50D has no advantage to 20D based on comments I have heard so far

I always hear that 50D is the same as 40D and even 40D is sort of better in some aspects (noise). On the other

hand 40D is only 2 megapixel better than 30D. 30D has the same sensor as 20D. So I got to the conclusion that I

should not upgrade my 20D to a 50D. lets wait until next year that 60D with probably less noise comes to the

market.

Reviewing megapixels: the 50D has 15.1, the 40D has 10.1, the 20D & 30D have 8.2. Seems like a fair jump from 8.2 to 15.1.

The LCD on the 40d is so much better, fonts and menus easier to work with, and for low light all settingd ISO speed and aperture set from the rear screen. VF is a lil brighter and overall the camera handles quicker and more responsive, makes things a lil more enjoyable (for me anyways) haven`t used the 50 yet, but if you don`t think you`d use the extra, your call :)

Well 50D has Micro focus adjustment, it's a big deal.

The 50D also has a great sensor cleaning system that has made a huge difference in my photos.

Although I see the improvement of 20D towards 50D, is see no reason to upgrade (yet).

 

Double the megapixels does not mean double the image quality: double the pixels is only 50% more lines horizontally/vertically, and more pixels means smaller pixels, which also reduces the impact of the extra pixels.

 

But yes, in the options/functions given, the 50D offers quite a bit more than the 20D. Me upgrading from the 20D in future will probably not be so much the IQ (20D is more than good enough for my usual print size), but the options/functions you get in a newer camera.

Hi Reza i know where you are coming from.

A month ago i was definitely going to get a 40D to go with my 20D, or maybe a 50, if i get the 50 will have to sell the 20D as well. Then i see how much the 5D had dropped in price on eBay.

 

Buying the 5D was the best thing i could of done the IQ is on a totally different level to the XXD range of cameras.

I think to go from 1 XXD to a later model is more of a update than a up grade (from the 20D on)and i saved over 400 GPB over a new 50D

Well, I'm able to speak, like a few other respondents, from experience using the cameras in question, rather than just from reading specifications. I didn't bother with the 30D, which was clearly an improvement on the 20D but not by enough to be worth upgrading - like many people, I felt it could better have been labelled as the 20DN. But I did go from the 20D to the 40D and now to the 50D. In my view the 40D is a huge step up from the 20D. The gain in pixel count is modest, but then, the mantra on this forum is that far too much attantion is paid to pixel count and not enough to what the pixels achieve. The 40D is in other respects a FAR better camera than the 20D. The LCD is in a different league, AF is more reliable, the mirror mechanism is much better engineered, the viewfinder is substantially ‘bigger’ (although still not up to 5D standards) and screens are interchangeable, it works fully with the aberration correction facilities in DPP, it has Live View, and so on and so on. It could usefully have had contrast-detect AF in Live View - this appeared only a month or two later on the 450D/XSi - but there's little else to complain about.

 

So what about the 50D? A substantial jump in pixel count even from the 40D, let alone the 20D/30D, with gapless photosite technology, a really top-class LCD, contrast-detect AF, microadjustment of phase-detect AF, wider ISO range 'native' to 3200 rather than 1600. Enough to make me buy one, and so far I'm impressed even by comparison with the already very good 40D. Upgrading from a 20D would be a no-brainer. However, I do have a sense that the 50D is a more 'edgy' camera than any of the other DSLRs that I have used, in the sense that getting the best out of it requires more thoughtful choice of settings when photographs are taken, and more willingness to make adjustments during post-processing. For example, in conditions where you want to use high ISO settings, it is quite tricky to strike the optimal balance between how high an ISO you can use, and how you then make the tradeoff between noise suppression and resolution of fine detail. So some of the extra capabilities of the 50D do come at the price of more user effort, but I have not yet come across a situation where it was impossible to get at least as good a final result as from the 40D by making those choices properly.

 

What about the 60D? Well, there will certainly be a successor to the 50D at some point, and it's a fair guess that it might be called the 60D, and that it will not discard any 50D features. It's also a pretty good bet that it will have a HD video mode and will use the new battery introduced with the 5DII (I was a bit surprised that the new battery didn't appear in the 50D), but neither of those enhancements will actually allow it to take better still pictures. Phase-detect AF improvement would be top of many wish-lists, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that. I certainly felt that I was right not to buy the 30D, and I did suspected when I bought the 40D that I might not be using it for long, but unless Canon come up with some dramatically improved sensor technology (and I don't mean more pixels) I can certainly envisage not feeling any need to buy the 60D. So I think this would be a good moment to upgrade from a 20D.

 

Although the 50D is invaluable for a number of tasks, it still doesn't displace the 5D for me, which is a camera that allows quite 'lazy' use by comparison, and whose technology was so far ahead of its time that it still sets a benchmark for image quality. But I'm looking forward to moving on to the 5DII after the feeding frenzy has abated a bit!

