40d or 50d as backup

<p>So I already used 7D, its great camera but for my kind of use I liked 550d as it meets my all needs.<br>

Now, I am looking for a backup body and I am not willing to spend a grand on it. Narrowing down to 40D or 50D. <br>

I shoot functions, portraits, landscapes and travel. No sports or wild life.<br>

I can imagine there would be lot of people who are still in love with those old cameras and they would have substantial experience to share.<br>

Which one I should go for? </p>

<p>40D wihout a question. Lower price and optimal resolution (12 mp) for a crop sensor camera. 50D is more marketing hype than following the rule of physics and firmware constraint of that time.</p>

<p>50D without question. It has higher resolution and AF microadjustment, among other improvements over the 40D.</p>

<p>OTOH, 50D is much closer in overall capability to the 7D (and easily exceeds that of the 550D). At low to middle ISOs, the extra 50% of pixels can be a huge benefit, plus, I found that noise (@100%) was about the same between the 40D and 50D, but the 50Ds number of pixels allowed NR to function much more effectively if shooting RAW.<br>

Other tangible improvements of note are a vastly faster write capability (about 3x as fast as the 40D), for when you are doing rapid shooting (also allows you to shoot RAWS much more effectively), and MFA (not an option on the 40D) so you can optimize the AF on your lenses.</p>

<p>For the $100-150 difference between the two, of course the choice is up to you, but the differences are significant enough to potentially impact your shooting considerably.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think the biggest factor would be print size. How big do you plan on printing? If you print large, the extra MP's from the 50D will be useful. If you don't print large, the 10 MP's of the 40D should be plenty (and the 40D is still capable of good large prints). The MP's is the only major difference between these two cameras, especially when its main purpose will be as a back-up.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but for my kind of use I liked 550d as it meets my all needs.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>So why not get one as a backup? Or am I missing something?</p>

<p>My thinking exactly, Jamie. If you are saying that you like the 550d over the larger frame xd and xxd, why not just get another 550d or 600d?</p>

<p>I can see one reason for the change, which is that the controls would be more similar.</p>

<p>I went through thing when I bought a 50D several years ago. There was a lot of "OMG, the 40D is so much better" traffic on the web, but all of the serious tests and reviews I read suggested that the 50D is a considerably better camera. I think if you hunt, you can still find side-by-side comparisons. Like Marcus, I found even though the web traffic complained about greater noise, tests really did not back that up. I find the 50D is essentially noiseless at 200 if exposed correctly, and at 400 it is quite good. I do end up relying on NR at 800, but rarely is it problematic. I think the micro-adjust capability alone makes the case, even though I have been lucky with my lenses and have not had to use it.</p>

<p>Either. I prefer the features on my 50D. Marketing hype? No. The 50D is a darn good camera. With the noise reduction in CS5 (ACR) I get very low noise images up to 1600. I've seen some good results at 3200 as well, but haven't experimented enough to say definitely. Newer sensors are better, yet I have beautiful 16x24 images on my walls from it. I'm quite certain I could get 20x30 without much effort.</p>

<p>The single feature that sets the 50D above the 40D is LiveView, and if you're doing any studio work, it's worth changing bodies just for that feature.<br>

<Chas></p>

<p>Chas, FWIW my 40D has liveView (was the first model to include it if I'm not mistaken) I don't have the specs avail right now but the buffer size, Digic sensor and fps, were also very similar between the two models. </p>

<p>Sorry if this is going too far off topic.<br>

-James</p>

<p>I found the AF on the 50D a bit faster & more reliable than the 40D. Not by a lot but in low light it was enough to be noticeable. And I liked the 50D's higher resolution LCD. It's visibly better. I also found the 50D images to be a little better overall; especially noticeable at high ISO. In fact, they are almost indistinguishable from 7D images when shot in raw and processed in Lightroom.</p>

<p>When I bought a 7D, I sold the 40D and kept the 50D for use as my second camera.</p>

<p>I have all three - 40D, 50D and 7D. Given the choice I'd take a 50D over a 40D - it's an evolutionary improvement rather than revolutionary. OTOH the 40D is a nice camera and I still use mine. You can't go wrong with either, especially if its only a backup.</p>

<p>Cheers, Bob</p>