50D versus 5D for landscapes?

[dogbert]

I am looking to add a second camera to my 450D, which I use as a lightweight travel body.

 

Which camera has the better image quality for landscapes out of the 50D and 5D? Would I notice much difference in

13x19 inch prints?

 

The 50D has a few more pixels and latest digic, but the 5D has bigger pixels and considered the IQ benchmark

camera for mortals for a long time.

 

Also the 5D should be less taxing on the lens (lower sampling rate) but then it uses more of the corners.

The 50D has better menus, LCD, and all the latestest bells and whistles, much of which I won't use, but would still

be nice to have. On the other hand the 5D has a FF viewfinder.

 

Has any one compared them head to head as far as image and print quality is concerned? 5D markII is too

expensive. All my lenses are FF except the EF-S 10-22 and 55-250 (which is disposable anyway).

[g dan mitchell]

While the FF body is capable of somewhat higher IQ, you would almost certainly not notice it much if at all at 13 x 19 size

from uncropped originals.

 

What you might still notice is that you can shoot at a larger number of apertures w/o diffraction blur setting in, and that

some lenses "come into their own" on the FF format.

[scott_jay2]

For landscapes I would go the FF 5D for sure, although its still quite a bit more expensive I think.

[raymond_black]

I suggest to go for 5D. You will be disappointed with diffraction problem for 50D. You can't get good imagine for aperture smaller than f8

(regardless of lens used). This is frustrating for landscape photography.

[hawkman]

5D, no contest the 50D extra pixels won't do you any good, you can read various reviews like the one on dpreview.com or the one here by Bob to figure why.

[PuppyDigs]

I have a 50D and 5D and although the 50D has nicer bells 'n whistles, the 5D spanks it badly in terms of IQ, especially at

larger print sizes and high ISO. Plus, wide is really wide on the 5D, a real plus for landscapes.

[g dan mitchell]

By the way, I agree with those who posted after I did - the FF body is capable of higher image resolution. However, you

were specific about the 13 x 19 size, and I still am not confident that you would see a significant (if any) difference at that

print size.

[images_in_light_north_west]

5D, way better for landscape

[JDMvW]

I don't think the IQ would be noticeably better with one or the other in practical terms. However, you get more "telephoto" effect with the 15x22mm sensor on the 50D, and you get more from your wide-angle lenses in effect on the 24x36mm 5D. You pays your money and you takes yer choice. Look at your own preferences and see which is more useful to you.

[steve_brantley2]

I owned a 20D, and now have the 5D. The 5D offers advantages over the 50D in terms of overall superior image quality, lower noise at higher ISO settings, and the ability to take wider angle landscape shots (such as with the 17-70 L lens). Comparable images taken with the 5D and the 50D should begin to show obvious differences when you enlarge the photos up to 100X or 200X, although those images wold look rather similar when viewd as a 4" by 6" print. The choice is not easy, especially when looking at the 50D's more developed menu options, DIGIC IV image processor, the lower price, and anti-dust technology.

[John Crowe]

It also depends on the lenses that you have. If you go for the 5D you will need to replace your 10-22. Part of the advantage of full frame is the ability to use high quality wideangle lenses to their full potential.

[dave404]

My first experience with a full frame camera was with the 5D which I borrowed while shooting a Christening event. Immediately I thought my 20D was like shooting with a pea shooter. It was apparent that my 24-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L were not realizing their full potential on the 1.6X body. As Steven mentioned, noise is much less reduced on the 5D. I spend much less time doing Noise Ninja and other programs (almost none at ISO 800). For landscape the field of view is king you do not want to be constrained. I have shot with a 10-22 and I good results on a trip to Lake Tahoe, but the better lenses are all geared to full frame.

 

You may find even cheaper 5Ds on the market as people move to the 5D MkII. The 5D is a fine camera. I would not mind having a 5D mkII as the primary and the 5D as backup. For now the 5D is the main the 20D backup.