50D Owners Thread - Anything 50D related

Nifkin said:
Peach, you started a whole thread on just this subject which is sitting (as I write this) immediately below this one on the forum, which has had a fair few replies already. Seeing as most of the contributors in this thread are 50D owners, and the 550D has only been out five minutes, it's unlikely that we'll have any different views from those posted in your original thread (in fact we'll probably be the same people!), and there are plenty of threads discussing the pros and cons of a consumer-level body against a semi-pro level one on here already.

I recommend you read through this whole thread to get some ideas as to the pros and cons of the 50D itself; there's a lot of useful advice and tips here. But, most of all, I'd say go and pick a 50D up and see what it's like to hold, and compare that to the feel of the 550D (although I see you have a 400D, which won't be hugely different from the latter). I noticed in your other thread that you don't really feel that you'll need the video capabilities, which in my mind, would push me closer to the 50D.

But it's down to you at the end of the day, and endless opinions from other forum members will only end up clouding your decision; they're both excellent cameras that will certainly provide an upgrade from your current model, so you should be going for what feels right for you! :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I'm only doing my research as its a lot of money to shell out... I need endless reviews and opinions from people who already own the 50D, guess it will take me a while to come to a decision... I am visiting my local Jacobs today and will probably asking the same sort of thing over and over.... sorry to trouble you!
 
Peach said:
I'm only doing my research as its a lot of money to shell out... I need endless reviews and opinions from people who already own the 50D, guess it will take me a while to come to a decision... I am visiting my local Jacobs today and will probably asking the same sort of thing over and over.... sorry to trouble you!
Click to expand...

Now Peach, I didn't mean to offend, and I didn't want to accuse you of hijacking this thread for your purposes, but you do have another live thread on the subject, and if you want to read about the 50D then please do read this thread, and the plenty of others like it! There are very few people who are going to be able to give you a direct comparison between the two cameras anyway, because the 550D is so new.

If you had've 'troubled' me I wouldn't have written the lengthy response above, but there does have to come a time when you have to make the decision for yourself, based on what you shoot, how much weight you want to carry, whether you need video or low light performance or not (and on this last point the 550D is an unknown quantity).

In your other thread you've said...

To be honest I'm just getting to grips with lens' and how they work... all is experimental at the moment.
Click to expand...

...and there's nowt wrong with that, in fact, that's great! It's just that it's very hard to give any conclusive response to your main question if you have still to decide your main subject interests, etc.

As I've said, both are good cameras. But I would say I'd be inclined, looking at your camera bag, to upgrade your lenses first, at least replace your 18-55 with something like the Tamron 17-50, and spend less on a new body; the 50D is getting cheaper all the time, and the 40D can be had for less than £400 these days second hand. Both of these cameras have a rugged build that'll last you quite a few years, and you'd notice a bigger improvement in your photography if you upgrade your glass, rather than go for the latest and greatest body.

Anyway, let us know how you get on a Jacobs; and have a go at handling some Nikon bodies too; you never know, you may find that they suit you better! :thumbs:

EDIT: I noticed that in your thread there was one subject area mentioned; gig photography. In that case, you'll want at least one fast prime lens, like a 30mm 1.4 or a 50mm 1.4 to handle the low-light situations gigs tend to be. It wouldn't matter how good the ISO settings are on any of the cameras you're considering if you don't have a lens like that! Anyway, that's a discussion for another thread.... ;)
 
Last edited:
LizardMan said:
You can only spin the dial on the back if the power switch is in the magic '¬' mode - unless I'm missing something.

Personally, I'd much rather have a nice clunky power switch on the top that can be operated with the thumb (just like a 400D) instead of the top LCD screen which seems redundant to me.

I could operate the 400D entirely one handed, which came in quite handy when I was using my other hand to grip the reins of a horse, or hold on to the safety rail of a San Franciscan cable car - to stop myself falling off.

But so far I am loving my 50D; I love the sounds it makes, the higher ISOs, the beautiful screen on the back and the extra FPS. Given all that, the funny power switch isn't too much to be upset about.
Click to expand...

wait till you get used to it, after a while everything feels right
 
Nifkin said:
Now Peach, I didn't mean to offend, and I didn't want to accuse you of hijacking this thread for your purposes, but you do have another live thread on the subject, and if you want to read about the 50D then please do read this thread, and the plenty of others like it! There are very few people who are going to be able to give you a direct comparison between the two cameras anyway, because the 550D is so new.

If you had've 'troubled' me I wouldn't have written the lengthy response above, but there does have to come a time when you have to make the decision for yourself, based on what you shoot, how much weight you want to carry, whether you need video or low light performance or not (and on this last point the 550D is an unknown quantity).

In your other thread you've said...



...and there's nowt wrong with that, in fact, that's great! It's just that it's very hard to give any conclusive response to your main question if you have still to decide your main subject interests, etc.

As I've said, both are good cameras. But I would say I'd be inclined, looking at your camera bag, to upgrade your lenses first, at least replace your 18-55 with something like the Tamron 17-50, and spend less on a new body; the 50D is getting cheaper all the time, and the 40D can be had for less than £400 these days second hand. Both of these cameras have a rugged build that'll last you quite a few years, and you'd notice a bigger improvement in your photography if you upgrade your glass, rather than go for the latest and greatest body.

Anyway, let us know how you get on a Jacobs; and have a go at handling some Nikon bodies too; you never know, you may find that they suit you better! :thumbs:

EDIT: I noticed that in your thread there was one subject area mentioned; gig photography. In that case, you'll want at least one fast prime lens, like a 30mm 1.4 or a 50mm 1.4 to handle the low-light situations gigs tend to be. It wouldn't matter how good the ISO settings are on any of the cameras you're considering if you don't have a lens like that! Anyway, that's a discussion for another thread.... ;)
Click to expand...


Yeah I have started a gig photography thread... I do get some great advice here.

I've ordered a 50mm f1.8 as they're so cheap (£75 on Amazon) and looking into 30mm 1.4

I was thinking of buying a 7D as its got the video capabilities of the 550D and the performance of the 50D... but I cant quite justify the extra £££'s!

I think I'll take most peoples advice and opt out of the XXXD series completely as to me moving on from a 400D its going to have the same feel about it. Or at least wait for valid reviews/comparisons.

I do appreciate the advice! sorry for going off topic :) whoops
 
While we're off topic - is there such a thing as too fast?

From what I remember from my pin hole camera days, the bigger the hole the blurrier the image.

But is the appeture still relevant with modern lenses and image sharpness? (asside from DOF).
 
LizardMan said:
While we're off topic - is there such a thing as too fast?

From what I remember from my pin hole camera days, the bigger the hole the blurrier the image.

But is the appeture still relevant with modern lenses and image sharpness? (asside from DOF).
Click to expand...

not really, but below f1 DoF can kinda disapear
 
Well after reading all yes ALL of this thread I am so much happier with my 50D.
Thanks to all the people on here that have posted really helpful info.

Must say i am really suprised at the number of 400D owners that have upgraded to the 50D myself included but it does seem that quite a few of us where 400D owners.

Still waiting to get out and use it in anger, and hoping to one day take some pics like CT does of some birds, got the 100 400mm canon lens with the 50D so hoping to really get going now with a decent camera and a decent lens.

Spike
 
I know the feeling! I've had mine for a couple of days, but got home late from work and there's been nothing but rain!

More rain scheduled for the weekend too - typical!
 
Nifkin said:
Anyway, let us know how you get on a Jacobs; and have a go at handling some Nikon bodies too; you never know, you may find that they suit you better! :thumbs:
Click to expand...


I tried out handling the 50D today and its only confirmed for me that I don't want to progress with the XXXD series at all...they feel small and plastic to me now, and I do have small hands! 50D is just so much better in quality overall... but I must say the 7D had taken my fancy as well, so much choice!

I have skimmed through this thread and noted the outstanding images I've seen that the 50D is capable of... I think my best bet is to just go for the 50D and invest what I would have spent extra on the 7D in a great all-round lens.
 
Peach said:
I have skimmed through this thread and noted the outstanding images I've seen that the 50D is capable of... I think my best bet is to just go for the 50D and invest what I would have spent extra on the 7D in a great all-round lens.
Click to expand...

no your best bet would be stick with what you have body wise and get some faster glass.. spend a good grand on glass and then decide if you need another body..
 
Have Canon actually ceased production of the 50D yet? Now that they have four 15MP+ bodies, I'm seriously amazed at this camera's production longevity, especially considering how quickly Canon have been updating the xxxD series. No 60D on the horizon yet... I reckon the 7D put paid to that ;)

EDIT: above should read 'four APS-C 15MP+ bodies.'
 
Last edited:
Nifkin said:
Have Canon actually ceased production of the 50D yet? Now that they have four 15MP+ bodies, I'm seriously amazed at this camera's production longevity, especially considering how quickly Canon have been updating the xxxD series. No 60D on the horizon yet... I reckon the 7D put paid to that ;)
Click to expand...

The 50D is still being produced AFAIAA, and I've heard of no plans to discontinue it. Whether the 60D will happen now, at least for some time, given that they now have the 7D and 550D in the line-up remains to be seen.

The fact is though, that the 50D is still a cracking camera and will remain so for a long time yet.
 
I'm in complete agreement with you there, CT; I'm not about to jump ship anytime soon, even for the 7D. That may well be the superior body in many respects (and so it should be, as it's newer and much more expensive!), but the 50D is certainly no slouch, in fact it's a great camera which I think gets much maligned around these parts by people who don't spend enough time learning to utilise its amazing resolving power properly.

As for the elusive 60D (which I'm still not convinced is going to happen); I really can't see how they could slot one in between the 550D and the 7D and make it distinctive enough performance-wise to justify its inclusion in the range. The direction I'd like Canon to go with it is to do a 'G11' again, and perhaps reduce the MPixelage to about 12 and improve the high ISO/low light performance, providing a definite alternative to the other bodies.

In the meantime, I have no problem with the 50D taking up the mantle of Canon's low-cost prosumer-level offering! :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
Well what would they add to the 50D to label it a 60D? Probably 18 megapixels, and video. Not many peoiple with a 50D would be rushing to upgrade to that unless they really wanted the video capability. Canon couldn't add too many features from the 7D without seriously impacting sales of the 7D, so I'd be surprised if it happens for a fair while yet.
 
Exactly. What would be the point, even in the next 18 months or so, of releasing something that competes directly with, and is on a par with, the other two APS-C models? Just to have the xxD range and the 7D's successors leapfrog each other in development, much to Canon's amusement and our disgust? :lol: The only sensible thing they could do in that time span is launch something that is distinctively different (such as a lower MP body like the idea in my previous post, to create a niche-market of sorts), but that won't happen. Not unless Canon's market research says so. And, if it did, they would already have launched it by now anyway. ;)
 
I tried the micro adjustment settings last night and I can't for the life of me see the difference between -20 and +20.

Am I completely blind, am I testing it wrong, or is it just incredibly subtle?
 
LizardMan said:
I tried the micro adjustment settings last night and I can't for the life of me see the difference between -20 and +20.

Am I completely blind, am I testing it wrong, or is it just incredibly subtle?
Click to expand...

Well both are probably so far out of focus that both look crap. Are you using some sort of angled scale with which to judge whereabouts the DOF zone lies? Like this......

20100129_092537_LR.jpg
20100129_092537_3_LR.jpg


....or something else with sufficient depth to be able to judge where your sharp point is? If you are just aiming at a flat target then OOF will look OOF, whether back focused or front focused.

Of course, you want your focus TARGET to be flat and parallel to the sensor, but you ideally also want some sort of indicator to let you know how close you are getting with your adjustments and in which direction you need to adjust, if at all. An angled rule makes a perfect indicator of such things. Also make sure your focus TARGET is at least 3X wider and higher than the focus point indicator in the viewfinder. The scale should not be the target.


Similar design but on a larger scale, better suited to calibration at longer, more typical, distances....

20100219_122041_LR.jpg
20100220_161721_161721_LR.jpg
 
Last edited:
tdodd said:
Also make sure your focus TARGET is at least 3X wider and higher than the focus point indicator in the viewfinder. The scale should not be the target.
Click to expand...

Why? Understand the focus point/width of target idea but why not the target itself?

Matt
 
MatBin said:
Why? Understand the focus point/width of target idea but why not the target itself?

Matt
Click to expand...

Because the actual focusing sensors are each larger than the indicated squares suggest. Also it is possible that the screen on which the focus points are marked may not be perfectly lined up with the physical position of the sensor points. If your focus target is not sufficiently large the camera might mistakenly pick up on something else and focus on that instead. By having the target amply large (3X minimum) you remove the uncertainty that a smaller target presents.
 
I didn't have much of an angled scale - though that is a good tip. I was using a macro lens and just focused on a target (MF). Both -20 and +20 look extremely sharp to me, I expected them both to be totally blurred? I didn't change the focus between shots.

I've got a Canon battery grip for the old body, but I'm also thinking about getting a non-Canon grip for the new body. I hardly use them personally, but they can be useful for being able to use AAs at a pinch.
 
LizardMan said:
I didn't have much of an angled scale - though that is a good tip. I was using a macro lens and just focused on a target (MF). Both -20 and +20 look extremely sharp to me, I expected them both to be totally blurred? I didn't change the focus between shots.
Click to expand...

If you were focusing manually then why would AUTOFOCUS microadjustment make any difference? If you didn't change the focus between shots then why would you expect them to look different?
 
So the microadjustment is just to do with Autofocus then? In which case I've completely misunderstood, and it now makes more sense!
 
LizardMan said:
So the microadjustment is just to do with Autofocus then? In which case I've completely misunderstood, and it now makes more sense!
Click to expand...

I don't understand how you could think otherwise. It is called AF Microadjustment.

20100305_101658_LR.jpg


The manual is pretty explicit.
 
