Richard RS
Member
California basic sales tax is 8.25% but you will not get that low in many urban areas. Los Angeles County is 9.75% or higher.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Honest opinion, is the 50D that much better than the 40
- Thread starter dalephill
- Start date
flyingmonkey
Senior Member
I own a 40D and have decided to wait for a more substantial upgrade than the 50D.
That said, if you can get a 50D for only $100 more than a 40D, then I would get the 50D, no question, if only for one feature - AF microadjustment.
Several hundred bucks more? I'd stick with the 40D.
Thanks for the response, Joe. I've read alot of your posts and you seem very level-headed and knowledgeable with your responses.
It's crazy, I've been going back and forth in my mind about what to buy. I've got an original digital rebel that I wish to upgrade. $$ has been saved so I'm ok there. I've read about the Loyalty program and the $629 price, and so it seems like this is a no-brainer. BUT, two things stop me given that I really don't ever intend to spend top $$$ on L glass... 1) the 60d will probably be released in Feb, and, given the reports of "softness/noise" (right or wrong) on the 50d, Canon will probably do some things to aid this issue. BUT, the cost will be ~$1300 vs $629 for the 50d (loyalty program). 2) With all the swirling chat about "noise" and "softness", especially with "lower quality glass", it just gives me pause and some concern. I know $629 is an awesome price, and that I can now buy another lens (wide angle) with extra $$ I have saved, but again, its the concerns about IQ.
Sorry, tell me I'm crazy for pausing and convince me that 50d thru loyalty program is way to go... Please!!!
It's crazy, I've been going back and forth in my mind about what to buy. I've got an original digital rebel that I wish to upgrade. $$ has been saved so I'm ok there. I've read about the Loyalty program and the $629 price, and so it seems like this is a no-brainer. BUT, two things stop me given that I really don't ever intend to spend top $$$ on L glass... 1) the 60d will probably be released in Feb, and, given the reports of "softness/noise" (right or wrong) on the 50d, Canon will probably do some things to aid this issue. BUT, the cost will be ~$1300 vs $629 for the 50d (loyalty program). 2) With all the swirling chat about "noise" and "softness", especially with "lower quality glass", it just gives me pause and some concern. I know $629 is an awesome price, and that I can now buy another lens (wide angle) with extra $$ I have saved, but again, its the concerns about IQ.
Sorry, tell me I'm crazy for pausing and convince me that 50d thru loyalty program is way to go... Please!!!
Colin Smith1
Senior Member
I own them both. I sure like the higher resolution and brighter LCD on the 50 better and being able to control all the settings from the LCD is a really nice improvement. The landscapes from the two camera look different, the 40 is smoother and more blended, and the 50D has more detail when cropped, but quality is very similiar otherwise - a flea's hair worth of difference.
--
Colin Smith
--
Colin Smith
sudirdjo
Senior Member
What, you don't accept heavily post-processed images from just one camera as evidence of superiority? Boy are you picky!
jamesfrmphilly
Senior Member
no txt
Thanks but don't let my head fool you (refer to self portrait in signature).
Relax, I understand the anguish you are going through but trust me, it's nothing compared to going in for a colonoscopy ... just relax.
There is no "softness issue" with the 50D camera ... picture sharpness is limited by the lens plus camera resolution. The 50D's resolution is quite high and won't be a limiting factor for you ... if you want to remember just one thing then remember that resolution is your friend.
As far as noise is concerned there is virtually zero difference between the 40D and 50D on a per-picture basis (refer to the link below for my comparison).
http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia/50d_vs_40d_resolution_and_noise
Note, I have no clue what the price of the next xxD body will be.
Look, I don't blame you for keeping an eye on the wallet. That said, here is some free advice ... don't close your eyes to the purchase of an L-lens when it makes sense (e.g. 17-40, a great lens at a price to match). Stay away from the fast L-lenses and you will save a ton of money (e.g. 70-200 f/4L IS, as good as Canon's best primes in that focal length range and comes at a great price compared to the f/2.8 version).
If you want a nice setup for general purpose landscape and walk around photography I can't think of a better combination than a 50D/17-40/28-135.
Oh, just so you know ... the 17-40 comes with a hood designed for use on a FF body and I'd advise you to buy the hood for the 24mm f/1.4 lens and use that instead. Additionally, the 28-135 does not come with a hood and I strongly advise you to purchase the Canon hood (as versus a cheap rubber hood) for that lens.
Also, just so you know ... the 50D refurb is available in kit form with a 28-135 refurb lens at a very attractive price (I think the kit was only another $103 but you will have to check on that).
BTW, folks that are really interested in photography never stop thinking about the broad expanse of genre and how they would like to do this or that; trust me on this.
So, if in the future you turn out to be a WA freak (or often find yourself FOV limited) then consider the 10-22 (or when conditions are favorable, shoot a pano sequence).
