5D or a 50D

CraigDouglas

CraigDouglas

Suspended / Banned
Messages
580
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok, I know they aren't the same camera, I know the crop factor differences etc but the fact is that given the right lenses both could be suitable for what I'm doing.

The main reason I'm considering the 50D at all is the pixel and crop for wildlife shots, but I also enjoy and I'm probably better at landscapes which is where 5D has really grabbed my fancy for a while.

I've been a second togger doing weddings for a year or so now and I've started doing weddings myself now (with another togger) but they have a poor camera and are not always available.

So, this camera will also be used for weddings which is why ISO performance is a must.

Also, I now have my own studio for portraits which is another plus for the 5D. But is the 50D really a bad choice for studio work?


The kit I already have is:
  • 40D & Grip
  • Canon 50 1.4
  • Canon 24-105 F4L
  • Canon 200 2.8L
  • Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX
  • Tokina 11-16

Plus tripods and 430EXs etc


I want the decision primarily based on the following order of importance:
  • weddings
  • studio work
  • landscapes



My current thoughts are getting a second hand 5D (about the same price as a new 50D) with the view to get a 16-35 mkII for landscapes and sell the tokina. The 5D would also bring my 200 2.8L into a good range for candids at weddings, getting two lengths for each lens really meaning carrying less lenses.


The main question in my mind however is, how does the noise handling capabilities of the two cameras compare? Weddings normally require high ISO and I try to limit the amount of flash I use to bring out much more natural tones. I know the 50D has higher ISO settings, but how does the actual noise levels at same settings compare?

Many Thanks
Craig
 
Is there a possibility you could stretch to a 5D mkII?

I read a review by Jeff Ascough and he seemed to be saying that he was planning to use a mkII over the 1Ds mkIII he had used for years.

The two major advantages were high ISO and the ease of useing the Live View. The mkII is all but silent when using the Live View facility and it meant he could take photos in church without causing too much fuss.

As far as the high ISO goes, it is my understanding that it is competely amazing and noise levels are so low that there is nothing on the market to compare with it.

So for your type of work, I'd say try to push yourself to a 5D mkII.
 
I think the 5D has got to be the winner in all three categories.
Weddings and studio stuff has been its bread and butter since it was released....no question about that one.
The 50D's noise at high ISO's doesn't look to be a problem but it's always going to struggle for landscapes because the higher aperture numbers required are likely to soften up the images far too much.

Bob
 
Badger UK said:
Is there a possibility you could stretch to a 5D mkII?

I read a review by Jeff Ascough and he seemed to be saying that he was planning to use a mkII over the 1Ds mkIII he had used for years.

The two major advantages were high ISO and the ease of useing the Live View. The mkII is all but silent when using the Live View facility and it meant he could take photos in church without causing too much fuss.

As far as the high ISO goes, it is my understanding that it is competely amazing and noise levels are so low that there is nothing on the market to compare with it.

So for your type of work, I'd say try to push yourself to a 5D mkII.
Click to expand...

I have considered the mkII, but my current thoughts are that it is simply too over priced for me at the minute. Looking at around 2k on a camera which isn't really proven in use yet (by the wider public over periods of time) is too risky for me. I know the 5D is rock solid, and i've not seen any problems with the 50D either. I can't afford a problem during a wedding or studio shoot so I'll re-evaluate that decision around middle of next year after it's been in the public field for 5-6 months.

Although it is perfect on paper I just can't take that risk unfortunately. Plus, for the price of a mkII, I could get a SH 5D and a 135 F2L or a 85 1.2L. Both of these options would give me better performance and images I believe than a mkII.

Canon Bob said:
I think the 5D has got to be the winner in all three categories.
Weddings and studio stuff has been its bread and butter since it was released....no question about that one.
The 50D's noise at high ISO's doesn't look to be a problem but it's always going to struggle for landscapes because the higher aperture numbers required are likely to soften up the images far too much.

