Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon 50D vs. 5DMkII  (Read 83147 times)
JohnKoerner
Guest
« on: September 23, 2008, 09:46:53 PM »
ReplyReply

While there has been a lot of clamor regarding the Canon 5DMkII vs. the Nikon D700, perhaps the real chin-rubber (at least for me anyway) will boil down to a decision between the 5DMkII vs. the Canon 50D.

Both of these cameras will have the Digic 4 chip, both will feature 14-bit AD conversion, both will utilize a 3.0-inch Clear View LCD (920,000 dots) monitor, and both claim to offer unprescedented ability to capture great images in unbelievably low light.

I am not sophisticated enough in my understanding of tech talk to say this for certain, but it seems to me that the only advantages of the 5DMkII appear to be (1) Full-Frame, (2) 21.1 mp, and (3) this new video capability.

However, it seems to me that the 50D offers is own advantages: (1) $1200 cheaper, (2) 6.3 fps continuous shooting, (3) a 1.6x conversion for those shooting macro or telephoto, and (4) at 15.1 mpx more than enough to take stellar photographs.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the only advantage to the Full-Frame found in the 5D will be its ability to make full use of a wide-angle lens for landscapes and such, is it not? Therefore, the flipside to this would be the fact a 1.6x conversion of the 50D would give better use and extra reach for both macro and telephoto lenses.

Now I "was" considering purchasing the soon-to-be-outdated 5D MkI, but it looks like Canon still believes this to be a $2000 camera I mean, who would buy an old 5D for only $500 less than a new one?

Thus it seems like perhaps the real purchase decision is going to be one's needs regarding these two new Canons. As more of an outdoor animal/nature photographer, it seems to me the 50D would not only be "suitable," but perhaps more suitable than the 5DMkII. It will have better sealing than the old 5D (and probably on a par with the new one); it will take frames at a faster rate than either the old or the new 5D; it will give better reach than either one also; and finally (while maybe the images might not be quite what the new 5D can produce) certainly at 15.1 mpx the 50D should be able to produce images more than adequate for any kind of use, and better than the previous-generation 5D.

Unless I am missing something, it doesn't appear that the differences between these two cameras are much more than what I have laid out above. Maybe the advantages of the 5DMkII apply so much to a professional wedding photographer, or landscape photographer, as to demand its purchase ... but to someone out hiking in nature wanting to document animal species (with either a macro or telephoto lens, depending on kind) wouldn't the new 50D actually make more sense?

Jack




.
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2008, 09:53:11 PM »
ReplyReply

If you're shooting animals get the 50D.  The 5D mk II has the 5D's AF which first appeared in the 20D.  The 50D has the 40D's AF.  Much better for critters.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2008, 10:09:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If you're shooting animals get the 50D.  The 5D mk II has the 5D's AF which first appeared in the 20D.  The 50D has the 40D's AF.  Much better for critters.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223800\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Oh, I didn't know the 5DMkII had yesterday's autofocus. Now that you mention it, I do remember on last year's 40D that one of the praises sung about it was, for instance, that even though its more advanced rival (the D300) had a 51-point AF system, the 40D in fact was the one which responded quicker and locked-in when in low light.

Oftentimes, many of the critters I capture are only found in low light or at night. All I have now is a G9---and even when just shining a flashlight on them the G9 seems to find them okay. For instance, here is a shot I took while sitting directly under a Giant Lichen Orb spider:





I am wanting to get a legitimate macro, plus ringlight to improve what I am doing, and so the ability to focus in low light is important to me. Hmm, I guess you just added one more advantage to the 50D that I wasn't aware of.

Thank you,



Jack
Logged
djcsmith
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #3 on: September 23, 2008, 10:13:24 PM »
ReplyReply

I presently have a 30D and the 5D.

Megapixels aside, the full frame of the 5D allows shallower depth of field with almost any shot, and my 70-200 lens can almost be used as a carry-around lens (weight aside).  
The 50mm f1.4 sure feels like the 35 mm camera of days gone by; it allows me to carry a somewhat compact camera when out on my bike. (on the 30D, it is only a portrait lens)
I rarely need a lens wider than 24 mm with the 5D.
I use the 5D whenever I can; a joy to use.
When megapixels come into the picture, I really enjoy having the extra pixels that the 5D can offer.

