Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon 50D vs. 5DMkII  (Read 83584 times)
stever
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1065


« Reply #20 on: September 24, 2008, 11:09:10 PM »
ReplyReply

how big an image that's "damn, a nice shot"?

from the 20D and 100-400 i get very good to maybe excellent wildlife shots for 13x19 prints (no extra pixels available for cropping).  my 40D is not really noticeably better (not too much experience as it had a focus problem only recently corrected).

landscapes are iffy at 13x19 with either camera (no problem with 5D) and i haven't felt that macros can be enlarged to more than 10x15 - maybe

these are prints that invite close inspection

using good lenses and technique, i think the 50D should consistently make "damn, a nice shot" 13x19 prints with room for cropping some subjects and up to 16x24 with minimal cropping on many others.  if that's not enough, it should also be very good for panoramas.
Logged
Pete Ferling
Guest
« Reply #21 on: September 25, 2008, 12:14:39 AM »
ReplyReply

I have both an old 1ds (the first model) and a 40D.  Both are close in number of pixels, but the 1ds has full frame and larger sites.

I've had cases in the studio shooting product against white, where I needed the most DOF at close range, and could only do that with the 1ds vs the 40d, because of hitting defraction limits sooner, and with the same lens.

Only a real world test will tell if the 50D's new design defeats or negates that arguement.  If so, and ignoring DR, that feature alone would shelve my 1ds at 1/4 the cost.
Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #22 on: September 25, 2008, 04:14:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Do you want a general purpose camera with one lens or do you want a specialized camera with 2 or more lenses and the added cost? 50D + sigma 18-200 OS is quite a good value (I have a Xsi with the sigma and its Macro capability is pretty good). The cost of a 5DII + 24-105 IS/70-300DO/Macro lens will get expensive.
Marc


[attachment=8500:attachment][attachment=8501:attachment]
Logged

Marc McCalmont
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #23 on: September 26, 2008, 12:40:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Here are some thoughts I had on this topic in a different thread from a couple weeks ago.

Earlier Discussion

Benefits to FF
More wide angle lens options.
Better dynamic range.
Better high ISO performance.
Diffraction effects are less pronounced.

Liabilities to FF
Vignetting will be more pronounced when it is present.
Lens distortion is more noticeable, particularly near the edges of the frame.
Telephoto lenses don't benefit from cropped-sensor 'magnification.'
Substantially more expensive (including body and longer lenses)

Benefits to APS-C
Increases the effective focal length of lenses
Decreased vignetting.
Substantially less expensive (including body and lenses)
Lens distortion is less noticeable, typically because it occurs near the edges of the frame that are 'cropped' from view.

Liabilities to APS-C

Increased noise at higher ISOs.
Decreased dynamic range.
Diffraction effects are noticeable a few stops sooner.
True wide angle lenses are hard to find.

I am sold on the cropped sensor for me.  the price difference and the performance characteristics mesh with my needs.  I have a 30D and will probably upgrade to the 50D some time this fall, hopefully after the 50D sees $1200 or so.
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #24 on: September 26, 2008, 07:05:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Diffraction effects are noticeable a few stops sooner.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224681\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't think so, not at the same resolutions on both formats.  The difference would be about one stop (DX compared to FX), the same as the difference in DOF (e.g. you would experience it at f/16 on the larger format and f/11 on the smaller format).

BTW, you missed one benefit to the cropped sensor when shooting for more DOF, and that is faster shutter speeds.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2008, 07:42:54 PM by Tony Beach » Logged
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001


« Reply #25 on: September 26, 2008, 09:20:25 PM »
ReplyReply

To the OP: I'd actually wait for a production model of the 5DII to be tested.

Regarding the autofocus, I can't simply believe that Canon put the same, old autofoces of the 5D into the 5DII. It sounds very illogical that the 50D should have a better autofocus than the the 5DII, which costs twice as much and is geared towards demanding photographers.

There is always the possibility to still buy a 40D. I bought a 40D, and even though I'm sure the 50D is a great camera, I prefer having the 40D, as I regard 15 Megapixels an overkill for APS-C. It also balloons files, especially when you go into more complex Photoshop work.

I expected the 50D to have 12 MP, which seems to be the reasonable maximum for a sensor of that size. Too tightly pixel-packed sensors are a turn-off for me, and I honestly feel a bit uncomfortable with the 5DII having 21MP. But this is, of course, without having seen any actual images or tests, and so I delay judgement on this until I see tests and user comments.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2008, 09:22:12 PM by The View » Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #26 on: September 26, 2008, 10:27:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
To the OP: I'd actually wait for a production model of the 5DII to be tested.

Regarding the autofocus, I can't simply believe that Canon put the same, old autofoces of the 5D into the 5DII. It sounds very illogical that the 50D should have a better autofocus than the the 5DII, which costs twice as much and is geared towards demanding photographers.

There is always the possibility to still buy a 40D. I bought a 40D, and even though I'm sure the 50D is a great camera, I prefer having the 40D, as I regard 15 Megapixels an overkill for APS-C. It also balloons files, especially when you go into more complex Photoshop work.

I expected the 50D to have 12 MP, which seems to be the reasonable maximum for a sensor of that size. Too tightly pixel-packed sensors are a turn-off for me, and I honestly feel a bit uncomfortable with the 5DII having 21MP. But this is, of course, without having seen any actual images or tests, and so I delay judgement on this until I see tests and user comments.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224802\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I would rather have the 50D than the 40D, simply because of the far superior LCD and the latest processor. Every day of my life, the 50D would just be more pleasurable to use. I am not sure why you don't think the new 15.1 mpx wouldn't be a good thing, but like you said we'll have to see.

The more I have thought about it, I really don't need full-frame, and I really don't need video, and to be quite honest I am a little turned-off by the "yesterday's" focusing of the 5DMkII. I don't understand why they would have put focusing that wasn't even up to the 40- and 50D. So I have ruled out the 5DMkII.

Therefore, actually, if the price on the 12.1 mpx D300 comes down just a bit more, the Nikon might wind up being the better buy after all. It will be interesting to see Michael's impressions on the 50D's image quality. If the image quality is drab, as one person suggested, then none of the rest of it means anything. But if (as expected) the image is noticeably superior, its low-light capability is superior, and the weather-sealing is superior, then I am going with the 50D.

But if the image quality somehow goes backward on the 50D (for whatever reason), and especially if the D300 drops another notch in price, I believe I will actually prefer the Nikon to the 50D for my needs. The D300 already has the superior LCD, it has an even more modern focus system, and it has possibly better weather sealing also.

My hope is that the 50D's images are excellent, and that it's low-light capability is too, because then it will be a slam-dunk for me. But if not, I will go with the D300 ... as the descent of its price makes its value increase proportionately. The D300 is a better camera than the 40D, I just didn't think it was $700 better when they both first came out.

But at even money with the 50D, or even a hair less, this is where the decision is going to be for me now, I think. So we'll see if the 50D is all it's cracked-up to be ... and I sure hope that it is.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2008, 12:27:51 AM by JohnKoerner » Logged
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #27 on: September 27, 2008, 09:12:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
BTW, you missed one benefit to the cropped sensor when shooting for more DOF, and that is faster shutter speeds.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224773\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think the depth of field issue is a draw.  More depth of field can be good or bad depending on your intent. So perhaps it could be added to both lists as a notable difference.  I am not sure what you mean by faster shutter speeds.
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8887


« Reply #28 on: September 27, 2008, 05:49:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think the depth of field issue is a draw. More depth of field can be good or bad depending on your intent. So perhaps it could be added to both lists as a notable difference. I am not sure what you mean by faster shutter speeds.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224911\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Faster shutter speeds for the same DoF. The 50D can be used at approximately 1 & 1/3rd stops wider aperture for the same DoF.

However, such an advantage is also associated with a disadvantage. If the wider apertures used are in the range of optimal lens sharpness, say F4 to F8 (or in the range dominated by diffraction), then the faster shutter speeds allowed are pure advantage.

When shallow DoF is sought and one uses say the 50/1.4 at F1.4, as opposed to F2.25 with full frame, then any advantage due to the faster shutter speed has to be offset against the softer image that the 50/1.4 inevitably produces at full aperture.

