normalized-size analyses, and indicate that the 50D is actually better than the 40D for DR when image-sizes are normalized. (Although the difference is very small.

Quite frankly, I don't think any of those differences are large enough to be noticeable in practical use - essentially, the cameras are identical in noise and DR characteristics at the image level.

Click to expand...

--

Thanks to you all for what you share so freely, It's my hope to be able to help others as
well.

and had early copies of both cameras so I now have about 2 years on the 40D and almost 1 year on the 50D. I can find no differerence in IQ between them except for more resolution for cropping with the 50D and a slight bit more detail. Noise, for all practical purposes, is identical. The 50D does seem to meter scenes in Evaluative a bit more to my liking too.

The biggest difference for me is the AF micro-adjust which the 50D has the 40D does not. I can only use my 100~400L and 300f4L on the 50D as both require focus adjustments and neither focus properly on the 40D. This really limits the versatility of the 40D for my use. I will never buy another DSLR without AF Micro-adjust.

I should also qualify that my experience is based on shooting RAW files exclusively with both cameras and converting with Canon's DPP.

Bob

lid said:

I am about to buy a 40D or a 50D. I can still get both brand new from retailers here in the UK and I am lucky enough to be able to afford either, but which one should I get?

A few months ago I read a number of different threads here which seemed to suggest that the 50D is not as good a the 40D, taking all factors into consideration.

Please help. Thanks.

--
Lid

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron

Greg Biggs said:

Although I may know what you mean by ( Image Level ) could you explain that for clarity sake? I am thinking you mean at the size it will actually be printed vs. at 100 percent view on the monitor.

Click to expand...

Pretty much.

DxoMark normalizes to 8MP for an 8x12 print, I believe.

This is one of the most important things to understand when comparing cameras: when you compare 100% zooms, you are comparing images at different levels of magnification. Imagine comparing a 2ft wide print to a 3ft wide print - clearly, you would expect the narrower print to be sharper when you put your nose up to it, right? That is, more or less, what you're doing when you compare a 40D to a 50D at 100x magnification.

This results in come curious inversions. For example, if you look at the images at 100x, the lower-MP image will usually look sharper, because you're essentially magnifying it less. But if you look at them at the same image size, the higher-MP image will look sharper, because it contains more fine detail (all else being equal, of course). I admit to not really understanding how this effect works with DR - intuitively it's very easy to understand with sharpness and with noise, but DR? That one's trickier.

That being said, the best way to compare cameras is to compare the results as YOU typically use them. 4x6-ish images on the web? 8x12 prints? This is why the phrase "pixel-peeping" is somewhat derogatory: while it's useful to help you understand the results you're ending up with, nobody actually looks at photos that way, so it can be a rabbit hole you dive into without actually improving your final results.

Hello! I was in your EXACT position a week ago. I decided on the 50D (upgraded from 400D/XTi). Both 40D and 50D function virtually the same, but in the end the LCD screen, microadjust, and new processor made me choose it over the 40D. The price difference was about $150 between the two, new.

The downside is the RAW files - they are huge so make sure you have enough HD storage.

You will be a HAPPY CAMPER home boy. : )