eos 350 to eos 500d

[dunk]

what am i getting for my money that i don't already have? have owned the 350 for about 3 yrs now, taken just under 9000 pics with it. am looking replace or use in addition the 500d.

 

[Craft]

better noise handling / higher resolution / video ?

what about going to a 40D or even 50D ?

 

[desperatedan1992]

Dont fix what aint broken

 

[dunk]

500d is in my budget and tbh, the 350 screen it too small, apart from that i cant really fault it

 

[dfrear]

I'd quite like to try this whole HD video thing they have going at the moment, was rather dissapointed they didn't put it on the 50D - can't really afford the 7D at £1600

 

[LongLensPhotography]

If you want something better then 500D will do little except larger files unless you print A3 and LARGER or submit to agencies.

5D mk1 or 1D mk2 (used) or a 40D around this price could be a nice upgrade. It depends what you need it for and what important feature 350D lacks.

 

[swanseamale47]

3 years isn't a lot but things are moving quickly in the digital camera market.
Your getting a much bigger better screen, more pixles, live view a newer processor, 4 levels of noise reduction, video, Peripheral illumination correction, self cleaning sensor, spot metering (not sure if the 350 has it or not?) highlight tone priority, and sd card (maybe not an advantage, but at lease no pins to get bent)

 

[domino1999]

I've got a 350D and tbh I don't see any advantage (for me) to upgrade to a 500D, the images I get out of the 350 do me just fine for the moment. Anyway, I've decided to save my pennies (pounds, lots of them!) for a 7D instead.

 

[strobemonkey]

Technology wise, in my own opinion from 350D to 500D is an upgrade. But if you'll ask me, I'd go for a second hand 40D.

 

[hashcake]

I would also suggest getting a second hand 40D.
I went from a 450D to 40D and it's a very good step up imho.
The 500D although it's a good camera just seemed like the wrong direction for me.

 

[Paul Philpott]

Totally agree with last 2 posts i went from a 350d to a 40 2 years ago-wow what a difference!!

I suggest the OP visits his local canon dealer and has a play with a few bodies first before splashing the cash!!!

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Maybe a new high grade lens or speedlite if you just need to spend money?

 

[dunk]

had a quick google of the 40d, its 5mp less than the 500d, what makes it a better choice? excuse my ignorance here

 

[LongLensPhotography]

had a quick google of the 40d, its 5mp less than the 500d, what makes it a better choice? excuse my ignorance here

Well done to Canon marketing department! Now everyone thinks MPs are what define camera performance. As a 40D user and having had experience with 400D in the past I can clearly say they are different kind of animals.

6.5 fps is very significant if you do action photographs, want to catch the best facial expression or just get a sharp frame when the light is dim. Rebel can only do 3 fps and the buffer fills up even quicker. 1D series are better though.

Fairly clean files can be shot even at ISO 800, and ISO 400 is really good. 400D evokes bad memories even at ISO 200. 40D has 14bit sensor and records more data in shadows which really shows.

10mp can easily print at A3, or even A2. What do you need 15mp for?!!! :shrug: If you don't have the BEST LENSES, then 6mp is all you need; more mps will only reveal how soft and otherwise poor the cheap lenses are. The first in the shooting line is the notorious Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6.

40D is nice to hold in a hand. Rebels are a disaster from the ergonomics point of view. Nikon D40 is actually reasonable. The controls are better in 40D

40D camera is better built and lasts longer even in harsh environments.

I don't know if any of the above is important to you, but I can't see why you would need 500D either. For that money I'd buy either 24-105mm f/4L IS, or add a bit more and get 70-200mm f/2.8L, or a cheaper prime like 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm f/2.8 macro. 580EX or 430Ex are really worth getting. Any of that on your 350D will make far better photos than 40D or 500D with cheap glass and on-camera flash.

 

[petersmart]

Well I have owned a 350D for over 4 years and have been very happy with it and must certainly question some of your statements and others on here.

To start with I get (RAW) 5fps using an IS lens and a reasonably charged battery.

I can easily produce "noiseless" pics at 1600 ISO using Neat Image and my own profiles for that program - which also allows me to produce sharp images in dim lighting.

I certainly don't think the 18-55mm lens is as poor as people seem to say - obviously it can't compete with L glass, but then the price is slightly different!

Ergonomically I find the 350D is very easy to use.

I don't worry about the small size of the screen because I use the histogram to make sure my levels are right, and use a lage 22" CRT monitor to properly view and edit the images later on.

And 15 - or 21.1 - MP allows you to crop an image and still produce a good picture - far more than 8 or 10MP.

I do intend to upgrade to a 50D as soon as finances allow - probably in the new year - simply because I feel that I have reached the limits of what I can do with the 350D.


Edit: And yes, the 350D does have spot metering.

 

[tbm]

1. If you don't know why you want to upgrade, then don't. Spend your money on glass or something other than feeding this disgusting, needless, marketing-driven consumer culture we live in. Extra kudos points are awarded for not giving a ***** about keeping up with the Jones's

2. If you have to upgrade, a body in the next market segment up would probably be a better choice. I went from 350D to 40D a while ago for several reasons - better AF with faster lenses, better ergonomics, far better user interface, 6fps.. again no point in upgrading if these mean nothing to you though - stick to what you've got

Well I have owned a 350D for over 4 years and have been very happy with it and must certainly question some of your statements and others on here.

To start with I get (RAW) 5fps using an IS lens and a reasonably charged battery.

I find this hard to believe; Canon literature and experience say 3fps tops..

I certainly don't think the 18-55mm lens is as poor as people seem to say - obviously it can't compete with L glass, but then the price is slightly different!

No, it is horrible, unless it's at f/8 in the middle of the zoom range. It's soft wide open, soft at the wide end of the zoom.. a reasonable stop gap if you're skint but bettered immeasurably by the IS version or a nice set of primes

Ergonomically I find the 350D is very easy to use.

The small grip is all good if you have small hands, it doesn't humour sausage fingers much though. Also, the jog wheel on the back of the xxD series bodies allows far more rapid navigation.

I don't worry about the small size of the screen because I use the histogram to make sure my levels are right, and use a lage 22" CRT monitor to properly view and edit the images later on.

Good stuff

And 15 - or 21.1 - MP allows you to crop an image and still produce a good picture - far more than 8 or 10MP.

This is true, but all things being equal higher pixel density = higher noise, and makes greater demands on the glass you hang off the front.

I do intend to upgrade to a 50D as soon as finances allow - probably in the new year - simply because I feel that I have reached the limits of what I can do with the 350D.

This, IMO should be the only reason to upgrade.. rather than having a few hundred notes burning a hole in one's pocket..

Edit: And yes, the 350D does have spot metering.

No it doesn't It does however have centre weighted, which I think you're confusing with spot metering...

 

[petersmart]

Originally Posted by petersmart
Well I have owned a 350D for over 4 years and have been very happy with it and must certainly question some of your statements and others on here.

To start with I get (RAW) 5fps using an IS lens and a reasonably charged battery.

I find this hard to believe; Canon literature and experience say 3fps tops..

Well I can certainly state that 5 is correct - I have just tried and counted.

Perhaps 4 years ago that was correct when CF cards were slower, I now use a 4GB Peak card which I have had for about 18 months, and 5 is achieved, falling to 4 if I take another series staright away.

Allow a few seconds then I get 5fps again.

Originally Posted by petersmart
And 15 - or 21.1 - MP allows you to crop an image and still produce a good picture - far more than 8 or 10MP.

This is true, but all things being equal higher pixel density = higher noise, and makes greater demands on the glass you hang off the front.

Since I can now produce "noiseless" pics at 1600 ISO, noise is something I no longer worry about, and from what I have seen of the 50D, noise will be even less even at 3200 ISO.

And since I don't produce huge prints for magazines then the greater reduction in picture size because of the larger MP will reduce noise by approx the same amount.

Originally Posted by petersmart
Edit: And yes, the 350D does have spot metering.

No it doesn't It does however have centre weighted, which I think you're confusing with spot metering...

In fact the 350D has 2 modes for centre metering, centre-weighted average metering and partial metering which covers about 9% at the centre.

It was partial metering which I mistakenly called spot metering - however in my defence the area is so small I have found that it is almost the same as spot for any practical purposes.

 

[ecoleman]

Well I have owned a 350D for over 4 years and have been very happy with it and must certainly question some of your statements and others on here.

To start with I get (RAW) 5fps using an IS lens and a reasonably charged battery.

I can easily produce "noiseless" pics at 1600 ISO using Neat Image and my own profiles for that program - which also allows me to produce sharp images in dim lighting.

I certainly don't think the 18-55mm lens is as poor as people seem to say - obviously it can't compete with L glass, but then the price is slightly different!

Ergonomically I find the 350D is very easy to use.

