canon 40D or 50D ?

Thanks for the lens advice, i will have a look round the forum for a while to see what i can uncover, it will also get me some posting points so "eventualy" i can view the for sale section. :lol:
 
bx338 said:
Thanks for all the input. The case is solved, i have just bought a 40d, now i need to get advice on a desent lens, i know i want a 100-400is but thats out of my league at the moment. Thanks again. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

How much did you pay for it if you dont mind me asking? How many actuations?
 
odd jim said:
I never found that at all...
Click to expand...

I did Jim... I also found some weird horizontal lines at 100% viewing (pixel peeping) that I never saw from the 40D. I thought it was my camera at first but I saw it in other versions too. I always assumed that it was down to the gapless sensor! :thinking:

odd jim said:
...In relation to your point about the 400d - 40d, the 40d shares the same sensor as the 400d so I'd be surprised if there's much of a difference if at all in iq? I didn't find an iq improvement from the 400d to 40d, though as a package the 40d is obviously a lot better than the 400d.
Click to expand...

The sensor might have been the same but the 400D had the DIGIC II processor and the 40D had the DIGIC III version so there would have been an improvement. I stepped up from the 400D to the 40D and I certainly noticed a step up in quality! :)
 
Spiritflier said:
I did Jim... I also found some weird horizontal lines at 100% viewing (pixel peeping) that I never saw from the 40D. I thought it was my camera at first but I saw it in other versions too. I always assumed that it was down to the gapless sensor! :thinking:

The sensor might have been the same but the 400D had the DIGIC II processor and the 40D had the DIGIC III version so there would have been an improvement. I stepped up from the 400D to the 40D and I certainly noticed a step up in quality! :)
Click to expand...

Never seen any obvious banding, except at iso 6400 - 12800!

The processor won't make much, if any difference to the raw file I wouldnt have thought? Don't get me wrong, I rate the 40d highly but Iq wise there wasn't a step up for me. That said, I when i had both bodies I was testing specifically for low light sports shooting, so the 50d gains for me were at higher iso. And the fact that cleaner high iso files are possible with 50% higher resolution made the 50d a no brainer for me.
 
Last edited:
50D over the 40D any day :)

im looking at getting a new lens for wildlife shooting and was looking at the Canon 300mm f2.8 L IS USM. Will this be big enough for my needs? suppose i could always add a converter
 
I'm hoping to make a similar decision over the next few days to upgrade my 1000d, having read the fors and against I'm still confused LOL
 
Given the price I'd say 100% 40D and spend the rest on glass, The 50% incrase for a 50D over a 40D is just not worth it.
 
I took the advice given about this topic, i bought a 40D for £320, which is average price for low shutter count with all cables, extras etc.

I have just bought the lens i wanted, a canon 100-400 L IS. It was the right choice, i am very happy with this combo, i still have a lot to learn, but its easier with good kit. :thumbs:
 
Congratulations on your recent purchase!

To possibly answer the above queries about the 40D being 'better' than the 50D is due to pixel density. The megapixel difference is pretty large, and higher ISO's generally gives the images from the 40D a more pleasing look. It has more of a film grain appearance.

The only real reasons you'd get a 50D over a 40D is the better live-view (if you use it), better quality screen and micro-adjust.

Even when it was new, most reviews said the 50D wasn't a worthwhile upgrade for 40D owners.
 
Could you explain what the micro adjust does please?

I can see myself buying one camera and sticking with it for many years so are there any known problems with the 40/50d - I keep seeing things on the net about an error 99 but it doesn't mean much to me ???
 
You will see astonishingly good photographs taken withe the 20D 30D 40D and 50D.

We all tend to get hung up about features and keeping up with things.

However if we know what we are doing almost any camera can take excellent shots.
I have never bothered to move up from my 40D. The difference would be too marginal.

My next camera might be a CSC if the quality of the new Fuji is as good as they say. (better quality than a 5D mk2 they say) But If I were into very long lenses probably not.
 
