canon 50D vs 5DMK2

[william_bray1]

<p>

<p >Hi I know the obvious answer is the 5d mark 2 is the better camera I’m not trying to convince myself that I can save myself £1000, buy the 50d and end up with the same camera. It is just that I have seen photos from both with good lenses and I don’t see a night and day difference, it’s not like shooting with a kit lens and then comparing it with a top end lens, anyone who’s not into photography can see the difference. When I have looked at the flicker website and through magazines at stunning photos even on a double page spread I have thought “Wow that must have been taken with a 5d” and more then often it’s been a 30D, or a 400D. The movie mode on the 5DMK2 doesn’t interest me, the 21 mp is great, but I shoot with a 20D and I easily print A4 and A3, A2 is too much. The ISO control is good but not enough for me to up grade. If I were a pro I wouldn’t think twice about buying the 5DMK2.Camera bodies loose so much money over time unlike good lenses, so you have to have the money for that not to bother you or you’re a pro and can earn more money by using it When I say pro I mean all your income is from using your camera not just selling the odd photo. I have held a few exhibitions and sold a few photos but I would never consider myself a pro.I buy good lenses they hold their money and the IQ difference between them and a bad lens is obvious on any camera body. Sometimes I think you can have something that is more then capable, but you keep reading reviews of a product or adverts and listening to salesmen you end up not feeling uncomfortable with your kit. Does anyone else feel the same or am I way off here.</p>

</p>

<p >Here is a link, scroll down to the BW photos, I don't know if it's me but I'm hard pressed to tell the diference<br>

<a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/801165/0">http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/801165/0</a></p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>Now that's a freakin' paragraph!</p>

<p>The diff in IQ is small save high ISO and large prints. However, those that buy a 5DII tend to be interested in exploiting it's enhanced possibilities of bokeh, low light shooting and enjoy making giant prints (12x18 and larger). If that's not you, why waste your time and money? Of course the huge 'n gorgeous 5DII VF is almost worth the price of admission...</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>Photography is about images - content. The camera is merely a tool to capture the image - obviously there is a standard required so that you are not limited either technically or creatively - but the point is what is in front of the camera, not the camera itself. While I understand that some people have an avid interest in cameras - the technology, pride of ownership, specifications and the new and improved features, frequently this has nothing to do with creating memorable, interesting or saleable images. Obviously the two are not mutually exclusive, but it's important to be able to distinguish between them and concentrate your efforts accordingly.</p>

<p>I have never looked at an image and wondered about the camera used - any more than I have watched a movie and wondered what movie camera was used - the point is the content and our connection and reaction to that. The subject, composition, lighting, emotion, impact, timing, originality, etc. If you see a "wow" shot, I'd be looking at the photographer's name, not the camera's if I were you - it's like assuming the pots and pans had more to do with creating a great meal than the chef.</p>

<p>Wonderful, timeless and unique images have been taken with disposable cameras and boring, pointless, derivative images have been taken with Hasselblad H3Ds - and visa versa of course. Unless there is something you need from a 5D MkII that you simply cannot technically achieve with a 50D, I would invest in lenses and then concentrate on improving your technique, your eye and the quality of the content of your pictures. We never stop learning and ultimately it's much more rewarding and less expensive!</p>

<p> </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>A well-shot photograph made with a 50D or similar camera will be virtually indistinguishable from the same shot made the same way on a full frame body when you look at it on Flickr or in any small size, low resolution reproduction.</p>

<p>There will not be any visible resolution differences in letter size prints. There may be some visible at about 12 x 18 inches, but most people would not notice if they didn't inspect very closely and know what to look for. Somewhere beyond that point, in my opinion, there are differences that may start to become significant.</p>

<p>If you don't push the envelope in terms of printing large and if you don't use careful shooting, post-processing, and printing techniques the 5D2 is not necessarily "better" for you. I say this as a person who shoots full frame cameras.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[matthijs]

<p>One note on bokeh. I'm not sure why but like the bokeh on my 50D better than on my 400D.</p>

<p>On camera quality: this morning I browsed someone's portfolio filled with gorgeous pictures.<br>

They were all made with a 300D...</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>As others have said you need to have a high ISO or large enlargement to see the difference. When I put photos online I use a maximum of 1500 pixels, 8 bit and highish quality JPEG. On most PC screens (up to about 24 inches) you cannot see the difference between this image and a 16 bit TIFF at full 5DII resolution. Printed at largish sizes you can see the difference. If your aim is just to get 11x14 prints and post online then most modern DSLRs are fine - this is one of the reasons that it is difficult to compare high end image quality online. Indeed most PC screens are 1280 x 1084 pixels or 1024 x 768 pixels and lack decent contrast settings! the same is true of HDTVs.</p>

<p>A lot of quality is in the eye of the viewer - many people do not notice obvious issues. I have an image taken with a Minolta 2nd generation point and shoot (4MP) that has a horrific lens. It shows the view down the street and the mountains across the valley. It has massive distortion at the edges - a street lamp has a curved pole but most people focus on the mountains and think it is a good image (it is not) even on a large screen they do not see the problems until they are pointed out. Perception is a big piece of the puzzle - I would not be happy with an a 3 print from a 12MP or below camera but many people are. Indeed many people beleive a iPod tune sounds better than an LP or CD - it clearly does not.</p>

[william_bray1]

<p>That is a good point about the pc screens and hdtv I never thought of that.I think John Bellenis has given me some good advice to chew on. What I said earlier about looking at the camera model of a photo taken is only one of the things I look at. I look at composition, lighting, emotion, impact, timing, originality, and that inspires me to try different ideas. It actually pleases me to see a great photo taken with a low end camera because it makes me stop and look at myself and not my kit. As for buying the 5DMK2, for me I decided it's not worth it. I don't think there is a mile difference between a 50D and a 5DMK2 taken with the same lens. If I decided to go pro that may make me look at things different,at the moment I'll stick with my 20D if I need another body I'll proberly go for the 40D I think that it is a very good price at the moment.<br>

Thank you all for taking the time to write your answers</p>