The lens dilemma works both ways. The 50D has a much smaller pixel density, so it will bottleneck the quality of lens in a different way. Cut out an APS sized version of the 5D sensor and you are left with a ~9 megapixel image, things like chromatic abberation and diffraction are more exaggerated on the smaller pixel density of the 50D. However, the 50D also uses the sweet spot of all EF (full frame) lens. The 5D's lens bottleneck is that it uses the borders of the lens elements, so it will face lens problems like border softness and vignetting more so than the 50D. Bottom line: optical quality matter for both camera types.
The 5D also pairs very well with the 70-200 f/2.8 L for single/double portrait work, but will be far too telephoto for the 50D, which would pair better with the 24-70 f/2.8, 24-105 f/4 L, or the 28-75 f/2.8. Conventional wisdom states that in 35mm equiv, 70-105mm is ideal for portraits, which translates to 43-65mm on the 50D.
1. No, its an advantage, but far from being a must.
2. if your budget is tight, then the 50D would certainly suffice and do a terrific job at that.
Also remember, if you get the 50D now, its not like you are stuck with APS for the rest of your life, you can build a collection of lens that will transfer over to full frame when you make the move. Just avoid EF-S series lens. Digital full frame market in 5-10 years will look very different, you can build your collection with the 50D until you make your move to full frame.
Then, if an additional ~$2k isn't much to you, I'd still stick with the 5D.



LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
