Canon 40D or 50D?

chphoto

chphoto

Suspended / Banned
Messages
945
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Right, I currently borrow mum's 400D whenever I want to take photos, which is all well and good apart from the fact she wants to sell it! I want to upgrade to something a bit more 'substantial', so I'm looking at a 40D or a 50D.

Current lenses:
1. 50mm f1.8 (love it!)
2. 75-300mm f4-5.6 (works well enough for sports)
3. 18-55mm (barely use it!)

Looking to buy in the future:
1. 70-200mm f4L IS / f2.8L non-IS
2. A wide angle, not looked into it properly yet


I've been comparing features of both, and I'm trying to come to some sort of decision. I think I'm going to need the opinions of people who have used them!


Main points for consideration...

Resolution
They both have the same size sensor, but the 50D is 15MP as opposed to the 40D's 10MP. Given the extra 5 million pixels crammed onto the sensor, how badly does the 50D suffer with noise compared to the 40D?
I find the 10MP on the 400D more than enough, and it keeps file sizes down a little bit ;)

Screen
Both have the same size screen at 3", but the screen res is vastly different - 230k (40D) and 900k-ish (50D). I've seen the 50D screen in bright daylight when I was out photographing go-karts at Lydd recently, and it was really good compared to the little 2.5" one on the 400D.
If I go for the 40D, am I going to regret not having the 'better' screen?

Price
My budget is sort of limited. I'm in no position to buy at the moment, so I'm saving (slowly!). I figured while i'm saving I can get a really good idea about both bodies and make a proper decision as to which to buy.
In the end I could go for the 50D if it's really worth the extra.


Any input would be really fantastic, I'd love to know how you guys & girls have got on with these bodies :)
 
Or, to throw a spanner in the works, should I buy the 400D from mum and get the 70-200mm?

Some say it's not worth having L glass on consumer bodies, is it really going to make a 'difference'?
 
The Glass is far more important than the body, also you know the 400 and you can possibly have it now.
 
I've just upgraded from a 450D to a 50D. I was looking at the idea of the 40D, but I'm looking into needing higher ISO stuff for later in the year.

It's often said that the 50D actually performs slightly worse than the 40D in some respects, but I haven't used both so can't really comment (but I am enjoying trying to get a usable image at ISO 12800, a conversion to B&W and it can actually look o.k!).

To be honest, I'd imagine you'll be happy with either. If you use liveview a lot, and often use the magnification thingy then the better screen might be of use, otherwise you'll probably find you won't actually use it that much (as it's got a little LCD on the top).

If money is a problem, go for the 40D, and put what you've saved towards the 70-200. If you can afford the 50D, or will be wanting to upgrade later anyway (at a bit of a loss), then go for it. Either way, you'll love the change from the 400D!

Chris
 
Hi I've not used a 50D but have had my 40D for ages now and its great :)
The only thing that lets it down is the screen but everything else is excellent

If you are happy with the file size on the 400D then the 40D should be perfect
Pete
 
Cyprino said:
Some say it's not worth having L glass on consumer bodies, is it really going to make a 'difference'?
Click to expand...

Forgot to say, whoever says this is what's known as a 'gear snob'! :D. A great lens on a 400D will still let you get great results, but you could have the best camera in the world but if you put cheap glass on the front of it you'll get crummy results.
 
I was in the exact same postion as you a month ago and was wondering whether to go for the 40 or 50D, I was upgrading from the 400D and what I was looking for was faster fps burst rate and better ISO performance.

Both the 40D and 50D would have suited me fine and having looked at loads of samples and had a wee try with them I found that thier noise handling capabilities were pretty much equal as were thier fps rates.

The deciding factor for me was that a 50D with only 300clicks on it came up for sale on anotehr forum for only 475 quid so I jumped at it figuring the extra megapixels while not a deal breaker wouldn't hurt especially for cropping my birdy pictures. Whichever you go for the 40 or the 50 you will have a good camera to last you for a while though.

Tommy.
 
