Canon 50d OR 40d Upgrade

dj_myk

dj_myk

Suspended / Banned
Messages
168
Name
Mike Guthrie
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys/girls

Just been reading some of the posts about the canon 50d. Some people seam to have some issues with them, but the new firmware seams to rectify a lot of issues.

I am looking to buy a 50d as an upgrade for my 400d. I will be buying the body only version as I have a good range of lenses for my 400d.

However I am in major dilema as to what to buy. The 40d or the 50d?

On the money side the 40d is £250+ cheaper and still a good camera, but on the feature side the 50d is more advanced and more up to date.

Can anyone help me make a disccision

Mike
 
Looking at you sig If you really must have a body upgrade I'd buy a second hand 40D and put the saving towards better glass which will give you a far more noticeable improvement.
 
Probably the best option is to list the features of both cameras side by side. Then tick those that are important to you now and maybe in the future. Some may seem great, but you may never use. Live view looks good, but I've never used it. However if you do macro work it may be an advantage.

Look at what you get and if the 50D comes out top the decide if it's worth the £250 extra.
 
Your lens sig. is a veritable parade of mediocre glass.

Put that £800 to improving your crappy lenses (no offense!)
 
I really only use 2 lenses most of the time

I have the canon 50mm and my Sigma 24-70.

I got the tamron 200mm as part of my 400d deal when I first bought it, and the kit lens came as standard.

I mainly do gig and portrait photography, so I like having both of these lens's in my bag.

Would there be others that you's would recomend.

As for the live view I am not to fussed for it. I was in playing with the 40 and the 50 in jessops at the weekend, and I liked the feel and screen quality of the 50d better. It also felt a lot more robust.

Mike
 
I made the decision recently from a 400d.
I hold reasonable glass Tokina 12-24, Canon 24-105 L, Canon 70-200mm.

On a purely financial basis my figures were these
Hope to sell 400d for roughly £300 including grip + some extras.
Can purchase my 40D cost 579.99 -5% discount i get -£60 cashback = 491
Can purchase 50D £850, i dont get discount for that and no cashback = 850
leaving only 191 to upgrade to 40D
leaving 550 to upgrade to 50D

Of course you are the only person who can make this choice, but for me it was too much money to spend on my hobby. I can only echo the other sentiments here, get good glass.
Good glass doesn't depriciate like camera bodies, in fact all my lenses currently sell for more than i paid for them and they will all work on pretty much any body i could plan to purchase (or rent) in any forseeable future.
 
I am looking to upgrade from my 350D and without doubt for me the 40D gives much greater value for money,10 megapixel will be fine for my use and to my mind a lot of the "Extras" that the 50D has over the 40D are really little more than window dressing
 
puddleduck said:
Your lens sig. is a veritable parade of mediocre glass.

Put that £800 to improving your crappy lenses (no offense!)
Click to expand...

Do you really think there is such a thing as "Crappy" lens today,the likes of the 18-55 kit lenses may need extra care such as not using wide open but with care you can still get some excellent results.

Are you old enough to remember the old Domiplan 50mm f2.8 for the Praktica screw mount cameras,now that was a crappy lens.
 
Go for the 40d and invest in some more lenses. Sell the 18-55 and the 55-200 and put all the cash together and get something like a 70-200 F2.8.

Will give you a bit of variation when shooting your live music.
The 40d is an amazing camera as it stands, and at a price thats so amazing at the moment.
Either that or get a second hand 30d and buy even more lenses.
 
CaptainPenguin said:
Do you really think there is such a thing as "Crappy" lens today,the likes of the 18-55 kit lenses may need extra care such as not using wide open but with care you can still get some excellent results.
Click to expand...

Yes of course there is, you've just described one! Who wants to use with care I want to get good results wide open and handheld!
 
dj_myk said:
..... I was in playing with the 40 and the 50 in jessops at the weekend, and I liked the feel and screen quality of the 50d better. It also felt a lot more robust.
Mike
Click to expand...

I'm really surprised that you think that the two bodies "feel" different and that the 50D is "more robust". Granted, the screen is much better.