Bob
Click to expand...

This is where I'm coming from, Landscapes are something I really enjoy and the 40D does struggle slightly. However I need to make the decision based on Weddings and Studio work first, again both in the favour of the 5D to my knowledge but I need to make sure I'm making this decision based on good information which is what you've helped me to confirm :)
 
Judging from the very few real world pics I have seen from the 50d I'd be tempted to go for the 5d, although high iso on the 50d is claimed to be good, in the comparrison I saw the 40d just beat it (pixle density maybe??). Personally I'd be supprised if it's anything like as good as the Nikon d3/d700 they do seem to be leading the market in the high iso stakes at the moment.
The 5d does have pretty good high iso and is a proven tested reliable camera, the 50d on the other hand is brand new and hasn't been "tested" in the real world properly yet, I'd wait and see if it has any of Canons "focusing issues" before parting with my hard earned cash.
 
5D all the way. I have used them now for two years and they are superb.
 
The 50D noise is about the same as the 40D IMO based on my usage of it so far. Given the massive pixels increase that's no mean achievement. The 50D will have a clear advantage for reach in wildlife shots over anything else out there at the moment.

The only advantage I see for you in looking at the 5D for your other intended uses though, is the wider FOV on the 5D sensor. Whilst that is obviously a valid reason, you already have a fine camera in the 40D, and in the opinion of many informed users there is little if any difference in image quality between 40D and 5D images.

CLICKY

Buying into a 5D at this late stage, means it is inevitably starting to lag in the technology stakes, and in some respects it is well behind the 40D you already have. That it's a bargain at current prices isn't in dispute, but be realistic in your expectations from a camera which is rapidly becoming dated.

The only vast improvements I see you gaining from a body change for your studio, wedding and landscape work are either the 1DSMK3 or the 5DMk2, the latter obviously being the more affordable. With 21 million pixels both these bodies will obviously excel in your main areas of work while still being useful for wildlife/long lens work - only just behind the 40D in fact, which is actually excellent for a full frame camera.
 
Go for a 5d, then upgrade to a 5dmkII in 12-18 months. Thats my opinion and if i had the cash i would. Might wait till after my wedding in September and get a 5dmkII myself, or see if Canon bring out something to replace the 1d and 1ds series
 
CT said:
The 50D noise is about the same as the 40D IMO based on my usage of it so far. Given the massive pixels increase that's no mean achievement. The 50D will have a clear advantage for reach in wildlife shots over anything else out there at the moment.

The only advantage I see for you in looking at the 5D for your other intended uses though, is the wider FOV on the 5D sensor. Whilst that is obviously a valid reason, you already have a fine camera in the 40D, and in the opinion of many informed users there is little if any difference in image quality between 40D and 5D images.

CLICKY

Buying into a 5D at this late stage, means it is inevitably starting to lag in the technology stakes, and in some respects it is well behind the 40D you already have. That it's a bargain at current prices isn't in dispute, but be realistic in your expectations from a camera which is rapidly becoming dated.

The only vast improvements I see you gaining from a body change for your studio, wedding and landscape work are either the 1DSMK3 or the 5DMk2, the latter obviously being the more affordable. With 21 million pixels both these bodies will obviously excel in your main areas of work while still being useful for wildlife/long lens work - only just behind the 40D in fact, which is actually excellent for a full frame camera.
Click to expand...

This the post I was afraid I'd see but also the reason I posted in case I was getting carried away with the 5D's reputation rather than merits.

That link you posted was rather interesting and I've not seen it before.

It's making me think perhaps I should go for a 40D for now (since I need a second camera) which would mean I have two sets of identical controls etc and then look at getting a 5DmkII or 1DsmkIII middle of next year once it's price has come down and it's been in the field for a while?
 
CraigDouglas said:
It's making me think perhaps I should go for a 40D for now (since I need a second camera) which would mean I have two sets of identical controls etc and then look at getting a 5DmkII or 1DsmkIII middle of next year once it's price has come down and it's been in the field for a while?
Click to expand...

Well you could do a lot worse if you're keeping the 40D anyway, and you certainly need two bodies for weddings. But as you already have a 40D, I'd suggest it's puts the 50D firmly in your frame and gives you a big advantage for your wildlife shots. If you're at home with the 40D, the 50D will present few problems, they're virtually identical in layout.

I firmly turn down all wedding enquiries and have done for quite a while, but I still get press ganged into the odd family wedding and those of friends. I've been copped for a wedding in February, and despite having the 40D I wont be having any qualms about using the 50D with the 40D as back up. Too many people are dismissing the 50D on the odd comment in a review, often taken out of context to the whole - it's the best DSLR I've owned yet and I'm very happy with it.

I was very torn between the new 5D and the 50D. The 5D will be a good all rounder and as near as damn it as good as the 40D for wildlife and cropping, but in the end I went for the reach of the 50D and if I want to shoot full frame, I'll shoot 35mm film.

Good luck with whatever you decide. :thumbs:
 
Well I was considering getting my second camera in january because I was thinking the 5D would be a decent improvement, but since it appears otherwise, I think i'll hold off buying a second camera until my next wedding which is currently not until April. I'll re-evaluate the prices then. I may beable to get a mkII at that point for example.

In the mean time i'll shoot studio and landscapes with my 40D :)

Many thanks for your help, it's probably saved me wasting money on a 5D.
 
Craig, Im a 40d user and just starting to get into Landscape. You mentioned above that the 40d struggles a little with landscape, can you explain in what areas. Thanks.
 
Don't get me wrong, it's an excellent camera, and i've taken lots of good landscapes with it, see here: http://www.craigdouglasphotography....omgallery&Itemid=3&func=viewcategory&catid=15

It's just that with the crop sensor, the only way to get wide enough for some of the shots I want to take is to use an ultra wide angle crop sensor only lens which all suffer with barrel distortions. My tokina has barrel distortions limited due to it's narrow zoom but that limits it's use and it suffers from CAs.

With a FF sensor I could use something like the 16-35L for wide angle stuff which would eliminate these issues above.


For most applications the 40D is great, but to improve my landscapes i'm really looking for a FF and decent glass. The MP of the 5DmkII would be a huge bonus also for landscapes!
 
Well I'm not saying the 5D would be a waste - you do get full frame FOV, but there are so many sensor size and pixel count choices now, that you need to be very careful which way you go for any particular application, and new models are coming out at a scary rate. If you can afford to stand back a while, it's probably no bad thing.
 
It may be of interest that I have been disappointed with the image quality on the LCD of the 5D since I began using one about 6 weeks ago.

After using a 40D for a year I got used to the screen's vivid and accurate colours. The 5D is dull in comparison and doesn't give you a true impression of what the image is capable of after processing.:)
 
The 50D screen is better again Jerry which shows just how fast things are moving.
 
Agree with that the lcd on the 5d is not great. I'm a noob really but am very happy with it, 1600iso seems no problem with a bit of noise reduction in photoshop.

Neice in a dimly lit very old house.... 85mm f1.8 btw...
http://sittingbourneSPAMerver.com/downloads/Photos/Bobs/Party/IMG_2861_edited-2.jpg

One other thought, the larger sensor means a shorter DOF at the same 35mm equiv. focal length and f-stop (may need to stop down on the 5D one stop for group shots, increasing iso or shutter speed accordingly).

Cheers
 
I have just been down this road so i know how confused you have been getting trying to weigh up the pros and cons ff against crop etc.

In the end the decision made based on this: I wanted a very good DSLR for taking landscapes and portraits, when it came down to it the image quality and the fact that what the lens says is what i got is all that mattered to me so I went for the 5D mkI.

I intended to buy L glass lenses anyway so that was never an issue. I firmly believe you get what you pay for here.

As for it getting quite old technology now i say this: A brilliant body that professionals and amateurs alike were captivated by it's ability to just take wonderful pictures is not all of a sudden going to be rubbish now a newer model has come on the scene or that technology has moved on so that you get movie modes or live view or i could go on.

I guess what I'm trying to say is if all that matters is the picture Q then choose the 5D.

Some of the pictures i took straight out of the box!!

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=96611

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=96710
 
onform said:
I have just been down this road so i know how confused you have been getting trying to weigh up the pros and cons ff against crop etc.

In the end the decision made based on this: I wanted a very good DSLR for taking landscapes and portraits, when it came down to it the image quality and the fact that what the lens says is what i got is all that mattered to me so I went for the 5D mkI.

I intended to buy L glass lenses anyway so that was never an issue. I firmly believe you get what you pay for here.

As for it getting quite old technology now i say this: A brilliant body that professionals and amateurs alike were captivated by it's ability to just take wonderful pictures is not all of a sudden going to be rubbish now a newer model has come on the scene or that technology has moved on so that you get movie modes or live view or i could go on.

I guess what I'm trying to say is if all that matters is the picture Q then choose the 5D.

Some of the pictures i took straight out of the box!!

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=96611

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=96710
Click to expand...

This is your first DSLR and you've come from a bridge camera - of course you'r e going to see a huge improvement in IQ. Craig is coming from a 40D which is a very different animal to a bridge camera, and this doesn't help one jot in helping him make his decision. Neither does posting sample images which are 500 pixels on the longest side and frankly of no value whatsoever in determining IQ. ;)

I never the said the 5D suddenly became rubbish now did I? What I did say was that what was a cutting edge camera a few years ago is now being surpassed by later cameras. It happens to all cameras no matter how much you pay for them and is inevitable at the rate new cameras are coming out.
 
I'm sorry CT if you thought my post was a direct attack on your personal opinion, for the life of me i cant see how you would, but I was just sharing my opinion, having recently been in the same boat. I did test both the 50D and 5D in person and was referring to this comparison when stating about image Q. Nowhere in my post did i compare either against my old bridge because i know this would be pointless and plain ridiculous. As for the links yes on reflection there was probably no need or relevance.

I am still of the opinion that the 5D would offer more of an upgrade route from a 40D. but again jmho
 
onform said:
I'm sorry CT if you thought my post was a direct attack on your personal opinion, for the life of me i cant see how you would, but I was just sharing my opinion, having recently been in the same boat. I did test both the 50D and 5D in person and was referring to this comparison when stating about image Q. Nowhere in my post did i compare either against my old bridge because i know this would be pointless and plain ridiculous. As for the links yes on reflection there was probably no need or relevance.

I am still of the opinion that the 5D would offer more of an upgrade route from a 40D. but again jmho
Click to expand...

LOL. I'm not in the least concerned about your differing opinion, but effectively misquoting me does yank my chain just a tad. ;)

If all the information on what you based your choice was in your first post, rather than in your second, then it would have been of more value to the OP.

To say the 5D is a better upgrade than the 40D depends on your main use of the camera and as I clearly said in my post, the 5D still has an obvious advantage in being full frame for some purposes.

As for a direct comparison of IQ between the two cameras, there's nowt in it IMHO, and I refer you to the opinion of working pros in my earlier link who use both cameras.
 
Hi CT, it does come across as a bit 'on the offensive' above - we all value your input so don't get drawn in! It is a discussion board after all!

For interest I also went from a bridge to a 5D but via 35mm SLR :)
 
You find my post a bit on the offensive? Do me a favour please and just explain your reasons for that conclusion. :thinking:
 
Not offensive per se, but I read it with quite dismissive tone, that's all. As with anything written, hard to explain!

OP sorry for the thread hijack.
 
LOL. I'm dismissive rather than offensive then? Not sure which I prefer. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top