40D Mark II or 50D Mark -I

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 end

Archive 2009 · 40D Mark II or 50D Mark -I

Gochugogi
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · 40D Mark II or 50D Mark -I

keithreeder wrote:
aznature wrote:
Am I missing anything?

The posts saying "my 50D's IQ is better than my 40D's"?

Now as it happens, I love my 40D and the 50D leaves me pretty cold, but I really find that this kind of "selective reading" irks me somewhat.

The truth is, a lot of folk prefer their 50D to their 40D, and just because you choose to ignore that fact, it doesn't make it go away...

I'm one of those that prefer my 50D to my 40D. I shot with them side by side for 3 months and the IQ of the 50D was a notch better for large prints, needed less post processing and I loved the new LCD. I probably hung on to the 40D longer after reading all the bitch 'n whine here at FM. But I just couldn't fault 50D IQ as much as I looked. Sure no high ISO improvement but it's just as good as the 40D except with less rezzing up for large prints. As nice as the 40D is, I didn't need it anymore and gave it to a happy relative.

Jan 05, 2009 at 08:19 AM

philber
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #2 · 40D Mark II or 50D Mark -I

I tend to agree with you, David, except that Canon would have been lambasted for "just another insufficient upgrade", etc..., and its spec sheet would have been uncomfortably close to that of the cheaper Nikon D90, which offers a modest video capability thrown in.

Jan 05, 2009 at 08:23 AM

George.ML
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · 40D Mark II or 50D Mark -I

philber wrote:
I tend to agree with you, David, except that Canon would have been lambasted for "just another insufficient upgrade", etc..., and its spec sheet would have been uncomfortably close to that of the cheaper Nikon D90, which offers a modest video capability thrown in.

Well, the other sensible thing for Canon (in addition to putting the 450D/Xsi sensor in the 40D) would have been to price it closer to the D90.
This would have silenced the “insufficient upgrade" critics.

Let’s face it – even with 15mp, the 50D is still in the same class as the D90, not the D300.
Canon was hoping to charge more for the extra megapixels and priced the 50D closer to the D300.
But look what happened - the market did not respond well, so the 50D price dropped with 24% just one month after introduction.

Jan 05, 2009 at 09:17 AM

trumpet_guy
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #4 · 40D Mark II or 50D Mark -I

Gochugogi wrote:
....
I probably hung on to the 40D longer after reading all the bitch 'n whine here at FM. But I just couldn't fault 50D IQ as much as I looked. Sure no high ISO improvement but it's just as good as the 40D except with less rezzing up for large prints. As nice as the 40D is, I didn't need it anymore and gave it to a happy relative.

Kudos! That's a very nice gift. I bet they are loving it.

With all the complaining I'm seeing on the boards about the 50D, I'm glad to
see some counterexamples here.

I do think some of the disappointment people feel is because they are comparing
100% views of the 50D with 100% views of the 40D, and this is comparing
different magnification. So the larger magnification level seems less sharp
per pixel. Not surprising.

Glad to hear large prints look good.

Jan 05, 2009 at 09:44 AM

trumpet_guy
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #5 · 40D Mark II or 50D Mark -I

I do think the 50D will see a fairly quick update to 60D so that Canon can put
video in it and compete with the D90 on that score. The video is well received on
the 5DII.

Jan 05, 2009 at 09:47 AM

Ian.Dobinson
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · 40D Mark II or 50D Mark -I

philber wrote:
Mike, I prefer to compare A4 prints, since that is my "normal life" output, and it also avoids biasing the comparison, as you rightly outline. There might be greater differences with 200% crops in DPP, or A3+ prints, but I will upgrade only in return for an improvement in everyday IQ, not if it is restricted to "marginal" shots, views or prints.
That being said, if indeed there is a point of diminishing return in increasing pixel count, the possibility of a 45D is attractive: lighter files, higher fps, maybe even better ISO performance, I think the OP has a point. What I don't see on the other hand is how that camera would be any cheaper than 50D. It would be more a case of splitting the product segment, as they did with 1D and 1Ds, and which they have right now with 40D and 50D, until they pull 40D out of production.
What I see as more likely is giving 50D video, but that is just my 2 cents.

For me the video thing is the strange 1. they bring out 50D out of sync with the uptil then 18mth replacement scheduel, and then not even a month later announce the 5d2 with video. Now you can bet your bottom $ that next rebel (pos 500d) which is next up for replacement will include Video as competition to the D90 (and video will be the next 'Must Have' now everthing has LV) so that will leave the very new 50D stuck in the middle of the range but missing the video capability which could help shift quite a few units even if the buyers never actually use it.
I also would think that Nikon will pretty quickly come out with a D400 and that will most likely have video

Jan 05, 2009 at 10:23 AM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #7 · 40D Mark II or 50D Mark -I

50D should have used an improved version of the already excellent 450D sensor.
They won't release a 45D though.

I wonder if Nikon will jump on the band wagon or just improve the D300 sensor in the D400?

Jan 06, 2009 at 01:18 AM

philber
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #8 · 40D Mark II or 50D Mark -I

Pixel Perfect wrote:

I wonder if Nikon will jump on the band wagon or just improve the D300 sensor in the D400?

That is the first question. The second one is agreeing a definition of "improve".

Jan 06, 2009 at 04:42 AM

mdbassman
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #9 · 40D Mark II or 50D Mark -I

trumpet_guy wrote:
Gochugogi wrote:
....
I probably hung on to the 40D longer after reading all the bitch 'n whine here at FM. But I just couldn't fault 50D IQ as much as I looked. Sure no high ISO improvement but it's just as good as the 40D except with less rezzing up for large prints. As nice as the 40D is, I didn't need it anymore and gave it to a happy relative.

Kudos! That's a very nice gift. I bet they are loving it.

With all the complaining I'm seeing on the boards about the 50D, I'm glad to
see some counterexamples here.

I do think some of the disappointment people feel is because they are comparing
100% views of the 50D with 100% views of the 40D, and this is comparing
different magnification. So the larger magnification level seems less sharp
per pixel. Not surprising.

Glad to hear large prints look good.

This Bob Adkins article on the 50D (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_eos_50D_resolution_confusion.html) seems to be very informative and non-biased. I have seen out of the camera, jpeg files no post processing, printed 4x6, 8x10, 11x17 with the 40D&50D and I saw the 50D images sharper and more detailed.
Dan

Jan 06, 2009 at 01:51 PM

philber
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #10 · 40D Mark II or 50D Mark -I

There are other reasons why some people may prefer 40D pictures. Higher resolution is not necessarily understood, and uninformed viewers may consider lower-pixel-count pictures as "sharper" because, indeed, they have sharper delineations than higher-pixel-count ones. Cameras such as the 50D or the 5D2 deliver images where transitions are much more detailed, and thus more gradual. Some may prefer the more brutal transitions of lower resolution which they mistake for sharpness.

Jan 06, 2009 at 04:31 PM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end