Camera upgrade from 350D

vimto2000

vimto2000

Suspended / Banned
Messages
83
Name
Vim
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been a long time watcher of the forum, but not much of a poster. But i'm in a bit of a dilemma. I basically use my camera for family photos, occasional party functions and just general stuff. I'm not a pro by any means.

I have always been drawn to the XXD range.

Currently have a 350D. Many people comment on the size of the camera as being too small, but its one of the features I like. However the lowlight capabilities aren't great.

My current lenses are a 50mm 1.8, and the 17-85mm.

So given the usage would people recommend the 40D 50D or the 550D. Or....New glass?!
 
hi i dont know about the 40d/50d as ive just brought the 600d very happy with it so far,but i know the 550d has some very good write ups.
 
Nothing wrong at all with the 50mm 1.8. It's a very good quality lens
 
Given that you like the size of the 350D, going to an xxD body might not suit you - if you get the opportunity to hold one - do so.

Given the use and the reason for wanting to change (low-light performance) - the 50mm 1.8 is not a slow lens so that leaves a small body with better low-light performance.

How much better low-light performance are you looking for? Have you considered an external ETTL flash?
 
I do have an e-ttl flash...thinks its the 380ex. I'm hoping to upgrade the to the 430exII soon. Some times in restaurants I don't like having the huge flash on top, just like lens and camera. The 350d ISO performance is not great. Hence the thought of newer camera.

I think I'll have to have a play with the size as not really held the xxd range. Who knows I may like it. So is it worth getting the 50d over the 40d?
 
My personal experience going from the 350D to the 50D hasn't left me thinking that there's an obvious significant benefit in terms of high ISO/noise performance. I cannot make a direct comparison because I no longer have the 350D. I tend to take and manipulate raw files and so I cannot comment on on-board noise-reduction.

I still prefer to keep the ISO from 100 to 400 but I do feel happier shooting at 800 ISO now - but that might have more to do with me than the camera.

There's an article here that compares ISO/noise performance of the 350D, 40D and 50D.
The slightly confusing graph below shows results for all three cameras, at three different ISO settings. This shows the following:

For a given ISO setting, the EOS 40D had the lowest per pixel noise level, by about half a stop from the EOS 350D
The EOS 50D had by far the highest noise level, by about 1 stop compared with the 350D and 1.5 stops compared with the 40D.
Click to expand...
So if you accept that, you are going to gain half a stop performance by going to the 40D and lose a stop performance if you get the 50D.

Another site (snapsort.com) gave both the 40D and the 50D a 0.1 stop advantage over the 350D in "low noise, high ISO performance". That same site, in a comparison of the 350D to the 600D says "The 600D has a slight edge (0.3 f-stops) in low noise, high ISO performance". Just for fun, I also compared the 350D to the Nikon D3x: "The D3X has excellent image quality 1.6 f-stops higher ISO than the 350D".

So make of all that what you will.

Unless it is on-board noise-reduction that you are looking for (in which case I cannot comment as I don't use it), on ISO performance alone, I don't think that you're going to be blown away by upgrading to the 40D/50D.

There are others on these boards who say that their Fuji X10 outperforms their high-end DSLRs in some low-light and high-contrast situations - see this post - maybe that's a consideration given your stated usage?

If you want to stay with a DSLR, given that you already have an f1.8 lens and a flash, maybe searching online/bookshops for low-light photography solutions/techniques might be worthwhile?

If you ultimately want an xxD camera - then get one - that's what I did, and I haven't looked back :D (but I did get to hold a couple beforehand and I always found the 350D awkward on account of its small size).
 
Hi, I just want to say that I upgraded from a 350d at Christmas and was given a 60d from Father Christmas, I absolutely love it! I am extremely pleased with it and my photos have improved hugely. I am only a novice at this though but am really glad I have my new camera.
 
weybourne said:
My personal experience going from the 350D to the 50D hasn't left me thinking that there's an obvious significant benefit in terms of high ISO/noise performance. I cannot make a direct comparison because I no longer have the 350D. I tend to take and manipulate raw files and so I cannot comment on on-board noise-reduction.

I still prefer to keep the ISO from 100 to 400 but I do feel happier shooting at 800 ISO now - but that might have more to do with me than the camera.

There's an article here that compares ISO/noise performance of the 350D, 40D and 50D.So if you accept that, you are going to gain half a stop performance by going to the 40D and lose a stop performance if you get the 50D.

Another site (snapsort.com) gave both the 40D and the 50D a 0.1 stop advantage over the 350D in "low noise, high ISO performance". That same site, in a comparison of the 350D to the 600D says "The 600D has a slight edge (0.3 f-stops) in low noise, high ISO performance". Just for fun, I also compared the 350D to the Nikon D3x: "The D3X has excellent image quality 1.6 f-stops higher ISO than the 350D".

So make of all that what you will.

Unless it is on-board noise-reduction that you are looking for (in which case I cannot comment as I don't use it), on ISO performance alone, I don't think that you're going to be blown away by upgrading to the 40D/50D.

There are others on these boards who say that their Fuji X10 outperforms their high-end DSLRs in some low-light and high-contrast situations - see this post - maybe that's a consideration given your stated usage?

If you want to stay with a DSLR, given that you already have an f1.8 lens and a flash, maybe searching online/bookshops for low-light photography solutions/techniques might be worthwhile?

If you ultimately want an xxD camera - then get one - that's what I did, and I haven't looked back :D (but I did get to hold a couple beforehand and I always found the 350D awkward on account of its small size).
Click to expand...

That report is way off! There are so many different reports on tinterweb about high mp crop sensors, and they all report different things. Those tests are scientific but not real world.

The 50d has better high iso performance than the 40d and couples it with a 50% increase in resolution. I've used both and the 50d is the clear winner in low light, real world shooting (and the 40d uses the 400d's sensor which I preferred to the 350d) But it depends what you need in a camera as the 50d has other advantages too. That said, pretty much any modern body will have better high iso performance than the 350d which has very elderly sensor tech.

If high iso is your main priority, the only answer Canon wise is full frame or 1.3 crop, either 5d mk2 or newer 1d bodies. Otherwise, fast glass or a properly used flash gun are the answer.
 
Last edited:
I forget if the 17-85 is full frame compatible, but have you considered one of the 5D range, great depth of field, reducing the crop factor essentially makes the lenses wider and when you get noise it just feels that bit nicer (I know that last point wasn't very scientific!)

Now if you need video go with the mark 2, and if the lens isn't ff compatible then I would recommend the 60D great for video and stills alike (I used to own one before the 1D3)
 
I think the 5D would really be stretching my budget to the max! I was hoping for a sub £500 upgrade. Plus I think the 5D would be wasted on me, would never touch its potential. However for a little bit more I would be tempted with a 7D...but then I've crept up to more than double my initial budget for a new body!

I'm leaning towards a 40D or 50D, 550D looks great on paper...however from most of what I've read...and peoples comments on here. It seems that paper and test in a lab, doesn't give you true results.

What about glass...obviously talking as an amateur, is there any other lenses that would be better suited. I have been tempted by the Canon 17-55mm a few times. But something holds me back with that.

Also would you sell a 350D? Or keep it as a spare body. As I can guess I wouldn't get much at all for it.
 
odd jim said:
That report is way off! There are so many different reports on tinterweb about high mp crop sensors, and they all report different things. Those tests are scientific but not real world.

The 50d has better high iso performance than the 40d and couples it with a 50% increase in resolution. I've used both and the 50d is the clear winner in low light, real world shooting (and the 40d uses the 400d's sensor which I preferred to the 350d) But it depends what you need in a camera as the 50d has other advantages too. That said, pretty much any modern body will have better high iso performance than the 350d which has very elderly sensor tech.

If high iso is your main priority, the only answer Canon wise is full frame or 1.3 crop, either 5d mk2 or newer 1d bodies. Otherwise, fast glass or a properly used flash gun are the answer.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why I said make of it what you will and referenced two reports with different results. I still reckon there's no obvious significant benefit in terms of high ISO/low noise (if low-light performance is the only reason for the upgrade) - I doubt it will solve the OP's low-light problem.

vimto2000 said:
What about glass...obviously talking as an amateur, is there any other lenses that would be better suited. I have been tempted by the Canon 17-55mm a few times. But something holds me back with that.

Also would you sell a 350D? Or keep it as a spare body. As I can guess I wouldn't get much at all for it.
Click to expand...
The 17-55 is f2.8 and slower than your 50mm f1.8 (but faster than your 17-85 at f4-f5.6). If I'm looking at the right lenses, it's also getting on for £800. You're not going to get a zoom faster than your 50mm and you're not going to get a lot faster prime than that either without spending big money.

I wanted to keep my 350D but in the end I had to sell it to fund the purchase of the 50D. I got £200 last summer for it with the kit lens, a LowePro toploader pouch and a few other bits and pieces.

If you're itching for an upgrade and you really do like the small size of the 350D, then I'd say don't go for a 40D or 50D without first handling one. The 60D is smaller but still significantly bigger than the 350D. As odd jim says, pretty much any modern body will have better high iso performance than the 350d - so if the xxD bodies prove too big, a more up-to-date xxxD body (that has higher MP and video too) might be what you're looking for.
 
Last edited:
Agreed, I would look to a later xxxD such as the 550. Now 2.8 glass is very good but the canon version although sharp blows your budget and more.
Now I'veq tried a few bits and bobs in my time and if you take a look at my flickr sets all my lenses and bodies are listed so it may give you an idea what they are like in the hands of amateur
 
I went from 350D to a 40D and its a big change. The 40D is a great camera I love it. Match it with the 70-200f4L and you get really lovely results, far better than I got with my 350D. The 350D is good but the screen, ISO handling, AF is quite different.
 
I've had a bit of handle of the XXD range. And I do like the feel of it in my hands. Not that much bigger or weightier either. I think I've made up my mind on the Camera.

I plan to upgrade my camera to the 50D as soon as possible. Then once I have it, will sell my 350D to help fund the upgrade. I'm in no way a pro, so no point have a spare body for those "just in case" moments.

As for the lens..I use the 50mm for portraits for my little one. But when out and about and going anywhere, I just take the 17-85mm. Which is why I thought to upgrade to the 17-55mm. However I will do that at some later date when I have some spare cash.
 
Have you had a look at the tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 as an aletrnative to the canon equivalent?

Can be had for around £200 second hand, and is highly rated
 
mike_6480 said:
Have you had a look at the tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 as an aletrnative to the canon equivalent?

Can be had for around £200 second hand, and is highly rated
Click to expand...

I have been looking at that, and I am tempted. The only thing that puts me off is that after buying it, I may want the 17-55 from Canon. Which would re-selling a lens and buying the Canon. Have you got one?

Which is the one to go for on the Tamron? VC IF?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top