I don't worry about the small size of the screen because I use the histogram to make sure my levels are right, and use a lage 22" CRT monitor to properly view and edit the images later on.

And 15 - or 21.1 - MP allows you to crop an image and still produce a good picture - far more than 8 or 10MP.

I do intend to upgrade to a 50D as soon as finances allow - probably in the new year - simply because I feel that I have reached the limits of what I can do with the 350D.


Edit: And yes, the 350D does have spot metering.

I need to correct you on the spot metering. The 350D does NOT have spot meter, it has center weighted metering which is a big difference. The 400D also does not have spot meter.

 

[zeugma]

Ultimately, Canon's business model, like all manufacturers, is predicated on shifting boxes.
If you make something, you have to sell it.
Saturate you market with current models, what do you do then? Induce your customers to become dissatisfied with what they have because you made a "better one." If you keep making, you have to keep selling.
You can't let your product go wrong too often, as people will shift to your competitors.
How do camera manufacturers try to "lock you in" to their brand? Simple, make the bodies reliable and get you to invest in lots of expensive glass which will only fit their bodies.
So, acquisitiveness aside, decide for yourself what you want.
Ask yourself:
Does my current model do all I need? Am I happy with the images it produces?
Will a newer model give me something I dearly need/want/desire?
Do I want to stick with my current brand as I have bought expensive lenses for it?
Then do your research and discover what model gives you the things you want at a price you can afford. DPReview do in depth reviews of many cameras including the current and discontinued Canon models. That's one source of information you could explore.

 

[dunk]

i've seen that site, i've owned canon slrs for about fifteen years now, 35mm and now digital, the main/only gripe on the 350d is the small screen to view pics there and then, its ok having a 22" monitor but its not the sort of thing one carries around . i like motorsport photography but do the odd shoot for friends who want some pics doing, plus i like sunset/sunrise pics as well so the camera has to be able to do all things. i only have two lenses at present, the std 55mm and a canon 75-300 zoom which i mainly use at race tracks to get as close as possible to the action even though stuck behind the safety fences. i'd probably keep the 350d and take both cameras to events, but i may sell it to fund it's replacement, or for another lens

 

[tbm]

Well I can certainly state that 5 is correct - I have just tried and counted.

Perhaps 4 years ago that was correct when CF cards were slower, I now use a 4GB Peak card which I have had for about 18 months, and 5 is achieved, falling to 4 if I take another series staright away.

Allow a few seconds then I get 5fps again.

I would have thought shutter speed would be limited by phyiscal constraints on the mirror assy and buffer size rather than the CF card speed - I use(d) Extreme III cards in both 350D and 40D and got the advertised framerate with each..

Since I can now produce "noiseless" pics at 1600 ISO, noise is something I no longer worry about, and from what I have seen of the 50D, noise will be even less even at 3200 ISO.

And since I don't produce huge prints for magazines then the greater reduction in picture size because of the larger MP will reduce noise by approx the same amount.

I can't really comment on noise reduction through post processing; however I hear the 40D and 50D have similar noise characteristics and ISO 3200 on my 40D is somewhat un-splendid... have to agree with the downsampling argument though; although it does add another step during post processing.

In fact the 350D has 2 modes for centre metering, centre-weighted average metering and partial metering which covers about 9% at the centre.

It was partial metering which I mistakenly called spot metering - however in my defence the area is so small I have found that it is almost the same as spot for any practical purposes.

Yeah, that's fair. To be honest much as I thought I'd love spot metering when I upgraded, it usually gets left in favour of one of the evaluative modes...

 

[dfrear]

Well I can certainly state that 5 is correct - I have just tried and counted.

Perhaps 4 years ago that was correct when CF cards were slower, I now use a 4GB Peak card which I have had for about 18 months, and 5 is achieved, falling to 4 if I take another series staright away.

Allow a few seconds then I get 5fps again.

CF card speed has absolutely nothing to do with fps when the camera is using its own internal buffer.

 

[malc1]

The 350d screen is puny compared with the new ones. My reason(s)(excuse)(s) for wanting to upgrade are weatherproofing, maybe better focussing and I have big hands. I haven't broken the plastic 350d yet. Has anyone else? I'm waiting to see if the 7d has any showstopping faults or maybe if there is a 60D soon?

 

[Paul Philpott]

CF card speed has absolutely nothing to do with fps when the camera is using its own internal buffer.

Sorry not correct!! The internal buffer is used more when the card cannot keep up.

Therfore a "fast card" will assist write speed!!