Jump to content

Is the Canon 50D for me?


ellea

Recommended Posts

<p>Hi,<br>

<br /> My folks are getting me a dslr for my 21st. They are looking at the 50D and the 5D MkII. Money is a consideration for them.<br>

I spoke to the guy at the electronics store about the two cameras and he said if price is an issue, then he would reccommend going for the 50D and getting a couple of lenses rather than the 5D MkII with just one lens. <br /> I would be getting the 50D with a 24-105 lens and a 60mm lens which the guy said would cover what I want to use the camera for - <strong>macro, portraiture, and landscape. </strong> I have a passion for <strong>very low light night photography </strong> (see my portfolio), but I will probably keep using my 35mm film camera for that unless the 50D is good for that sort of thing?<br>

Also, I'm a photography student, and I'll probably be blowing up photos to A1 size for some assignments. Will the 50D be able to handle this?<br>

Anyway, what I want to know is, am I missing out on much if I score a 50D as opposed to a 5D? By the way, the video function of the 5D isn't something I'm really interested in.<br>

<br /> Thanks for sharing your knowledge :-)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Elle,</p>

<p>The 50D is a great camera, but looking at your portfolio and considering you are using film, I think you'd be happier with the original 5D (if the price of the Mk2 is out of range).</p>

<p>You will need EF lenses, so the 60mm EF-S would not work on it. It's a pity because that one is a superb lens for both macro and portraits.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I really think that if you are a photo student and you expect to continue photographing, that the 5d would be a better choice if you can afford it. The 21mp size will allow you plenty of depth to manipulate files as needed, the ability of the camera to create nice images at high iso and your ability to buy lenses you can grow with would be considerations to me. The zoom you mention, 24-105, gives you a nice range of wide to short tele and will meet your needs for portraits (the 60mm you mention would be like a 95mm or so on this camera)</p>

<p>As to the 50D, if you decide to go that way, I am not sure I would purchase the 60mm if I had the 24-105, at least not initially. I don't see an advantage to having it over just the 24-105, unless you possibly do macro work. A one stop gain in aperture is not much and I would certainly hold off on such a purchase until I knew I needed that lens--zoom not meeting your needs. As to print size, I have made 40x50 inch prints from the original 5d that were spectacular, so I doubt that the 50d, with about the same(actually more) MP would be an issue at A1 size.</p>

<p>In any case, I think buying a 5dII with the one lens is a better investment (I have one and a 1dsmkIII and there are things about the 5d that i like better) and one that should last you several years before you will feel compelled to upgrade. You will probably add lenses before you feel the need to upgrade the camera body.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Diana -</strong> I didn't see a 5D at the store, and I can't seem to find it online in a few Australian stores I've looked at (I live in Oz). Do you know if perhaps it goes by a different name?<br>

<strong>John - </strong> You shot with Ansel Adams? That's incredible! His photos are brilliant.<br>

I really want to do macro work, so the 60mm lens is important. I don't think my folks will spend that much but I would really prefer a 5d mkii simply because it is a better model. Unless I can convince them that it is really a big difference going for the 5d.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you are a photography student (you didn't say what level) I'm going to disagree with John about the full-frame vs. cropped sensor question. While I use full frame bodies myself and also shoot landscape, there are other issues here for you at this point.</p>

<ol>

<li>As you wrote, cost is an issue. The full frame body is going to cost you more than twice what the fine cropped sensor 50D costs. </li>

<li>Long term v. short term issues. As a photography student, it is not realistic to imagine that you are going to purchase <em>now</em> a camera that will be your mainstay for years to come. Best case, the DSLR body you get now may be your main camera through college - beyond that you'll almost certainly replace it for any of several reasons. In other words, you are not buying a permanent camera - you are buying a camera for college.</li>

<li>Where to apply your funds. With limited funds and a desire to obtain both versatility and image quality from your lenses, I think that the extra hundreds of dollars you would spend on FF is better spent on lenses. I'm virtually certain that while one lens might be fine at first, you will want/need at least one or more additional lenses (not to mention flash, various bags, a fine tripod, etc.) before long. The importance of those other things to your developing photography skills and talents <em>at this point</em> is greater than that of getting the full frame body.</li>

</ol>

<p>About that EF 24-105mm f/4 IS L lens. I use this lens and like it a great deal. It is my main lens for many types of shooting. However, if I were getting a 50D or other cropped sensor body, it would almost certainly not be my first choice. On a cropped sensor body - and I did use this lens on a 1.6x crop body for some time - the main issue is that it provides virtually no wide angle focal lengths. Especially with your interest in landscape this will almost certainly be a problem.</p>

<p>For me, the most likely choice here would be the Canon EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. The focal length range makes a lot more sense for a general purpose lens (especially for your combination of subjects) on a cropped sensor body, it is optically a very fine lens, it gives you the potentially useful f/2.8 aperture, and it includes IS.</p>

<p>Finally, even though I choose to shoot with a 5D II rather than a 50D, I would not go so far as to say it is a "better model" than the 50D. More expensive, yes. Full frame sensor, yes. But the 5D II does not surpass the 50D in all ways. One example is the fact that the 50D offers a significantly higher fps rate in burst mode. Another way to think about the "which is best" question is to ask it about the system you'll end up with rather than just the body. Which is best spending $3500 on...</p>

<ul>

<li>A 5D II with the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS, or</li>

<li>A 50D with the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, EFS 10-22mm lens, and a flash unit*?</li>

</ul>

<p>* An alternative might be to combine the 24-105 with the 10-22 - this can be a great landscape combo.</p>

<p>Someone will perhaps suggest getting EF lenses rather than EFS lenses since you may eventually move to full frame. I think that argument is over-rated unless you are certain to make the switch very soon. Otherwise you'll either keep the EFS system and body as a second/backup camera (and important thing to have eventually!) or else you'll sell the system to finance the purchase of other full frame gear that you may eventually need.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>As always: anyone wanting to save a few hundred dollars and who doesn't need IS or f/2.8 can consider the 17-40/4L as an alternative to the 17-55. My guess is that you'll get a 50D/17-40/10-22 combo for less than the price of a 5DII body alone. Particularly now with the rebates going (hurry!).</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Another macro option is the EF100mm macro. Nice lens, works well on the 50D or the 5D.<br>

I just spent the afternoon shooting (and swatting mosquitoes) my 50D with my EF 24-70mm f/2.8L on it. I know a lot of people complain about that lens and its weight, but I like the solid feel in my hands.<br>

Someone suggested you look at the 5D. It might only be available to you used. And the 5DmkII is a pretty penny. I'd think you'll find the 50D to be everything you need. Plenty of image info there, and the ability to make some fairly sophisticated adjustments in the menus make it a great camera for a student. Can you try some cameras in-hand in a store before you buy? I think hands-on is the best way to get a feel for it.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For landscape, portraits and low light photography, I believe the original 5D (mkI) will suit you better than the newer 50D.<br />I have used the Xti, Xsi, 40D, 50D and 5D mk 1 for all of these purposes (particularly low light uses) and the 5D is a clear winner.<br />You can purchase the 5D new at Adorama and they do ship to Australia (about $120 USD to ship it there). But if you are interested in the 24-105 (and you should be if you are getting either the 5D or the 5D mk II), it certainly makes sense to buy it with the kit price which is $2,685 USD at Adorama.<br />OTOH, a new 50D costs about the same as a mint condition used 5D. So I don't see cost as much an issue as noted above (of course cost is an issue between the 5D II and the 50D).<br />If you said sports or other action photos were your passion, I'd suggest the 50D is the way to go. I was very unimpressed with the 50D in low light and did not see much of a difference in landscape or portraiture than the Xti or Xsi.<br />For your interests, I'd say get the new kit for the original 5D with the 24-105 and when you can afford another $700 USD get the 17-40 for your landscapes.<br />I can't advise on the macro question but there was good discussion above on that.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I would suggest the 50D and invest in lenses. Later when you have more experience you can consider going to full frame. </p>