If it was me making the choice I would go for the 40D and put any spare money towards your 70-200mm lens. The 40D is a fantastic camera and you will be very happy with it for a long time. The next move from there would be the 7D when prices have dropped and there are a few good secondhand ones on the market.
 
The 70-200mm L glass is a brilliant lens in terms of sharpness etc but the difference between IS and non IS is about £400.

Im not quite sure why but the charts here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=404

seem to indicate that the IS lens is sharper at FF especially at the corners.

I must admit I'd go with the glass as you can always upgrade the camera later.

I always go for IS especially on a telephoto as you can go 1-2 stops ower handheld but £400 is quite a premium.

Alternatively you could keep an eye out on here for a good S/H model.
 
Thanks for the comments so far, I was swinging towards the 40D before starting the thread anyway :)

I totally forgot about the idea of buying the 400D from mum and getting a 70-200, hence i'm now making it a two-tiered debate!

1. Camera -or- 2. lens

1.1 40D
1.2 50D

2.1 70-200 F4
2.2 70-200 F4 IS
2.3 70-200 F2.8


I'm sorry for the sudden change!! I really should have thought before starting the thread :lol:
 
I would go for the f4 IS because you can also add later on a 1.4 or even 2x extender and save a lot of money on buying a longer lens - at the cost of having to use smaller stops and also some loss of IQ - but the quality is so good to begin with it it would still rate as very good compared to some manufacturers longer lenses.
 
Cyprino said:
Thanks for the comments so far, I was swinging towards the 40D before starting the thread anyway :)

I totally forgot about the idea of buying the 400D from mum and getting a 70-200, hence i'm now making it a two-tiered debate!

1. Camera -or- 2. lens

1.1 40D
1.2 50D

2.1 70-200 F4
2.2 70-200 F4 IS
2.3 70-200 F2.8


I'm sorry for the sudden change!! I really should have thought before starting the thread :lol:
Click to expand...

Well for what its worth I have owned the 30-40-50D and the best was the 50D and I shoot weddings.
Buy the 70-200 2.8 non is as to be honest the amount of times you will be below 1/30 hand held will be very low and if your an average person and shoot 3 clicks in a row then one will be sharp at 1/30, the 50D and that glass is awesome and the crop factor with the pixels will be well worth it. I do not know how people who have used the 40D & 50D can say the 40 equals it its total rubbish just the look of the files is so much better and the AF is probably the best of all canon cameras, when shooting x-country equine I never had a oof pic, when the horse was jumping or galloping bring up the camera squeeze and snap it was focused.



wilky
 
Wilky said:
Well for what its worth I have owned the 30-40-50D and the best was the 50D and I shoot weddings.
Buy the 70-200 2.8 non is as to be honest the amount of times you will be below 1/30 hand held will be very low and if your an average person and shoot 3 clicks in a row then one will be sharp at 1/30, the 50D and that glass is awesome and the crop factor with the pixels will be well worth it. I do not know how people who have used the 40D & 50D can say the 40 equals it its total rubbish just the look of the files is so much better and the AF is probably the best of all canon cameras, when shooting x-country equine I never had a oof pic, when the horse was jumping or galloping bring up the camera squeeze and snap it was focused.



wilky
Click to expand...

WOW! Are you saying you can hand hold a 70-200mm non IS down to 1/30th?
I'm amazed! or did i misunderstand?
 
Strangways said:
WOW! Are you saying you can hand hold a 70-200mm non IS down to 1/30th?
I'm amazed! or did i misunderstand?
Click to expand...

No you did not misunderstand.... what did folk do before IS? that is why I said use a burst of 3 shots whilst in a good brace position, whilst shooting weddings you have to do these things, technique and or something to lean on.

wilky
 
Wilky said:
No you did not misunderstand.... what did folk do before IS? that is why I said use a burst of 3 shots whilst in a good brace position, whilst shooting weddings you have to do these things, technique and or something to lean on.

wilky
Click to expand...

If I should ever marry again you will definately get the togs job. I wish I could get near that level. Maybe it's my age and the 'essential tremors' I have been diagnosed with. You have my respect. :thumbs:
 
Strangways said:
If I should ever marry again you will definately get the togs job. I wish I could get near that level. Maybe it's my age and the 'essential tremors' I have been diagnosed with. You have my respect. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

LOL.... I did not say it works every time... but I did used to find that a burst of shots would work well, now I have gone to the dark side its irrelevant as they only do IS on the 70-200.;)

OR it could be the medication......lmao

wilky
 
Wilky said:
LOL.... I did not say it works every time... but I did used to find that a burst of shots would work well, now I have gone to the dark side its irrelevant as they only do IS on the 70-200.;)

OR it could be the medication......lmao

wilky
Click to expand...

I've tried the medication, but I just fall over :lol:
 
I'm also considering a 40d but wondering if a 50d would be a better investment. The only thing i'm bothered about at the moment is noise - better noise handling for me means i can buy a 70-200 f/4 and up the iso. Is the noise handling that much better on the 50d?
 
bomberman said:
I'm also considering a 40d but wondering if a 50d would be a better investment. The only thing i'm bothered about at the moment is noise - better noise handling for me means i can buy a 70-200 f/4 and up the iso. Is the noise handling that much better on the 50d?
Click to expand...

In my impaired opinion yes, if you like to go above iso3200 and have good results, BUT I do take medication...lol

Oh and just google the camera forget the people who are paid to write about things then read what uncle bob has to say!!!

Not too sure why I am responding to this post as I now shoot the dark side.... oh yes I remenber the one camera and lens I did not sell was the 50D and 17-55 IS 2.8, the bloody Mk111 was crap and had to go....lol

wilky
 
have a read through this, it appears a setting can increase noise on the 50d, but with it turned off its fine, I think at 800 at 1600 noise handling is very good indeed.
 
Cyprino said:
Thanks for the comments so far, I was swinging towards the 40D before starting the thread anyway :)

I totally forgot about the idea of buying the 400D from mum and getting a 70-200, hence i'm now making it a two-tiered debate!

1. Camera -or- 2. lens

1.1 40D
1.2 50D

2.1 70-200 F4
2.2 70-200 F4 IS
2.3 70-200 F2.8


I'm sorry for the sudden change!! I really should have thought before starting the thread :lol:
Click to expand...


The 40d or 50d are totally different cameras to the 400d. You will get a step improvement putting a 70-200L on the 400d over the kit lens, but you will get a similar improvement putting the kit lens onto the 40d. -- been there, done that!!

My upgrade path was:
350d + kit lens

new 10-20mm sigma => big change
second hand 28-105 EFs = > some improvement
70 - 200 f4 L => big step change in quality

40d => big step change, but now I use my 18-55 EFs kit lens on the 40d most and get fantastic results with a bit of care.

I also drop back to the 350d from time to time and get better results now than ever before. I would put this down to step change in technique.
 
will69 said:
The 40d or 50d are totally different cameras to the 400d. You will get a step improvement putting a 70-200L on the 400d over the kit lens, but you will get a similar improvement putting the kit lens onto the 40d. -- been there, done that!!

My upgrade path was:
350d + kit lens

new 10-20mm sigma => big change
second hand 28-105 EFs = > some improvement
70 - 200 f4 L => big step change in quality

40d => big step change, but now I use my 18-55 EFs kit lens on the 40d most and get fantastic results with a bit of care.

I also drop back to the 350d from time to time and get better results now than ever before. I would put this down to step change in technique.
Click to expand...

You honestly use the 18-55 kit lens... the 70-200 & 10-20mm I can understand, the plastic paper weight is beyond belief I :clap: to you.

It still amazes me that folk stick to using poor gear on good gear a fair body such as the 20D and up wards ( forget in this topic the 1D's ) will be very good with good glass ( L or the more expensive sigma and such ) but put poor quality on mediocre body's and its a disaster been there... Sigma 75-300mm thought great this will be good..... NOT... tired now need more med's

wilky
 
chris321 said:
Forgot to say, whoever says this is what's known as a 'gear snob'! :D. A great lens on a 400D will still let you get great results, but you could have the best camera in the world but if you put cheap glass on the front of it you'll get crummy results.
Click to expand...