The 30D is better for sports - faster frame-rate and longer reach due to the 1.6 crop.  
This is the camera that I reach for when shooting kite-boarders on the beach and other water sport events that I just can't get close to.

With the recent announcements of two new cameras, I have to decide do I buy one or both.
I already have the 50D on order - I just WANT those extra megapixels!
The 50D will be a GREAT sports camera.
To get the same reach with the 5D, I have to spend THOUSANDS more on glass!

BTW, start buying bigger hard drives, and the 1 Gig CF cards are now a joke.
Also, if you buy a new 5D MkII, you better have L-glass, or the limitations in your cheaper lenses will show through.

Do I want the 5D MkII?  Yes.
Will I upgrade immediately?  Probably not right away, unless I hear that it is really, really better in low-light.

Good luck,
David
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2008, 10:23:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you David, that was a thoughtful comparison, which essentially echoed my own chin-rubbings.

With the kind of photography I do, I almost never keep "the whole frame" of what I shoot, but instead crop it to just the needed area surrounding whatever critter I happen to be capture. I look at the rest as waste. Thus the more I think abou it, I really don't see what a FF is going to give me for my needs except more waste. Of course with landscape it is completely the opposite.

Speaking of lenses, I would also imagine that even the 50D, with the newer advancements, will demand L-series lenses also. I am wondering how the old 100-400L will hold up to some of these newer Canons, or if there is an upgrade on the horizon for some of these too (?). It would seem there would have to be now ...

Jack




.
Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #5 on: September 23, 2008, 11:05:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
both claim to offer unprescedented ability to capture great images in unbelievably low light
I don't think there is such claim re the 50D. Canon stated, that it is pixel-wise the same as the 40D, and this matches with my own measurement.

The 86% larger pixels, and probably more sophisticated electronics on the sensor chip will have its effect.

Quote
Correct me if I am wrong, but the only advantage to the Full-Frame found in the 5D will be its ability to make full use of a wide-angle lens for landscapes and such, is it not?

Much lower noise and higher dynamic range. Just what I need.

Quote
Now I "was" considering purchasing the soon-to-be-outdated 5D MkI, but it looks like Canon still believes this to be a $2000 camera I mean, who would buy an old 5D for only $500 less than a new one?
I read somewhere, that the 5D is not in production any more.

Quote
As more of an outdoor animal/nature photographer, it seems to me the 50D would not only be "suitable," but perhaps more suitable than the 5DMkII. It will have better sealing than the old 5D (and probably on a par with the new one)
It is possible, that you would be served better with the 50D, though then the question arises, why not the 40D. IMO the only real advantage of the 50D is the higher pixel count (vs. the 40D) - it is valuable for some, but not for others. I, for one, does not give a fig for the extra 5 million pixels; I need greater DR. (But I can not justify the 5D MkII.)
Logged

Gabor
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #6 on: September 23, 2008, 11:33:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't think there is such claim re the 50D. Canon stated, that it is pixel-wise the same as the 40D, and this matches with my own measurement.

Here is the verbiage which made me think the new 50D will likewise offer unprescedented low light capability: "It's capable of recording at sensitivities previously too noisy for shooting in low light or subjects in motion. With a maximum ISO rating of 12800 combined with a 4-level High ISO speed noise reduction function, images that would have been impossible without the use of a strobe or flash become simple to record."




Quote
The 86% larger pixels, and probably more sophisticated electronics on the sensor chip will have its effect.

Exactly.




Quote
Much lower noise and higher dynamic range. Just what I need.

Do you mean in the 5DMkII? From what I read, the 50D offers this too, by virtue of the Digic 4 sensor.




Quote
I read somewhere, that the 5D is not in production any more.

As well it should be. I would imagine that whatever un-bought cameras are left shall remain un-bought too, until such time as they lower that price to below $1,500.




