Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon 50D vs. 5DMkII  (Read 84016 times)
aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #40 on: October 23, 2008, 07:09:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: mike.online
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

When I moved to the 24.6MP Sony A900 Full-frame, I immediately placed my APS-C 12MP A700 and the 16-80CZ lens on sale.  

Note that a move to FF is not the same as the difference between 2 different APS-C models but is a move to a whole different FORMAT.  With the change in format, you are actually shooting with a whole different lineup of lenses for the same types of photos as before.
Logged
aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #41 on: October 23, 2008, 07:13:09 PM »
ReplyReply

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

The Digic 4 is not a sensor.  It is a processor chip.  This is the processor that works on the image data that comes off the sensor and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Dynamic Range or Noise performance of the sensor.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3648



WWW
« Reply #42 on: October 23, 2008, 10:39:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
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.
Not if shooting on film! Or on a RED camera.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2953



WWW
« Reply #43 on: October 23, 2008, 11:26:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: aaykay
The Digic 4 is not a sensor.  It is a processor chip.  This is the processor that works on the image data that comes off the sensor and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Dynamic Range or Noise performance of the sensor.

While the Digic 4 processor has nothing to do with the Dynamic range or noise performance of the sensor, I think it does factor in the dynamic range and noise performance of the camera itself.

As far as this thread is concerned, if deciding between a 5d Mark II and a 50d, it's hard to say because so many factors are involved. I demoed a 50d for a few days, and I think it's a winner.  I wouldn't trade my 1Ds Mark 3 in for it, and I would suspect the 5D Mark2 will be very close if not equal of of the 1Ds Mark 3.

Both the 50d and 5d Mark 2 will deliver great quality for their respective formats.  So the decision will be more about budget and formats.

Couple of shots with the 50d.  First one is ISO 400 taken with 100mm macro, cropped to approximately 50% - (needed a touch more depth of field, but I still like how it turned out).  Second is ISO 100, hand held high over head using live view for cropping.  Obviously really can't tell much from little web jpegs, but I've printed both out on 17x22 Ilford Galerie Gold Fiber Silk,  and I think they look great.

[attachment=9144:Leave_ma...d_web800.jpg][attachment=9145:HV_hole7_web800.jpg]
« Last Edit: October 24, 2008, 12:28:32 PM by Wayne Fox » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8011


WWW
« Reply #44 on: October 24, 2008, 12:49:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Just a small comment. Diffraction is not related to sensor size but to pixel density. A sensor with higher pixel density will be affected by diffraction sooner than a sensor with lesser pixel density. A 21 MPixel FF sensor has about the same pixel density as a 9 MPixel APS-C sensor. If you compare a Canon D40 with and Canon D5 diffraction would be apparent earlier on the D40 than on the Canon 5D, if you would compare the Canon D40 with the coming Canon D5II the effect of diffraction would be visible at the same aperture. To get the same depth of field you would need to use a smaller aperture on the 5D, however. If you want to use long shutter speed I would say that an ND filter makes more sense than stopping down, regardless of format. But use a decent one like B&W, I have never been impressed by the optical quality of Cokin filters and I guess that would apply to all plastic filters.

Regarding diffraction I would say that it is not really a problem above f/16 whatever format you are using and definitively a problem below f/16. If you are using very good lenses on small formats the loss of sharpness due to diffraction may be visible below f/11, but certainly not severe.

If you look at lens tests, like on www.photozone.de, you can clearly see that performance peaks somewhere around f/5.6 or f/8. More often than not two stops down from maximum aperture. When you stop down most aberrations decrease and depth of focus increases. This causes image quality to improve. Diffraction is increasing with aperture. That is the only negative effect of stopping down.

If a perfect lens could be built it would perform best at maximum aperture, that is it would be diffraction limited at maximum aperture. Very few lenses do have that capability, some Canon L telescopic lenses may be there and some of the Leica APO lenses. At optimum aperture a lens may outresolve the sensor so diffraction effects may not be measurable until stopping down significantly. If the lens outresolves sensor moiré patterns will be visible, unless optical resolution is reduced by an "antialiasing filter".

From what I can see there is not much difference of image quality between different sensor sizes with the same amount of pixels at low ISO. Unfortunately it seems that only Pentax, Olympus and Panasonic really go for smaller than 24x36 format, so we don't see very much high quality lenses for APS-C from Canon and Sony. Previously Nikon was essentially an APS-C player, but their high quality lenses were still made for "full frame". I think that the future of APS-C format would be better if lenses were exclusively designed for it.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: fike
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.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2008, 01:02:58 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8011


WWW
« Reply #45 on: October 24, 2008, 12:54:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Good comments, Wayne, I really appreciate your contributions to the forum!

