40D or 50D

Big_Ham

Big_Ham

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,183
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Mainly for motorsport and other action, but would get used for most things. Replacing my 450D because I want more FPS and better ISO performance.

1D Mark II would be lovely again, but I just can't justify the cost.

Both are within my budget second hand, obviously the 40D's cheaper. Still gives stagger results and has a very slightly higher FPS, but the 50D has a wider ISO range.

I've seen pros using both.

Anyway, which do we think is the "better" purchase.
 
There are plenty of 40d v 50d threads on here I had the same decision a while ago.

50D swayed me as it has better iso range, extra mp for cropping, VGA resolution LCD which is awesome. Plus I got mine pretty cheap so couldnt not buy it.
 
Personally the 50D would be for me. If they are both in price range, might as well go for the newer model IMHO
 
I've found the image quality to be slightly better on the 40D although the 50D does have better features... Whichever you choose, I'm sure you'll be happy with it.

If it was my choice though, I'd go for the 40D.

Si
 
I have both models, and the 40D is more forgiving in intermittent conditions, with the 50D you really have to nail the exposure,the LCD is stunning on the 50D as well as giving you Auto Iso which works quite well.
In terms of IQ their very similar.
go for the 50D for the cropping ability and new features
 
sjh2008 said:
I have both models, and the 40D is more forgiving in intermittent conditions, with the 50D you really have to nail the exposure,the LCD is stunning on the 50D as well as giving you Auto Iso which works quite well.
In terms of IQ their very similar.
go for the 50D for the cropping ability and new features
Click to expand...

The 40D has auto ISO as well :)
 
Trev Rich said:
Why is the 40d so much better than the 450d? Sorry if oof
Click to expand...


going from a XXXd model to a XXd model - better build, higher fps, higher IQ
 
I went for the 40D which has left me some pennies to purchase a shiny white and red 70-200 f4 "L"
 
I am having the same thoughts at the moment but am leaning towards the 40D because I dont think I have a reason for the extra megapixels and from my research the high ISO noise control is much better in the 40D
 
From personal experience, upto ISO 800 noise levels are fine on the 50D, so the extra resolution makes sense, after 800 it goes down hill rapidly so if you're likely to need high ISO speeds go for the 40D.
 
I upgraded my 400D to a 50D and it was a great move for me :). I used it for indorr hockey photography and the extra ISO is a big boost
 
Difficult one to comment on.
If it was my money, I'd probably want the 50D purely because its newer.

However, you'd almost certainly be better off putting your money into decent glass. Keep your 450D and buy a nice lens to use for your motorsport. 300mm L F4 is my favourite on a 'medium' budget and the results are stunning whatever body you are using.
 
The 50d despite common theories, i find to be much better ISO than the 40d at frame size. When you start looking at 100% crops then the high ISO are nosier. The facts are the 40d cant do the ISO's that the 50d can. So if you might find yourself doing say floodlit, football/hockey/rugby, then you will be needing iso 3200 or 6400. The 40d can do 3200 on expansion but its near no use at all. The same goes for the expansion on the 50d. Albeit the 50d does seem to soften up alot when the camera body applies NR.

The AF is slightly better on the 50d, screen is alot better

At low ISO i think the 40d is slightly better, but so close it really doesnt matter and the extra resolution is of quite alot of benefit for cropping on motorsports events.

The 50d would be my choice, i've not been disappointed and the 40d has barely been used since i got it.

If your interested i did some noise tests here (you can see exif by hitting INFO) http://dunganick.smugmug.com/Other/ISO-Test-50d40d/10632301_2uuLR#739558242_vMbUe
 
I always see this high iso better on the 40D than 50D trotted out on these threads. I've had/got both cameras and a 400D to compare.

Well, how's this, taken last weekend with a 100-400 lens.
1/25s f/6.3 at 400.0mm iso1600 with a dog on a lead attached to my arm!
121765904.jpg


Realistically the 50D has the same noise levels as the 40D but at a 50% increase in number of pixels. If you print images from the 40D and 50D at the same size, or resize for the web down to 800x600 the 50D’s higher pixel count means any artefacts would appear smaller, so in this respect it has the advantage.

Realistically you get a higher pixel count, a better screen on the back, a digic 4 processer which writes quicker to the CF card and has some additional functionality, HDI output, live view auto focus (which is very slow) and I think the weather proofing was improved. FPS are virtually identical that you won't notice.

If those features are good for you and you can afford the price then get the 50D. Remember to check the 50D thread and turn off a couple of the noddy settings
 
I had both and you will be very happy with whichever you choose.
In my opinion it all boils down in price.

If it is a large difference I would choose the 40D, if the difference is not that great I would get the 50D just to have the lens micro-adjustment feature that I found very useful with some lenses.
 
+1 for 50D.

Agree with all comments on th 50D , don't forget you also get Microadjustment with the 50D.
 
:plusone:50D
 
PaulyD

The 40D has auto ISO as well
Click to expand...

yes very true, forgot to add to it, that i think the 50D version is a bit more intelligent and tries to go down to iso 100


Where as the 40D starts at iso 400
 
andrewc said:
Prefer 50D to 40D, but you don't need high FPS for motorsport unless you 'spray and pray'
Click to expand...

450D doesn't seem very well suited to shooting RAW IMO. Seems to take ages to write to the SD card, although that could just be my SD card I suppose.

If you shoot a pan of one car, you have to wait about 5 seconds per image for it to write to the card before you can shoot again. Doing the same thing with jpeg's isn't a problem for it.

High ISO performance is also pretty pony. 800 and 1600 are pretty shoddy, although low ISO is good.

On the lens front, I have a Bigma at the moment ( and a 55-250 IS), looking for something else soon, hopefully 70-200 L f/2.8.

Apologies for asking the same question though chaps. I did a quick search and it didn't yield anything remotely relevent, although the search terms are exceptionally common.
 
Big_Ham said:
450D doesn't seem very well suited to shooting RAW IMO. Seems to take ages to write to the SD card, although that could just be my SD card I suppose.

If you shoot a pan of one car, you have to wait about 5 seconds per image for it to write to the card before you can shoot again. Doing the same thing with jpeg's isn't a problem for it.

High ISO performance is also pretty pony. 800 and 1600 are pretty shoddy, although low ISO is good.

On the lens front, I have a Bigma at the moment ( and a 55-250 IS), looking for something else soon, hopefully 70-200 L f/2.8.

Apologies for asking the same question though chaps. I did a quick search and it didn't yield anything remotely relevent, although the search terms are exceptionally common.
Click to expand...

Nowt wrong with my 450D in RAW!! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top