IMO the picture quality for crop bodies peaked with the 20D. I know the 40D and now 50D have more pixels and more features but the only worthwhile upgrade I am interested in is to a 5Dmkll for the full frame,spot metering and better noise at low light high ISO (I don't think I have ever shot above ISO 200 with my 20D after seeing the noise the first time I shot at ISO 400). The HD video is something I am not interested in but it could come in handy.

 

I love my photography but my budget does not allow me to buy every new release in cameras, so I think I have done great in sticking to my guns and holding off for the mkll. I just need to see a few more reviews for picture quality and an actual personal test and hopefully it will be all I have hoped for or my 20D will not be my back up camera for another few years.

ISO 6400 looks pretty good on the 50D. I have yet to see ISO 6400 images from the 20D so I can't do a direct comparison!

 

You may want to wait for the 70D or 80D before you upgrade because only then will you really see a BIG difference!

 

Hey, if you are happy with your camera, why upgrade? The only 'right' time to upgrade (for feature reasons rather than you just want to) is when your current camera is not giving you everything you want in a camera.

 

You can compare identical 40D/50D images at Imaging Resource. The 50D looks good to me - I don't know what all the fuss is about!

IMHO the 50D is well worth the update but one has to use a decent lens and good technique.

100 ISO samples to zoom in (slider on the bottom, be patient with a slow internet connection)

http://www.hofmann-photography.de//eos50d/painted/IMG_7385.html

http://www.hofmann-photography.de/eos50d/dybowski/IMG_0274.html

http://www.hofmann-photography.de/eos50d/gould/IMG_7407.html

 

400ISO

http://www.hofmann-photography.de/eos50d/GH--8252.jpg

100% crop

http://www.hofmann-photography.de/eos50d/GH--8252-2.jpg

 

All pictures no NR or sharpening other than the default settings in LR 2.1

The Micro Af adjustment kind of saved the day when I dropped my 70-200mm. After it hit the ground it showed strong Front focus - and the IS was gone. I tried to compensate the focusing error using the Micro Adjustment of the 50D - it worked perfect the next two days -without IS of course- until I could send it of to Canon for repair.

Have fun whether it is a 40,50D,D300 or whatever

Gerhard

I too went from a 20D to a 40D, and the difference is quite noticeable. While the IQ is somewhat better (photos

from the 20D were excellent), the entire "package" was a clear step up. One of my favorite changes is the ability

to change custom settings without memorizing custom function numbers. Each one is actually named so it's much

easier to "customize" on the fly, far better than struggling to remember what custom function 12 was for. The

larger LCD also makes a significant difference in usability. Live View is actually useful under certain

conditions. While the 20D could probably have accomplished the same, it's touches like these that just improve

the 'workflow" when out taking photos. These examples might sound like minor issues, but when examined as a whole

camera, these, and other functions, simply improve the ease of use. Personally, while I believe the 50D is

superior to the 40D in some areas, I'm not rushing to get one, but again, that is based on my own needs, and may

not apply to others.

 

Do I believe I benefited from upgrading from the 20D? Yes. It is simply a better camera to work with. I do take

IQ into account in that judgment, but it is not the primary reason that improved the camera's value. Rather, it's

the overall improvement in handling and flexibility in use. I believe the same is true of the 50D based on my

admittedly limited use of one.

 

I'm not one who jumps at the latest gadget that comes along, which frequently add only small, incremental

improvements. But, the 50D, as well as the 40D (that high res screen on the 50D alone is really tempting to

consider a move up from a 40D) are simply better cameras than the 20D. Does that decrease the value of your 20D

for your own use? No. The 20D is still an excellent camera, capable of producing superb photos. However, there is

no denying the newer models offer an improvement in usability and IQ. Whether you need that is up to you. There

is nothing wrong with continuing to use your 20D so long as you're satisfied with it. But, don't be dissuaded

from considering an upgrade because of reviews or comments that are less than raves. The reality is the overall

improvements in these newer cameras enhance the pleasure of working with them.

 

Henry

Robin Sibson,

 

a nice posting but I must ask. when do you get any time to photograph? you've bought more cameras than B&H lately. do you wear the cameras out? does one prevent you from taking good imagery? nothing against buying cameras .. but golly-gee-whiz, how many exposures do you make a year?

 

I see a 60D in your future as well ..

 

dt

I think cameras are i bit like computers they are only outdated when they wont do something you wont them to do and the new one will

Soory the links didn’t work

 

50D samples 100 ISO Zoom in for details (up to 100%) <br>

<a href=”http://www.hofmann-photography.de/eos50d/painted/IMG_7385.html”>ISO 100 sample-1</a><br>

<a href=”http://www.hofmann-photography.de/eos50d/painted/dybowski/IMG_0274.html”>ISO 100 sample-2</a> <br>

<a href=”http://www.hofmann-photography.de/eos50d/painted/gould/IMG_7407.html”>ISO 100 sample-3</a> <br>

Another sample from a day with lousy weather in NW-UK <br>

<a href=”http://www.hofmann-photography.de/eos50d/GH--8252.jpg”>ISO400 sample</a> <br> <a href=”http://www.hofmann-photography.de/eos50d/GH--8252-2.jpg”>ISO400 sample 100%crop </a> <br>

 

Hopefully the links work Gerhard

<a href="http://www.muellerworld.com/pcd0968/star_streaks-39.html">this photo</a>?