Erik

Quote from: Wayne Fox
While the Digic 4 processor has nothing to do with the Dynamic range or noise performance of the sensor, I think it does factor in the dynamic range and noise performance of the camera itself.

As far as this thread is concerned, if deciding between a 5d Mark II and a 50d, it's hard to say because so many factors are involved. I demoed a 50d for a few days, and I think it's a winner.  I wouldn't trade my 1Ds Mark 3 in for it, and I would suspect the 5D Mark2 will be very close if not equal of of the 1Ds Mark 3.

Both the 50d and 5d Mark 2 will deliver great quality for their respective formats.  So the decision will be more about budget and formats.

Couple of shots with the 50d.  First one is ISO 400 taken with 100mm macro, approximately 50% - (needed a touch more depth of field, but I still like how it turned out).  Second is ISO 100, hand held high over head using live view for cropping.  Obviously really can't tell much from little web jpegs, but I've printed both out on 17x22 Ilford Galerie Gold Fiber Silk,  and I think they look great.

[attachment=9144:Leave_ma...d_web800.jpg][attachment=9145:HV_hole7_web800.jpg]
« Last Edit: October 24, 2008, 12:55:58 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #46 on: October 24, 2008, 02:07:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Previously Nikon was essentially an APS-C player, but their high quality lenses were still made for "full frame". I think that the future of APS-C format would be better if lenses were exclusively designed for it.

I use several non-DX lenses on my D300; in fact, all of the lenses I use are non-DX.
Logged
Etienne Cassar
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 95


« Reply #47 on: January 07, 2009, 03:38:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner
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.

What did you decide John?  Did you get the 50D?  I am being faced with the same dilemma like you and would love to get some feedback about the 50D if you bought one.

Etienne
Logged
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6997


« Reply #48 on: January 07, 2009, 04:59:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ecassar
What did you decide John?  Did you get the 50D?  I am being faced with the same dilemma like you and would love to get some feedback about the 50D if you bought one.

Etienne
John purchased a 50D... See his post and his first impressions here.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2009, 05:00:01 AM by francois » Logged

Francois
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #49 on: January 07, 2009, 11:37:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ecassar
What did you decide John?  Did you get the 50D?  I am being faced with the same dilemma like you and would love to get some feedback about the 50D if you bought one.
Etienne


Hello;

Yes, I did just finally make my purchase decision (on 12/31  ), and I just did receive my Canon 50D yesterday.

My decision between the 50D and the 5DMkII was made based on (1) the 50D is the "most camera for least money," and (2) because my own personal uses are at the long-end of the lens (macro and telephoto work). Since the 50D has a 1.6x conversion factor, it makes my 100mm macro lens effectively a 160mm macro lens, a 400mm zoom effectively a 640mm zoom, etc. Thus the 50D suited my own personal needs better.

Between the "bargain" of the 40D and the 50D, and after reading one person after another, who actually had the cameras, it was clear the 50D was better than the 40D. And since the difference in price was just a couple of hundred bucks (not a couple of thousand), I just went with the 50D. Even on the landscape issue, another factor I was very pleased to hear is that there is Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM lens (that fist the 50D and not the 5D) that is gives you just as wide an angle shot as any prime would give the 5DMkII and it is also considered to be "professional quality" all along its range.

Since it has been demonstrated that the 50D puts out finished prints just as good as the 5DMkII and 1DsMkIII all the way up to 13"x19" prints, this is all I need for my own purposes. Only in larger print sizes does the quality of these other cameras start to show. And that's great, for those whose profession demands such larger prints, then they will be better suited getting the 5DMkII or the 1DsMkIII ... but that is beyond my scope, needs, and (at this point) capabilities. The fact is, my selection in camer will get me professional-quality images, up to over a 20" print size, so I am just delighted that I can do this now. So for you it would seem to boil down to the same considerations, and whether you really need to make 30"-40" prints or not.

Finally, I was also smitten by the Nikon D300 (and I still am), but when I went to a pro camera shop and walked around with them, I just didn't like the way it felt in my hand. When you hold the D300, there is just an "edge" that all 4 of your fingers curl around, wheras the 50D is just ergonomically-perfect for my hanc, with subtle concavities for your fingers to rest, and even your thumb on the back fits right between the controls perfectly. Other than the weight, I don't even notice the 50D in my hand, whereas I always felt like I was holding "a foreign object" with the D300, because of the "edge" I perpetually had to feel at my fingertips. But specs-wise, the D300 still has me thinking about it, as well as their quality macros. But as Michael pointed out on another thread, the differences were ultimately "mouse nuts," one excels here, while the other excels there. It ultimately came down to the fact the 50D is a great camera, it is supported by great macros and telephotos, it cost me less to get into, and it felt absolutely perfect in my hands.

And now, after walking around with the camera and using it virtually all day yesterday (up until 3:30 in the morning, LOL), and reading about all of the incredible things I can actually do with it (once I get accustomed to all of the controls), I am very glad I made my decision.

Hope this helps,

Jack
Logged
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1377


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #50 on: January 07, 2009, 12:04:27 PM »
ReplyReply

I am thrilled with my recent 50D purchase too.  I have had it about three weeks and upgraded from my 30D.  The image quality and resolution improvement isn't a game-changer, but the control and features have substantially increased my 'keeper' rate.  I particularly like the AF Micro Adjust and the live preview magnification for close-focus.  These two features have already proven their worth.  I have also enjoyed the easier customization and the Auto ISO that was missing in the 30D.  Generally, the 50D is a significant improvement in usability over my 30D.  I too am mostly concerned about getting extra reach from my lenses, so the crop factor is a plus.  

I don't baby my cameras. I take them in rain, and snow, on kayaks and canoes, and I even carry them in the bad parts of town, so the 5dMKII just scared me.  I can fathom breaking or getting a $1,100 camera stolen, but a doing the same with a $3,000 one is just too much for my heart to bear, and if it is too expensive for me to take anywhere, I won't get the shots I want to have.  

Everything in moderation...compromise...best of both worlds...neither fish nor fowl...have your cake and eat it too...balanced...the 50D is a really nice pro-amateur camera.
Logged

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

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
mfunnell
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


WWW
« Reply #51 on: January 08, 2009, 12:18:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fike
I am thrilled with my recent 50D purchase too.  I have had it about three weeks and upgraded from my 30D.
[..]
Everything in moderation...compromise...best of both worlds...neither fish nor fowl...have your cake and eat it too...balanced...the 50D is a really nice pro-amateur camera.
I have also had my 50D for a little while now, and am also very happy with it.  I, too, shoot mostly at the "long end" of things, with my 100-400 being my most-used lens, mostly for wildlife, so an APS-C sensor makes sense for me.

I did have the opportunity, over Christmas, to play a bit with my 50D (about 1000 shutter clicks, now, compared with 14,000-odd on my 30D).  I observed a few things and so did a few pixel-peeping exercises to compare my 30D with my father's 40D and my new 50D in some side-by-side comparisons (but not in any way a rigourous set of comparitive tests).

The first thing I verified, to my own satisfaction, was that the additional resolution of the 50D is really only available for use with the best of my lenses.  When shooting with, say, my 35mm f2 lens at a range of apertures, with a range of subjects etc. I found all the cameras produced essentially the same useable image quality.  Using one of my 3 "good enough" lenses (17-55f2.8IS, 100-400L or 100mm macro), however, provided substantially more detail with the 50D.  The 30D and 40D were, to my eye, pretty close together in the useable IQ stakes, while with the right shot and the right lens the 50D could do substantially better, at least while pixel-peeping on-screen at 100%.

The second thing I more-or-less verified was that one of the things (but far from the only thing) that accounts for this is precision of focus.  Taking repeated shots of the same subject with the same framing, changing focus between shots, showed far more variability with the 50D (when viewing on-screen at 100%) than with the 30D and 40D.  This was not because of any particular problem with AF on the 50D as such (as near as I could tell) but simply that the sensor on the 50D has sufficient resolution to actually register very small differences in focus and make them apparent when pixel-peeping the results.  This can, of course, be masked by stopping down to increase DOF and varies with choice of subject, subject distance etc.  But I convinced myself that for many subjects the 50D will show minor variations in focus that will go unseen on the 30D and 40D.

The third thing I verified is that the difference is real enough to be seen in 13"x19" prints if the shot was from the right lens, taken while focused and stabilised well then printed on media that can show the advantage.  I printed two photos, one of a rainbow lorikeet (a very bright parrot) taken with my 100-400 and another landscape/cityscape taken with my 17-55.  Comparing with similar (but not the same) photos taken with the same lenses on my 30D showed no particular advantage to the 50D prints when printed on Canon Photo Paper Plus at 13"x19", even when examining the prints closely.  Printing on Crane Silver Rag or Harman FB AL gloss, however, showed a small but clear advantage to the 50D prints that was visible at "normal viewing distance" and reasonably obvious when examining the prints closely.  A smaller advantage to the 50D showed when printing on Hahnemuehle Photo Rag with a 10"x16" image area (a size I often use).  I can only assume that this advantage would show more clearly if printing larger prints (I can't, at home at least).  I also verified that there's no real observable difference in print quality between the 30D and 50D when printing at A4/letter sizes or smaller.

I'll also note that the 50D has a number of usability and convenience upgrades over my 30D, but not so much over the 40D.  I like, and make much use of, the additional dedicated button for engaging the AF separately from exposure/shutter release.  I very much appreciate the dust-shaker in the AA filter (aka "sensor cleaning").  I like having the ISO setting on full-time display.  I really like the custom settings I can set up then access via the mode dial (though I'd prefer the 3 settings of the 40D; and give up the new "CA" mode I'll never use on my 50D).  I'd no doubt appreciate live view, if I ever used it (which I don't).  I presume the 50D's enhancements there are valuable for those who do use live view.  I like the ability to work RAW files "harder" with 14-bit recording.  I like the improvements made to AF.  With the 50D, however, I'm somewhat less keen on the larger file sizes (unavoidable though they are if I want the resolution) and apparently higher battery drain (not that an extra spare battery is that big a deal).

This has led me to a number of conclusions:

  • Unless using one of my better lenses, there's not much point preferring my 50D over my 30D, and the same goes for the 40D.
  • The 40D is pretty much as good as the 50D (and even has some minor advantages) if you're not planning on making large prints, investing in lenses good enough to take advantage of the 50D sensor or have no real need to for the 50D's improvements to live view.
  • Even with good lenses, you won't get the advantage of the 50D's resolution unless you also attend, carefully, to camera movement, precise focus and DOF management and a range of other minor sins that go mostly unnoticed on the 30D or 40D.
  • So I'll continue to use my 30D as my primary walk-around camera (mostly with either a small 35mm or 50mm prime plus a spare lens) and reserve my 50D for "special photographic" occasions.
  • And I'll recommend, when asked, that people seriously consider a 40D (or one of the more entry-level models) instead of a 50D if they don't plan on large prints or to purchase better and more expensive lenses.
The other thing much of this tells me is that perhaps we're getting to the end of megapixelage: why keep expanding pixel density if lenses, AF systems etc. start not being up to the job of acutally using the additional resolution?

   ...Mike
« Last Edit: January 08, 2009, 12:21:55 AM by mfunnell » Logged

Some digital cameras, some film cameras, some lenses & other kit.

Day-to-day photos on [span style='color:quot']flick[/span][span style='color:quot']r[/span], some of my better ones at [span style='color:quot']d[/span][span style='color:quot']A[/span].
Etienne Cassar
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 95


« Reply #52 on: January 08, 2009, 05:33:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for your feedback.  I am really tempted to go for the 50D rather than the 5DMkII and use the extra cash to buy another good lens instead.  Right now I only have the 24-105mm F4 L lens, and I need to get the 100mm Macro and a telephoto lens.  At this stage I have no doubt about the IQ of the 50D. But what I'm still not convinced about is the noise levels at high ISO.  Any of you have used the 50D in low light, long exposure, high ISO situations?  

Thanks,

Etienne
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8943


« Reply #53 on: January 08, 2009, 06:58:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ecassar
Thanks for your feedback.  I am really tempted to go for the 50D rather than the 5DMkII and use the extra cash to buy another good lens instead.  Right now I only have the 24-105mm F4 L lens, and I need to get the 100mm Macro and a telephoto lens.  At this stage I have no doubt about the IQ of the 50D. But what I'm still not convinced about is the noise levels at high ISO.  Any of you have used the 50D in low light, long exposure, high ISO situations?  

Thanks,

Etienne

Don't you worry! I've done the tests. The 50D doesn't even have the low noise of the 5D, never mind the 5D2.

One comparison I did was to find out if the 5D could compete with the 50D when shutter speed and DoF were equalised. That is, for example, the 50D at F4 and ISO 200 compared with the 5D at F8 and ISO 800. Shadow noise was about equal.

DoF equivalence is not exactly proportional to the crop factor. It seems to vary slightly depending on lens and distance to subject.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad