For those that used both bodies before, I'd like to hear your comments regarding strictly the 50D image quality versus the 1D Mk II.

I know the advantages of the better autofocus and fps of the 1D series. But for image quality alone, is the 50D better?

Thanks in advance!

Define "image quality" - it's different things to different folks.

Clarity, sharpness, color, detail, etc

When you downsize the 15 mp 50D shot to the 8mp 1DII size. Yes the 50D will look better for sure. Thats almost 50 percent.

I have both cameras and I reach for the 50D if my subject does not require fantastic AF - i.e. relatively stationary and in good light. Otherwise I reach for the 1DII.

The 50D does produce some amazing files and when printed they look very nice - at the pixel level it is quite noisy though.

The thing for me is that most of my subjects require the AF of the 1DII so I use it far more often. A good IQ shot is not worth having if your subject is out of focus!

Well, I have the 40D and 1D II, and I will say the 40D does produce better results, with better contrast and colour and clearly a bit more detail. It's not a huge difference but it is noticeable. The 40D is noisier surprisingly at low ISO, and a bit better at high ISO with NR turned on. Prints though look great.

However, the AF of the 1D II in servo is far better, and I find unless I'm using fast L primes like the 300L f/2.8L IS, the 40D really struggles badly in AI servo with faster action in general.