Between EOS 40D and EOS 50D which to be opt?

[subhasis_roy]

<p>Dear,<br>

I have EOS 400D and I want to upgrade the camera to 40D/50D. Which will better for Bird and wildlife photography? Please tell me upto which 'f' number the autofocus will support for those camera?<br>

Subhasis Roy<br>

Sikkim,India</p>

[rainer_t]

<p>Autofocus will work up to f/5.6 with those cameras. (only the 1 series supports AF at f8)</p>

[gorasinski]

<p>I second what Rainer T said.<br>

For bird photography it might be better to go for 50D, as you will be cropping images alot.</p>

[sjsimmons]

<p>I have the 40D and I'm very happy with it. I don't know what lenses you're using, but if you're planning on cropping a lot, the 50D will give you more room to do that, and I don't think they are too far apart in price anymore. If you can afford it, I'd spring for the 50D, but you won't go wrong with the 40D either.</p>

[iqbal]

<p>I strongly recommend 40D based on my experience. First, 50D was marketing push: the maximum MP for these type of cameras should not be more than 12MP based on engineering and physics, while 50D is 15MP, over kill. (see, for example, review in Digital photography).<br />(2) Storage and its management is another problem with large MP cameras, esp. some one living in India.<br />Either go for 5D (if you can afford) or just get 40D.<br>

(3) See my gallery in <a href="http://www.photo.net/photos/iqbal">http://www.photo.net/photos/iqbal</a> (from Pakistan and Italy). Infact, majority of them are from Canon XT.</p>

[images_in_light_north_west]

<p>If you also do Landscape then the 40D, if its bird and wildlife only, then the 50D</p>

[nhut-nguyen]

<p>I shoot birds with a 40D and I think it's quite a camera for the job. Although the 50D has got some bad reviews regarding its high density sensor, Aurthur Morris, one of the world best in bird shooters, said on his Online Bulletin #283 <strong>"I get more screamingly sharp flight keeper images with the 50D more than any previous Canon camera body"</strong>. Focus performance is paramount for bird-inflight. I'd go with the 50D.</p>

[number95]

<p>It seems AF is more reliable and probably a bit fast on 50D -thanks to Digic IV processing- since AF system is the same with 40D. For birding and wildlife, AF should be important for you. On the other hand 50D is a better camera in terms of functionalities (better LCD, microfocus adjustment, higher ISO sensitivity, higher mpixels for cropping etc). So you need to decide whether it is worth extra cost. Btw, do not expect to see a difference in IQ wrt to 40D, there is not IMHO.</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>The cropping "advantage" is pretty bogus, IMHO.</p>

<p>When you're looking at a bird that's small in the frame (ie just when cropping is likely to be necessary), getting pin-sharp focus is <em>the</em> most important thing: because the bird will be the same size in the 50D's VF as it will be in the 40D's, the likelihood that you will be bang on the eye is no better with the 50D.</p>

<p>This means that when it comes to cropping, you're more likely than not going to end up with nothing more than a bigger <em>out of focus image</em> from the 50D than from the 40D.</p>

<p>Bear in mind too that the <em>per pixel</em> sharpness of the 50D is less than that from the 40D, which again will make for debatable cropping "advantage</p>

<p>I don't really buy the argument that the 50D's AF is any better than the 40D's either: it hasn't been in any of my tests, which is why I stuck with the 40D.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>I get more screamingly sharp flight keeper images with the 50D more than any previous Canon camera body</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>At the risk of sounding cynical, <em>he's bound to say that</em>, isn't he? But if you <em>actually look</em> at the images AM has "made" with the 40D and 50D, you'll see little or no evidence of the 50D's supposed AF superiority...</p>

<p>.<br /><strong></strong></p>

[nhut-nguyen]

<p>It makes sense to think that the man is bound to say that, but he's made a lot of complaints to Canon too. I need to look at past bulletins</p>

[kent_j]

<p>There are alot of negative comments around regarding the 50D. After using one for a while, I just don't understand the reason for them. Let's face it, Canon's bodies and lenses in this price range have had focusing issues. So, in my opinion, the focus calibration feature that lets me fine tune each of my lenses individually for correct focus is worth the price I paid for the whole body. I never noticed that feature on the 40D. </p>

<p>I personally have never liked the way the focusing was calibrated by Canon even when it was "correct", and so this way, I get to place the depth of field onto my subject the way I want it to look. Kind of like in the old manual focus days! I got to decide where the edges of focus were, and where the center of focus was. I think that for birds, this is critical. Often, you will be working with just a tiny depth of field at these super tele lengths, so focus will be very important. Many photographers use manual focus for birds.</p>

<p>As I see it, the only reason to get a 40D is that you can now get a used one almost for free. (I wonder why?)</p>

<p>The 40D is a fine and well built body, but people aren't comparing apples, and these two bodies aren't as similar as the complainers think. The 50D is much more than marketing.</p>

<p>If you have any other questions about the 50D, I'm happy to help.</p>

[robert_johnstone]

<p>just sold my 40d but i also own a 50d & 5dmkII, i'd just like to say that the 50d is a better all round camera the extra features r great. i much prefer the newer lcd (bit of a gimich to a degree unless using live view alot)</p>

[arash khoshghadam]

<p>50D is much more handy than 40D because of its more user-friendly menus, and you got to compare the resolution of the LCD alone to find out how crappy 40D is (950000 pixels vs 230000 respectively). the live view functions in 50D outweighs 40D and the AF micro adjustment in 50D is really superb.</p>