This problem is compounded by the fact that the higher density of the 50D sensor actually requires a sharper lens in order to deliver image resolution on a par with that of the full frame sensor of similar pixel count, so in a sense there's a double whammy in this situation.

However, matters balance out when extensive DoF is sought. A lens at F10 should be sharper than the same lens at F16. And generally a lens at F7.1 should be sharper than the same lens at F11.

Edit: To add further complication, whilst it's true that at large f numbers the cropped format will have a shutter speed advantage which is not offset by lower lens resolution, the larger format, as a result of its larger light-gathering capacity, will tend to produces less noise at high ISOs (comparing equal scenes with same DoF but different focal lengths).

The fact that one might be able increase ISO on the larger format, in order to achieve the same shutter speed as the cropped format at equivalent DoF, without pushing noise beyond the level that exists on the cropped format at a lower ISO, sort of canels out that shutter speed advantage.

Not sure if it completely cancels out the shutter speed advantage. One would have to do careful comparisons with both cameras to be sure. At this stage, it seems likely I'll be getting both cameras. The 50D has the advantage of a faster frame rate, compared with the 5D2, and the advantage of micro-adjustment of lens auto-focussing characteristics, compared with the 40D. It should also prove to be at least a marginally better lens extender than the 40D as well as a few other bells and whistles.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2008, 06:44:20 PM by Ray » Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #29 on: September 27, 2008, 10:50:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think the depth of field issue is a draw.  More depth of field can be good or bad depending on your intent. So perhaps it could be added to both lists as a notable difference.  [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224911\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Absolutely.

Larger format = shallower DOF

Smaller format = deeper DOF

Quote
I am not sure what you mean by faster shutter speeds.


If you get the same DOF at f/11 on a smaller format that you get at f/16 on a larger format and the optimum EV for f/11 is 1/250, then the larger format's shutter speed will be 1/125.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8887


« Reply #30 on: September 28, 2008, 01:28:58 AM »
ReplyReply

This issue regarding DoF and shutter speed advantages of the cropped format is not clear cut when both cameras being compared represent the latest technology, both boasting low noise and high ISO.

We need to compare, for example, 50D images at ISO 100 with 5D2 images at ISO 200, (at one end of the scale), and 50D images at ISO 3200 with 5D2 images at ISO 6400, at the other end of the scale, and preferably ISOs in the middle of the range also.

I would guess that a 5D2 image at F11, ISO 3200 and 100th second might be very similar in quality, in respect of resolution and noise, to a 50D image at F8, ISO 1600 and 100th second exposure, when both images are compared at equal size.

I wouldn't like to predict which would have the edge in those circumstances, but it seems clear that the 5D2 will usually have a noticeable advantage when the shallowest of DoF is sought, in terms of both shallow DoF and resolution at the plane of focus.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2008, 01:35:27 AM by Ray » Logged
azi
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


WWW
« Reply #31 on: September 29, 2008, 06:57:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi John, just looking back at the original posting - I am having the same dilemma at the moment.  I am using an ageing EOS-1Ds and I'm not sure whether to go with the 50D, wait for the new 5D-II or switch to a D700.  Having tried a 20D the image quality is fine but the crop factor and user interface adds an undesirable learning curve.

Just a question unrelated to your query - how do you find the G9 for general macro work?  I get the impression it's technically easier and less cumbersome than an SLR / macro lens set up, given the greater depth of field.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #32 on: September 30, 2008, 04:30:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi John, just looking back at the original posting - I am having the same dilemma at the moment.  I am using an ageing EOS-1Ds and I'm not sure whether to go with the 50D, wait for the new 5D-II or switch to a D700.  Having tried a 20D the image quality is fine but the crop factor and user interface adds an undesirable learning curve.

Well, in this case I would imagine it would depend on your needs. For me, the crop factor is an enhancement.




Quote
Just a question unrelated to your query - how do you find the G9 for general macro work?  I get the impression it's technically easier and less cumbersome than an SLR / macro lens set up, given the greater depth of field.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225659\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The G9 is absolutely wonderful for macro work: it's light, it's easy, (yes) it has great depth of field, and I don't have to lug a buncha stuff around to wind up with a respectable shot  




.
Logged
nigeldh
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56



WWW
« Reply #33 on: October 21, 2008, 10:13:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DarkPenguin
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.

I love to shot critters with a Canon, a cannon is a bit messy. grin duck run

Seriously, the movie mode of the 5D mkII offers the potential to catch say a bee darting in and out of a flower.
The only question is what is the resolution of each video frame, 1920 x 1080 (16:9), is good enough to capture a single frame from for a small print. Remember when we thought 2 megapixel was the the cat's meow?

So now I have to buy two Canon's - a 50D as an upgrade of my 40D, and a 5D mkII?
At least the 50D has the higher ISOs. And the 1.6x crop factor does help stretch the reach of a lens. I always bought full frame lenses so that isn't an issue.
Logged
One Frame at a Time
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #34 on: October 21, 2008, 10:47:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: nigeldh
So now I have to buy two Canon's - a 50D as an upgrade of my 40D, and a 5D mkII?

Nigel,

If what I have read is true, the Mark II will be able to capture a full frame image at the same time it is recording video.  I have no idea how but that is what was posted somewhere.  If true, I will be standing in line with everyone else for one of these cameras.  Can anyone verify or dispute this?
Logged
spidermike
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #35 on: October 22, 2008, 03:08:39 AM »
ReplyReply

I also understand it is possible to take stills while shooting in video mode, but if you missed the 'still' shot and instead wanted to print up a frame of the video what would the quality be (I think this is what Nigel was asking and what I have also been wondering)?
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8887


« Reply #36 on: October 22, 2008, 10:44:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: spidermike
I also understand it is possible to take stills while shooting in video mode, but if you missed the 'still' shot and instead wanted to print up a frame of the video what would the quality be (I think this is what Nigel was asking and what I have also been wondering)?

The quality will be 1920x 1080 pixels regarding resolution, same as the full HDTV spec, but will have impressively low noise compared with video from a P&S digicam or consumer grade videocam because the 5D2 pixels are quite large.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3496



WWW
« Reply #37 on: October 22, 2008, 08:39:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I spend time on film sets doing stills. Now why would the producer want a stills photographer hold up production taking shots of the scene just captured on film?
 2 reasons one technical, one artistic.
Movies are shot at low shutter speeds, so sharpeness is a problem.
Shots that look good as part of an edited sequence can look drab as stills. I often condense the essence of a scene into a shot if possible and sometimes stage things to convey an aspect of film or the entire film in a single shot.
The technical reason is the important one here. Screen grabs are not usually great quality even when the pixel count is higher than the 5D posesses.
Oh and if you shoot at higher shutter speeds the film tends to strobe unless you also use higher frame rates when shooting and projecting
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8887


« Reply #38 on: October 22, 2008, 09:59:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
Shots that look good as part of an edited sequence can look drab as stills. ting

Would there not also be compression issues which would affect the quality of a single video frame used as a still? I imagine one could not expect the same quality as one would get from a 2mp RAW image from the same pixels.
Logged
AGphoto
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


WWW
« Reply #39 on: October 23, 2008, 12:11:11 AM »
ReplyReply

hi John,...
i have the 30D for a few years now ...and am very happy with the image quality( better than 35mmfilm)i usually print to 20x30 inches. so the 50D would be even better, i will be upgrading to the 5D2 simply because of ff( and better image quality) if you find that you have to crop your images a lot, then i think a better pixel count and larger sensor would allow you to get a cleaner image, though like a previous post said, with the right lens you may find that you can fill the frame better.

both will be great in low light conditions( compared to your G9)
i don't think the focusing of the 5D2 will be old technology, I find it hard to believe that Canon wouldn't upgrade  

As with taking a shot that the general public would say "thats a nice shot" mostly depends on the subject, composition , etc...
both cameras will give great quality (in realworld) pixel peeping is a matter of what you need now, and in the future,... i would be happy to just have my 30D for another few years,... but   the possibilities of the newer technology is to great to ignore
  Adrian
Logged

Adrian Gonzalez
A.G. Post Productions
www.agphotography.com.au
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad