50d and lenses or suck it up and buy a 5d mk2

[james_cox3]

<p>Hi there, this is my first post so please be kind.<br>

I am from a little town down in Australia and up until recently was working full time, now however I have decided to try my hand at full time photography.<br>

It's something I always had a keen eye for and some sort of natural ability.<br>

At the moment I have a 350D (not great I know) but it's something, and the saving grace a 24-105 L series lens, believe it or not I've shot about a dozen paid weddings with the thing now and have had nothing but glowing thanks from all.<br>

Other than weddings, I do portraits and sell canvas prints of landscape work.<br>

Now, since I'm going to be taking this more seriously I am unsure whether to go and get a 50D so I have a better body to shoot from, and some other lenses - 16-35 2.8, or 70-200 2.8<br>

Or suck it up and buy a 5d mk2<br>

I would love a 5d, but I somehow feel that a better body and some more good lenses might serve me better.<br>

Any advice would be great,</p>

<p>Thanks<br>

James</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>40d is considered by many superior to the 50. A 5D is probably all you need, a lot of people dumping now to buy the latest toy, easy at least here in the states to find a 5D. Either one of those options will allow money for more lens.</p>

[sbp]

<p>Unless you really need 21mpx, my suggestion would be to go for either the 50D or the original 5D. Both will produce great images. If you do a lot of landscape work, you might prefer the 5D, because the full frame provides true wide angle capability from your lenses. </p>

[colin carron]

<p>How big are the prints you need to produce? If they are 8x10 or A4 then either 50D or 5D will do fine. The 5D will probably look more professional!</p>

[james_cox3]

<p>The prints range from around A4 through 20" x 30"</p>

<p>Thanks for the advice guys</p>

[james_glucksman1]

<p>Hi there; as it happens, I have both the 50D and 5DMkII, and I honestly don't understand why people seem to have it out for the former. I have had nothing but excellent results from it, and whereas I used to have persistent dust problems with my old 5D (now in some thief's hands in central China), I have none with either the 50D or the 5DMkII (which would lead me to advise against an earlier poster's recommendation that you buy a used 5D if they are available). </p>

[james_cox3]

<p>Thanks James,<br /> I'm getting some real mixed reviews in terms of comparison between the 40d and 50d, some swear by the 40 and others by the 50d, I read the lengthy dpreview.com review of the 50d and aside from some high iso performance issues, and by issues I mean not quite as good the 40d...<br />At iso 100-800 will the 50d take a better photo than the 40d?<br />There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the 50d at.... i mean i learnt to only shoot at 400 or lower since my 350d any higher churns out some awful pictures occasionally above that<br>

Thanks again for your help<br>

James</p>

[evphotography]

<p>If you plan on making prints up 20x30", then it is a no brainer the 5D mark II. Even making prints that large with 21MP is having to upsample the the image a fair amount, in which you always decrease the IQ of the image when doing so. But a 21MP image will upsample to that size much easier than a 10-15MP camera without losing IQ. Look at features you need as well, original 5D is fine camera IQ wise, but it was basically a 30D with full frame 12.8MP sensor. Both the 50D & 5D MKII beat old 5D hands down feature wise. A lot of people will say, "I have made 20x30" prints with my 40D that are beautiful" which to them, friends and family probably are. But I guess it depends on how critical you are with your prints, do you want Gallery quality or prints that all family members will say look great. Look at magazines like "Arizona Highways" that won't even consider an image for their magazine that isn't shot on Large format camera, maybe Medium format 6x7 occasionally, or now probably images shot with Medium format and 39MP digital back. They would never consider images from 21MP FF camera, they are all about highest IQ. So these are all the things you need to consider if you plan on doing it professionally and then decide what are your needs.</p>

[derrickdehaan]

<p>Since you are printing at 20x30 with a 350D, you obviously know how to properly expose a photo and make an excellent shot! Congrats! I think you would be happy with a 40D or a 5D mark I myself. For weddings, I'd go 5D and then add a 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 or some nice primes. With the 5D, the 24-70 will be plenty wide and the IQ should be fantastic!<br>

Derrick</p>

[naturetrek]

<p>I upgraded from the Rebel series (300/350/400) to a 50D. The camera is excellent, I shoot most of the time above ISO 800 with great results, don't know why all the fuss. I don't think you should buy a 40D, for the price difference you get a lot of better features on the 50 compared to 40.<br /> I think the issue raised from people who upgraded from 40D to 50D and they don't see a striking difference in image quality so they take their disappointment on to the forums and reviews :)<br>

James Glucksman: how do you find the image quality on 5DMkII compared to the 50D (at all noise levels) ?</p>

[james_cox3]

<p>Thanks again everyone, I think I will get the 50d and add some serious glass to go with it. The 5d mark 2 hopefully later on next year all going well.<br /> I already have the 24-105 4.0L, which I am very satisfied with, good range and image quality.<br /> I want to stay away from ef-s lenses, since eventually I will live in FF (not yet) and don't want to lose half my usable lenses when I go there. Although the 10-22mm is very tempting.<br /> So: 16-35 2.8L II - from what I can gather, it's the ducks nuts of Canon lenses in that range (with zoom).<br /> And also - 70-200 2.8L IS USM - again considered one the best for the zoom range and the price.<br /> If anyone has had experiences with these 2 could you let me know what they are like.<br>

Cheers,<br>

James</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>"I would love a 5d, but I somehow feel that a better body and some more good lenses might serve me better."</p>

<p>James, is the above a typo, ie: did you mean to say "I would love a <em>50</em>D..."?</p>

<p>Just thinking of Canon offering both the XSi and the XS: similar cameras, except one with a few compromises, and more reasonably priced. Perhaps similarly, Canon should do a few more runs of the 5D, it's full frame (two very significant words), delivers what you really need (sans live-view, uber-pixels, self-clean, movie-mode, etc) and is supported by earlier Photoshop/ACR versions.</p>

[haifidelity]

<blockquote>

<p>At iso 100-800 will the 50d take a better photo than the 40d?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nope, I'm sorry, but there will probably be no discernible difference. If the 50D takes a better picture than the 40D, it's probably because of a better photographer.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>So: 16-35 2.8L II - from what I can gather, it's the ducks nuts of Canon lenses in that range (with zoom).<br /> And also - 70-200 2.8L IS USM - again considered one the best for the zoom range and the price.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I 'downgraded' from a 16-35mm to a 17-40mm because f/2.8 was a little pointless (for me) at the wider apertures and I find the zoom range a little more useful. Since modern DSLR's have great high-iso performance, this made it up a bit in lower light conditions. Color/Sharpness/Contrast were equally as good and for more than half the price.</p>

<p>The 'upgraded' from a 70-200mm f/4L to the f/2.8L which was worth it, especially on the long end. Image quality was comparable between the two (which is to say, fantastic).</p>

<p>I know you already made up your mind, but I would have suggested the original 5D over a 40D/50D, especially at the used prices they are going for here in the US (approximately $1,200 USD).</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

[aginbyte]

<p>I agree with Manuel; go with the 5D, not the Mark II. Great camera, good value, full-frame sensor. Then get another "L" lens with the savings.</p>

[james_cox3]

 

<blockquote>

<p>"I would love a 5d, but I somehow feel that a better body and some more good lenses might serve me better."<br>

James, is the above a typo, ie: did you mean to say "I would love a <em>50</em>D..."?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Sorry I meant a better body (50d) compared to my 350d, but would love to go straight to full frame (5d)<br /> Thanks for all the responses everyone, I've not completely made up my mind:<br /> In AUS, I can buy a new 40d for au$1050.00, a 50d for au$1650.00 and a 5d mark 1 for au$2499.00, the mark to is au$3999.00<br /> SO at those prices, for my roughly $4000 total budget I could actually get a 5d mark1 one with above recommended 17-40 4.0L lens and have enough spare for a battery grip, extra battery and 16GB CF card.<br /> Which sounds very reasonable, and at those prices, I sacrifice 1 lens for now and have a full frame camera with 2L lenses, (24-105 already own) and the 17-40, which will cover my range required at the moment very well (weddings etc. and landscapes)<br /> Thanks for the help everyone, I really appreciate it</p>

<p>James</p>

[perry_cas]

<p>you might want to review that 5d price for 'down here', I just acquired one for 1850aud. It's equally true that you may well find a better priced one in the US, although there are an awful lot of people there who seem to feel that selling to exotic and far away places like...Canada is just not on and selling to Oz? well it may as well be 'Oz' with the Wizard. I have never understood it.</p>

[james_cox3]

<p>Perry, by down here, I mean "New" "In Stock" and "In Australia", if you know where I can get my hands on a new 5d for $1850 let me know, and I'll be all over it.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>I have cleaned the sensor once on my 5D, I have enough cameras that self cleaning makes sense. I am careful about lens changes. Besides I have read enough that the self cleaning is not perfect either so at some point in the future it will have to be manually cleaned. The 5D is not a dust magnet.</p>

[eric_duncan2]

<p>I notice that many of the negative reviews of the Canon 50D, either 'in a vacuum' or as compared to the 40D are put forward by people who have not used a 50D. I bought a 40D in 2007, upgrading from a 20D, both of which I still have, and I bought a 50D about 6 weeks ago. In that time of 6 weeks, I have logged the following shot count: 50D -- 1000 shots, 40D -- 0 shots. The 40D is still a great camera. But for me, the 50D is clearly better. I am baffled by all of the comments that the differences are small or incremental. When cropping, or at A3 print size or above, 15 vs. 10 MP is noticeable without looking too hard, especially at ISO 800 or below. (Good lenses are a must to realize all of the benefit, though. My main ones are the Canon 17-55 f/2.8IS, 70-200 f/4L, and Sigma 30mm f/1.4EX.) At ISO 1600-3200, contrary to some reports, I see no more noise than on the 40D (and with 50% more pixels on the same sensor size, Canon have done well to achieve this.) Yes, ISO 6400 and 12800 equivalents (H1 and H2) are very noisy where they are most needed, in low light. But where such extreme ISO settings are required, it still amazes me that they are there at all. Above ISO 3200 (H), the 40D is out of the race. And the Digic IV is a noticeably 'sweeter' processor than the III in the 40D. I do shoot mainly RAW, but it is nice to have large jpegs that require little or no sharpening straight out of camera. Then there is the 920,000-dot 3-inch display. It really is much more useful for checking sharpness and resolution of fine detail than the display on the 40D. Hence why my 40D has been quietly waiting on the sidelines since the 50D arrived. That said, I'd love a 5DMkII, but I will wait until my 50D fails to deliver something that I ask of it, before going to FF. I have a feeling that may be some time.<br>

Happy shooting with whichever camera you choose!</p>