50D v 40D

S

Slicker

Suspended / Banned
Messages
315
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I have a 400D at the moment and I am looking to upgrade (I know why I want to upgrade and not just fo the sake of it).

I have heard good and bat reviews about the 50D and is it really worth the money. Is the sensor to close to the limits of 15 mega pixels and what is the noise handling really like in real life.

I can afford to go for the 50D but is it really worth it? Or should I be saving the money, get a 40D and the rest on glass?

Cheers
Paul
 
I've got a 40D and I've used a 50D for a day.

I could bang on about how I found the 50D faired to the 40D but I'll save it to bore my grandchildrenn in 60 years time or something.

In a nutshell, 50D - screen is an excellent improvement - the 40D comparatively looks soft and with poor contrast. AF is better in tracking/AI SERVO slightly, but most people would be hard pushed to notice unless tracking something pretty unpredictable in motion.

- Noise was no different in all honesty, high ISO was a touch worse (again unlikely to notice under everyday use) - but you have got the expanded ISO which is handy although I personally thought unusable without running some hefty noise reduction software
- FPS - officially slightly slower, but my 40D has never hit 6.5 fps, so in actual fact they're about the same.

yadda yada

unless the price of the 50D is vastly close to that of any brand new 40D's available, go for the 50D but otherwise the price difference between the two isn't justified in my opinion.

ads
 
ads has summed it up well. I have both the 40D and 50D. Bought the latter when Jessops couldn't source me another 40D when its shutter failed, and was in for repair.

Screen is much better on the 50D and the ISO range, esp the auto mode is more flexible.

Other than that, no, I'd say it isn't worth it.

I use the 50D out of the two I have though, as it is marginally better. If I had the choice of buying a 50D or 40D now, going on current prices, I'd walk off with a 40D.

You can crop in more with the 50D shots, but the noise is more obvious - it's like a pic from the 40D, but enlarged, which makes the noise in the 40D enlarged too.

This is all being rather negative though, as both are brilliant cameras.
 
I don't own either but from my research I would be tempted to go for the 40D. More pixels does not make a better camera !!!
 
Go for the 50D..... the more people buy these, will hopefully reduce the 40D prices as I want a 40D...!!!!
 
I know more pixels does not mean a better camera - infact some people think more pixels are worse as this is at the limit of the sensor as well..

I guess the new DIGIC processor in the 50D makes a difference as well...
 
I previously had a 40D and i was told by a few people to get the 40D over the 50D and use the money you save to invest in better glass, the information i was given is that the 40D is better for things like motorsport and fast moving action etc.
 
I have a 50d and was playing with a 40d aswell the other day, the AF is better, the auto white balance is cleverer and more pixels does improve a camera in certain circumstances. I only had 200mm of reach so for a lot of approach and tail shots I had to crop (sometimes loosing almost all of the frame) which is where pixels pay off - in massive crops, that said the greater px density does show up errors in poor glass more.

With the iso thing I found it to be similar a few months ago, but the latest firmware has improved my iso performance by almost a stop (ie 1600 looks like 800 and 3200 like 1600) which makes H1 and H2 more usable, but they are bloody handy sometimes as a noisy pic is better than a blurry pic in almost every circumstance.

If the money were available I would buy a 50d not a 40d, and bring the glass up when you can (I reckon the tamron 17-50 f2.8 and 70-200 f4L would be a lush combo - I have the tammy and my mate the 70-200 and I was playing monday)

I tried to be impartial but not that many people have used both - try asking CT as he has and has found the px advantage v useful
 
Thanks for the comments there.. I am not saying more pixels is a bad thing, and I know what you mean about the cropping.. I just wondered if they have tried to put too many pixels onto the sensor.

Whatever body I end up with I will be using a 70-200 2.8L, 17-55 2.8 and a 50mm 1.8
 
Apologies for the thread hijack but can anyone comment if noise / iso performance is better than a 400D?
 
