5DMK II VS 50D

[nachi_abrams]

Perhaps it is too early to ask this question, since neither camera is out yet. I would like to upgrade from my Rebel

XT. Will image quality be better with the 5DMKII than the 50D? If I am not enlarging more that 8 x 10 and I am

using a 135L lens. I take mostly portraits, some landscapes, group shots. Thanks

[bobatkins]

At 8x10, no.

 

At 24x36, yes.

 

At 11x14, probably not.

 

135 is normally a bit long for portraits with a crop sensor camera, but if you're happy with it on a Rebel XT, you'll be happy with it on a 50D. It's really not the ideal lens for group shots unless you can stand a LONG way back from the group!

[evphotography]

For 8x10 go with the 50D, in fact if the new 5D mark II was only 16MP like some thought it would be, I probably would have saved the money and bought the 50D. But with 21MP and HD video I have go for 5D II. I love my 40D so I know the 50D is going to be one sweet camera.

[JDMvW]

The 50D will be more than adequate, especially if you have any investment in EF-S lenses. I have some legacy lenses that make the 5D MK II attractive to me, but otherwise I'd stick with the X0D series.

[photo_dark]

I've had images printed from my 10mp 40D up to 120" and they looked fantastic, even closer up.

 

Unless you regularly print LARGE gallery prints, or tend to do a lot of extreme cropping, megapixels alone arn't a good reason to upgrade. For flickr and web posting, the rebel should be more than sufficient.

[zafar1]

You get 5D/5D Mark II for its IQ attributes, frame size, noise performance, dynamic range, color rendition, etc, not for the number of pixels.

 

All else being equal (e.g. the photographer), one will always get a better image from 5D. In some cases the improvement is only marginal and would require side-side comparison and in other cases the improvement is really significant.

 

My suggestion to you is that you rent/borrow the 5D (not Mark II) from somewhere and try it out yourself. If you don't see any advantage in using current 5D over your current camera, 40D/50D is the way to go.

[dan_sabin]

I'm kind of in the same boat....I think the 5DMKII may be a little steep pricewise for me. Not to say I won't do it but I tried a 5D the other day just for some general comparisons and must say I was impressed with the images compared to my XTI, probable no suprise there. It produced images with much less noise, at least visually. Comparing the full frame to an S size chip also introduces many other factors relating to lenses. Right now I'm torn between a 5D, 5DmkII and the 50D. I like to do some HDRs and panoramas and shoot raw so I'm a little concerned with file size as well. The mkII has introduced smaller raw saving options but if you do that what's the point? I also wonder if the new digic4 on the 50D reduces noise to below 5D levels and the improved overlapping microlensing on the 50D makes the images equal to or better than the 5D. The 5D is a nice camera and the one in my price range that I would consider for comparison. Until I see images side by side shot with same lens, and hopefully someone will do that, I'm going to hold tight. Specs are important but I need to see because to me that is the bottom line. It's at the point where the camera capabilities exceed what we see on screen, and meeting the limitiations of the lenses we use as well, printing is another story. All that being said, being a serious amateur, it sure is a great time to be enjoying the technology...which is moving faster than my skills are. So why I wait I try to improve my skills. So it's not too early to ask the question, it's just too early to answer it....

[nachi_abrams]

Thanks everyone. I cant wait till they come out so I get the feel of them side by side. At the moment, I think I will go with the 50D as most of my prints do not exceed 8x10.

[jamie_robertson2]

I too considered the 50D as I rarely print above 10x8. However, I hate the depth of field on crop cameras... there is just too much of it. I love the shallow depth of field on full frame and 35mm, especially for portrait work. Not only that, the 5D MkII will perform far better in low light than the 50D. I must admit that the effective focal length of the crop SLR will be a huge miss for my wildlife photography but that's the only thing I will miss about my old 350D. As far as the 3.9fps goes... I just couldn't care less. People get too caught up in blistering speed.

 

Don't get me wrong, the 50D will be a truly superb camera and for less than half the price of a new 5D MkII it makes great sense especially if you don't print above, say, 16x12.

[ben_quinn1]

the 50d is half the price of the 5d mkII, the only reason someone who shoots portraits/landscapes would ask this question is if they are either to tight or broke to get the 5d mkII. Buy the 50d and take your kids on vacation instead.