Canon 5D Mark 11 or 50 D which one would you buy?

[ldavidson]

<p>I have been using a Canon EOS Rebel XTi. It has been a great little camera but it is time to buy something serious. I have been selling some of my work and want to have better resolution and clairty. The images that I have sold are landscapes, but I do all sorts of different things. I have taken a lot of wildlife photos that would be good if not for the fuzzy resolution. I hav e been looking at different brands and models. I have read impressive reviews on the 5D Mark 11, but I don't need or want the HD mo vie capability. Is it worth the price tag for the 21.1 megapixels? The Canon 50 D is more affordable, but is it better to go for the Mark 11 for what Canon says is "the highest level of image quality in any EOS camera"? I would appre ciate any advi ce or thoughts on this. Thank you in advance.<br>

All the best.<br>

Linda Davidson</p>

 

[elliot1]

<p>" Is it worth the price tag for the 21.1 megapixels?" No, but it is worth the price tag for everything else you get. If you can afford it and the lenses and accessories you need, go for it. If not, get the 50D so you can afford the lenses you want.</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>For landscapes, the 5Dii really cannot be beat. However, your wildlife photos are fuzzy because of your lens and not your xti so you might be better off using the savings garnered on purchasing the 50D (or 40D even) to purchase a nice telephoto lens for your wildlife work. I guess it will come down to what matters more to you.</p>

[naturetrek]

<p>It all depends on what lenses you currently have, and how much you are willing to invest in "glass" (if you need to).</p>

<p>For a straight-up upgrade, the 50D would be ideal. You get to keep all your XTi lenses and you get better IQ especially at higher ISO. What used to be ISO 400 on XTI, it now becomes 800 (or even more) on the 50D (roughly).</p>

<p>On the other hand, the original 5D Mark 1 will give you full frame, and even better image quality than the 50D (although it's a bit slower on FPS). But you might need to upgrade some of the lenses (e.g. EF-S, Tamrons etc) which do not work on full frame cameras.</p>

<p>If you have the money, then get the 5D Mark 2 by all means. But I think you'll be just happy with the original 5D that costs much less now, and holds up the quality and value.</p>

<p> </p>

[mattb1]

<p>50D is better at AF and has a higher frame rate. If its small fast moving wild life, it may be hard to capture with the 5D MkII, you may have a better chance with the 50D.</p>

<p>I bought the 5D MkII. I love the 21mps. I don't agree that its not worth it. I'd get a MF digital if I could afford it.</p>

<p>If your budget is tight, I'd look at the 5D rather than the 50D. The 5D has better IQ, but behind the 5D MkII. </p>

<p>That said, the 5D MkII will be surpassed in IQ at some point. Its a great camera, but not the end all. Don't buy thinking that it will be the top for a long time, 3 years at most then it will be in the position that the 5D is in.</p>

[arthur_reyes1]

<p>If you can manage the 5DII price tag, I'd say go for the 5DII. I love mine. I use mine mostly with my 28-135 and 100mm macro. I've even gotten some great pictures with my 70-300IS as well. The low light capability is amazing. I think its worth the price. I'm not one to upgrade every time something new and better comes out. But I always try to buy the best that I can afford at the time. Sure something else will come around in a year or so that's much better than the 5DII. That's how technology works. But that doesn't mean my 5DII will stop taking amazing photos. I plan using mine for a long time.</p>

[scott_jay2]

<p>get both.</p>

[images_in_light_north_west]

<p>For landscapes the 5D2 is remarkable, but you will need good lenses also, 50D not so good for landscape, maybe consider a 5D1 and a 17-40 f4 L for around $1800.<br>

Ross</p>

[mike_oflaherty]

<p>A2E & A2 then XTi then 5DII. Learn the the basics on the film cameras then over to digital. Nice to be back to a full frame. Your only kidding yourself with the 1.6 crop factor. You'll get the same resolution when you rcrop it down in full frame. Anyhow you don't have to pack a video camera when on holidays.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> I have taken a lot of wildlife photos that would be good if not for the fuzzy resolution.

 

Seriously, I would first *understand* why that is....

[link]

<p>Linda,</p>

<p>You have some very impressive photographs in your photo.net gallery!</p>

<p>So, you certainly can make use of the best camera you can afford. I'm not sure you'll see a dramatic difference upgrading your camera to either model, but I think on a big print you'll see some additional resolution with the 5DII.</p>

<p>That said, if you're shooting your landscapes hand held, you might not see any additional detail due to camera shake. I don't know what lens you're using, but most look pretty good when stopped down a little. (oops, I forgot about IS lenses, that might help a bit, but I've never used one:).</p>

<p>Best wishes for making a good choice!</p>

[ldavidson]

<p>Thank you all so much. I appreciate your advice and will give it serious thought. I live in a small city, we don't have a real camera store here. All my window shopping has been done on line and through magazines. I will be going into the city soon and will have a good look at these 2 cameras.<br>

Thanks again for taking the time to give me your thoughts.<br>

All the best.<br>

Linda</p>

[ldavidson]

<p>Thank you all so much. I appreciate your advice and will give it serious thought. I live in a small city, we don't have a real camera store here. All my window shopping has been done on line and through magazines. I will be going into the city soon and will have a good look at these 2 cameras.<br>

Thanks again for taking the time to give me your thoughts.<br>

All the best.<br>

Linda</p>

[markonestudios]

5D Mark 11 is out already? I thought they were only up to the Mark 2 ;-)

<p>But seriously, you still haven't said what lenses you're using, or what is meant by fuzzy resolution. Perhaps post some sample images?

[tudor_apmadoc]

<p>I agree about the lens comments....</p>

<p>If you have a large investment in the "S" lenses, then stick with the 50D.</p>

<p>You'll only see the true advantages of the 5D Mark II if you have the lenses that can support that - in general that means investing in "L" series lenses.</p>

<p>Having said all that, I started with a 5D and moved thte 5D Mark II for the additional resolution. I do large prints (24x36) and every bit of resolution helps. In addition having those additional pixels really helps when it comes to the ability to crop down a photo.</p>

<p>Finally - the higher density of pixels on the 50D will mean higher levels of noise at higher ISO's. Check out dpreview.com and see if the noise level is too much for you on the 50D</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>In response to Tudor's claim about needing "L" lenses for a 5D II, I have obtained my sharpest, highest resolution images with non-L primes on my 5D II, specifically with the EF 50/1.4. And while I do use four of the L zooms, I'm increasingly using my non-L primes, particularly in available light indoors. Not only do the primes deliver better IQ than the zooms, but they're also faster, lighter, and much cheaper.</p>

<p>Incidentally, the optical formula of the EF 50/1.4 is the same as that of the FD 50/1.4, which was introduced with the F-1 in 1971. That's almost forty years ago! So much for progress...</p>

[randyhargraves]

<p>I upgraded to a 5D from a 40D and there is no comparison. For landscapes you would never regret having the 5d or 5d Mark II. I bought my 5D with the 24-105L for $2500 new. If you have the jack go for the Mark II otherwise the 5D would smoke either your XTi or the 50D. </p>

[vorlandphotography]

<p>I know it's all relative, but I just paid $300 less for the 5D Mark II than what I paid a couple of years ago for the 5D.</p>

[surfidaho]

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>You actually need better lenses on the 50D than you do on the 5D Mk II, because the pixel pitch is so much finer.</p>

<p>I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but think about it. The smaller the pixel, the better quality lens is needed to resolve it. The pixels on the 50D are much smaller than the pixels on the 5D Mk II, therefore you need a better lens on the 50D for equivalent image quality.</p>

<p>Now I'm not saying you shouldn't invest in the finest class for your 5D Mk II. I'm saying that you should always invest in the finest glass available, regardless of which body you go with.</p>

<p>Tuppence,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

 

[ldavidson]

 

<p >I bought my Canon Rebel XTi as a kit. The lens that came with it is a EF-S 18 - 55 mm. I purchased a Canon EF 75-300 mm zoom. I have two polerizer filters for t hem. I was thinking I would just sell these on Craig's List, put it towards a new camera. I haven't decided what lens would be best. I am still researching. Any advice about lens would be appreciated.</p>

<p >Mark, what I meant by "fuzzy" was not if focus or blurred. I have a tripod that I use for planned landscapes, but I often see wildlife, birds, when I tag along with my husband on his fishing trips. I realize that this is my unsteady hand, sometimes I am so excited about whatever I am looking at that I can't stay still. But on a few occasions I have had the tripod, an animal that is perfectly still, I take several shots.Some will be out of focus, others will be blurred. This is only with the 75-300 zoom, it is unpredictable. The 18-55 is always good.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<div></div>

[alan_myers]

<p>I got both... Much easier than trying to choose ;-)</p>

<p>But seriously Linda, the full frame camera would be best for big prints, portraits (depth of field control) and scenics (detail). Meanwhile, the crop sensor canera would be better for catching fast moving wildlife. The 5D Mk2 is great for super low light situations, but the 50D is better at that too, compared to some of the previous models in the xxD series. I will use a 50D at 3200 ISO, where with my older 30Ds I wouldn't set above 1600 (and tried to avoid that). With 5D Mk2, 6400 is doable. (I haven't shot enough with it at higher ISOs to really say if they are feasible or not.)</p>

<p>The 50D focuses faster and seems to track moving subjects better. It also has shorter shutter lag and a higher flash sync speed. And, it's a little quieter, the big mirror in the 5D Mk2 lets you know when it's working. All these are things that give the 50D some advantage with wildlife. Not to mention the "free 1.6X teleconverter" built in.... Yeah, I know that's a falicy, but 15MP on a 1.6X camera is actually higher resolution than you'd have cropping a full framer down to the same image area.</p>

<p>Canon rates the 5D Mk2's shutter at 150,000 cycles, and the 50D's at 100,000. The 5D Mk2 is probably better sealed against dust and moisture. It lacks a built in flash, for one, which I always felt was a possible entry point for rain or dirt particles on all the 1.6X cameras.</p>

<p>The viewfinder of the 5D Mk2 is great. Big and bright. But the 50D has one of the best I've seen on a crop sensor camera. I wear glasses and can actually see the LED readout in the 50D, never could on my 30Ds.</p>

<p>Both cameras have beautifully improved LCD screens and the latest menu setup from Canon. Both have Live View, Sensor Cleaning, interchangeable focus screens, UDMA memory card capabilities, 14 bit color. Both have peripheral illumination control (to counter natural vignetting in many Canon lenses) and AF micro adjustment (up to 20 lenses).</p>

<p>The 5D Mk2 has HD Video [yes, you just heard a big yawn... sorry Canon engineers, but if I wanted a video camera, I'd have bought a video camera].</p>

<p>Both have Creative Auto mode [another yawn].</p>

<p>The 5D Mk2 uses a new battery type, that's more expensive and can be hard to get at present. No other Canon camera presently shares that battery type.</p>

<p>The 50D uses BP511 type batteries, which are very widely available, even much cheaper third party ones.</p>

<p>But your present camera uses a different battery type entirely, so if you want extras you'll end up buying more, anyway.</p>

<p>And neither camera will show you leaps and bounds improvements in image quality unless you have decent lenses to use on them. Lenses are far more important than what camera you mount them on, when it comes to the end results and image quality. If you are having trouble with sharpness on your current camera, I'd look at the lenses you are using, before anything else. For example, some "consumer/kit" zooms simply are soft at their long end, say at 300mm. A lens that's been dropped or bumped hard might be out of alignment, too. Also technique is important, such as using long lenses on a tripod/monopod, with image stabilization, etc.</p>

<p>Either camera will be significantly larger and heavier than what you are using now. There are places that rent equipment over the Internet. It might be worthwhile to buy the Magic Lantern Guide Book for any model you get serious about, then rent one and give it a thorough test drive, before buying, just to be sure.</p>

<p>But, again, if it were me I'd put my money into my lens kit first. Not necessarily L-Series, either, there are some excellent non-L zooms and primes available as well. The 5D, both the original and the Mark II, are notoriously demanding of lenses. That's because the larger pixel pitch of the full frame sensor actually resolves more detail.</p>

<p>Oh, and when it comes to good technique, books regarding wildlife photography by George Lepp, John Shaw, Nial Benvie, Joe & Mary McDonald, Tim Fitzharris and some others might be worth more than all the camera equipment in the world.</p>

<p>Hope this helps!</p>

[phule]

<p>[[some will be out of focus, others will be blurred. This is only with the 75-300 zoom, it is unpredictable. The 18-55 is always good.]]</p>

<p>Buying a new camera body will not help.<br>

The lenses are your weak points and should be addressed before buying a new camera body.</p>

<p>IMHO.</p>

 

[mike_hitchen]

<p>My guess is that the 70-300 is as good as the 16-55 - it is just that being a longer focal length it will accentuate any shake or deficiencies. If you go for the 50D or the 5DMkII you will need better glass anyway so why not try a 70-200 f4L on the XTi first and see what that does to the pictures. To be honest i would have expected better quality picture of the marmot using a 70-300 (I have one myself) so maybe it is not the lens...</p>

[janisk]

<p>If the MkII is too pricey, get the "original" 5D instead of cropped 50D, you'll be happy, and buy your dream lens for the saved cash! Have fun!</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>Linda....take a look at <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com">www.fredmiranda.com</a> and click on reviews, and look at the zooms you have. Although, this site is not the end to all ends when it comes to reviews, the reviews are all by photographers.....not some scientist in a lab (although, those also have their uses)....so if you read the reviews, you get "real" user reviews. Your 75-300mm, assuming it's one of the ones on that site, isn't getting the greatest reviews for sharpness. I personally own a pretty old version of that lens, probably circa 1990, and I NEVER use it past 200mm.</p>

<p>having said that.....I shot with the 20D for years, and highly doubted all the hype about just how good full frame digital cams were.....until i bought the original 5D. unbelievable! so much better image. whether there is that much dif between the 50D and the 5DMKII, as my 20D and 5D, I don't know. But I would not doubt it one bit. Full Frame digital is just simply amazing.....for a whole lot of reasons.</p>