Go full frame 5D or 50D

[dan_sabin]

I realize these are 2 different animals, but...I'm considering and uprade my XTI for one of these cameras...It may be

too early to tell without some photo comparisons. I will wait for that. I shoot mostly landscapes and wildlife (birds)

and nature macros and an occasional event. Current lenses...Tamron 17-50Di-2, Canon 100 Macro and Canon 100-

400. I know the Di-2 won't be useful on full frame. Wish I could afford the 5d-II but out of the question. I'm honestly

leaning toward the 50D as the small sensor helps on the 100-400. I think I would add a 10-22 if I go with the 50D.

Would appreciate your comments,thoughts and a lid for this can of worms I just opened. Also, what's a reasonable

price to ask for a used Xti body...excellent condition about 6,000 clicks?

Thanks folks..

[ryanjoseph]

For wildlife and macro photography I believe the 50D is a superior camera due to its higher pixel density. Since I do primarily telephoto and macro work thats why I bought a 40D over a 5D when I upgraded from my 300D. Not to mention the money I saved was put towards better glass :)

[neil_fraser1]

Do you use editing software that allows you to view the metadata from your photographs? If so, take a look at what focal

length you tend to use your lenses at. In particular look at the metadata from the 100-400 and if you find that you're consistently using it at the longest setting then I think you would miss the x1.6 crop factor of your XTi and that would

suggest that the 50D is a better choice for you.

 

You also mentioned that you like shooting birds so the 50Ds 6.3 fps burst rate is going to be very useful compared with the

5Ds 3 fps. If you do decide to go for the 50D I would wait a little while before getting it though to see if the price settles

down a bit and to take advantage of the inevitable canon rebate offer.

[mark_pierlot]

The full frame 5D Mark II is better for landscapes shot with wide angle lenses since you won''t lose width because of

the crop factor. However, shooting widlife with a telephoto would, as you point out, benefit from the cropped sensor

by giving you extra reach. So really it's a toss up. I'd go for the 5D Mark II, though, because of its better image

quality. And the price difference between them isn't really huge, anyway.

[dan_sabin]

I was thinking along those same lines and I do tend to shoot long., especially in forests where these birds are extremely skittish and small. I sometimes wish I was a little wider wider than 17mm especiallty in tight forest conditions, that's where I think the 10-22 would come in handy. I think the higher iso will help as well in canopied forests. Please keep commenting.

Thanks Ryan and Neil...

[neil_fraser1]

I don't think we can really bring image quality into the equation just yet, seeing as neither camera has been released and all

we have to go on are a few examples. But if we must talk about it, I very much doubt that a normal person would be able

to see the difference between prints made by these two cameras. I expect that both will produce excellent images. I might

be completely off the mark but for me, at least, the crop factor/price difference/fps burst rate etc would be more important

factors in a decision between the 50D and 5DII than an extra 6mp. It is a decision I will be making at some point in the

next 12 months or so and I fear it'll be down to the bank manager to decide for me!

[neil_fraser1]

Sorry, just read back through the thread and I noticed that you had ruled out the 5DII on cost grounds. So you might as

well ignore my last post. Since you said that you do tend to shoot longer then I think the 50D is the camera to go for. On

a 50D your 100-400 will max out at 640mm! To get that on a full frame body you are going to be spending a silly amount of

money. Yes, you could use a x1.4 tele-extender to get near that, but you will loose a stop of light and a bit of image

quality.

[dan_sabin]

Neal...I agree , I'm used to having that 640mm equivilant, that's one of the reasons I'm leaning to the 50D. I know the 5D produces very good image quality but I'm hoping the the digic 4 processor and micro lensing in the 50D equals or surpasses the 5D in image quality and noise. Keep in mind I'm comaparing this to my XTI...

[JDMvW]

I'm guessing that no one who has posted here has actually got either of these cameras yet?

[dan_sabin]

JDM...you're guessing right....All we have currently is the proven 5D and the spec 50D...but it's a start.

[neil_fraser1]

No, we don't. That's kind of the point actually. You know, discussing things before buying them...

[robin_sibson1]

I have the 5D and 40D, and I too "shoot mostly landscapes and wildlife (birds) and nature macros and an

occasional event". Most of my nature macros are botanical, shot hand-held in the field, and I am currently using

the 5D+100/2.8USM+MR14-EX+(where needed)AngleFinderC. Although the 40D viewfinder is seriously better than that

of the 20D/30D (the 50D viewfinder is apparently unchanged from the 40D), it still falls well short of the 5D.

The 5D with the Ee-D screen (which I believe has more 'bite' than the Ee-A as well as the grid lines, else why

would it need a different CF setting?) makes it relatively easy to judge focus right across the screen. If I use

the 40D for such shots, then I prefer the 60/2.8 - in my view the 100/2.8 is definitely too long on 1.6-factor

for botanical work, although insects are a different matter - and that works very well, but it's still the case

that the "big" viewfinder and the ability to see what's in focus are major reasons for me to use the 5D. And I

use the 5D for most general-purpose work, partly because I am so happy with the f/4 zooms (17~40, 24~105,

70~200IS) that form my walk-around kit. the 40D is mainly used with the 100~400, exactly for the reason that you

mention, Dan, to get the most mileage out of that lens for wildlife.

 

Now, given that I'm not interested in the 1D series (too heavy, too big) until Canon chop off the power bulge and

offer me a true "digital 1V", what advantage can I take of the 50D and 5DII? I agree with Neil that we know

enough about these cameras to start thinking about how we might use them, even tho' they aren't in our hands yet.

Apart from one minor (flash sync still limited to 1/200) and one major (no f/8 AF and no f/4 HP AF)

disappointment, the 5DII looks to me like a tasty piece of goods, and I shall almost surely upgrade my 5D to a

5DII, perhaps waiting for any feeding frenzy to subside first. The interesting question is whether I shall still

need a 1.6-factor body, given how much more cropping capability 21Mpixels will give - indeed, almost exactly back

to the 8Mpixels of the 20D that I had as the predecessor of the 40D (I didn't buy the 40D for the extra

2Mpixels). Ah you may say, but now the 50D would give you 15Mpixels across the 1.6-factor crop size, almost

double what you will get by cropping from the 5DII. My worry with that is whether the 100~400 will actually be

equal to the task, It's a decent lens, but not by any means Canon's best - way short of the superb 70~200/4IS,

for example - and I rather fear that a 15Mpixel 1.6-factor sensor may not gain much with it, certainly at 400mm.

You might think about that, Dan.

[colin carron]

Dan,

I have the 5D at presnt and my first digital camera was the old 300D (a predecessor to your XTi).. I went for full frame because I mostly do wide angle landscape and architecture. That choice has proved a good one. But for wildlife shots the crop factor camera with its good pixel density had a lot going for it.

 

I found thr Canon 10-22 a very good lens indeed on the crop factor camera and can recommend it whleheartedly.

 

Whichever way you go they are both very fine cameras but I think in your position I would go for your plan of the 50D body also adding the Canon 10-22 for wide angle shots.

[milton-chris]

Dan - the resale value of your XTi is so low (prolly around $200 - $300) that you might as well keep it as a backup / second lens. Keep 10-22 on it. Just remember to take it out and use it, or you'll forget how to as the controls are so different.

 

HTH

[danielleetaylor]

I researched comparison images between the 40D and 5D just a few months ago and found there was hardly any difference between them at low-to-mid ISO. I don't know because I don't own one (yet), but I would bet the 50D pretty much matches or exceeds the 5D in IQ, which simply makes it the better camera unless you plan on investing in Canon's fast WA primes.

 

I know that's a heresy and might upset some 5D fans, but the 40D already offered 90% of the 5D's IQ. The 5D is 3 years old and sensor technology has really moved forward.

 

Now if you could afford a 5D mkII, the story would probably be different, but you've said that's not an option.

[yakim_peled1]

All I can say is that my 10-22 and 17-55 are so good that I have decided that whichever body I buy next, it will be an addition to my 40D, not a replacement. I think you will be very happy with a 50D and 10-22 combo.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[joe_burns1]

I am sort of in the same position as you - Xti about 2 yrs old, assortment of glass but only one EF-S lens (Sigma 10-20 which I really like). I like to shoot youth sports (I have 2 boys) and the 3 fps on the XTi is a drag. I will upgrade to the 50D at some point after the initial rush. If the 5D mk II had a better burst rate I might have considered it but for my needs the 50d looks to be a better bet. Plus, with my Sigma 100-300 f4 zoom I still have the extra reach. If I really want a FF body in the future I'd be inclined to buy a used 5D. The only real issue I have with the crop body is that my 24-105 f4 which is on my camera most of the time isn't as wide as I'd like. I will probably keep the 10-20 on my XTi so I don't need to switch back/forth.

[photos of hans koot]

maybe rumours, but interesting

 

http://www.techdigest.tv/2008/09/exclusive_canon.html

[KenPapai]

Already a thread on "Canon Held Back?" here:

 

http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Qt9X

 

If you are shooting wild animals the 50D is the camera to get -- 1.6 factor on your telephotos. This is a no brainer.

[photos of hans koot]

I see Ken, thanks.

[model mayhem gallery]

In my opinion if you are not sure why you need a 5D you probably don't need it.

 

I still shot 35MM film and like to switch back and forth from Film to Digital. I want to be able to shot with either camera and get the exact same shot with the same lens. When I shoot with my 85 1.2 L lens on my film camera it makes a great portrait lens. When I put this on my 30D it becomes WAY too long. I can barely use my 70-200 in-doors at all on a crop sensor camera. Thus for me and the way I shoot The 5D is well worth the price when I have several $1500+ lenses. I think you could get more bang by having both keep you XTI until it absolutely falls apart. I don't think you will see a huge difference in IQ between the XTI and the 50D. But, full frame is a different breed of photography altogether... IMOP :-)

[pankaj purohit]

As other friends already said : For Landscapes and specialy for birding, you should keep going with APS sensors.

Because after applying crop factor of sensor, you get much bigger focal lenghts and you get your birds more closer.

If you choose teh FX/Full Frame Sensor, you will get benifts of wide angle lenses but here you would also have to

invest in some more bigger focal lenght telephotos lenses or teleconvertors. If you realy want to enjoy the full frame

which won't be too often, you mey also consider the Canon EOS film body.

[dan_sabin]

Thank you all for your information and perspectives. I'll be sleeping on this now reviewing my options. I enjoy the decision making process because I'm learning. Just wanted to add that it's a testiment to the quality of the 5D since it is still discussed and compared. All the discussed camreas meet a certain need, whether financial, photographic or both. Looking forward to some photos and data.....and sometime in the near future a new camera. Thanks folks!