Jump to content

BAck, back, back to Canon


hjoseph7

Recommended Posts

I saw an old Canon 50D in Mint condition selling for about $300 so I grabbed it. I know some people might say "why a 50D ? with no flip-screen, old technology, no Wi-Fi, under 20 megapixels... Why not a 60D, or 70D, or even an 80D. Because the 50D is the last in a series of semi-pro Canon cameras. Unlike the 60D, the 70D, the 80D , they still have the joy-stick, are made of metal, not plastic and have blazing shutter speed. Well not that blazing compared to today's standards, but good enough for birding and sports(I hope). Plus it was only $300 !
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"why a 50D ? with no flip-screen

My 5D MK IV has no flip screen. Somehow I muddle through. :) Maybe it is just something I don't have to worry about breaking. Buying a good used older camera can be a smart choice.

I had a 40D, I sold for it to a young high schooler graduating for $200. That with a lens, memory card, and about 6 batteries. The camera takes great photos.

Sure it is not the latest tech, but we were not shooting with junk 5 years ago. Magnesium alloy body, CF memory, did live view. These older cameras may not have crazy high ISO and low noise, but they did OK and really if you are properly exposing, you can get good shots. The only reason I sold it was I have too many cameras and could not justify keeping it. I just sold my 7D with an older 28-135mm lens for $650. I still have my 6D and the 5D MK IV. I am not using the 6D, but it is a backup. I am already anticipating the release of the rumored 5DsR MK II. So I will probably be putting the 6D up on Craigslist.

 

I like shooting with the latest and am always looking for more megapixels and focal points and fast focus. Not everybody wants to pay for brand new gear, not even me, but I like the latest and greatest, so I sell off the older gear to help offset the cost of new. This makes bargains for the frugal photographer.

 

You are getting a great camera for a fraction of the cost of what it cost new. That is pretty smart.

 

I upgrade often enough, I am not putting extreme shutter counts on my gear and I have been shooting long enough, I don't take as many shots when I am out shooting, fewer but better.

 

My older cameras may sit unused or hardly used for a couple years. I should sell them sooner before they lose so much value. I really do not need 4 DSLRs, I can only justify two Canon DSLRs, a primary and back up. But that is just me.

 

For the frugal photographer, buying good used gear can be a very smart choice. :cool:

Cheers, Mark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"An old Canon 50D" ...

 

Every time a new model comes out, it's surrounded by hype to the effect that it's so much better than the previous incarnation. After several generations of digital, it's easy to forget that the early SLR's really were quite good, if you could live without things like massive pixel count, GPS, Wi Fi, live view, video, large tilt and swivel touch screens etc. A couple of days ago I spent a pleasant hour with a 15 year old Fujifilm S2 Pro, acquired for less than 20 pounds. I didn't even have the little review screen turned on, just made sure I got the picture I wanted in the viewfinder. I wouldn't want to do anything fast and furious with it, though.

 

2098831600_AlderConesandCatkinsP2.thumb.jpg.aa582086d4d03e7dd305c61211264dcb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bought my 30D and my 5D MkII used and was happy to save money and each time glad to be upgrading for reasons that meant something to me. Since I don’t keep abreast of the latest in gear, I don’t know what I may be missing by not having the newest generation of equipment. When I need a new camera, I’ll do as little research as I can get away with, mostly relying on the advice of a few friends who know a lot more than me about gear. Thankfully, I find this used equipment still allows me to keep bettering my vision, my sense of composition and light, my sense of the moment, and my sense for readable expressions and good story-telling. I reserve first-hand experience for taking pictures. Second-hand has been good enough for gear. And it leaves me more money for travel! :)
  • Like 2
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL I have fond memories of my 50D... Many long nights trying to make ridiculously noisy images usable. Seriously. That sensor was the noisiest I ever owned, before OR since. IMO, they were aiming to high w/ 15MP in that era. It was soooo fast, and had a high ISO ceiling, so was imminently usable for capturing most things in most any light... the only problem of course was when you got an image that you wanted to post and/or print. ISO400 was noisy. For weddings I couldn't reliably shoot past ISO 1600. Things went downhill fast after that... Frankly, if Canon had put a 12MP sensor in there it would have likely vastly improved the high ISO output, and would have made the camera a much better all around unit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw an old Canon 50D in Mint condition selling for about $300 so I grabbed it. I know some people might say "why a 50D ? with no flip-screen, old technology, no Wi-Fi, under 20 megapixels... Why not a 60D, or 70D, or even an 80D. Because the 50D is the last in a series of semi-pro Canon cameras. Unlike the 60D, the 70D, the 80D , they still have the joy-stick, are made of metal, not plastic and have blazing shutter speed. Well not that blazing compared to today's standards, but good enough for birding and sports(I hope). Plus it was only $300 !

 

OK, the trend today is smaller and lighter with more features .. but retro can work

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bleeding edge has a way of, well, bleeding.

 

The 50D is a good midpoint in terms of sufficient MP for most purposes.

Plus, the 1.6X factor is a better way of stretching your long lenses than are teleconverters, I think

 

The 50D and my 5D Mark II meet MY requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL I have fond memories of my 50D... Many long nights trying to make ridiculously noisy images usable. Seriously. That sensor was the noisiest I ever owned, before OR since. IMO, they were aiming to high w/ 15MP in that era. It was soooo fast, and had a high ISO ceiling, so was imminently usable for capturing most things in most any light... the only problem of course was when you got an image that you wanted to post and/or print. ISO400 was noisy. For weddings I couldn't reliably shoot past ISO 1600. Things went downhill fast after that... Frankly, if Canon had put a 12MP sensor in there it would have likely vastly improved the high ISO output, and would have made the camera a much better all around unit.

 

There might have been a bug with your camera, because I'm getting very usable images all the way up to ISO 1600( anyway I don't plan to go above that). I skipped the whole 40D/50D fiasco and jumped to a 7D from a 30D. I remember when the 40D came out, people were howling that it did not have enough megapixels. Actually the 40D was a great camera. However about a year and a half after the 40D came out, Canon decided to come out with the 50D. MO' pixels ! but the pixels were much smaller which accounts for the so-so low-light performance.

 

On the positive side, this is the last Canon DSLR that came with a joy-stick at this price point. Also the WB, the AF/Drive and the ISO/EXP Comp buttons are all laid out on the front of the camera within easy reach. Another feature I like believe it or not, is the A-DEP function that Canon discontinued in its later models. The "A-DEP" was like having auto Hyperfocal-Distance without the sweat. Last but not least, I like the way Canon cameras render the final image. I tried other brands with higher dynamic range, higher saturation and higher pixel counts, but they are a real PITA when it comes to printing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it def. had it's pros... but mine wasn't special. In fact, at the time, there was a lively debate going about whether the exrta MP on the 50D was even worth it (over the 40D's 10MP) as, by the time the necessary NR was applied at high ISOs, you had, effectively, a 10MP image (or roughly equivalent detail), of course the 40D had H1 @ 3200, where as the 50D had h1:6400 h2:12800. The thing about the noise was that it also expressed terrible banding (on top of the copious amount).... and It also showed up much worse in even slightly underexposed images. With that camera 'shoot to the right' became a mantra - and a practical necessity. You can NOT push the exposure much at all in post - and gawd forbid you were a hair underexposed at high ISOs. Of course at the time I was shooting weddings, so I was forced to shoot in sub-optimal lighting conditions regularly. Thank gawd I had 5Ds to do the heavy lifting, but of course it had a hard limit of ISO3200, where as the 50D had 'emergency ISO' - which was often required. While the 50D's imagery was usually quite good once you downresed it, you can't do that for wedding deliverables (if the client intends to print in particular). I remember countless images that looked great onscreen, but on paper, they looked there was something just not quite right. I purchased the 50D new, because I wanted to be able to catch action sequences (bouquet tosses, aisle walking, etc), which, frankly, was well beyond the 5D's (and even the 5D2's later on) capability. For that it worked marvelously, and, on a bright day it's marvelous too. I mean, don't get me wrong, for casual use, it was always good... but for pro use (which you are not doing, so moot point)? Simply not up to snuff.

 

The 7D OTOH? Much much better in every respect.

Edited by Marcus Ian
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...