Is it worth it to spend an extra $100 for a 50d over a 40d?

[grant862]

Wanting to upgrade from my xti...narrowed it down to a 40d or 50d. I looked at all the differences b/w the two and am still undecided. I just use my slr casually, nothing professional nor will there be in the future. Ebay seems to have the 40d body for about $400 and a 50d for about $500. Is it worth it? (I do not care whatsoever about video capabilities - i saw online where the 50d can shoot video).

And I am on a tight budget (hence why I am questioning spending an extra $100), but I do not plan on upgrading after this purchase to a new body for at least a few years down the line, so is $100 more worth it to get the 50d?

Thanks

 

[Dale Buhanan]

Oh my, yes! The 50D gives you MFA, which alone is worth more than that small difference! Add to that the higher resolution of pictures in playback (so you can actually zoom in and see details and sharpness) as well as all the other upgrades the 50D gives, and you won't be disappointed.

By the way, I own a 40D so I am not disparaging that camera. Love the 40D. great camera. But the 50D is easily a better camera... I have that also.

Wanting to upgrade from my xti...narrowed it down to a 40d or 50d. I looked at all the differences b/w the two and am still undecided. I just use my slr casually, nothing professional nor will there be in the future. Ebay seems to have the 40d body for about $400 and a 50d for about $500. Is it worth it? (I do not care whatsoever about video capabilities - i saw online where the 50d can shoot video).

And I am on a tight budget (hence why I am questioning spending an extra $100), but I do not plan on upgrading after this purchase to a new body for at least a few years down the line, so is $100 more worth it to get the 50d?

Thanks

--
kind regards
Dale

 

[tonyjr]

I also had [ still have ] the XTI .
I bought the manuals on all 3 [ 40D , 50D and 7D .

I eliminated the 40D because mainly the AF and frame burst rate . That left me with the 50 D and the 7D . I went with the 7D for ISO and burst rate .
Yes the 50 D is worth the extra money
--
1st it's a hobby
7D gripped XTI gripped
Canon - efs 10-22 , 17-55 , ef 18-55 IS
EF 28-90 , 28 @ 2.8 , 50 @1.8 , 28-135 IS
L's 35-350 , 70-200 MK II IS
Quantaray lens 70-300 macro
Sigma 135 - 400 , 180 MACRO
2X III , Life Size converter
KSM filters for all
kenko auto tubes , EF 25

 

[jon lake]

For a mere $100, yes. I have 40d and love it, but for that relatively small difference, grab it. For the previously stated reasons. Resale value also better.

 

[grant862]

Thanks everyone...going with the 50d

 

[picsaregreat]

I own the 40d and the 50d. I would not be afraid to use the 40d for anything I shoot, but the 50d will be the one I choose first if I am going to shoot 1 camera. I use them both lots of times. I have a 70-200 f2.8 is and 17-55 f2.8 is. One on the 40 one on the 50. Which ever lens I use the most will go on the 50, the other on the 40. If I was to use only one camera it would be the 50d. Yes it would be worth the extra 100, especially if it is going to be some time before you get another body.

Jim

 

[Hank3152]

Thanks everyone...going with the 50d

I for one would spend more than $100 if there would be even a mere improvement in image quality, but per the DPR conclusion of the 50D review I'd reconsider. Although the MFA and high res LCD are attractive features, don't expect a significant, if any, increase in IQ.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page31.asp

Here's a recap of the Cons:

• High ISO performance worse than 40D
• Reduced dynamic range in the shadow areas compared to EOS 40D
• Per-pixel detail not as good as on good 10 or 12 megapixel cameras
• High-end lenses required to get the most out of the camera
• Poor white balance performance under artificial light
• Flash must be up for AF assist lamp (although AF is good even in low light)
• Live view not as accurate as on 40D (framing very slightly off-center, in contrast detect AF mode not possible to magnify right out to the extreme corners)

--
Regards,
Hank

 

[Alastair Norcross]

Thanks everyone...going with the 50d

I for one would spend more than $100 if there would be even a mere improvement in image quality, but per the DPR conclusion of the 50D review I'd reconsider. Although the MFA and high res LCD are attractive features, don't expect a significant, if any, increase in IQ.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page31.asp