Quote
It is possible, that you would be served better with the 50D, though then the question arises, why not the 40D. IMO the only real advantage of the 50D is the higher pixel count (vs. the 40D) - it is valuable for some, but not for others. I, for one, does not give a fig for the extra 5 million pixels; I need greater DR. (But I can not justify the 5D MkII.)

There seem to be more advantages than just the 5.1 mpx. Truly, this would be advantage enough (as I have started making 2009 calendars with some of my images, some of which have to be blown-up to 13" x 19"). But the 50D also offers the next-generation of sensor, better weather-proofing, as well as this (supposedly) tremendous upgrade in low-light/motion capability.

I wouldn't even consider a 40D at this point anymore. It seems to me the 50D is actually the perfect merger of the 40D + an even improved image quality of the old 5D, with more capabilities than either of the older models, for only a $300 price hike over the 40D.

When all is said and done, it seems like the 50D is in fact the better value. (For nature shooting, anyway.)

Jack




.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7761



WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 23, 2008, 11:46:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I already have the 50D on order - I just WANT those extra megapixels!
The 50D will be a GREAT sports camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223803\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Frankly speaking, you'd better check first if you see real world value.

There are numerous reports about the pixel sharpness of the 50D being lower than previous iterations.

I don't intend to turn this into a Canon vs Nikon discussion, but just as an example there was a recent comparison of the 50D vs D90 is a well regarded Japanese magazine, and the conclusion was that the 12MP D90 does actually deliver more detailed images than the 15MP 50D.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Misirlou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 584


WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2008, 12:32:18 AM »
ReplyReply

There are a few other considerations too. More MP means more storage required per shot. Moving from a 20D to a 40D made my whole computing rig seem a lot slower.

Then there's the question of how many MP you really need. I stuck with crop frame because I don't print bigger than 8.5X11 very often. Simple as that.

I don't need really narrow depth of field that often either, and seem to get by with my 50 1.4 and other 2.8 lenses.

If cost were no concern, of course I'd get the full frame camera and a collection of newer L lenses. But, for me cost is a big deal, so the 40D made more sense at the time. I'll probably wait for about a year and a half or more, when the 5DMkII gets closer to $2k, and then buy one. I'll still keep the 40D for shooting things that move, or for use when I know 10MP will be sufficient.

I don't worry too much about the argument that newer cameras with finer pixel pitch don't show better real resolution. The newer ones usually have other features that make a bigger difference to my work than the absolute resolution available. For example, I'd really like to have the better LCD screen that comes on the newer cameras.
Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2008, 12:42:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner,Sep 23 2008, 08:33 PM
It's capable of recording at sensitivities previously too noisy for shooting in low light or subjects in motion. With a maximum ISO rating of 12800 combined with a 4-level High ISO speed noise reduction function, images that would have been impossible without the use of a strobe or flash become simple to record."

Let's keep this clear: the top real ISO is 3200 (vs. 1600 of the 40D). However, the noise at 1600 is the same as that of the 40D.

Somewhere else Canon stated, that the enhancements allowed to achieve the same noise level as with the 40D. This is truely a big enhancement at 50% more pixels!

Quote
Do you mean in the 5DMkII? From what I read, the 50D offers this too, by virtue of the Digic 4 sensor
The noise (and the dynamic range) does not depend on the processor but on the sensor.

The main question is If the noise of the 5DII is better than that of the 5D despite the much higher pixel count. It is not impossible: three years advance in technology may achieve that. But even if the noise is the same as that of the 5D, it is much better than the 40D and thus much better than the 50D.

All this does not mean, that you would be served better with the 5DII. For example your need for much cropping is better served by high pixel density (if your lens is good enough). On the other hand, I can imagine that you need to shoot with very small aperture for DoF, and diffraction with these tiny pixels is a real threat.

The arguably best Canon lens on an APS-C camera, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is very sharp, but diffraction is visible already at f/13 (actually, even sooner, but tolerable) on the 40D, This will be worse on the 50D.
Logged

Gabor
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #10 on: September 24, 2008, 01:05:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The noise (and the dynamic range) does not depend on the processor but on the sensor.

Oh, okay. Forgive my ignorance, I don't know a whole lot about that stuff as of yet. Hasn't there been any improvements to the sensor?




Quote
The main question is If the noise of the 5DII is better than that of the 5D despite the much higher pixel count. It is not impossible: three years advance in technology may achieve that. But even if the noise is the same as that of the 5D, it is much better than the 40D and thus much better than the 50D.

Why wouldn't the 50D have the same (or similar) advancements?




Quote
All this does not mean, that you would be served better with the 5DII. For example your need for much cropping is better served by high pixel density (if your lens is good enough). On the other hand, I can imagine that you need to shoot with very small aperture for DoF, and diffraction with these tiny pixels is a real threat.

Okay, I understand what you're saying I think, but doesn't the 15.1 mp offer enough pixel density? In other words, I am not really trying to produce fine art, so much as fun art  

I do want the blown-up images to be nice for display on a calendar, or maybe even a poster, but I am not trying to sell my work for hundreds or thousands of dollars, at the level of some of you folks, just professional and nice to look at.

What I am getting at is, if the old 5D could produce saleable images at 12.7 mpx, shouldn't the new 50D be able to better than this with 15.1 mpx? Heck, while most of my 12.1mpx G9 photos aren't quite good enough for blow-up, I have taken a few shots that I have blown-up to 19" and they still look fantastic.




Quote
The arguably best Canon lens on an APS-C camera, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is very sharp, but diffraction is visible already at f/13 (actually, even sooner, but tolerable) on the 40D, This will be worse on the 50D.

The lenses that I will be purchasing are the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS, the EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM, and the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macrophoto. I will probably not even purchase a "regular" or wide-angle lens.

How do you think these would do?

Thank you,

Jack




.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2008, 01:08:25 AM by JohnKoerner » Logged
giles
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


« Reply #11 on: September 24, 2008, 07:00:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
While there has been a lot of clamor regarding the Canon 5DMkII vs. the Nikon D700, perhaps the real chin-rubber (at least for me anyway) will boil down to a decision between the 5DMkII vs. the Canon 50D.
Doubtless the benefits of each will become clearer as people like Michael get their hands on samples to review, but in the mean time, what lenses do you have?  How well do they suit what you like to shoot on a full frame camera v. a 1.6x crop camera?

I suspect the concerns about diffraction are overrated: film showed diffraction too, I am reliably informed.  (I have shot film; I was pretty darn ignorant and not fussy about quality in those days though.)

The difference perhaps is that "diffraction not visible" to "diffraction is visible" is more sudden transition with digital, but at the end of the day there is always something that is the limit to resolution. If I have sensor(s) that out resolve my lenses, then my lenses are my primary bottleneck.  If my sensor(s) are out resolved by my lenses, then it's the other way around.  Short of perfectly matching the limitations of lenses and sensors, there is no solution I can think of!

The real temptation of course is to buy both a 50D and a 5D MkII.  Storage is cheap, right??

Cheers,

Giles
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7251


WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 24, 2008, 08:41:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I'm in the exactly same situtaion regarding the Sony Alpha 700/900. Although the situation is a bit more extreme vid the Alpha 900 having 24 MP vs the Alpha 700 at 12.5.

In favor of keeping Alpha 700:

I can make A2-prints which are about perfect
16-80/3.5-4.5 is perfect walk around lens, covers 90% of my shooting. Very good at f/8.

In favor of switching to Alpha 900:
Much better resolution which I may not need.
New lenses which may be better than what I have, although I have not seen convincing proof that they are sharp corner to corner.

Most new lenses are for full frame, like a 24-70 is pretty useful on fullframe but would be like 38-112 on an APS-C. All vendors make 16-80 or so lenses howeve specially for APS which usually are quite good.

I guess I'll see the outcome of tests, and adjust my priorities in accordance.

Erik


Quote
Oh, okay. Forgive my ignorance, I don't know a whole lot about that stuff as of yet. Hasn't there been any improvements to the sensor?
Why wouldn't the 50D have the same (or similar) advancements?
Okay, I understand what you're saying I think, but doesn't the 15.1 mp offer enough pixel density? In other words, I am not really trying to produce fine art, so much as fun art  

I do want the blown-up images to be nice for display on a calendar, or maybe even a poster, but I am not trying to sell my work for hundreds or thousands of dollars, at the level of some of you folks, just professional and nice to look at.

