EOS 5Dm2 or 50D?

[mark_turner5]

Hello! Many applogies if this is the wrong topic to post in.

 

Firstly I'll tell you what gear I currently own, to get an idea on what I'm asking...

 

I currently own a 350d and a 35mm EOS5, and two lenses: a Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX DG and a Sigma 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 (not DG).

I'm a pretty keen photographer, and would say I know a fair amount...

 

 

With the new 5D and 50D around, I'm trying to decide if it's worth spending to get either of these.

I'm fairly pleased with my 350d, although I'm not always that impressed. I'm not sure if it's to do with the number of megapixels, how good

the image sensor is or another reason, but my images are not always as good as I'd like them to be... (obviously it may just be me!)

 

I'd just like to know whether buying either one of the 5d/50d would make a huge amount of difference in comparison to my 350d. Obviously

the 5d has a much larger sensor to my 350d, which is something that really grabs me. I guess it also has the video capture and a huge

amount of pixels, and a number of other features.

 

So if you don't mind, would it be possible to list some of the benefits of upgrading, perhaps if anyone else has made an upgrade from a

350d?, and whether it's worth it...

 

 

Also to add: I took a few photo's with a mate the other day, and we compared shots (only on the screen of our cameras) and I felt his

images where alot better... He has the Nikon D80 with the factory lens - is it the 18-55mm? Could this just be to do with the quality of his

LCD screen that made them look alot better... or something else? - if so... what?

 

 

Thanks so much! I'd be happy with whatever you have to say!

 

MT

[goulden]

the difference will be almost nothing unless you need HD video or slightly better noise at iso's of 1600 or higher

 

otherwise the biggest difference is lenses that you use, your post processing and practice

[mark_pierlot]

I concur with James. Put some good EF primes or L zooms in front of your sensor and your IQ will improve

dramatically.

 

I've opted for the 5D Mark II, largely because I've used nothing but full frame (film) bodies till now, and also because I

do a lot of available light shooting, so I could really use the high ISO capability of the Mark II. But only you

will be able to decide whether the extra cost for the better body is worth paying.

[tdigi]

Look at some 50D reviews. If you are going with Canon a 40D may be a cheaper and better option.

 

Nikon and Canon each make great cameras so a D80 from Nikon or a 5D or 40D from Canon would be excellent. It's

probably best to test both out if you can to see what feels right for you. I use both at times and I prefer the Canon but

both are excellent.

[J.W. Wall]

In what way are your current images not satisfying to you? If you can specify what is lacking, then you're on the road to determining which new tool you need to supply the deficiency. Either of those cameras will feel and handle differently from your current one, so you might benefit from trying them out at a camera shop before you decide. The old rule of thumb is the it is the glass that makes the most difference; the camera is just a box (of course, a box with lots of great features these days!). There are lots of comparison threads and reviews of both cameras, from which you can distill a comparison of features. Only you can decide.

[sbp]

Tommy makes a good point. I used a 40D for a backup body, and just traded it for a 50D. With the exception of a better

screen and a few more menu options, i don't see much benefit. IQ is about the same (up to A4 prints) and high ISO

performance may be worse than 40D.

[tommyinca]

I would go for the 5D to help out the economy :-) You get finally to see the full frame of the super wide Sigma 15-30 and what you have been missing. The 5D has a much better AF. The pictures can be better "on the average" just because of the better AF. If the MK2 is the same, dynamic range and noise characteristic should be better too.

[peter_mckone]

Don't be fooled by what you see on the LCD. My friend's images look better on his Sony P&S LCD than on my 350D LCD. On the computer monitor, it's another story.

[PuppyDigs]

The 5DII & 50D would be major major upgrades to a 350D! Sheesh, even the 50D VF is jumbo in comparison and the 5DII VF

massive--makes composition and viewing so much easier. The 350D VF is a friggen postage stamp in a tunnel! The AF

systems are a few light-years beyond the 350D and believe me will translate into a lot more keepers in low light and action

sequences. Also the ambient and flash metering of the new cameras are much better and consistent (not to mention having

easy overrides via QCD). Both cameras allow you to see and change ISO without removing eye from VF. The 350D needs a

long trip to the menus. And, of course, feel and build quality are much better than the 350D.

 

Of course noise control at high ISO will be much better. You'll see a real diff in print quality at 8x12 and larger. Probably won't

matter much at smaller sizes. One thing I've noticed with newer bodies is require less post-processing than a few generations

back.