LOL. Rub in in Tim why dont you? :lol:
 
Not trying to rub it in at all. Just a bit gobsmacked that with AF microadjustment having been available on cameras for around three years, and forums, blogs and the manual itself full of information about AF microadjustment, that someone could be left with the impression that AF microadjustment was nothing to do with adjusting the AF. I mean, seriously, what could possibly cause anyone to think that AF microadjustment was nothing to do with AF? If AF microdjustment does not adjust the AF system then what does it do? :thinking:
 
Well it's given me a good chuckle this morning. :D
 
That's the main thing - so long as you're happy ;)
 
LizardMan said:
I didn't have much of an angled scale - though that is a good tip. I was using a macro lens and just focused on a target (MF). Both -20 and +20 look extremely sharp to me, I expected them both to be totally blurred? I didn't change the focus between shots.

I've got a Canon battery grip for the old body, but I'm also thinking about getting a non-Canon grip for the new body. I hardly use them personally, but they can be useful for being able to use AAs at a pinch.
Click to expand...

The method I used was to have mirror locked up, timed release and to manually refocus between the 3 test shots to force teh Af to move (with lens in AF mode :) )
I also tested at a focusing distance I would normally use, seeing as the Canon magazine suggests a number of times focal length it seemed nonsensical to do that on a 100mm macro lens when I focus at less than 300mm most of the time, longer distance used for longer non macro lenses though.

Matt
 
The MA thing is quite new to me, and for some reason my brain had filteres out the AF bit - but I shall try again armed with all the new information!

And I shall wear a dunce's hat for a week.
 
Having recently aquired a new 50d and Canon 10-22, I am wondering if I require to tinker with the microadjustment. I am currently finding a mixed bag of results, sharpness wise, with the above combination. I have aplay with the sharpness parameters, but still finding various results depending on focal length, aperture etc.
 
Well, it'll certainly eliminate one possibility.

Pete
 
Peter10d said:
Having recently aquired a new 50d and Canon 10-22, I am wondering if I require to tinker with the microadjustment. I am currently finding a mixed bag of results, sharpness wise, with the above combination. I have aplay with the sharpness parameters, but still finding various results depending on focal length, aperture etc.
Click to expand...
If you use a tripod and focus with Live AF within Live View then you should get your focus as good as is possible. If switching to Quick AF and focusing again yields softer results then it would appear that AF calibration is the problem, and might be fixed with AF microadjustment. Test with the lens wide open to reduce DOF to the minimum so that focus errors are less easily concealed.

Another possibility might also be stopping down too much. f/8 should be fine, but it would be unusual and perhaps self defeating to stop down more than that as diffraction will start to soften the image at the pixel level. At f/22 the pixels will look like mush. That not a fault of the lens or the camera. That's the problem with examining pixels instead of pictures. Obviously, as you stop down more, shutter speeds reduce, so camera shake or subject movement might also be a problem. If you raise the ISO too high then NR could cause some loss of fine detail and some overall softness.

Then there is the question of camera settings and post processing. Sharpening should be tailored to the needs of each image, its display size and the display medium to be used. One size does not fit all where sharpening or NR is concerned. If you resize (downsize) your images then you should resharpen after downsizing. Personally I prefer to shoot raw and leave decisions on sharpening and NR until later on in my workflow.

There are lots of possible reasons for soft images, but you haven't given us much information to work with.
 
Matt L said:
anyone ever used any battery grips that arent canon? ie opteka (sp)?

just after opinions on them really and whether its worth getting one or just paying the extra for the canon one.
Click to expand...

I got a Phottix grip for my 50D from amazon £59.90,love it.:):thumbs:
 
I'm not a big fan of battery grips personally, I'll probably be shot for this but I think most people buy them purely to look good rather than any practical benefits. And they make the camera a lot heavier!

The main advantage for me is being able to use AA batteries, which did get me out of a squeeze last time I was on holiday and several hours away from anywhere I could recharge.

Is it just me that finds the portrait controls are upside down? I always rotate clockwise, which puts the buttons at the bottom. To have the shutter release at the top, I have to rotate anti-clockwise, which feels awkard to me.

However, I have just ordered one (still awaiting delivery) which has a built-in intervalometer (amongst other things), I'll let you know if it's any good!
 
LizardMan said:
I'm not a big fan of battery grips personally, I'll probably be shot for this but I think most people buy them purely to look good rather than any practical benefits. And they make the camera a lot heavier!
Click to expand...

You may not get shot, but thats carp.:nono:

Wait until you've used one, before passing judgement. I wouldn't be without a grip, especially for football.
And the fact that it holds twice as many batteries, balances the camera out when you have a big lens on, ect ect.

Spence
 
Last edited:
I have been against grips for a long time,but after buying one i realize how the balance is much better for the motorsport.:):thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top