What I am getting at is, if the old 5D could produce saleable images at 12.7 mpx, shouldn't the new 50D be able to better than this with 15.1 mpx? Heck, while most of my 12.1mpx G9 photos aren't quite good enough for blow-up, I have taken a few shots that I have blown-up to 19" and they still look fantastic.
The lenses that I will be purchasing are the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS, the EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM, and the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macrophoto. I will probably not even purchase a "regular" or wide-angle lens.

How do you think these would do?

Thank you,

Jack
.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223842\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

stever
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1062


« Reply #13 on: September 24, 2008, 09:30:09 AM »
ReplyReply

from my experience with the 20D, 40D, and 5D the 100-400 is much happier on the crop frame camera - if the 50D really does have a one stop advantage in high ISO i will order one immediately as the 100-400 is a slow lens that is not that sharp wide open (but generally the generally useful long lens you can buy) - a useable ISO 1600 will really help

on a crop frame camera i'm not sure i would spend the money for a 180 macro - the 100 macro is an awfully good lens - 160mm equivalent, and works pretty well with a Kenko 1.4x extender if you really need more reach.

have no experience with the 65, but again it becomes 104 effective and an increase of working distance with this lens is a real benefit
Logged
k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1417


WWW
« Reply #14 on: September 24, 2008, 09:51:08 AM »
ReplyReply

50D or 5D Mark II? I would get both. In fact I probably will get both unless Canon announces a new full-frame high-speed pro body that competes with the D3. (Call it a 1D Mark IV or something.)

The 1.6x crop is perfect for long lens work -- I use my 40D on my 300/2.8, and it's a great combination. Quick focusing, long reach. But the wide angles don't work so well.

The full frame is good for wide angle work and for more control over depth of field. My fast wide angles are okay on my 1-D series cameras with their 1.3x lens factor, but they really sing out on a full frame body.

So, yeah, if you only do one kind of work, you can make a decision based on that. But if you are a generalist, having both cameras makes some sense.
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
mike.online
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 207


WWW
« Reply #15 on: September 24, 2008, 11:01:30 AM »
ReplyReply

as a 30D user, i'm going to be moving up to the 5DMkII. The only reservation I had was if I should go to the d700. The ultimate decision will be made after the real reviews come out, but aside from the new 5d getting slammed, I've pretty much made up my mind.

However, if I were just starting out again I would buy a used 40D, likely. The 30d has been good to me, but iso noise and the lower pixel count don't suit my needs anymore.

When I upgrade, I will be selling my 30D and EFS lens. I can't afford to keep both
« Last Edit: September 24, 2008, 11:02:24 AM by mike.online » Logged

Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #16 on: September 24, 2008, 11:39:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner,Sep 23 2008, 10:05 PM
Why wouldn't the 50D have the same (or similar) advancements?
Okay, I understand what you're saying I think, but doesn't the 15.1 mp offer enough pixel density?
The 50D offers too high[/quote] pixel density. The sensor of the 5D is 2.56 times larger than that of the 50D, but the pixel count is only 1.4 times higher. In other words, the 5D's pixels are much larger, and that is, what counts at equal technology.

Re the sensor technology: the electronics on the sensors of the 1D serie is more complex than on the sensors of the xxD serie, particularly regarding on-chip noise reduction. Note: this noise reduction has nothing to do with what you are applying in raw conversion or afterwards; perhaps one should say it is "noise avoidance".

I don't know abput the technology of the 5DII. Canon usually publishes white papers with such details, but I guess that will appear later.

Quote
I am not trying to sell my work for hundreds or thousands of dollars, at the level of some of you folks, just professional and nice to look at
I am an amateur. That means: I am spending money on photography, not making it.

Again, I did not want to suggest you, that the 5D would be the better choice in your case. I intended only to sort out some facts, so that your decision is based on sound considerations.

