xsi, 50D or 5D? (other suggestions?)

<p>I just smashed my Digital Rebel XT and have to find something to replace it. I've got some great canon lenses (100-400 IS L, 24-105 IS L, and even an EFS 10-22) so I figure I'll stay with Canon, though I'm not sure whether I should stay with the crop sensor--even if that means parting with one EFS lens. <br>

I'm just a hack (who but a hack leaves their camera on top of the car and drives away) and I shoot mostly landscape and wildlife kinds of stuff. I'm torn between going cheap; finding a used XT or XTi or going all out and getting the newest and latest features. </p>

<p>I would go with a 40D. Much better control then the Rebels as well as being more durable. Its also very low priced. IMO its the best camera for the $$</p>

<p>Me? I'd buy a used XT or a XTi. KEH has some decent prices on both.</p>

<p>I'm pretty sure I'll be the only one saying this though. The chance to spend someone elses money is too tempting for a lot of people in photography forums.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>[[Much better control then the Rebels as well as being more durable]]</p>

<p>So your claim, Tommy, is that a 40D will survive a fall from the top of a moving car?</p>

<p>I'd like to see you back that up.</p>

<p>Edit:<br>

I'm adding this bit here because I realize the reply sounded way too harsh. I didn't mean it to. Sorry.</p>

<p>No Rob but its certainly more durable and has a longer shutter life, I believe like twice the life. I had a rebel and the photos where just fine but I found I learned much more much quicker with the 40D.</p>

<p>For a crop format, I'd get a 50D. The high rez LCD alone is worth the couple extra benjamins over the 40D. I find the extra rez and better noise reduction a plus as well. With that said, the 5D has the best overall IQ among the XSi, 40D & 50D. If you can put up with the small dim LCD and lack of LV. I don't use LV but those from the point 'n shoot crowd value it greatly.</p>

<p>since we are spending your money, the 50D, don't have it but some of my friends do, add the 17-55 2.8 IS and you would be hog heaven.</p>

<p>Thanks for the ideas. I don't plan on launching any more cameras from the top of the car, but you can never be sure. I'm not counting on purchasing anything capable of withstanding that kind of impact--the worst I've usually faced was the dog knocking over the tripod. <br>

I like the notion of a larger, clearer LCD. I have a hard time gauging how sharp my shot turned out on this current display, and I like the notion of sensor cleaning. Mine seems to get very dirty all too often and small aperture shots get ruined. I'd like more megapixels, just because I end up cropping my shots a lot and that would give me more flexibility, and I would like to do the occasional large print--bigger than letter size--for display. (I used to do cibachrome from Velvia or Kodachrome 25--but I've never done a large digitial print.) <br>

This is the only digital SLR I've had, and I've liked the compact size and the quality of images I've gotten so far. </p>

<p>Wanting to upgrade my oldish 20D, I compared the 40D and XSi extensively across a camera store counter. And picked the XSi solely for the much better ergonomics. The fact that it was less money (wasn't concerned about that) was a bonus. <a href="http://www.citysnaps.net/blog/">Some of my daily XSi pix</a>...</p>

<p>It is a difficult decision. Used full-frame EOS 5D's have become affordable, but the modern 40D's and 50D's are also appealing. However, if you shoot landscapes I'd say that full-frame is the way to go. The 5D's sensor is physically twice the size of the APS-C cameras. Mexapixels don't count for much, better learn to frame more accurately (which is <i>much</i> easier with the large viewfinder of the 5D).</p>

<p>Another vote for the 50D over the 40D.</p>

<p>Another vote for 50D (unless you shoot only landscape and the 5D would be a somewhat better choice because of the FF, but I know you don't judging by the photos on your portfolio). </p>

<p>If you need speed and image quality in one, the 50D has it. I've also upgraded from the XT/XTi and it's a huge difference. I couldn't care less about the camera body build (although the XTi is a bit too small for an SLR), but the image quality at high ISO and the speed of the 50D, along with the incredible LCD is amazing (compared to the Rebels).</p>

<p>You can go with the 40D if $200 difference is an issue, but I think the extra features of the 50D are worth every penny.</p>

<p>And you should consider yourself lucky that the 100-400 was not mounted on, at the time of the tragedy :)</p>

<p>For IQ the 5D, for convience the 50D. Which is more important to you?</p>

<p>I have the 40D and 5D . <br>

The 5D gives superior IQ, but not "night and day" level. I don't usually go ultrawide, so the 24-105 is for the most part fine with me. I also have the 10-22, and it's IQ is superb, and I would hate to give that up, for the times I need the extra stretch.<br>

ALSO have the 100-400, and really like the reach on the 40D, but the IQ combined with the 5D is all I could ask for, and have no qualms about enlargement<br>

This rambling is actually heading toward a suggestion: the 50D. I think you'll like the control layout, with just a little practice, the reach for the 100-400, you can still use your 10-22, and I've found myself using the live view with grid quite a lot for landscape/cityscape shots (I'm a bad horizon tilter). I print my own 13x19s off my 40D and have no complaints, and the general consensus is that the 50D is an improvement</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I use the 5D and 40D. I like the 5D images better, especially in low light/high ISO use. But, the 40D does focus faster for birds in flight and the extra 1.6x helps on the long end. Since you have an EFS lens, the 40D would be a better choice (you should be able to find a new one under $1000 with 28-135 IS lens). The 50D has the newer processor and higher resolution, so if that is important to you, it might be worth the extra cost.</p>

<p>I know the 40D is a huge improvement over the XT for wildlife. I never knew the 100-400 could focus that fast until I upgraded, the larger viewfinder makes it easier when trying to find the small birds and the lcd is much better. You'd love the 40D and you'll love the 50D even more.</p>

<p>Funnily enough, through sheer idiocy on my part, I have launched an XSi from a moving car (35mph-ish). Not only did the camera survive, but continues to perform exemplary. The lens... the lens... let's just say that I am supremely thankful that I did not have my favorite lens (EF 70-200 f/4L) mounted at the time.</p>

<p>This is just my gut feeling, and I am certainly not going to test it, but I have a feeling that my 30D, with its heavier body, may not have fared as well. Again, just a thought.</p>

<p>Here you go. Enjoy and learn from other's mistakes:</p>

<p>http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=538875&highlight=35mph</p>

<p>In terms of IQ, you won't go wrong with any of them. I think it comes down to which features you want, your budget, and what feels best in your hands.</p>

<p>>>> In terms of IQ, you won't go wrong with any of them. I think it comes down to which features you want, your budget, and what feels best in your hands.</p>

<p>So true. And excellent advice. On internet forums so much hand-wringing is put into owning "the best," yet photography and the results you get is much more about vision and interpretation.</p>

<p>100% the 5d. I used the 40d for 2 years and just got a used 5d. It's like night and day! I will never shoot with my 40d if I dont have to again!</p>

<p>There isn't a bad choice, but if you can swing the 5D, I'd get it. You have the lens to use (ignoring your one efs). I have a 5D, and I really like it. I waited for the 5D to come out to switch to digital. Of course a 5D mark II would be even better, but the mark I is still a great camera. Anyway, I am guessing that 5D mark I's can found on the "cheap" for a little while anyway. Whatever you decide, getting a new camera is always fun. Enjoy it!</p>

<p><em>"Funnily enough, through sheer idiocy on my part, I have launched an XSi from a moving car (35mph-ish). Not only did the camera survive, but continues to perform exemplary."</em><br>

<em></em> I looked at the pictures from the other board, and now have one more reason to be glad i went with the XSi. :)<em><br /> </em></p>

<p>50D bodies are $1149.00 Canadian funds now; good deal. 5D (mark 1) full frames are $1699 Canadian now, but your 10-22 won't fit. You could sell the 10-22 to me for the difference between the 5D and 50D bodies; good deal too.</p>

 

<p>Like you I'm forced to look at upgrading my XTi. In my case I burned through the poor little thing taking 600-1800 shots per weekend during hockey season for two and a half years. Cost is a big part of my decision and after a month of research it was coming down to 40D or 50D. <br>

The specs and data were beginning to drive me nuts so my decision came down to this, I'm also a photo editor for a hockey blog . So I have the perfect chance to judge who's shots look better the the photog 40D with the red ring or the 50D with the gold? Hate to tell you but the 50D is looking better with the $500.00 lens over 40D and the expensive glass. First pay day in April I'm ordering myself a 50D to cover the AHL playoffs .<br>

We can talk pixels and stats all we want but in the end it comes down to one thing to your eye what will produce the best results. Figure that one out then, can you afford it? </p>

<p>The LCD on the 50D vs. the 40D, that alone is woth the extra cost.</p>