50D or 40D ?

<p>Hi everybody, I'm new here and this is my first post. Nice to meet you all :)<br /> I want to take up photography as a hobby as I've recently developed a passion and love towards it. Up until now I've been using a Kodak Snapshot 8 megapixel. Now I want to take a leap in to the world of DSLR and phew I have to say it's a jungle out there :) In a good way I mean.<br /> My budget is very limited to start with. I'm tempted by the 5D and the 7D, but that's just a dream for now. I've done a bit of research and found out some pretty interesting offers. I come from Italy and I have to mention that good offers are really hard to come by and it's more of a rip off here, shame! :(<br /> Iv'e looked at a EOS 50D, used of course, body only 500 Euros with a 3 month guarantee. Do you think that it's a reasonable price for a camera that's not in production any more and not knowing the real usage behind it. I'm also on the look out for a 40D if I get a good buy. <br /> Now, the lens. There are a million options out there as you know. I'm a beginner, so do you think its worth to invest on an expensive L lens to start with, like the walk about 24-105 mm L or stick to a decent affordable EF lens like the 17-85 mm IS USM or the more practical 18-200 mm IS? Like I mentioned before, for starters.<br /> Thank you in advance for all your valuable tips and help. Need to make the right decision and spend my hard earned money well :)<br /> DBW<br /> p.s. - Anybody selling a 50D or 40D for a "decent price", let me know. Cheers.</p>

<p> </p>

Lenses are the best investment, there are some great EFS lenses that are not too expensive. I have a 17-55 f2.8 IS on a

old rebel 450D and it produces great images. A 40D or 50D, both will give great images. I could not tell you which is a

better deal. But, I would put more money in to a good lens than a body. And, given the budget I would suggest a good

EFS lens than a L lens.

 

Good luck!

<p>The 50D has some advantages over the 40D - perhaps the most significant being the fact that the 50D has micro focus auto adjustment which allows you to program the camera to focus more precisely. It has a higher megapixel count (15.1 vs 10.2) and a new Digic 4 processor and interface. It also has a much nicer higher resolution screen. <br>

That being said, it's low light performance is not significantly better than than of the 40D and the tests I looked at said the image quality was comparable. <a href="http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_40D-vs-Canon_EOS_50D">Snapsort does a nice comparison</a><br>

When I was looking for an upgrade to my 20D I did the same comparison and opted for the 40D because it cost me about $250 (US) less than the 40D (700 vs 450 US). They both shoots at 6-6.5 frames per second. My greatest frustration with the 40D is the metering is not nearly as good as on my T2i and I end up with a lot more over/under exposed shots and find myself resorting to manual mode a lot. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Six months ago I faced a similar decision. I was looking for a decent crop body to complement my 5DII, but didn't want to shell out for a 7D, so it came down to a choice between the 40D and 50D. I opted for the latter for several reasons: higher resolution, better LCD screen, AF microadjustment, and similarity in menu and control layout to my 5DII. And I have found the 50D to be a very good performer, particularly at lower ISO's.</p>

<p>As for lenses, I would start with a 17-55/2.8 IS, or with a 15-85/3.5-5.6 IS if you don't the speed and would like a greater focal length range. Both of these lenses are highly touted for their image quality. I had a copy of the 24-105 L; it's a fairly good lens, but reportedly not well suited for crop bodies. The 70-200/4 L IS, on the ohter hand, is my most-used walkabout lens on all my EOS bodies, crop and full frame digital as well as film.</p>

<p>I own the 40D and 50D and my advice straight up is to purchase the 50D unless you can get the 40D at a give away price. The 50D is an all around better camera feature wise and IQ wise.<br>

The noise at ISO 1600 is better on the 50D than the 40D and the 50D can easily be used at ISO 3200 if you use software like the latest version of Lightroom or Photoshop ACR to reduce noise.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I faced the same decision several years ago, when the 50D was new and the 40D was going out of production. For the reasons noted above, I chose the 50D, and I don't regret it at all. It's a fine camera. But if you can get the 40D a lot cheaper, that would make the decision hard.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>not knowing the real usage behind it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is always something to be careful about when you buy used. If you can't find an individual seller you trust to be honest about this, you could buy used from a retailer that guarantees the camera.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'm a beginner, so do you think its worth to invest on an expensive L lens to start with</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No! First of all, forget "L". There are a lot of excellent lenses that are not Ls, including both Canon and third-party lenses. It makes much more sense to figure out what kind of lens you need (prime or zoom, focal length, speed) and then look at reviews to see what is the best value for you. Second, L lenses are very expensive. For example, for about the price of my cheapest L lens, you could buy two of my other lenses, both excellent. It makes no sense in my mind to put that kind of money into a lens until you are experienced enough (1) to know which lenses are best for you, and (2) to get the benefit from a really expensive lens. In my opinion, it is better to spread that money over a few good but less expensive lenses, to help you gain experience. You can trade up to L lenses later if it is worth it for specific uses.</p>

<p>I'll be specific. I shoot more macro than anything else. For a long time, my only macro lens was the Canon EF-S 60mm (not an L). I now also have the EF 100mm L macro. They serve different purposes for me, but if you look at my images, you would have a hard time telling which was taken with which. In fact, I doubt you could. I usually can't.</p>

<p>Your local craigslist might have a few 40d or 50d for sale.<br>

B/t the two, the image quality would be about the same. The 50d has higher MP but noise is an issue for this high density sensor vs. the 10mp 40d. Of course the 50d has a few nice bits to it like MA. I find the 50d body to be quite nice to hold. The 40D is more like a 30d in terms of feel.<br>

Another great alternative is a used 5d mkI. IQ is still some of the best even by today's standard unmatched by the above cameras. It is after all FF. It is older and slower. So it will depend on what you are into.<br>

In terms of lenses, you might want to consider the EF 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM II MACRO. This is an older lens. But it has great optics. A true USM motor allows for silent focusing. But becareful as there are many variations of this lens. Do a bit of research and if you are patient enough you can score a jewel of a lens!</p>

if I were you I would buy the 40d I think it's a better camera than the 50d, I had the 50 and it wasn't close to what I expected and , the 60d

is a much better than 50d but. It's around 1300 bucks and the 7d. About 2600 a bit high, so. The thing is you can still buy a brand new

40d even though they are not in produttion, try adorama.com or b&h in new York ,the going rate is about 900 or so, and I shoot a massive

amount of photos with the 40d, I do own the 7d and the 60d and the other newer rebels, my wife prefers them for the size of her hands,

so given the money issue I would by a 40d and the better l glass lens. Such as the 18-55 and do shop around a lot of times there are 400

dollars difference in retail price, and I bought mine for 800. From amazon on sale, and I might add if you get an amazon store card. Any

item purchase for 599 and above you get 12 months interest free financing which is a big help when your own a budget and the 7d has

24 months same as cash a lot of times, I do not work for them , I'm a retired freelancer and spend their money and make interest off of

mine, if your a good photographer you can make the 40d do wonderful photographs.

<p>If your budget is limited then find a good deal on a 40D and enjoy it. I just recently bought a used 40D with an EF-S 17-85mm and I'm quite glad that I went that route (I was considering a 5D MKI or 50D - but those stretched the funds). It allowed me a bit of leeway to grab some more equipment. If you're just getting in to the DSLR world there's no need to do too much with your initial investment. Chances are you're going to want to upgrade the body and lenses at some point, so get the most out of what you choose to buy and learn what the most practical choices are for your path.<br>

<br /> In terms of lenses, I'd say grab a 50mm 1.8 and a 15-85mm if you can afford to. I really enjoy my 17-85, it's a fantastic lens and if I were planning to get a different walk around I would really consider choosing the 15-85mm over the 17-55mm. Its less expensive, better range, optical quality is supposedly very similar and for a walk around you probably rarely need f/2.8 - and that extra money can go to the 50mm which would be a faster lens anyways.<br>

<br /> Whatever you choose will be a fine decision, so whatever it is do it without apprehension and enjoy shooting.</p>

<p>WOW! (I'm allowed only one "!" but more like ten here) I'm amazed at the number of responses! Thanks guys. <br>

I've got another question that's kind of bugging me. Is there a number of shots that I should look for when buying a used camera. Because I read that one guy got an error 99 when he reached 6000 shots and had to pay 250€ to get it fixed as it was out of the guarantee period. <br>

It's hard for me to make up my mind now with all whats said......hehehehehe. Hmmmmm let me think, a Canon EOS 40D with the EF-S 17-85mm f/4.5.6 IS USM sound affordable. Is this a good choice then? </p>

<p>Oh hey guys, just in case that you've missed....here's a great competition to win a Canon 5D MK II from <a href="http://photofocus.com/2011/10/04/my-last-canon-5d-mk-ii-giveaway/">Photofocus</a> @ScottBourne @Adorama<br>

Good Luck!</p>

<p>I have a 40D and have been thinking about a 50D, 60D, or 7D.</p>

<p>But on a limited budget, I'd still keep the 40D and blow the money on lenses. I think the 15-85 IS is the best choice (or the 17-55 IS). I had the 17-40L for a while and it's not that wide and not that long in spite of being an L.</p>

<p>The 17-85 IS is well known for getting Error 01 a lot due to a design flaw. I'd avoid it even though it is cheap.</p>

<p>The 24-105L is too long on a crop body. I'd avoid it as well.</p>

<p>Without doubt, 40D over 50D. 50D is basically a marketing hype. For a crop camera, 10MP provides the optimal resolution according to rule of physics. 50D with higher MP is actually deterioration in quality due to high noise and other factors (read the DPR review of that period for comparison). Spend the saved money on best quality lens that you can afford.</p>