Re the lenses: I know nothing of those; I suggest you to read the test for example at http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview (they are testing the lenses on cropping cameras, so their results are useless when using FF). A cursory look reveals, that the resolution of the EF 100-400mm IS at the long end is far from that at the short end. I would check out other lens reviews as well.

The resolution with the tiny pixels can become a real problem; but if you don't need that many pixels, you can downres the result and the resolution problem is gone. On the other hand, the resolution in the APC-C cropping area is always higher than closer to the edges, so much of the FF may be useless for you.
Logged

Gabor
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3208



WWW
« Reply #17 on: September 24, 2008, 01:26:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
With the kind of photography I do, I almost never keep "the whole frame" of what I shoot, but instead crop it to just the needed area surrounding whatever critter I happen to be capture. I look at the rest as waste. Thus the more I think abou it, I really don't see what a FF is going to give me for my needs except more waste. Of course with landscape it is completely the opposite.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223806\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's the key issue here.
The amount of 'waste' you have, may well be due to how you currently shoot. With proper macro lenses on either body you'll probably be able to fill frame better than with the G9. Normally macro on these sorts of cameras is only at wide end of focal length. So if you've been shootiong with a 35mm equivalent and then use a 100mm maco on a 5D, then you'll get an awful  lot less 'wastage',  even before considering the 50D or the fact that you may be able to focus closer as well.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #18 on: September 24, 2008, 06:41:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Misirlou said,
"I don't worry too much about the argument that newer cameras with finer pixel pitch don't show better real resolution. The newer ones usually have other features that make a bigger difference to my work than the absolute resolution available. For example, I'd really like to have the better LCD screen that comes on the newer cameras."

This is a very good point, and another reason not to get the 40D.



>>>>>>>




Stever said,
"from my experience with the 20D, 40D, and 5D the 100-400 is much happier on the crop frame camera - if the 50D really does have a one stop advantage in high ISO i will order one immediately as the 100-400 is a slow lens that is not that sharp wide open (but generally the generally useful long lens you can buy) - a useable ISO 1600 will really help
on a crop frame camera i'm not sure i would spend the money for a 180 macro - the 100 macro is an awfully good lens - 160mm equivalent, and works pretty well with a Kenko 1.4x extender if you really need more reach.
have no experience with the 65, but again it becomes 104 effective and an increase of working distance with this lens is a real benefit"


Yes, from what I have read, the movement factor in the 65mm 5:1 lens is unforgiving.

And truly, if I am already getting some pretty good shots with a freaking G9 and a flashlight, LOL, I can only imagine that my shots with a 50D and a 100mm USM macro would be stellar



>>>>>>>



Giles said,
"The real temptation of course is to buy both a 50D and a 5D MkII.  Storage is cheap, right??

You are more ambitious than I. I am just wanting one good, solid camera for my purposes, and don't plan on buying another one for at least 5 years. I have no interest in "keeping up with the Joneses" or in having the greatest photographers in the business "oohh and aahh" over the flawlessness of my shots at ISO 64,000,000. None of that means anyting to me. Just as long as the general consumer (or interested kid) says, "Hey that's a nice shot!" I am good with that  

I think a lot of times the people here forget that the average person would be floored by some of the images you guys take and "criticize," as the average consumer doesn't know 1/1000th as much about the finer points of photography as most of you do.



>>>>>>>



Panopeeper said,
"The 50D offers too high pixel density. The sensor of the 5D is 2.56 times larger than that of the 50D, but the pixel count is only 1.4 times higher. In other words, the 5D's pixels are much larger, and that is, what counts at equal technology.

Oh, okay. Thank you for the clarification. Hey, I learned something




Panopeeper said,
"Re the sensor technology: the electronics on the sensors of the 1D serie is more complex than on the sensors of the xxD serie, particularly regarding on-chip noise reduction. Note: this noise reduction has nothing to do with what you are applying in raw conversion or afterwards; perhaps one should say it is "noise avoidance".

No disrespect, but I am not sure anyone can speak about the current sensor technology at this point. From what I have read, especially about the 5DMkII, the noise reduction is actually even less than the 1D ...

In other words, what you're saying is true for the older 5D, but I am not sure it applies to the newer version.