CaptainPenguin said:
Do you really think there is such a thing as "Crappy" lens today....
Click to expand...
As long as the EF75-300 is still being produced, then yes, there is.

Bob
 
for gig photography i use fast primes 50mm 85mm and 150mm, this depends on how close i am to the stage etc. I am currently using them on a 400D. I am getting my 50D at the end of this month. the main reason is the lower noise at high ISO.

another lens that has a bit of reach would be 70-200 2.8 but it carries a nice price tag too
 
The 40D is the best camera Canon have ever produced at that price point, and it's a bargain at current prices.

The major advantage of the 50D is that it has 50% more pixels than the 40D and sets a new benchmark for pixel count on a crop sensor. Whether you'll really see the benefit of all those pixels depends very much on what sort of photography you do. If you do mainly gig and portrait work the advantages of the 50D may not be so obvious to you as they would be to a wildlife photographer who needs all the reach he can get. On the other hand, if you submit stock library images, the 50D puts out 43mb tiff files (from RAW) which is only 5mb short of Alamy minimum file size, so images need very little upsizing to reach that standard and it would make life a lot easier. The 50D will be very unforgiving of all but the best glass though.

If you're not seeing any of these benefits being much use to you, you probably would be better investing in glass. New bodies come and go at an alarming rate these days, good glass is a far better investment even in the short term the way things are going.
 
33L said:
for gig photography i use fast primes 50mm 85mm and 150mm, this depends on how close i am to the stage etc. I am currently using them on a 400D. I am getting my 50D at the end of this month. the main reason is the lower noise at high ISO.

another lens that has a bit of reach would be 70-200 2.8 but it carries a nice price tag too
Click to expand...

I'd have a rethink about that.
The 50D is not too clever with high iso due to cramming too many pixels on an APS-C sensor.
In fact the 40D may be the better camera of the two for high iso.
 
Well the plan is for a camera with a better High ISO images. When doing low light shots there is sometimes the need to bump up the ISO.

On the 400d when you bump it up to 800 it get a bit grainey, and when u get up to 1600 it can sometimes look like a mosaic picture.

I am interested in the 40d, and I wish I had bought one instead of my 400d. They were both in jessops at the time of my purchase and I decided that it was to much money to spend on my first real DSLR.

I am now at a stage where I get some regular jobs, 3-6 a month to do parties, portrait and gig work. I wanted a camera that has lots of future proofing as well as producting outstanding images.

I see your reason by saying go for the 40d body only and getting a nice 70-200 f2.8 lens. That was my first thoughts. But the more I see and read reviews on the 50d the more I think it would provide a longer lasting life.

Here is one question, If the 50d was never launched. What would be a good natural progression from the 400d for a high end amature-what ever the next step is in togging.

Mike
 
Garnock said:
I'd have a rethink about that.
The 50D is not too clever with high iso due to cramming too many pixels on an APS-C sensor.
In fact the 40D may be the better camera of the two for high iso.
Click to expand...

I keep hearing this Cameron - in fact if I'd have believed it, I wouldn't have bought a 50D. ;)

Both these shots were taken in the last few minutes, both at 700mm, both full frame, and no processing other than the usual sharpening for downsizing. No noise reduction has been run on these and the NR options in the camera are off.

1600 ISO

3009454511_0d92e8dde6_o.jpg


3200 ISO

3010290334_6f39cc3a4d_o.jpg


My initial impressions are that noise is at least as good as the 40D, and I'd be more than happy with that given the pixel count - that alone would be a major achievement by Canon.
 
its really just ISO 1600 that i am looking at! I get decent speeds at that ISO on the 400D but the noise is too much. i dont want to go to 3200+ ISO really if i dont have to. I have seen CT's Results at this ISO and they are just brillaint compared to the 400D
 
LOL. I do look at the cons, I just don't necessarily take it as gospel. That review is actually at odds with a lot of other reviews of the camera. The other problem with most of these reviews is that they concentrate on the noise issue almost to the exclusion of all else, rendering the review of not much use to the market segment who are most likely to be interested in it - wildlife photographers who will see a huge benefit in reach and resolution with the 50D. In other words rather than looking at the benefits of 15 million pixels which are very real, they concentrate on what admittedly previously has been the downside of that pixel count.