2Thumbs said:
Congratulations on your recent purchase!

To possibly answer the above queries about the 40D being 'better' than the 50D is due to pixel density. The megapixel difference is pretty large, and higher ISO's generally gives the images from the 40D a more pleasing look. It has more of a film grain appearance.

The only real reasons you'd get a 50D over a 40D is the better live-view (if you use it), better quality screen and micro-adjust.

Even when it was new, most reviews said the 50D wasn't a worthwhile upgrade for 40D owners.
Click to expand...

Not so. The 50d has far cleaner high iso than the 40d. 40d I wouldn't take over iso 800, but the 50d is very good up to iso 2000 and still useable at 3200iso, and it does this while providing 50% more resolution than the 40d. I'm saying this from experience and testing. Over 1600 iso I prefer the 50d to my 5d mk1.

The old "40d has less noise than 50d" is a photography forum old wives tale!

There is FAR more to the 50d over the 40d than the screen and micro adjust.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
The old "40d has less noise than 50d" is a photography forum old wives tale!
Click to expand...

You're right, but I never said the 40D had less noise. :) It has different characteristics. I've also used both, and preferred the look of the 40D. Hence buying one 2 years ago and still using it.

odd jim said:
There is FAR more to the 50d over the 40d than the screen and micro adjust.
Click to expand...

Such as?
 
Every time I look in the 'talk Equipment' section there's a 40D v 50D debate going on.

Having had both I've often commented on my findings but there's been so many threads that I have to spend 10mins checking whether or not it's one of the 40/50 threads that I've already posted in.

It takes me a while as a lot of the posts are familiar and I now realise why - Odd Jim - it's you !

If any TP member has stood up for any camera it must be Odd Jim and the 50D.

It's almost a crusade.

Certainly desrves a mention.
 
Last edited:
2Thumbs said:
You're right, but I never said the 40D had less noise. :) It has different characteristics. I've also used both, and preferred the look of the 40D. Hence buying one 2 years ago and still using it.

Such as?
Click to expand...

Come on, it's not that difficult to find! :)

Digic 4 as opposed to Digic 3 processor, better menus, software and interface, higher iso capabilities (up to 12,800), better and more useable auto iso, I could go on but you'd be better off just using google... It's just a little bit better in almost every area.
 
Last edited:
dinners said:
Every time I look in the 'talk Equipment' section there's a 40D v 50D debate going on.

Having had both I've often commented on my findings but there's been so many threads that I have to spend 10mins checking whether or not it's one of the 40/50 threads that I've already posted in.

It takes me a while as a lot of the posts are familiar and I now realise why - Odd Jim - it's you !

If any TP member has stood up for any camera it must be Odd Jim and the 50D.

It's almost a crusade.

Certainly desrves a mention.
Click to expand...

Ha ha! I know, but I hate the "forum old wives tales" that people churn out without thinking!

And it's a great camera, one of the best I've ever used for all around ability and deserves its recognition!

Another thing that bugs me is the 40d > 50d evolution was a far bigger step than the 30d > 40d was. But that wasn't an issue when the 40d came out?
 
Last edited:
I'm dead on my feet Jim (late night baby rockng and a nip or two) so I'm glad you took it the right way.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
... It's just a little bit better in almost every area.
Click to expand...

Not so Jim! ;)

Either your 50D is fitted with a 40D sensor or you got one that's magical! ;)

I've owned and used both extensively and I still prefer the image quality from the 40D... Which kinda explains why the 40D is still in use (by my daughter) and the 50D is long gone!

I'll agree that there are lots of good features on the 50D but I still prefer the 40D.

Like you, I can only speak as I find but my experience of the 50D has been less euphoric than yours! I'm not saying that the 50D is a bad camera - far from it. I'm just saying that personally, I prefer the output from the 40D.

Cheers,
Si
 
Spiritflier said:
Not so Jim! ;)
Click to expand...

Tis so Si ;)

When looking for my first Canon it was a toss up between the 40D and 50D.
The 50D won due to the extra megapixels, af tuning, more advanced liveview and most importantly ... I preferred the output of the 50D and I am more than happy with my choice so far.

Therefore I think we can safely say .. its all down to user preference at the end of the day. :)
 
Last edited:
Spiritflier said:
Not so Jim! ;)

Either your 50D is fitted with a 40D sensor or you got one that's magical! ;)

I've owned and used both extensively and I still prefer the image quality from the 40D... Which kinda explains why the 40D is still in use (by my daughter) and the 50D is long gone!

I'll agree that there are lots of good features on the 50D but I still prefer the 40D.

Like you, I can only speak as I find but my experience of the 50D has been less euphoric than yours! I'm not saying that the 50D is a bad camera - far from it. I'm just saying that personally, I prefer the output from the 40D.

Cheers,
Si
Click to expand...


I guess it's what you use it for, but the reason I decided on the 50d (after using both for the same application) was it's high iso, it was certainly more useable at 1600 and above. This was when I was shooting a lot of indoor show jumping and the difference was very noticeable.

Properly processed the 50d raws always had the edge over the 40d by quite a noticeable margin in low light. And they provide 50% extra resolution. But that didn't surprise me. I'd had years using the 40d sensor in the 400d and no way would I ever take that over 800 iso.

But they are both great cameras.
 
Last edited:
Mike.P said:
...Therefore I think we can safely say .. its all down to user preference at the end of the day. :)
Click to expand...

:agree:

Absolutely... It'd be a boring world if we all liked the same things :)
 
stupar said:
:plusone:

Ultimately in the correct hands both bodies will produce the goods but probably from two different perspectives.
Click to expand...

Indeed! Amen to that!
 
odd jim said:
Properly processed the 50d raws always had the edge over the 40d by quite a noticeable margin in low light. And they provide 50% extra resolution. But that didn't surprise me. I'd had years using the 40d sensor in the 400d and no way would I ever take that over 800 iso.
Click to expand...

Hold on now... So you've not actually used a 40D? Having the same sensor doesn't mean it has the same noise performance.

See below for ISO comparisons:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-40D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx
 
2Thumbs said:
Hold on now... So you've not actually used a 40D? Having the same sensor doesn't mean it has the same noise performance.

See below for ISO comparisons:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-40D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx
Click to expand...

No I have used a 40d extensively, see my earlier posts.

But my main point of reference comes from tests I conducted with a 40d, 50d and 7d for very specific real world tests back to back whereby the 50d was preferable to the 40d at high iso, properly set up.

I've used all Canon bodies quite extensively bar the 1d series.
 
Last edited:
Ah well then that's fair enough. Alarm bells were ringing when you mentioned the 400D. :D
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
You will see astonishingly good photographs taken withe the 20D 30D 40D and 50D.

We all tend to get hung up about features and keeping up with things.

However if we know what we are doing almost any camera can take excellent shots.
I have never bothered to move up from my 40D. The difference would be too marginal.
.
Click to expand...

This

I first went digital; with a 300D which i still have , but after a few years i found it a bit limiting so i moved to the 20D - eight years later I still have the same camera , and ive just bought a second 20D to replace the 300D as my second body

My view is that the 20D does everything i need to do, and an 8MP file is plenty big enough to print if i want so why upgrade.

That said I would love a 7D which is a quantum leap beyond the 20 , but then i'd also love a TVR Chimera, a Harley Vrod , and a one night stand with angelina jolie - but none of thats going to happen any time soon
 
Mike.P said:
As a matter of interest how did the 7D hold up.
Click to expand...

Very well but I couldn't afford it! Best of the lot IMO.
 
so many women, so little time
 
:withstupid:
 
I have owned a d30 30d and 40d i have also used a 50d and 5d. the one i miss (really) is the d30! i loved that camera. but out of the lot in my opinion the 40d is the best. but thats my opinion and everyone will have there own opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top