Sorry for the last post it was not meant to be sent online, I just tried to figure out how to create links.

Sorry

Gerhard

Robin,

 

just teasing. I am just as guilty. going digital affords a photographer with so many more choices to go nuts!

 

daniel taylor

Thank you for all responses.

I may went a little bit too far that told there was no difference between 20D and 50D. But my point is, how much the value of that difference is. Of course it depends on different preferences of people.

To me, they only thing that matters is image quality and lack of noise. I mostly convert my photos to black and white. 50D has one major advantage that you can crop or have larger prints. Who knows? Maybe u want to have an exhibition with large prints.

But the fact that 50D has comparable noise with 20D really disappoints me and stops me to upgrade. It has higher ISO but as many people who own it commented, higher ISO on 50D is mostly a commercial upgrade becasue in ISOs higher than 800 especially at low light there will be a lot of noise.

The crux of matter is that I usually want to exhaust my camera before upgrading. I dont want to rush to upgrade unless I know that camera has specifications that is really important to me which are imgae quality and lack of noise.

It's a tool for capturing light. Get the appropriate hammer to smack the appropriate thing, and you're good. As long as your old one is still hammering nails just fine, you don't need a new one. It's only when you come to a new kind of nail that the old one won't drive anymore that you need a new one (really sorry for the totally lame metaphor). And I have no qualms about my 50D. It's a fine camera. It has performed flawlessly outdoors and in... catching some great (ok, functional, the client liked them and thought they were great) product shots in factory floor lighting on a widget that required a signed NDA.

There are a good ten things much improved on the 50D over the 30D (and far beyond the grandfatherly

20D) and I think all are listed above. I cannot imagine how anyone could come to this conclusion: "50D

has no advantage to 20D". ?

I think the amount of improvements one should expect to get when upgrading from 20D to 50D is pretty much

dependent on what and in which condition he/she wants to shoot. For those who want to print large prints and/or

often have to crop significantly, the 50D will fairly likely be an improvement over 20D. Likewise, people with

interest in astrophotography will probably benefit from the liveview (that's actually one reason why I'm

considering to also getting a now-pretty-cheap 40D to complement my otherwise still very nice 20D). On the other

hand, taking the resolution increase as an example, for people (including me) mostly printing small-to-medium -

sized photos it's not probably a very significant reason for upgrading at all.

 

(Personally, I do see the 50D as an improvement over 20D based on what I've read from reviews and from the

comments, although I'd personally preferred a slightly different focus on the individual improvements; smaller or

no megapixel increase, no R&D effort used on face detection, more focus on dynamic range/noise performance

improvements, more high-precision focusing points than just the center one etc)

G`day Robin Sibson, may I ask of you your opinion as your experience with the 2 recent models being this worry of noise, tho I have found in my own biz the 40d is giving cleaner prints than the 20d, another prominant member of PN has said the images of the 50d is noisier than the 40d at 100% on screen, But they print up eg at 12x18 a lot cleaner, Is yours a similar observation ? Noise of corse not being due to incorrect exposure, my shooting is mostly at 800ISO

 

Cheers

The only substantive change/feature that the 30D/40D/50D have over the 20D is the spot meter, in my opinion. All the rest is just bells, and whistles.

The low-light performance in the 50D is a substantial improvement on the 20D. Sure, the expanded-ISO settings come

with a bucketload of noise...but the ability to even shoot at all in a situation that takes ISO 12800 @ 1/30 f/2.8 is

amazing. I picked up a 50D early this week (when it dropped to $1200 + shipping at B&H) and I just got a chance to do

decent amount of shooting with it yesterday. More importantly, ISO 1250 and 1600 look like they should work fine at

8x10 (which was *not* the case on the 20D...I felt that anything over ISO 400 was questionable at 8x10, at least with my

workflow). Result: I'm impressed.

 

There are a lot of nice usability enhancements, as well--the LCD is a huge leap, even if I'm constantly smudging it with

my face/nose. The ISO in the viewfinder is a rather nice touch, as is the 1/3-stop increments rather than full-stop ISO

increments. The camera feels and sounds a little more solid, but that's just impression at this point (and could be me

wanting to justify the money I spent on it).

 

I haven't used Live View yet...I wanted to last night, but I couldn't figure out how to engage it (I suppose I should look at

the manual more closely).

 

Overall, I purchased the camera because I've got something like 85-90k shutter actuations on my 20D and I'd rather

have a new camera in hand before the 20D fails; I decided that I'd go with the 50D once the price hit $1200 (which it did).

Of course, I didn't factor in buying a couple more, higher-speed flash cards (pesky 15MB files), a new L-bracket, or a

focus screen (I've got a split-prism Haoda screen in my 20D), but I'm still glad I went with the purchase. I do intend to

do some A-B comparisons on a tripod, particularly in low-light situations, once my L-bracket shows up; my initial

impression is quite favorable, though.

100% crop attached.<div></div>