Here's a recap of the Cons:

• High ISO performance worse than 40D
• Reduced dynamic range in the shadow areas compared to EOS 40D
• Per-pixel detail not as good as on good 10 or 12 megapixel cameras
• High-end lenses required to get the most out of the camera
• Poor white balance performance under artificial light
• Flash must be up for AF assist lamp (although AF is good even in low light)
• Live view not as accurate as on 40D (framing very slightly off-center, in contrast detect AF mode not possible to magnify right out to the extreme corners)

It feels like we're in a time warp. That review was thoroughly debunked years ago. Nobody who has used both disagrees that the 50D is better in every department.
--
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

 

[Hank3152]

It feels like we're in a time warp. That review was thoroughly debunked years ago.

Well, regardless, DPR didn't recant nor edit their conclusion and findings....... I was in the Nikon camp during that period and didn't read Canon threads ......

--
Regards,
Hank

 

[GregoryA]

Thanks everyone...going with the 50d

I for one would spend more than $100 if there would be even a mere improvement in image quality, but per the DPR conclusion of the 50D review I'd reconsider. Although the MFA and high res LCD are attractive features, don't expect a significant, if any, increase in IQ.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page31.asp

Here's a recap of the Cons:

• High ISO performance worse than 40D
• Reduced dynamic range in the shadow areas compared to EOS 40D
• Per-pixel detail not as good as on good 10 or 12 megapixel cameras
• High-end lenses required to get the most out of the camera
• Poor white balance performance under artificial light
• Flash must be up for AF assist lamp (although AF is good even in low light)
• Live view not as accurate as on 40D (framing very slightly off-center, in contrast detect AF mode not possible to magnify right out to the extreme corners)

It feels like we're in a time warp. That review was thoroughly debunked years ago. Nobody who has used both disagrees that the 50D is better in every department.
--
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

This review should be updated and corrected. Hard to believe that people are still getting this misinformation.

 

[springbock]

Thanks everyone...going with the 50d

I for one would spend more than $100 if there would be even a mere improvement in image quality, but per the DPR conclusion of the 50D review I'd reconsider. Although the MFA and high res LCD are attractive features, don't expect a significant, if any, increase in IQ.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page31.asp

Here's a recap of the Cons:

• High ISO performance worse than 40D
• Reduced dynamic range in the shadow areas compared to EOS 40D
• Per-pixel detail not as good as on good 10 or 12 megapixel cameras
• High-end lenses required to get the most out of the camera
• Poor white balance performance under artificial light
• Flash must be up for AF assist lamp (although AF is good even in low light)
• Live view not as accurate as on 40D (framing very slightly off-center, in contrast detect AF mode not possible to magnify right out to the extreme corners)

It feels like we're in a time warp. That review was thoroughly debunked years ago. Nobody who has used both disagrees that the 50D is better in every department.

I let out a big sigh when I read Hank's post. I actually had a flashback to the times when MAC was on a bizarre jihad against the 50D, man o man was he ever pig headed.

Anyway I'm glad you you chimed in for the OP's sake.

Tom

--
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

--
'The truth is rarely pure and never simple' Oscar Wilde

 

[riknash]

Grant, compared to your existing XTi. you won't be disappointed with either. If you like to review your photos on the LCD and actually be able to decide if they are keepers or not, the 50D will do much better than the 40D. In my opinion, the 50D is slightly noisier than the 40D but the 50D has a lot of other advantages that would positively influence selecting the 50D over the 40D.

I would suggest that you also peruse the Kijiji and Craigslist websites for your area for a few weeks as one never knows when a good deal may appear to you. Purchasing locally offers a significant advantage that you can check out the camera in person prior to plunking down any payment.

Wanting to upgrade from my xti...narrowed it down to a 40d or 50d. I looked at all the differences b/w the two and am still undecided. I just use my slr casually, nothing professional nor will there be in the future. Ebay seems to have the 40d body for about $400 and a 50d for about $500. Is it worth it? (I do not care whatsoever about video capabilities - i saw online where the 50d can shoot video).