I'm very impressed indeed with this camera in the couple of days I've had it.
 
The other problem with most of these reviews is that they concentrate on the noise issue almost to the exclusion of all else, rendering the review of not much use to the market segment who are most likely to be interested in it

DPReview are obsessed with noise. Its madness.
 
dj_myk said:
Here is one question, If the 50d was never launched. What would be a good natural progression from the 400d for a high end amature-what ever the next step is in togging.

Mike
Click to expand...

Assuming you're sticking with the Canon range (and for what your stated uses are) I'd say it would still be the 40D unless you see a benefit in going full frame, in which case, you might want to consider the 5D or it's forthcoming replacement.
 
I really just posted because it seemed to be important for 33L to shoot at high iso (1600) and therefore worth drawing attention to some noise issues.

Personally I never shoot above iso 800 with my current gear.
The one thing I'm interested in is the micro tuning of individual lenses, available on the newer Canon bodies.
CT, you know how critical that can be with long telephoto lenses when the DOF is so shallow.
Have you set this up on your 500 f4 & 50D ?
 
dj_myk said:
I see your reason by saying go for the 40d body only and getting a nice 70-200 f2.8 lens. That was my first thoughts. But the more I see and read reviews on the 50d the more I think it would provide a longer lasting life.
Click to expand...

Just because the 50d has come out, doesnt mean it has a better life expectancy then a 40d. Seriously, when doing gig photography, when are you really going to need to blow images up to past A3 size? 10mp is more then what you will need, and it matches to 50d as far as noise goes for the high end ISO (800+) so really, why spend the extra cash on a 50d.

I got a little excited by the 50d and considered upgrading, then thought "hang on, do i really need the extra mp?" and the answer is simply no! So, time to get more glass and a new flash :)

Seriously, dont let the "newer is better" trend catch you, get a 40d and more glass for your cash!
 
Garnock said:
I really just posted because it seemed to be important for 33L to shoot at high iso (1600) and therefore worth drawing attention to some noise issues.

Personally I never shoot above iso 800 with my current gear.
The one thing I'm interested in is the micro tuning of individual lenses, available on the newer Canon bodies.
CT, you know how critical that can be with long telephoto lenses when the DOF is so shallow.
Have you set this up on your 500 f4 & 50D ?
Click to expand...

Cameron - I haven't, in fact I've only just found out how to do it this morning. :D

The manual does say it shouldn't normally be necessary, so I'm waiting till I see a problem before I mess with it. I do agree though, it's a very nice function to be able to make these minor focus adjustments yourself.
 
MJ Stebbings said:
Just because the 50d has come out, doesnt mean it has a better life expectancy then a 40d. Seriously, when doing gig photography, when are you really going to need to blow images up to past A3 size? 10mp is more then what you will need, and it matches to 50d as far as noise goes for the high end ISO (800+) so really, why spend the extra cash on a 50d.

I got a little excited by the 50d and considered upgrading, then thought "hang on, do i really need the extra mp?" and the answer is simply no! So, time to get more glass and a new flash :)

Seriously, dont let the "newer is better" trend catch you, get a 40d and more glass for your cash!
Click to expand...

That's a sensible post - there are so many sensor size and pixel count options open to us now you need to have a very firm handle on what you really need from a camera before parting with big wads of wonga. It must be a nightmare for newcomers, and I can understand why it causes them so much confusion.
 
ok cheers.

Ok here is another question

If I got a 40d would you notice a massive difference in picture quality between the 40 and 400d

Mike
 
ok cheers.

Ok here is another question

If I got a 40d would you notice a massive difference in picture quality between the 40 and 400d

Mike
 
CaptainPenguin said:
I am looking to upgrade from my 350D and without doubt for me the 40D gives much greater value for money,10 megapixel will be fine for my use and to my mind a lot of the "Extras" that the 50D has over the 40D are really little more than window dressing
Click to expand...

I did exactly that, went from 350d to a second hand 40d, its a good jump, things I thought didn't matter to me really do, like the massive screen and live view I thought were gimicks but actually are useful.

dj_myk - In your circumstances I would stay with the 400d and get some higher quality lenses, I used my 350d with a 17-40mm F4 L and a 70-200mm F2.8 L for a good three years.
 
dj_myk said:
ok cheers.

Ok here is another question

If I got a 40d would you notice a massive difference in picture quality between the 40 and 400d

Mike
Click to expand...

Well the 40D has the Digic 3 processor and 10 million pixels. Whether you yourself would see a huge difference in images, I don't know. All I can tell you is that quite a few people on the board got the 40D before I did and just looking at their wildlife images the leap in quality and colour rendition leaped out at me from the screen.

I think you're agonizing over this far too much tbh though - just get a 40D - it's a bargain, it produces great images, and the build quality is in another league compared to a 400D. You wont be doing anything wrong at all, and I don't see a better option for you without spending seriously more money. ;)
 
Just a thought - but for the price of a 50D you could get a 40D and probably a 50mm 1.4 or an 85mm 1.8. ;)
 
Just looking at warehouse express prices here:

40d - 577.99 Body Only
50d - 873.00 Body Only

A saving of 295.01

Now if you look at it seriously, you could sell your two "crap" lenses and get the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 with the money made and saved plus a few quid more.
Mathimatically, and logically, you would be mad to get the 50d :lol:
 
I would agree on saving for glass you will find the lenses quoted probably sharper and better or low light use than what the op wants them for.
 
MJ Stebbings said:
Just looking at warehouse express prices here:

40d - 577.99 Body Only
50d - 873.00 Body Only

A saving of 295.01

Now if you look at it seriously, you could sell your two "crap" lenses and get the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 with the money made and saved plus a few quid more.
Mathimatically, and logically, you would be mad to get the 50d :lol:
Click to expand...

Don't forget the £60 cash back.
Now we're talking £355.
 
Garnock said:
Don't forget the £60 cash back.
Now we're talking £355.
Click to expand...

Dont forget the penny
Now we're talking £355.01 :lol:

Seriously though, didnt know the cashback offer was still on.
See, madness NOT to get a 40d! :lol:

There might also be some good priced 40d's in the sale section on here!
 
MJ Stebbings said:
Dont forget the penny
Now we're talking £355.01 :lol:

Seriously though, didnt know the cashback offer was still on.
See, madness NOT to get a 40d! :lol:

There might also be some good priced 40d's in the sale section on here!
Click to expand...

I don't know why but it's more expensive now than it was when I bought it at the beginning of the year as a back up to my 1D MKII.
Back then it was £600 less £100 cash back ..... £500 ......... minus 1p. ;)
It's strange when the previous model goes up in price after the release of the newer model. :cuckoo::bang:
 
yeah I hear what you are saying.

Keeping the 400d and getting more lenses only solves the lens issue

One major feature of the 40/50d is the higher ISO values.

Think I have made up my mind on the 40d and a new lens. Possibily a 10-22 or something.

Mike
 
Good man, you wont look back from the 40d!
 
big will said:
I did exactly that, went from 350d to a second hand 40d, its a good jump, things I thought didn't matter to me really do, like the massive screen and live view I thought were gimicks but actually are useful.

In your circumstances I would stay with the 400d and get some higher quality lenses, I used my 350d with a 17-40mm F4 L and a 70-200mm F2.8 L for a good three years.
Click to expand...

Why invest in new glass 90% of my work is done on the Canon 24-85 and 70-210 lenses both of which give pin sharp results that I am happy with,yess a 24-105L and a 70-200 2.8 would be very nice but that is £1600 worth of glass money that I just don't have
 
CaptainPenguin said:
Why invest in new glass 90% of my work is done on the Canon 24-85 and 70-210 lenses both of which give pin sharp results that I am happy with,yess a 24-105L and a 70-200 2.8 would be very nice but that is £1600 worth of glass money that I just don't have
Click to expand...

Sorry the second part of my message was aimed at dj_myk the post starter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top