<p>If you say 15MP is for hype, then what is your opinion of the 7D?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For a crop camera, 10MP provides the optimal resolution according to rule of physics.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which "rule of physics" might that be? The one that says that anyone can say anything they like on an internet forum?</p>

<p>actually DPReview said that the 50D has marginally better noise characteristics than the 40D, in spite of the 50% increase in MP.</p>

<p>I came across this article long time ago that "6MP is the most you can use in 35mm" due to camera shake, lens MTF, etc. and that to get better than 6MP you needed to have MLU and be on a tripod.</p>

<p>that said.. that's 6MP 3-color, but since we are all using Bayer sensors which can't sense color at every pixel, 6MP 3-color is really 18MP Bayer (same reasoning that Foveon/Sigma is using). I am willing to believe this, so the 7D is about as high as you can go in APS-C - it's equivalent to a 36MP full-frame sensor, and nobody has gone that high.</p>

<p>and to back up my 6MP claim, here's a quote from Robert Monaghan's old web site (now defunct).</p>

<p><em>Fortunately, we can turn to Monaghan's Megasite http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/limits.html to find out what can be achieved.</em></p>

<p><em>Monaghan points out how very hard it is to exceed 50 lp/mm: possible but very hard. Ordinary careful amateur photography tends to be more like 40 lp/mm: by a similar calculation to the one above a frame of 35mm film can then hold 36 x 2 x 40 x 24 x 2 x 40 pixels, or 6 megapixels.</em></p>

<p>That said, the Zeiss ZE lenses can do >100 lp/mm when used carefully (e.g. stop down a bit, use a really high shutter speed or tripod, MLU..) so you could get (6x4) = 24MP out of them.</p>

<p>This is an excellent site for comparison reviews on Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina lenses, and Canon bodys. <br />http://www.the-digital-picture.com/<br>

It breaks down the differences on an intricate scale.</p>

<p><em>I came across this article long time ago that "6MP is the most you can use in 35mm"</em></p>

<p>And one time this famous IT billionaire said that 640K was all anyone would ever need in a PC.</p>

<p>I must be a photographic genius since I have both 35mm film scans and APS-C digital images which exhibit far more than 6 MP worth of detail (38 lpmm on 35mm), including many hand held shots.</p>

<p>Oh yeah...50D. But if high ISO is a concern, consider a 60D instead.</p>

If you have posted some of your images by your kodak 8 MP then it will be clear what is your interest. Any how there

are allot of people they think that the nice image comes from the camera and here is the problem and that's why the

get frustrated before they know there camera. My friend is using 350D and he is doing great.

 

See what you gone shot and then decide which cam you need. If you come from compact a rebel cam will be more

than enough with any general purpose lens, you consider sigma or tamron

 

You can go to web sites and review tha IQ of these beginner cams and you will be amazed

<p>> 50D is basically a marketing hype<br>

The 50D isn't marketing hype. I've tested the 50D vs the 40D and the 50D is a better performer.</p>

Both are capable of shooting good looking pictures.

 

If buying a 50D means buying a bad lens then get a 40D plus a good lens. Otherwise get the 50D.

 

M.

<p>in my neck of the woods a 40D goes for about $480 and a 50D for $570. Not much of a difference.</p>

<p>you can't really get a "better" lens for an additional $90 (say you are using the 17-85 kit lens, your upgrades would be the 17-55 IS, 15-85 IS, or 17-40L which are much more money).</p>

<p>I've owned a 40D since they were new and for the last couple years a 50D too. I would choose the 50D every time. AF is faster in low light, not by a lot, but enough for me to care about. Overall image quality is better as those extra 5MP really DO matter, and the rear LCD is significantly better, especially in daylight. Both are really good cameras and I'm sure you will be happy with either. But the 50D is better.</p>

<p>Given the choice between the two, the 50D is a better performer. Even though improvement in IQ is only marginal (at best) at higher ISOs, at ISO100-> 600, the extra 5MP makes a <em>huge </em>difference, and adds a <strong>lot</strong> of flexibility to your ability to manipulate the images.<br>

AF is marginally improved, responsiveness is marginally improved, but the biggest tangible impact to <em>fast</em> shooting came from utilizing UDMA CF cards -- It meant the buffer could be emptied ~2.5 times as fast, so full buffer (even @ 6.3FPS) was much less frequently a problem than it was on the 40D.</p>

<p>That said, I personally wouldn't recommend the 17-85. I guess for daily duties it'll work, but don't expect <em>anything</em> extraordinary to come out of it. For a few extra bucks (far less than $90), you can get a Tamron 17-50/2.8, who's IQ will blow away that of the 17-85 (even WO), and is comparable (easily) to the 17-55/2.8 & 17-40/4L.<br>

If your choice comes down to a 40D + 17-50/2.8 vs. 50D + 17-85, go w/ the 40!</p>