And I am on a tight budget (hence why I am questioning spending an extra $100), but I do not plan on upgrading after this purchase to a new body for at least a few years down the line, so is $100 more worth it to get the 50d?

Thanks

 

[Mannypr]

I have been trying to get a Canon 50D at ebay and by what I have seen the 50D's do not go for 500 but more on the 600+ price bracket . On the issue of 40D vs 50D , having you said before hand that you will be using it as an amateur for ecleptic shooting you can be very happy with the 40D . But if the price difference you get is a mer $100 go with the 50D it's the newer camera (even though that necesarily does not make it the better camera but in this instance it could very well be)

On the subject of the 50D's reviews Dpreview is not the only reviewer who came to that same conclusion . In any event I have seen great pics taken with either . I'm a Nikon shooter and have very little experience with Canon Dslr but I do like Canon as much as Nikon ( that's why I'm trying to get my hands on a 50D ) and come to this forum to read and once and a blue moon I comment so take my say on the matter as what it is . Take Care .

 

[trulandphoto]

I would say yes, the $100 is worth it. I sold my 50D bodies to move to 5D bodies. But I just picked up an excellent used 30D to go with the 5D's for less than $300 on eBay.

--
http://trulandphoto.zenfolio.com/

 

[RedFox88]

With going from the Xti to the 40D you gain no better sensor and no resolution gain. Where the 50D you get 50% more pixels, micro AF adjustments compared to the 40D which does not have them. All you get going from an XTi to a 40D is a bigger body, better AF, more body controls, more fps.

 

[trulandphoto]

[...] All you get going from an XTi to a 40D is a bigger body, better AF, more body controls, more fps.

Plus a bigger LCD, live view, pentaprism, more robust battery.

Not an insignificant upgrade at all.

--
http://trulandphoto.zenfolio.com/

 

[carlk]

This review should be updated and corrected. Hard to believe that people are still getting this misinformation.

It was done by a couple of rookie reviewers, probably the first since Phil retired from writing reviews, but refusing to acknowlege the mistakes later on has left a black mark on DPR. I hardly ever read DPR reviews anymore.

 

[Sidekicker]

Though very similar to the 40D that it replaced, the 50D has definite feature advances that make it worth $100 more in today's used camera market. To me, the most important ones are AFM and the higher res LCD. I actually never needed to used AFM, but the better LCD is something that I greatly appreciate in the field every time I review a shot for focus. With the higher MP count, close cropping with the 50D results in a more detailed final image. I think you will like the 50D's improved user interface too - very intuitive. (Today my 50D does not get out very often, as I also have a 60D that I prefer to shoot with these days.)

 

[RedFox88]

[...] All you get going from an XTi to a 40D is a bigger body, better AF, more body controls, more fps.

Plus a bigger LCD, live view, pentaprism, more robust battery.

To the the rear LCD is insignificant towards photography. All I use it for is the menu, checking shot histogram and composition. Know your equipment and your photographic technique. Zooming into a recorded image to try and check focus is not the way to go about photography.

Not an insignificant upgrade at all.

It's a minor upgrade, but for many types of photos the results will be the same as the XTi.

 

[riknash]

This review should be updated and corrected. Hard to believe that people are still getting this misinformation.

It was done by a couple of rookie reviewers, probably the first since Phil retired from writing reviews, but refusing to acknowlege the mistakes later on has left a black mark on DPR. I hardly ever read DPR reviews anymore.

Too bad as DPR does an excellent job with their reviews. I would not hesitate to refer anyone to them as they are very comprehensive and complete. There are plenty of pseudo camera reviewers out there who basically render opinion rather than a clear, objective review of the products. I am encouraged by a reviewer that doesn't kowtow to some grumpy photographers who think differently and demand that they change their review.

I owned a 50D and did not find that the review had any significant findings that misrepresented the features or capabilities of the camera.

At this juncture in the timeline of camera evolution, it really doesn't matter what DPR said in the past. The OP would be best served by listening to present and past owners of the 40D and 50D models, which is exactly what he has done.