Canon EOS 40D, or 50D ?

[Rivman]

. . . my apology for wrong posting - thanks for moving !

I want to take a giant leap foreward and purchase a DSLR sometime this year !
It's going to be a Canon 'cause that's what I used in film days (AE1-P), and was quite satisfied with the results, in fact, I still have it, and all the goodies that go with it.
Now the dilema - should I go with the cheaper 40D, or throw the cat another goldfish and opt for the newer, more expensive 50D ?
This all started after spending some time with my b-i-l's 40D over the holidays. :mad2:
I realize there are other suitable makes, but it's gotta be a Canon !
Please help, . . . which one ?

[Photo-John]

What do you plan to shoot? And have you considered an 400D or 450D instead? I often encourage people to buy less expensive cameras so they can invest in better lenses. Lenses are the most important part of the equation for most photographers.

[brmill26]

A friend of mine went through the same question this fall. She got the 40D. The 50D simply doesn't give you any significant benefits for the premium you pay.

That said, I agree with John and would strongly suggest you consider the XTi (400D) or XSi (450D). Unless you need very fast continuous speed (if you're a big sports shooter), there's not a lot of reasons to to spend the money on the bigger camera. For a majority of people, you'll get FAR better results buying the smaller body and top of the line glass.

[Wild Wassa]

Following on from 2 fine answers.

The 40D because it is better value.

While the 50D is in a number of respects a better camera than the 40D because of its improved screen (with higher resolution) and newer 'processor', which has faster processing and better noise reduction at higher ISOs than the Digic III Processor found in the 40D, Canon have chosen to cram 5.5 more mega pixels onto the 'sensor' of the 50D so the high ISO performance is noisier on the 50D making the 40D far better value for money.

dxomark.com rates all of the currents sensors in the current DSLRs. dxomark rates the 40D sensor as having, a better signal to noise ratio, a higher dynamic range and better in all regards except for resolution. As the earlier posters P-J and brmill have said, ... the real improvement comes from the better lenses.

One can only agree. I have a 40D and I'm very pleased with the camera.

Warren.

[Rivman]

Thanks for the excellent replies and advice guys - much appreciated !
While the XSi (450D) was not a consideration, they do have some very reasonable 'package' deals with Canon lenses included, so I may hafta revise my thinking.
The XSi certainly may be a logical way to go economically.
With some shooting experience on the b-i-l's 40D, I found the results were much better than my HP P&Ss, no doubt as a result of the camera and his Sigma lenses.
Viewing results in some of the gallery posts has sorta prompted me to bite the bullet and step up to a DSLR. I know we've all been there, and I want to make the right choice - like buying a new car?
Sooooo much to choose from !
. . . we'll keep y'all posted :thumbsup:

[Photo-John]

Rivman-
I have an EOS 50D and an XSi / 450D and I just sold a 40D. The XSi has excellent image quality and saves you a lot of money. The kit lens is ok but the real benefit of buying the XSi would be saving some money on the body so you can buy a better lens.

By the way, any digital SLR is going to crush your point-and-shoot camera in terms of image quality (and performance). DSLRs have alrger pixels and that's the real key to their superior image quality. Point-and-shoots have tiny little sensors in comparison and just can't come close to the image quality of a digital SLR.

[photophorous]

...The kit lens is ok but the real benefit of buying the XSi would be saving some money on the body so you can buy a better lens...

That's what I did. I got the XSi and a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It's definitely better to spend money on good glass, because the glass will stay with you when you upgrade bodies.

I'm cheap by nature, so here's what I did. I bought a Canon package deal that came with an 18-55 IS and a 70-300 for $675 with a rebate. I immediately turned around and sold the 70-300 on ebay for $100 and I plan to sell the 18-55 IS for around the same amount, as soon as I get off my lazy duff. That will put the XSi body cost around $475 and at the time I bought the kit, the body alone was selling for $625 (now $569). The Tamron 17-50 is about $405, and that adds up to $880. You can't beat the quality of this combo for anywhere near that. It would cost close to that much just to get a lens that's better than the Tamron. The constant f/2.8 aperture allows a lot more creative control over DOF than any kit lens, and the image quality is top notch even at f/2.8. The XSi is a very impressive little camera body too. I never really liked the ergonomics of the older Rebels, but this one is a big step forward and loaded with features.

Paul

[Rivman]

Thanks P-J, Paul - I get the idea.
Budget wise, the XSi is looking much more like a serious contender.
What's the scoop on the new EF-S 18-200mm IS lens, as it's part of a package.
Are EF-S IS series lenses any good, or just something more that can go wrong down the road ?
Shame that FD lenses won't do - Ive got a few of them!

[Rivman]

. . . just answered my own dumb question here: http://web.canon.jp/imaging/lens/
Also, if your new to DSLRs, as I will be, there is a wealth of knowledge at this Canon site:
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/enjoydslr/index.html
Amazing how much info is available - right at your finger tips ! :thumbsup:

[netzero19]

Go with the 40D.

[Lost]

I am brand new to photography review and this forum. I had a 450d and it was an excellent camera and user friendly. I upgraded to a 50d and I am sold on the huge scope this camera provides for me. However, if you want quality shots spend the dollars on quality lens. I invested in the 70-200mm f2.8 L IS lens & EF 24-70mm f2.8 L lens. WOW the images are crystal clear, and coupled with the 50d - I am wrapped! Happy shooting! Lens first and what you can afford!

[Loupey]

Go with the 40D.

Any specific reason(s) why?

[Loupey]

Several of us here have used both cameras. I haven't heard of any specific complaints of the 50D from those people (myself included).

Here is a link to some examples and heplful tips with the 50D by one of our members:

My "Second Opinion" of the 50D - Low ISO work - Better results.

[Dougjgreen]

For a given budget, I'd recommend getting a 40D and better lenses, relative to the 50D.

From what I've seen, the 50D has pushed the pixel density slightly too far for best high ISO performance, and the 40D may actually have better IQ at high ISOs. At low ISOs, both are going to be excellent. The difference between 15 MP and 10 MP is not particularly important. IMHO, the 50D is at most, a 10% better camera for a 40% higher price. Put the extra money into quality glass.

[Loupey]

For those of you who use a lot of in-camera features (sharpening, noise reduction, picture mode, etc.), shoot a lot of JPEGS, and tend to not rely solely on post-processing, I think the 50D will be much more useful of a tool.

I've posted these examples before, but I wanted to show how ISO 3200 on the 40D looks compared to ISO 6400 on the 50D. True it's not a direct comparison as I had the in-camera noise reduction enabled on the 50D. But both are pixel level crops and otherwise SOOC.

But ISO 6400? Is this amount of noise too much at 6400?

[Dougjgreen]

No, it's not "too much" - but the 40D with NR off definitely looks better - admittedly at 1 stop less ISO. In addition to less visible noise, the image is MUCH sharper with the NR off.

[Anbesol]

Nobody has yet mentioned on of the bigger benefits of the 50D, a much brighter higher res LCD, ~960k pixels vs ~230k (give or take don't remember the exact figures). It really is a substantial difference.

[drg]

If cost is not an issue, between the 40D and 50D I'm sold on the 50D. The addition of the added live view focusing methods, the better LCD display, and for me the HDMI interface push this one over the top.

I was a little hesitant because of the high pixel count sensor, but as Loupey and Canon-Bob's extreme samples show, this isn't as much of a factor for 'real-world' picture making as some bench tests might indicate.

The 'features' in the 50D that are already mentioned plus a few others make this definitely worth the money, and one that will serve most photographer for years to come.

The feature I'm trying to get some feedback on from people using these regularly is the AF adjust/micro-adjust.

I'm also really liking the drop off correction or in Canon Speak 'peripheral illumination correction' which is great to have in camera with wider lens at certain focal length/f/stop combos. I shot an office/architectural interior just a week ago that required little post-processing (I shoot RAW as well always) on most photos. We were done in one day!

The Xsi, (which I don't own either personally or for work), I have used a lot. The camera is capable of producing wonderful photograph's and is a stellar performer for the money. If the difference in budget is between a really good lens and a 40D/50D body, go for the Xsi! You will upgrade bodies eventually! A good lens will last a long time.

[Nats]

I up-graded from XSi to a 50D and I am very happy with it.
I to believe it is worth the extra money. It is a very robust and well built
camera, and makes the XSi look like a toy by comparison.
I have no experience w/ the 40D other than holding it in my hand at the
camera store. But I like the solid weight of the 50D and the ability to shoot
in lower light.
Weight and build quality in a camera body are important to me, but if I took
mostly daylight pictures, I could never tell the difference in the quality of the
shots between the XSi and 50D.
I also agree, if you are on a budget, the smart money goes on the glass, not
the body. But, if you can afford it, go for both!

I know you want a comparison between the 40 and 50D, I chose the 50, for
reasons already mentioned, plus, it simply felt better in my hand.
I also added the optional battery pack, which adds considerable weight and
bulk, but I like that

[Nats]

Here is a nice article comparing the 40 and 50D.

I know they are practically identical, I was just more impressed with the
50. But, that's just me

http://tech.spotcoolstuff.com/photog...50d-canon-eos/

I hope it helps

[Loupey]

Nobody has yet mentioned on of the bigger benefits of the 50D, a much brighter higher res LCD, ~960k pixels vs ~230k (give or take don't remember the exact figures). It really is a substantial difference.

That's a good point.

Especially if you are the type who likes to delete as many files as possible while still out in the field. It makes Live View much easier to use (although I still don't use that feature). But for instantly sharing the image with friends or clients, the improved LCD is like night and day.

[Loupey]

I hope I don't come across as a pro-50D / anti-40D shooter. Both are highly capable cameras.

It just depends on one's expectations, budget, and experience. What I don't like is that the 50D is sometimes made out to sound like a poor performer. In terms of image quality, one has to push these cameras quite hard to tell the difference - and even then, the difference may be negligible.

Perhaps it is because the noise improvement is not "leaps and bounds" better than the 40D that it gets the bad rap that it does. Perhaps also we are seeing the beginning of the upper limit in terms of how many pixels that can be crammed without further improving IQ.

I found a near direct comparison test of noise. These two pixel level crops (i.e. 100% size, no resizing) were shot with the same lens, same ISO (640), same aperture (f/5.6), same shutter speed (1/500), same camera settings (RAW, manual exposure, neutral, no sharpening, no noise reduction), and converted directly from RAW with no correction.

The 2nd image is with the 50D. Is it as bad as "everyone" states?

[drg]

Under the conditions and with those settings, there is little room for complaint I believe! There may be a bit of a focus issue with the bird foot photo, but the noise isn't an issue.

Canon has taken the images perhaps more towards what might be called softness as opposed to 'noise'. I've found that the sensors are already exceeding the abilities of some models of lenses, particularly with longer or super detailed photographs.

[Dougjgreen]

Under the conditions and with those settings, there is little room for complaint I believe! There may be a bit of a focus issue with the bird foot photo, but the noise isn't an issue.

Canon has taken the images perhaps more towards what might be called softness as opposed to 'noise'. I've found that the sensors are already exceeding the abilities of some models of lenses, particularly with longer or super detailed photographs.

I don't think anyone said that the high ISO IQ of the 50D was "bad". I just think that it's not any better than the 40D, and the 40D is noticeably less expensive. This is totally irrespective of the added features of the 50D. I just think most people tend to be fanatic about getting the "latest and greatest" DSLR, when their budget might well be better served by saving several hundred dollars on a body that's a very nearly as good, and devoting the several hundred dollars saved toward getting better glass to go with it.

I guarantee you that the 40D plus a well chosen $600 lens will outperform a 50D with a $200 lens (unless it's a 50mm prime)

BTW, although I am in the Nikon system, I'm still walking the walk. I bought a D80 rather than a D90 and am putting the savings into glass.

[Rivman]

. . . the quest is over !

A very sincere thanks to ALL who offered their valuable opinions and advice !
I managed a super deal on a 6 month old complete camera setup, with a few extras, that was well within my budget,
and have finally stepped up to the wonderful world of DSLR photography.
I am now the proud owner of an almost new Canon EOS Rebel XSi/450D. :thumbsup:

. . . let the fun begin !