I'm a bit of a gear snob then.
True, a cracking L lens will get the best of of your 450D but I think it's a bit of waste. similarly people with a 7D using inferior glass. I think it's a waste too.
however, that's just me.

40D or 50D....not much in it for me, no need to get a 50D over my 40D. having used the 50D only once though it is a nice camera and the screen is much better than a 40D.

the trick to saving money on a 40D would be, for me, getting a decent 2nd hand copy with a shutter count you can trust.

70-200 L sounds good too. I'm aiming towards one...one day.
I would certainly look at 40/50D over the 450D range though for ease of use, options, custom menu's spot metering..and that nice wheel at the back.
also I really like CF over SD for fast writing RAW images too
 
I haven't used the 50d so can't really comment on it but all I know is I have a 40d and I love it :)

Personally I'd get the 40d and like other have said then use any spare money (or save more money) to then get the lenses that you want. They should be able to be used on any body you buy in the future so are an investment if you decide to upgrade later on.
 
Hi

I've just gone through this exact same dilemna this week...........and in the end I decided to go for a used 40D. You would probably find one at least £100 cheaper and from what I've read and heard, the 50D can't handle the 15mp as well as it should and the IQ would be more dependant on your lens anyway. The extra money would be better spent towards a lens, I've just got the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM which is great.
 
Personally I'd go for a 40D and put the couple of hundred pounds you save towards a 70-200 lens. The 40D is a brilliant camera and unless you're planning on printing your images at a pretty large size, you won't miss the extra 5MP the 50D provides.
 
400D with 70-200 is miles better than 40D or 50D with 75 - 300

I have exact same setup, 400D with 50/18-55/75-300.
and having used the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 400L on my 400D and I cant stand the 75-300 any more it is just so soft.

Any camera will be limited by the lenses you have. I guess your borrowing stuff from your mum right now?
Buy an L lens carry on borrowing the 400D and save for a body.
 
fezzr said:
Any camera will be limited by the lenses you have. I guess your borrowing stuff from your mum right now?
Buy an L lens carry on borrowing the 400D and save for a body.
Click to expand...

Thats the point the OP had said he is borrowing from his mum but she wants to sell the 400d so he either needs to buy it off her or start saving for his own kit.
 
I'm borrowing it all apart from the 50mm f1.8 and my own memory card, both of which I bought a month or two ago.

It looks like sticking with the 400D would be the best bet, I could probably continue borrowing the 400D and get her to sell the 75-300 to start her 'nice shiny new compact' fund. I'd soon fill that gap with a 70-200 F4. I don't think I'll miss the extra 100mm at the long end, I've not yet printed any large photos so could get away with cropping to get the 'close' feeling.

I won't have enough for the 70-200 F2.8, or the F4 IS, so I think a second hand F4 is the logical step forward.

I'm looking more into the wide angle lenses as an alternative to the 70-200 (for now), because in the summer I plan to do quite a bit of close up sports photography. I'm a kiteboarder, and will be photographing friends doing it as well. A lot of the time I'll be 'in' the action, underneath them as they jump over me, etc.

I quite liked the EF-S 10-22mm when I hired it last summer for a week. What sort of money do they go for 2nd hand, compared to the 70-200 F4?
Would I get away with the Sigma 10-20?
 
Hi,
I recently bought the 50D. I was originally after the 40D as I mate has one and liked the feel of it. But when I went to buy one it had been replaced by the 50d so I got that. Its a great camera and alows me to use some of my old film lenses which is always a bonus.
Ive read that you cant see much difference in the photo quality with the extra 5Mpixels but it does make a big difference in the amount of storage you need for the raw files.
Both very capable cameras.
 
SmileyShazza said:
Thats the point the OP had said he is borrowing from his mum but she wants to sell the 400d so he either needs to buy it off her or start saving for his own kit.
Click to expand...

:bang: That'll teach me so skim read :bonk:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top