<p>In regards to lens choices the first question you need to ask is buy EF or EF + EFS. If you just get EF lenses then going to full frame at a later date won't be a big deal. If you buy EFS lenses then going to full frame in the future will cost you more. I would suggest going EF for all lenses except for a wide angle such as the 10-20mm. The 10-20mm plus the 24-105 would be a good Landscape set.</p>

<p>Since you want lenses to do Landscape, macro, and portraiture you are probably going to find it difficult to do all that with just 2 lenses. The 10-20mm plus the 24-105 would work well at Landscape and Portraiture but wouldn't be much use for Macro. Or you could go 24-105mm and a Macro (60mm EFS or 100mm EF) and have limitations for wide angle landscapes. You could get past the wide angle limitation by taking 2 pictures and stitching them together with software. Our you can get a set of Kinko extension tubes with the 10-20mm and 24-105mm to give you some limited macro capability. Our you could drop the 24-105mm in favor of a lower cost lens. The savings could be enough to allow you to get the 10-20mm and the 60mm EFS macro. It's impossible for me to know which way would be best for you.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Some respect for your folks' budget is called for. Also some realism about how much difference there is between "full frame" cameras and those with "crop" sensors. I have a 20D and a 5D (Mark 1). The difference is subtle.<br>

There are some good deals on the 40D at the moment (refurb at Adorama). Paired with the Canon 17-55mm, you would have a great low-light setup, as long as your subjects are not moving (IS will not stop the action, of course). That lens is decent for portraits too as long as you don't need to get in too close. Add a Tamron 90mm macro and you have portraits and macro covered with a truly remarkable lens.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Take Dan's advice. He's right.</p>

<p>One of the main problems I had with an APS-C camera (D30, back in the old, old days) was the lack of decent wide angle lenses. Now good quality wide zooms are available for APS-C cameras this major limitation is removed. As far as making large prints or having the ability to crop images substantially, APS-C sensor cameras in the 50D class are more than up to the task.</p>

<p>And don't get rid of your film camera. Those night shots are great! I used to like taking night shots on the beach lit only by ambient light. Often exposures were several seconds to a minute or more. Digital is not good at this and you will not get the smooth noise free results you get from film.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>* I would never recommend a 5D mkI over a 50D unless the buyer had an existing collection of wide angle full frame lenses. The 5D is a great camera, but I think people who recommend it over a 50D are caught up in the legend rather than a practical analysis. You would have to often shoot at ISO 1600-3200, and print those high ISO shots >11x14, to get any advantage out of the 5D. Any lower ISO and it's a wash. But the 50D advantages (faster, better LCD, better AF) will be obvious every time you shoot.</p>

<p>* The 5D mkII has higher IQ than a 50D, but come on. You're a college student on a budget. You need lenses, not thousands of dollars worth of sensor technology that is overkill for 99% of most of the work you will be doing.</p>

<p>* The 24-105 is a fine lens, but not an APS sensor lens nor a budget lens. The 17-55 IS is a fine lens, but also way too expensive for someone on a budget. Get a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and a Canon 70-200 f/4L which will cover 85% of anything you will ever need to shoot without sacrificing anything on image quality. If you get a 50D that combination is much better than a single 24-105. Then either get the Canon 60mm or 100mm macro for your macro shots as planned. Even on full frame I would recommend the 17-40 f/4L + 70-200 f/4L before the 24-105 f/4L IS.</p>

<p>* Digital is often better for night shots. But the high contrast B&W look in your night shots will have to be done partially in post processing. Any look can be accomplished, you just have to work at it.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you have relatively small hands and you take normal-good care of your equipment you might even want to start with a rebel body. (400D/450D/500D or XTi/XSi/T1i) My guess would be that an XSi/450D would be best price:performance wise.</p>

<p>Otherwise you might want to listen to a combo of G. Dan and Daniel: 50D, Tamron 17-50 and Canon 70-200/4. (IS if you can swing it.)</p>

<p>I take it you already have a good tripod. I do wonder if you'd need to invest in a good flash.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Now that people are bit***** out I feel I want to say something too, I have been shooting with Canon for many years and I have plenty of experience with their gear, I also have field experience so I know nothing is wrong (at least in a naive way) with my setup and technique but I have been generally somewhat dissatisfied with 50D IQ even at ISOs as low as 400. Of course it works well when you resize the photos and I can get shots like these which shows my body and lens AF is dead on,<br /> <img src="http://www.stanford.edu/~ahazeghi/Photos/birds/50d1.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /><br /> <img src="http://www.stanford.edu/~ahazeghi/Photos/birds/50d2.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /><br /> but When I inspect the photos at full size I don't see the crispness and sharpness that I like to see. This issue is both with 400 f/5.6L and 500 f/4L IS which are among the sharpest lenses Canon (or anyone else) makes today. I have always been happy with my Canon gear and have produced a number of award-wining shots but I tend to recommend 40D over the 50D. The 40D RAW files are crisp and sharp with little noise up to ISO 800 and managable noise up to ISO 1600. Of course neither matches 5D MKII but usually when people ask me for advice I pick the 40 over the 50! Canon just crammed too many pixels in the sensor this time. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I don't want to sound patronising, but the above shot is a 300mm x1.6= 480 mm equivalent; shutter speed 1/250. Do you think you're an android or something? Photography has limits. WE have limits. And they're usually more restricting than the camera's. And God bless those limits, because the choices we make about them are what turns images into Art. The rest is just representation ;-)</p>

<p>On to the topic. Elle, just buy what you can afford. I own an "old" 5D, although I shoot film 99% of time; it's very well built. My parents own a 40D. Same good evaluation there. Of course you can run into a defective camera, but that happens with Nikons, Pentaxes, whatever. It's just statistics, manufacture isn't what it used to be anymore. I agree to save money on the body, since I believe they're just chasing the market. It's just frills. You need a diaphragm, a shutter and a light tight box :-) Should you have some extra cash, put it into lenses: those will definitely last longer.</p>

<p>My two cents.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I use a 50D for my work (travel assignment and stock) and absolutely love it. At first I thought it was a bit noisy but then I realised I was shooting everything too dark and trying to bump it up in my RAW converter. Once I actually started getting the histogram in the right place I've found it really nice. Granted I never have my work published much bigger than 13" x 19" but I've shot stuff up to ISO1600 that looks pretty good to me. Everybody tends to forget what ISO 1600 film used to look like!<br>

If it were me I would spend the money on the lenses. Whatever camera you buy it will have to be replaced in a few years time but your lenses will last a lifetime. So I would spend the money on a good set of lenses and use your 50D and learn about the craft of photography. If down the track you feel you want to go for a full frame camera or upgrade you'll still have all that lovely glass.<br>

Cameras these days are pretty much disposable tools when you use them professionally. So just because you get a 5D Mark II now doesn't mean you're not going to have to upgrade it in a few years time. Seeing as your parents are being so generous I would use their money to buy something that's going to last, the lenses.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>In most cases I would always say get better lenses but now that I am using a full frame body I find it really hard to use a crop body. Don't get me wrong, the 40D and 50D ( i had a 40 ) are both very good but the 5D2 is a whole new experience so I would recommend a used 5D or if you can afford it a 5D2. </p>

<p>What ever you do, get the right lenses for that system. If you get a 50D, get a 17-xx lens as a standard zoom. When I got my 5d2, i sold my EF-S lens for pretty much what I paid.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I agree totally with Daniel Lee Taylor. You are student on a budget - get the cheaper camera and better lenses.</p>

<ul>

<li>if your parents are willing to buy the 5DII body, then for the same price they can get you the 50D plus 17-55 f2.8IS (equivalent to about 27-88 on the 5D so the focal lengths aren't miles apart) plus 60mm macro or the 100mm macro. </li>

<li>if your parents are willing to buy the 5DII and the 24-105 then the same price will get you 50D+17-55f2.8IS plus the 70-200f4IS plus the 60mm macro. </li>

</ul>

<p>Either way you have one less lens to buy to cover most situations.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>>>If you consider the photo above acceptable then the canon 50d is your choice. I DO NOT- and this is what results I get 30%+ of the time when I use the 50d.<<</p>

<p>That seems to be a photographer problem? Like, exposure for example?</p>

<p>I'd even consider a USED Canon DSLR and better lenses. That might hold you until the new xxD comes out which should be soon enough (to replace the 50D). If you can split the budget, the used camera would become a backup when you get the new one.<br>

The 50D is great but, for startes even a used 20/30D would be fine. The MAIN thing are the lenses. Those you will keep even when you change bodies.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm a beginner in photography but like you I don't have much money. I recommend you to get used material in good condition. I paid approximately 500 € to have :<br /> Canon EOS 20D <br /> Canon EOS 300 <br /> Praktica MTL-5B <br /> 2 adaptors to mount m42 on Canon EOS <br /> 18-50mm Sigma DC f:3.5/5.6 (EOS mount) <br /> Canon EF 28-80 mm II f:3.5/5.6<br /> Canon EF 75-300 mm II f:4/5.6<br /> Yashica Yashinon 50 mm f:2 (m42)<br /> 135 mm Pentacon auto f:2.8 (m42) <br /> 50 mm Pentacon auto f:1.8 (m42) <br /> 28 mm Hélios auto f:2.8 (m42) <br /> 55 mm Chinon auto f:1.7 (m42) <br /> 300 mm Super Marexar f:5.6 (m42) <br /> 70-210 mm Sigma (m42) f:4.5 <br /> Hansa 2x converter (m42) <br /> Prinz Varifocus zoom close-up lens <br /> Flash Luxon 122a <br /> hoya filter ND x 4 49 <br /> hoya filter ND x 8 49 <br /> toshiba protect 52 <br /> Aluminium cheap Tripod<br /> With old lenses you have very good results for the price you've paid... about 10 € the lens and as good as an EF-S but with manual focus... For macro you'll need to get an EF 100 mm (also for portrait), 60 mm is good but not useful because you'll need to get very, very close. For night photography you don't need a lens with autofocus, use a basic 50 mm from old cameras. The aperture reach 1.x and the lens costs nothing. For large prints search an old full-frame like the EOS 5d (used) and get Genuine Fractals. I used it once and the result was amazing.The 50D is not very good (about the noise) , the 40D is better and the 20D is 'the cheap version'. I like the 5 D. I tried it once. The AF is fast and very very precise and you can aim without a flash light when the light is low... The crop-sensor means bad aiming... I'd like to have a full frame apart my 20D. My Praktica is better for landscape and that's very disappointing. If I had the choice I would buy a 5D... But my parents have 5 children and the photographic stuff isn't their priority. [-)<br>

I recommend you to get a 20D. It's fast and the results are sufficient for studying purpose (I paid 350 € for a mint 20D). And you can get good lenses...<br>

I know I'm not a good adviser about photography... But about saving money I'm good... <br /> (Be tolerant with my English, I'm a 14 years old bad student who lives in Belgium... Sorry if I made faults. I did my best)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Been shooting w/ a 50d since Feb. The worst part about the camera is it's AF. everything else rocks. I'd go w/ the 50d & better lenses over the 5dmkII any day. The glass will last you much longer than the camera body (especially if you turn it into a career). <br>

Of course if you can find a 5dMkI new or lightly used that's a different matter, and with your preffered type of photography, you very well might appreciate the relatively low noise sensor of the 5d Especially if all you do is look at your images on a monitor (as opposed to actually printing them... lol). I've found that the noise, while there on the 50d, is very very manageable even with larger prints at 1600+ ISO. The uprezing is lower, which makes the noise MORE manageable than on my old 5d. <br>

The other thing about the 5d is that it is still a four year old system. The processor is slow, the frames are slow, it writes to fast cards like a glacier (relative to the 50d). but the sensor can produce beautiful images, that's for sure. If you can find a good one out there, it's definetly worth considering, and for your photography it very well might be much better than the 50d...</p>

<p>...either way get some good glass... better than the 24-105 & 60! </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...