 

If I had a bunch of money burning a hole in my pocket, I'd get the 5DII.

[KenPapai]

If you rarely if ever print larger than 8x10 inches then anything bigger than the 10MP 40D is way overkill for you. The 40D is a superb, 1st-rate camera -- combine that with a new lens, one of Canon's 2.8L's and you'll be set. I think part of your problem is the Sigma hyperzoom.

[images_in_light_north_west]

Don't upgrade if you can't afford the good glass to go with it, I would say get a 40D, good price right now and you will

have some money left over to get some good glass. Ross

[gerrymorgan]

<p>

From what I have seen, I disagree that the 50D would be a major upgrade to the 350D in terms of image quality.

I've not had the chance to use a 50D yet, but when I tried a 40D, I decided not to upgrade from my 20D because

the image quality was strikingly similar. The reviews I've read so far of the 50D point to it not being

significantly better than the 40D, and perhaps in some ways not quite so good.

</p>

<p>

I was also not sufficiently impressed by the difference between my 20D and a friend's 5D to upgrade. The 5D was

better, but the difference was subtle. I posted a direct comparison in <b><a

href="http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00RKeR">this recent thread</a></b>.

</p>

<p>

Of course, you might have other reasons to upgrade. There is no doubt that the viewfinder of the 40D and 50D (and

especially the 5D) are much better than that of your 350D. For example, automatic sensor cleaning on the newer

cameras is a nice feature. Live view is also very convenient, especially for people who have trouble manually

focusing by eye through the viewfinder.

</p>

<p>

Mark, I went to your web page but I did not see any photos there, so the following might not apply to you. But

generally, I think the best way we can all improve our weaker photos is by better composition and better light

(and that can be natural light, whether controlled in some way or not, or flash). Others have suggested better

glass, and it's true that can help too. The best way to improve composition is to look at other people's work,

and perhaps to study intelligent critiques of other people's work. But unless there is a new technical feature

that makes something possible that previously was not, it's unlikely that you will improve your photography by

buying a new camera.

</p><div></div>

[neill_farmer2]

Hi Mark. I think I'd try for better lenses before the body upgrade. These don't have to cost the earth, something like a Tamron 17-50 F2.8 for around $440, a Canon 70-200 F4L or one of Canons cheaper primes, 50 1.8 or 85 1.8. Yes, a 40-50D or 5D is going to be a big step up from the 350D in terms of photography ergonomics and capabilities but it won't improve your image quality without better glass. Even with your 350D you will see a big difference in quality when you put something worthwhile in front of it.

Neill

[sattler123]

I'd suggest that you spend $80 and get the nifty fifty (50mm f/1.8), attach it to your 350D, take it out for the day and look at the pictures you captured with it - you will be amazed what difference good glass can make. The lenses you currently own do not even remotely challenge the capabilities of your camera. Your problem is not the body, but the glass you are using.

[ed_v.]

Mark, I'd have to agree with Neill and Juergen. I own the 350D (Rebel XT where I am) and wasn't pleased with my

photos. I had the itch to upgrade to a 40D about 6 months ago, but then opted instead to get the Canon 70-200

f/4L on the advice of a photographer-friend. I already owned the 50 f/1.8 II so I knew what the camera was capable

of. The 70-200 f/4L is a VERY nice lens for the price and I understand the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is an equally good

bargain.

 

I'll probably upgrade the body soon also, but I think it's sound advice to get some good lenses first and practice

with them for a few months while the 50D price drops... :)

[yakim_peled1]

>> and would say I know a fair amount...

 

I apologize in advance but your post suggest otherwise.

 

>> Also to add: I took a few photo's with a mate the other day, and we compared shots (only on the screen of our cameras) and I felt his images where alot better... He has the Nikon D80 with the factory lens - is it the 18-55mm? Could this just be to do with the quality of his LCD screen that made them look alot better... or something else? - if so... what?

 

It's impossible to comment without seeing the pictures but it can't be the LCD. The simplest assumption is that it's a better shot because he is a better photographer or he just got lucky but this is oversimplification. You really need to post the pictures to get valuable advices.

 

>> I think I'd try for better lenses before the body upgrade.

 

I completely agree. For portraits I'd try the 85/1.8 first.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[mark from thailand]

Agree difference between 350 & 50/5 is not going to be that significant.

 

It could be due to lenses - we all know about the "Loholism" that haunts us once we've bought "L" glass. I love my 24-70 f/2.8 L as my walk-around lens.

 

Also it could be post processing - especially if you're shooting in RAW. RAW files without levels, curves, saturation & sharpening are going to look a little flat.

[umar_ridzuan]

I have 2 of 400D with a Tamron 17-50mm F2.8, a 24-105mm F4L IS and a 70-200mm F4L, and I have no complaint

about the quality of the photos, even at ISO 800 and ISO 1600.

 

I did borrowed from my "money no object" friend's 40D, and compare a few shots. Not much difference, except at

ISO 1600.

 

However, at low light, the 40D's autofocus locked much faster than the 400D. The 400Ds sometimes hunts.

 

The other thing is the 400D grip i.e. camera size is quite small for my palm, yet the 40D is too big.

My sister's Nikon D80 camera size (grip) is just perfect for my palm. CANON, are you hearing this!

[PuppyDigs]

"The other thing is the 400D grip i.e. camera size is quite small for my palm, yet the 40D is too big. My sister's Nikon D80

camera size (grip) is just perfect for my palm. CANON, are you hearing this!"

 

Hmm, the 40D/50D grip is nearly perfect for my hand, and I have moderately small hands, so you must be a tiny guy as I'm

only 5'8". The Rebels are uncomfortable--too small. Hopefully Canon won't make the XXD series any smaller.

[lukeap69]

I had the 400D and now the 40D. I also have small hands but find the gripped 40D better (for me) in terms of handling compared to the 400D (XTi) gripped. I normally shoot manual so the dial for the aperture at the back of the 40D is really useful for me instead of the AV button plus the shutter speed dial being operated at the same time. About the IQ, I thing 40D shines in ISO 800 to 1600 department. from ISO 100 to 400, you may not see any difference. As suggested above, try to upgrade your lenses.

[Michael Eckstein]

I've upgrade from the 40D to 50D and am very happy I did. Better AF in dim light, faster AF acquisition. Much better LCD.

Greater choice of iso's. Better image detail. Very good high iso performance.

 

Here's an ISO 12,800 image.

 

http://www.meckstein.com/post/.jpg

iso_12,800-11-05-08-50D-08<div></div>

[tom_aellis1]

What is NEVER talked about, (but touched on) is that after 8mp it really does not matter regarding the pixel hype

unless you are shooting large format prints and studio high fashion et. al.., It's ALL about the Dynamic Range.

The Camera mfrs are simply playing the MP' war to get as much milage out of it as they can. Can't blame them.

 

Now, that being said, the DR on the 50D is actually more shallow then the 40D. Yup? Please do a bit of homework

on Dynamic Range and you will see how this makes a difference in your images / prints / art.

 

Now, if you desire full frame, invest in a scanner for your 35mm film body or pick up a used 5D as soon as the 5D

mk II is to market.

Best,

Tom<div></div>

[gerrymorgan]

Michael, is that a 100% crop? If so, that's impressive high ISO performance. There's some banding in the shadows, but it seems quite controlled.

[jack_stauffer]

Tom,

Your comment on the 50D/40D dynamic range comparison was of interest since I am thinking about moving to the 50D from my XTI. I am strictly interested in prints. I do not recall seeing a figure of merit that would allow one to quanitatively compare two cameras dynamic range performance.

Of course, there is always the HDR approach, but that is independent of what we are discussing here.

Any expansion on your initial comments would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,

Jack

[mark_turner5]

Hello! Thanks very much for all your responses, they're all very helpful!

 

I've decided that I should invest in getting a better lens...

 

I've been looking at the Canon range, the L range looks very temping, in particular the 24-70mm & the 17-40mm.

Sigma also do a 24-70mm, which is alot cheaper. I've tried looking for a few comparisons. But what would be the significant differences between the Sigma and Canon?

 

One suggestion was to buy a 50mm lens and give it a go, at the moment I have no money! But as soon as I do, I'm planning on buying one, especially at £40!

 

I'm trying to decide which is the best lens to use. I'd say in particular I photograph landscapes, towns and quite often close ups. I guess I'm trying to get the best focal range for the

lowest price whilst getting a quality lens...

 

I am only a student so don't have tons of money lying around, but would like to know what lenses are suggested.

I realise this is probably a bit of a difficult request, as I'm leaving the options fairly open, I guess I don't really know what sort of lens I'd like - so am asking for any suggestions!