Additionally, if in the future you decide shooting wildlife is the cat's meow then I strongly advise you to look in the opposite direction of your wallet ... that genre is pricey as a minimum and can be VERY expensive. IMO the 70-200 f/4L IS with or without a 1.4X is a good starting point ... if telephoto close-ups are your thing then consider the 100-400 instead of the 70-200 (because the MFD of the 100-400 is smaller than that of the 70-200).
Hey, no problem, it never hurts to pause and think (especially if you are about to walk down the aisle). Okay, here you go ... the 50D refurb is the way to go "if" your old camera qualifies ... there, I said it!
Regards,
Joe Kurkjian
Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia
--
SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT
R Valentino
Senior Member
No text
springbock
Senior Member
So you already bought the 40D? I guess you can still return it for the 50D + $100.
You chinced over $100.00? If I were you I would return and buy the 50D refurb.
BTW... the noise is the same between the 2 despite the 5 extra MP's. I used to post quotes and links to 15 web review sites verifying that the 50D had a resolution advantage along with similar or better noise. But I gave up, no amount of evidence got through to some members, it was as if they had big condoms on their heads, nothing got through. These people continued to spew their pro 40D (10mp) mantra every chance they got, and it appears to have influenced some readers.
Recently I posted a number of pics, as others did, disproving the supposed 50D softness claim. Have you read the softness one yet?
. Mine are near the bottom of the page.Take a peek if you care to.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1019&thread=32804314&page=2
Do you also realize that the 40D's max. iso is 3200?
JAK gave you sound advice but he made a mistake on one point. The minimum focusing distances between the 70-200 f4 IS and the 100-400 f5.6L. The 70-200 f4 IS focuses closer.
--
'The truth is rarely pure and never simple' Oscar Wilde
You are correct to bring up that point, thanks! I should have qualified my statement to mean ratiometrically (i.e. filling the frame identically with an object) as versus an absolute distance. For example, if you shoot the 200 at half the distance of the 400's MFD you will not be able to obtain focus on the 200.
I've taken Canon's Lens chart and compared focal length (maximum focal lengths for zooms) and MFD, macro lenses are of course pretty good, also pretty good are the 100-400 and 28-135. Just compute the ratio of MFD to focal length (smaller is better) and you will see what I'm talking about.
The 400 f/5.6 and 800 f/5.6 are pretty bad from the standpoint of MFD ... if you must get close enough to fill the frame with a small bird an extension tube will be necessary with either lens.
Regards,
Joe Kurkjian
Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia
SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=32832354
Regards,
Joe Kurkjian
Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia
--
SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT
Regards,
Joe Kurkjian
Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia
--
SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT
springbock
Senior Member
Absolutely, no disagreement here.... So at 200mm the 70-200 focuses closer than the 100-400 @ 200, and when we slap on that 1.4 tc. and reach 280mm the 70-200 focuses closer than the 100-400 @ 280. But I'm curious, how does the 70-200 f4 IS + 1.4 tc @ 280 compare to the 100-400 @ 400? Are they close to ratio-metrically?
--I've taken Canon's Lens chart and compared focal length (maximum focal lengths for zooms) and MFD, macro lenses are of course pretty good, also pretty good are the 100-400 and 28-135. Just compute the ratio of MFD to focal length (smaller is better) and you will see what I'm talking about.
The 400 f/5.6 and 800 f/5.6 are pretty bad from the standpoint of MFD ... if you must get close enough to fill the frame with a small bird an extension tube will be necessary with either lens.
Regards,
Joe Kurkjian
Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia
SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT
'The truth is rarely pure and never simple' Oscar Wilde
Good lord, people why does this camera get such a bad rap. The way i see it if you have a 40D there is no reason to get a 50D. Same as if i had a 50D i wouldnt get a 60D. Its better to skip an edition then upgrade every year. To be goin back and fourth like this is just annoying. Your either a canon guy or gal or not. Spend more time making pictures then worring about gear.
dalephill
Senior Member
ha ha ha California
--
Bless Those that smile upon us, and allow us to take their picture.
--
Bless Those that smile upon us, and allow us to take their picture.
dalephill
Senior Member
I went ahead and did it, bought the 50D but there out of stock, maybe 2 weeks before they get them in unless you get it with the 28-135 lens thn there in stock. its only another 159 dollars with the 28-135 lens heck you can seel the lens and make your 50D that much less.
--
Bless Those that smile upon us, and allow us to take their picture.
--
Bless Those that smile upon us, and allow us to take their picture.
dalephill
Senior Member
Ultimately it comes down to reading a few posts that just give you that same sence that you already knew what your gonna do in the first place..
--
Bless Those that smile upon us, and allow us to take their picture.
--
Bless Those that smile upon us, and allow us to take their picture.
dalephill
Senior Member
I went ahead and bought the 50D traded in the ole died 10D for 695 tax and shipping, there out of stock for a week or so, I coul dhave gotten the body and 28-135 lens, its in stock for 159 dollars more. will just wait for the body for now. thanks guys, I was gonna get it anyhow, just wanted a push.
--
Bless Those that smile upon us, and allow us to take their picture.
--
Bless Those that smile upon us, and allow us to take their picture.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum