Canon 5D vs Canon 50D

Swissy

Swissy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,846
Name
Mr Compatible Ink
Edit My Images
No
Hypothetical question...

If there was a photo taken on a Canon 50D (APSC) and one on a 5Dc (Full Frame) of the exact same subject, under the exact same conditions, exposure, iso, focus etc was all exactly the same, would you be able to tell the difference?

Am i right in thinking the only time you would notice any difference is when you upped the iso?

Cheers for looking.
 
It all depends how picky you're being.

There'll be a difference in DoF, and the sensor is 'different' so the image will look different. Presuming minimum processing of both.

But unless you're highly critical you'd not see that much difference until higher ISOs.
 
dinners said:
Off to look for some popcorn :)
Click to expand...

lol


Phil V said:
It all depends how picky you're being.

There'll be a difference in DoF, and the sensor is 'different' so the image will look different. Presuming minimum processing of both.

But unless you're highly critical you'd not see that much difference until higher ISOs.
Click to expand...


Cheers Phil, i guessed as much.
 
The DoF difference is only partly true as if you are willing to move away from using the cameras with the exact same settings you'll get much closer results. After all, why should you want to use a FF and APS-C camera at exactly the same settings...

If you are using a 5D + 50mm lens at f1.4 and a 50D +35mm lens at f1.4 and shooting from the same distance to get the same framing you'd see differences if you looked for them. Take the "crop" into account and and shoot with the 5D at f8 and the 50D at say, f5.6... and you'll get much closer results.

I've done many comparisons between FF, APS-C and MFT (I prefer comparing FF and MFT as it's easier :D) and honestly, unless shooting at the highest ISO's or going for paper thin DoF there was little obvious difference in full (as in uncropped) images between my 5D and Panasonic G1.
 
Depends on the shot in question.

I have a 5D, my mum has (amongst other things) a 40D. A couple of weekends ago I was messing about with my new 35mm f2 on her camera to see how it compared to my 50mm. I took a shot on the 40D of my sister and uncle sat in the corner of the room with a lamp next to them shining on a white wall and the 40D completely blew the highlights - so much that it shocked me in to picking up my 5D to try the same shot. Sure enough it managed to preserve the detail that the 40D had lost. This was using aperture priority f2 on both cameras and the same ISO (800IIRC).

That being said, that's the first time I've ever noticed such a distinct difference in output between the two cameras. Most of the time they are close to indistinguishable, at least unless you are REALLY looking for it. The choice of lens makes vastly more difference than the body.
 
I've had both and there are differences. The 5 has a much nicer IQ in my view but the 50 seems better at resolving detail. I prefer the handling of the 5 but that is of course very subjective. They are both fine camera, I did however find that when I moved onto a mk3 my lenses became so much better.
 
Swissy said:
Hypothetical question...

If there was a photo taken on a Canon 50D (APSC) and one on a 5Dc (Full Frame) of the exact same subject, under the exact same conditions, exposure, iso, focus etc was all exactly the same, would you be able to tell the difference?

Am i right in thinking the only time you would notice any difference is when you upped the iso?

Cheers for looking.
Click to expand...

If you printed it out bigger than A4 or zoomed into a 100% view in Photoshop, then yes, the 5D would be sharper. Bigger sensor = sharper image. Fact. They're both roughly the same resolution.. give or take a bit, so the extra sensor size will result in a sharper image. If all you do is upload it online at 1200 pixels or whatever, then no, there'll be no difference whatsoever. You could use a 2MP camera for that and it would be indistinguishable from a 5D MkIII shot once resized (in terms of resolution)..
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
If you printed it out bigger than A4 or zoomed into a 100% view in Photoshop, then yes, the 5D would be sharper. Bigger sensor = sharper image. Fact. They're both roughly the same resolution.. give or take a bit, so the extra sensor size will result in a sharper image. If all you do is upload it online at 1200 pixels or whatever, then no, there'll be no difference whatsoever. You could use a 2MP camera for that and it would be indistinguishable from a 5D MkIII shot once resized (in terms of resolution)..
Click to expand...

Is it always a fact?

The thing is that some full frame lenses are, well, lets just say less than state of the art... and some lenses designed for smaller systems are very sharp. So I'd imagine that the package of camera and lens as a whole makes a difference.
 
How about an A3 print viewed normally, would you be able to tell which was shot on which?
 
woof woof said:
Is it always a fact?

The thing is that some full frame lenses are, well, lets just say less than state of the art... and some lenses designed for smaller systems are very sharp. So I'd imagine that the package of camera and lens as a whole makes a difference.
Click to expand...
Where Canon is concerned at least, I'd say there is a better selection of prime lenses for full frame and a better selection of reasonably priced zooms for APS-C. If you are on a budget then it's well worth considering where your preference lies before choosing a sensor size.
 
I've got both and the IQ of the 5D is far superior.
 
woof woof said:
Is it always a fact?

The thing is that some full frame lenses are, well, lets just say less than state of the art... and some lenses designed for smaller systems are very sharp. So I'd imagine that the package of camera and lens as a whole makes a difference.
Click to expand...


All things being equal, yes, it's a fact.

Some mirrorless system lenses are highly optimised for the system, sure, but most APS-C lenses don't appear to be doing anything dramatic that FF lenses aren't. Besides... you can't say FF isn't always sharper because someone may use a crap lens with it :)

Larger sensors give sharper images. Yes.. it's a fact.
 
while this is true , its only going to be noticeable in real terms if you are in to pixel peeping. The average joe looking at the shot won't be able to tell the difference , or care.
 
big soft moose said:
while this is true , its only going to be noticeable in real terms if you are in to pixel peeping.
Click to expand...

Or if you print it at a decent size. In which case, yes, I'd be able to tell which was which.
 
I used to have a 5d mk 1 alongside my 50d, and I actually preferred the 50d's output so I sold the 5d. Recently I bought a 6d and it's light and day better than both and boy do you notice the difference in detail even at base ISO.
 
Hmm.....

FF pixels good, APS-C pixels bad... I guess.

With film, it's not hard to understand that larger format cameras give better images. Using the same film media, the larger format affords more crystals for image capture, giving more 'pixels' for a given frame. Plus when producing an A2 print, less enlargement of the original image is required.

With digital, the number of pixels could be the same on either format and the enlargement ratio is moot, isn't it?

Presumably this comes down to sensor technology, pixel size and density and artifacts associated with that. I've never been in a position to do a direct comparison myself, though have taken a few shots with a 5D. Apart from the bigger viewfinder, which was an obvious improvement, I didn't see much in the images to go all gooey-eyed over. But then I'm not a professional, so perhaps I don't know what to look for...
 
GeeJay57 said:
With digital, the number of pixels could be the same on either format and the enlargement ratio is moot, isn't it?
Click to expand...


No. Smaller sensors reveal diffraction defects, and lens resolution limits more. if everything else is equal, a 16MP full frame image will be sharper than a 16MP APS-C image. Fact.
 
Pookeyhead said:
No. Smaller sensors reveal diffraction defects, and lens resolution limits more. if everything else is equal, a 16MP full frame image will be sharper than a 16MP APS-C image. Fact.
Click to expand...

Thanks, useful to know...
 
But we're comparing a 5d to a 50d.

For me, the 50d was nicer.

The 6d however blows both away, as you'd expect.
 
But we're comparing a 5d to a 50d.
For me, the 50d was nicer.
The 6d however blows both away, as you'd expect
Click to expand...

I doubt there are many cameras that blow the 5D away in the colour stakes and very unlikely the 6D is one of them

Also interested to know what made the 50D appear nicer to you?
 
tijuana taxi said:
I doubt there are many cameras that blow the 5D away in the colour stakes and very unlikely the 6D is one of them

Also interested to know what made the 50D appear nicer to you?
Click to expand...
The low ISO files, there was nothing it it, higher ISO the 50d performed better.

Having owned all three and still two them, I can confirm the 6d is light and day compared to the 5d, even without having to look even slightly closely. IMO the 6d is Canon's best sensor yet.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
All things being equal, yes, it's a fact.

Some mirrorless system lenses are highly optimised for the system, sure, but most APS-C lenses don't appear to be doing anything dramatic that FF lenses aren't. Besides... you can't say FF isn't always sharper because someone may use a crap lens with it :)

Larger sensors give sharper images. Yes.. it's a fact.
Click to expand...

I'd say history really proves it as well, the original 4/3rds DSLR's banked on expensive lenses bridging the gap to even more expensive larger ASPC/FF sensors, when sensor cost came down though they were left uncompetitive.

What saved the 4/3rds sensor size was I'd say refocusing on size saving, not just by losing the mirror but the whole outlook of the system.

Part of the appeal of FF DSLR's actually is that whilst you can spend a lot to maximise performance you don't nesserally need to in order to get decent performance.
 
I'd seriously take DXO testing with a massive pinch of salt.

Real world, the 50d was better. IMO of course.

Which is why I sold the 5d and bought the 6d, keeping the 50d as backup and sporting body.
 
Last edited:
I've had/got a 40D, 50D, 5D original, 5D Mkiii (plus 400D, 550D and started with a 300D)

The 5D was always considerably shaper and better colours than the 40D, using the same lenses, but wasn't good for sport, hence the crop. When the 40D shutter broke I got the 50D as replacement and was significantly better images due to the new sensor design. Shooting product in a well lit studio, With web sized images I couldn't tell the difference, with large prints I'd like to be able to say I could tell the difference but I doubt it if they were put side by side.
 
Byker28i said:
I've had/got a 40D, 50D, 5D original, 5D Mkiii (plus 400D, 550D and started with a 300D)

The 5D was always considerably shaper and better colours than the 40D, using the same lenses, but wasn't good for sport, hence the crop. When the 40D shutter broke I got the 50D as replacement and was significantly better images due to the new sensor design. Shooting product in a well lit studio, With web sized images I couldn't tell the difference, with large prints I'd like to be able to say I could tell the difference but I doubt it if they were put side by side.
Click to expand...
What did you think of the 550D image quality compared to the others?
Sorry to go slightly off topic but am interested :)
I've got a 40D 550D and 7D and think that the 550D is a bargain for the image quality that you get:)
 
Quite impressed with the 550D, miles above the 400D, which I was using as a backup body or to stick on the end of a camera rig as a lightweight camera. The 550D is now mostly used by my son as a video system on a rig. I've not had a 7D to compare and it'll be unfair to compare it to the 5D Mkiii, but with the 15-85 lens it's a superb lightweight combination.
 
odd jim said:
I'd seriously take DXO testing with a massive pinch of salt.

Real world, the 50d was better. IMO of course.

Which is why I sold the 5d and bought the 6d, keeping the 50d as backup and sporting body.
Click to expand...
Were you shooting RAW or JPEG? The 50D has a newer processor and JPEG engine, so you will see better results from it if you are comparing them this way but the 5D should produce the better RAW files.
 
Raw. Don't get me wrong, the files under 1600 ISO were nice, but it wasn't a step up in IQ in relation to the 50d IMO. Maybe it was how I processed them, I don't know.

But overall the 50d was as nice IQ wise but far faster and more responsive which showed up the other aspects of the 5d s0 75% of the time the 50d came out the bag instead of the 5d.

Unless I was shooting portraits with one of my primes. For that, the 5d had something the 50 didn't but I couldn't put my finger on it!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top