I have a 40D I would not get a 50D. It is just not a big enough step up.
However a 60D or 70D might bring more to the table in the near future.


For now the 40D gives me every thing I need.
It lives with my 17-55 f2.8 on it.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I have a 40D I would not get a 50D. It is just not a big enough step up.
However a 60D or 70D might bring more to the table in the near future.

For now the 40D gives me every thing I need.
Click to expand...

I agree that its not worth the upgrade from 40D to 50D, but I have a 400D at the moment
 
TommyGun said:
I don't own either but from my research I would be tempted to go for the 40D. More pixels does not make a better camera !!!
Click to expand...

I do own both and from my research (based on experience, rather than hearsay) I prefer the 50D. If you don't print 6 foot wide prints then any noise difference is not noticeable. The extra pixels means that noise pixels are smaller in the 50D imgaes than in the 40D. Of course more pixels make a better camera, otherwise I'd still be using my original 640x480 Casio.
 
sidxms said:
I was recently in your position and decided against a 50D and went straight for a 1dmk2.

They are similar on price and for me the build quality and response is amazing.
Click to expand...

Didn't think of that, but I do still have an EF-S lens that I use so can't go there right now...
 
Slicker said:
I agree that its not worth the upgrade from 40D to 50D, but I have a 400D at the moment
Click to expand...

I upgraded from the 400D to the 40D and it was worth it.
The colours seem much better on the 40D. Much faster burst rate. Noise is much better controlled. It feels more substantial in your hands. Upgraded DIGIC processor, additional control wheel, customizable menus.................etc

Unfortunately, I've never had a play with a 50D so can't really comment there.
 
I upgraded from a 400D to a 50D and i've never looked back. I managed to scoop a cracking deal for the body so i went for it.
 
IMO the 50D isn't worth the substantial price difference over the 40D for the small improvements it brings.

It's a shame that Canon didn't stick with 10MP and use the better processing tech to cut noise below 40D levels - I think this would have made it far better value for money..
 
only thing better about the 50D is the screen and really what do use it for - looking at the histogram. The 50D IQ is less than the 40D and you need decent lenses to make use of the extra resolution. There are just too many mp on the sensor of the 50D
 
POAH said:
The 50D IQ is less than the 40D
Click to expand...

Yeah - thats what I have heard and thats my main concern about spending the extra money...

Other option of course is to wait for the next (60D) model if there is one
 
Slicker said:
Yeah - thats what I have heard and thats my main concern about spending the extra money...

Other option of course is to wait for the next (60D) model if there is one
Click to expand...


buy the 40D if you want the extra functions and better build quality
 
I am concidering the same upgrade. However, there are (unconfirmed) rumours that Canon might announce another camera, later in August. I am putting off my decision until then.
Not that I want the latest and greatest, but I am wondering whether the price of the 50d will take a knock when the announcement comes out?
 
Slicker said:
I agree that its not worth the upgrade from 40D to 50D, but I have a 400D at the moment
Click to expand...

In that case either get the 40D or wait for the 60D
If price were the decider I would get the 40D.( it is and will remain an excellent camera)
Other wise I would get the 60D which on evidence of other next generation cameras is likely to be much more expensive.
 
my concern is not really the price of the 50D, however I would not be impressed if I spent that money and I had issue with the IQ... however it does seem that most people here that have a 50D are happy with it and the user of the 40D think its not woth the money......

As I am prob not upgrading for a few weeks - I think I will wait and see if there is an announcement about the next model
 
50D is a nice camera. I upgraded from a 30D and haven't regretted it.

Also what you shoot will help make a decision, if you shoot a lot of birds for example you will be better off with the 50D as it will give you more zoom.
 
Freester said:
Apologies for the thread hijack but can anyone comment if noise / iso performance is better than a 400D?
Click to expand...

When i had a 400d, i would hate to have gone over ISO 400 due to the noise.

Now i'll go up to ISO 1600 without a thought.

The ISO performance is a LOT better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top