Panopeeper said,
"I don't know abput the technology of the 5DII. Canon usually publishes white papers with such details, but I guess that will appear later."

Exactly. And I am unsure about the technology of 50D as well. Hell even if I had the papers in front of me, I don't know what sense I could make of them  

If both carry advanced technology, then I think my choice will be the 50D. But if the 50D's sharpness sucks (as what one person claimed), then probably not. I want to make a long-term decision so as I can enjoy my camera and not look back, nor worry about "what's next" right after I buy it. If that means I have to fork out an extra grand for the 5DII, then so be it. But I also don't want to spend extra money on yesterday's focusing, only to have a "barely-better" image than the 50D, with less advanced focusing.

I personally refuse to believe at this point that the 50D doesn't take great images. Canon has not come out with crap SLR cameras, but with industry-changing cameras, behind whom everyone else has been trying to play catch-up. I just can't believe at this point what one person said about the 50D taking less-sharp images than a D90. Maybe so, or maybe some writer's pocket is getting greased.




Panopeeper said,
"I am an amateur. That means: I am spending money on photography, not making it."

LOL




Panopeeper said,
"Again, I did not want to suggest you, that the 5D would be the better choice in your case. I intended only to sort out some facts, so that your decision is based on sound considerations."

And I appreciate that, thank you.




Panopeeper said,
"Re the lenses: I know nothing of those; I suggest you to read the test for example at http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview (they are testing the lenses on cropping cameras, so their results are useless when using FF). A cursory look reveals, that the resolution of the EF 100-400mm IS at the long end is far from that at the short end. I would check out other lens reviews as well."

My understanding is Nikon offers better wide-angle in general, and a slightly better macro. However, the Nikon's 100-400 is pretty lousy compared to Canon's. Canon's 100 macro and 180 macro may not be the best, but they are very good. And while I have heard of complaints of older 100-400s, the consensus seems to be it is a pretty darned good lens.

I don't believe the 5:1 Canon has a rival anywhere ...




Panopeeper said,
"The resolution with the tiny pixels can become a real problem; but if you don't need that many pixels, you can downres the result and the resolution problem is gone. On the other hand, the resolution in the APC-C cropping area is always higher than closer to the edges, so much of the FF may be useless for you."

Some of that was Greek to me, LOL, but my own thinking was that FF may be useless to me, yes. I don't know how to downres anything at this point, but I am considering enrolling in the University of FL just to take some basic photography classes. Or maybe take some other kinds of classes to get a better grasp on some of these finer details.



>>>>>>>



JJJ said,
"That's the key issue here.
The amount of 'waste' you have, may well be due to how you currently shoot. With proper macro lenses on either body you'll probably be able to fill frame better than with the G9. Normally macro on these sorts of cameras is only at wide end of focal length. So if you've been shootiong with a 35mm equivalent and then use a 100mm maco on a 5D, then you'll get an awful  lot less 'wastage',  even before considering the 50D or the fact that you may be able to focus closer as well."


Wow. Very interesting observation, thank you. I didn't even think of the fact I might be able to fill the whole frame with a camera change, in which case a larger frame (with much better resolution) would produce the best images. Hmmmm.

Of course, the better reach of a 1.6 would still prove more likely to "fill" that frame, and so then the question defaults back to whether the image the 50D produces will be all I ever need for my purposes. With the same LCD, light-capturing, etc., will the 50D produce good enough images to satisfy 95% of the human population? I am fine if 5% of the people (and even that is probably an over-estimate) can find flaws in the image, I am comfortable with that.

I am just looking to produce images that the average person is going to say, "Damn! That's a nice shot!"

Jack




.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2008, 06:57:33 PM by JohnKoerner » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8852


« Reply #19 on: September 24, 2008, 08:39:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The arguably best Canon lens on an APS-C camera, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is very sharp, but diffraction is visible already at f/13 (actually, even sooner, but tolerable) on the 40D, This will be worse on the 50D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223836\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Gabor,
Not worse, but at least equal and perhaps very marginally better.
You make it sound as though blur is something that can be recorded with greater sharpness using a sensor with greater resolving power   .
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad