p.1 #1 · 40D to 50D comparison - worth an upgrade for near- free?
I currently have a 40D. Love it. Only major complaint would be the AF system for night-time sporting events.
I know of the 7D. The problem is making $50/week as it is with my current gear working for my college's sports information / news department and forking over an additional $1000 for a 7D doesn't seem worth it until I graduate.
Due to the recent eBay Bing Cashback offers, I've been tempted to upgrade to a 50D for the micro-adjust (I swear my 50/1.4 and 70-200 2.8 are off ever-so-slightly), the better LCD, actual 100-3200 ISO + 6400 option for less than $100 for what I could end up selling my 40D for.
I shoot probably 50% of my shots at ISO3200 and have had multiple times that 6400 would have been nice, allowing me to use my 300 F/4 IS. Here's the kicker - I shoot at the M-setting (5.2MP) on my 40D as everything is either for web usage or for newspaper print (160DPI), or 4x6 sized prints.
I can't seem to find any actual hard data with the 40D to 50D at ISO3200/6400 at print sizes. Just at per-pixel size. I personally know that ISO3200 is usable on the 40D and can be cleaned up pretty nicely as in my following shot.
p.1 #2 · 40D to 50D comparison - worth an upgrade for near- free?
Burst speed on the 40d is actually faster. If you shoot sports, that may be a factor for you, other than that, micro adjustment would be the only benefit for me. I have no desire to use the video, and the slightly bigger LCD is a non-factor as well as well as the "more megapixels". I have heard the AF is really no better on the 50.
p.1 #3 · 40D to 50D comparison - worth an upgrade for near- free?
troy12n wrote:
Burst speed on the 40d is actually faster. If you shoot sports, that may be a factor for you, other than that, micro adjustment would be the only benefit for me. I have no desire to use the video, and the slightly bigger LCD is a non-factor as well as well as the "more megapixels". I have heard the AF is really no better on the 50.
The 50D doesn't have video and I think if you can't get a shot at 6.3 frames per second an extra 0.2 isn't going to help that much.
I had a 40D for some months and then upgraded it to a 50D and I think it is very much worthwhile.
The 50D is an excellent fast camera with plenty of meg for doing some cropping and obviously needs less enlargement than the 40D. The new LCD is really nice as is micro adjust.
It's a typical Canon incremental upgrade but the 50D is a really excellent camera given an undeserved bad press IMO
p.1 #4 · 40D to 50D comparison - worth an upgrade for near- free?
troy12n wrote:
Burst speed on the 40d is actually faster. If you shoot sports, that may be a factor for you, other than that, micro adjustment would be the only benefit for me. I have no desire to use the video, and the slightly bigger LCD is a non-factor as well as well as the "more megapixels". I have heard the AF is really no better on the 50.
I think both are at 6.3FPS under optimal conditions. The measured 40D FPS is 6.3FPS but was rounded off to 6.5 in specs by Canon.
