monochrome wrote:
Want a better AF go buy the camera that a better AF.
That's the problem: Canon don't want to sell me a camera with better AF, unless I am prepared to buy a big, heavy, and costly 1D brick camera. What I will never do.
I really like my 40D, so initially I was contemplating keeping it, and getting the new 5D. After seeing the specs for it though, it looks like my 5D will be around for another 3 years. The 50D now looks much much more interesting.
Does anyone have any views on the IQ differences between the 50D and a 5Dmk1?
I'm aware that the 50D is not FF and won't have the same depth of field ability of the 5D, and also that there's a lot of differences in functionality.
What I'm wondering is whether there's a significant difference in IQ between the two, particularly so as there's shortly going to be a glut of used 5Ds hitting the market place, likely to be at a similar price to a new 50D.
So what has the edge, 12mp, FF with digic2, or 15mp, crop with digic4?
The 50D pixel density is so high that few lenses at apertures f1.2-f4 will be able to match its resolution.
For these apertures, the 5D will still have an edge in resolution/detail - despite the lower pixel count.
With few super lenses, like the 85/1.2L and the 50/1.2L, the 50D will have an edge over the 5D between f5.6-f11.
RAWs will still be cleaner on the 5D at ISO800+ but the sophisticated NR on the 50D will hide this difference if shooting JPG.
Overall, with very good lenses the 50D and 5D will have very similar IQ.
With not so good lenses, the 5D will have better IQ.
Mr_Sukebe wrote:
Does anyone have any views on the IQ differences between the 50D and a 5Dmk1?
I'm aware that the 50D is not FF and won't have the same depth of field ability of the 5D, and also that there's a lot of differences in functionality.
What I'm wondering is whether there's a significant difference in IQ between the two, particularly so as there's shortly going to be a glut of used 5Ds hitting the market place, likely to be at a similar price to a new 50D.
So what has the edge, 12mp, FF with digic2, or 15mp, crop with digic4?
The 50D is likely better before processing, and especially using camera jpeg. The 5D has a more mellow look. You want me to guess? Most people would prefer the 50D when comparing prints.
I am pushing 50yrs old and near sighted wearing contacts. Now I am both far and near sighted able to see near much better without glasses. I've tried a combination of glasses and one contact but I don't like either combination.
I was playing around with a 40D and was amazed how much better I could see the images on the 3" vs the 2" on my 1d MK2.
So my question is, will I be disappointed with the AF performance or any other aspect of shooting with an MK2 vs a 50d or 5d MK2?
I am getting into landscape shooting so the 5d full frame sensor would be nice, but I would still like to have the reserves to do sports shooting if the need arises.
kurt_in_vt wrote:
I apologize if this has been asked before.
I am pushing 50yrs old and near sighted wearing contacts. Now I am both far and near sighted able to see near much better without glasses. I've tried a combination of glasses and one contact but I don't like either combination.
I was playing around with a 40D and was amazed how much better I could see the images on the 3" vs the 2" on my 1d MK2.
So my question is, will I be disappointed with the AF performance or any other aspect of shooting with an MK2 vs a 50d or 5d MK2?
I am getting into landscape shooting so the 5d full frame sensor would be nice, but I would still like to have the reserves to do sports shooting if the need arises.
I am saying that the new camera has a bigger lcd screen so it's easier to see for preview reasons.
But will I be disappointed with the AF performance compared to my current body. This is the main reason I have a 1d, all of the other bodies I tried were not up to low light fast focus.
Well, one nice thing is that the lcd of the 50d is much higher resolution than the 40d. As for maf performance, the 1d series is probably better but the higher res lcd may help make up for it.
Steve
quote]kurt_in_vt wrote:
It doesn't.
I am saying that the new camera has a bigger lcd screen so it's easier to see for preview reasons.
But will I be disappointed with the AF performance compared to my current body. This is the main reason I have a 1d, all of the other bodies I tried were not up to low light fast focus.
That's what I might end up with at the end of the year (if God permits). 2 bodies and 2 lenses - clean and simple. Of course, I could sell the 30D and be even simpler, but a backup is good if one of the bodies has to be sent in for repair, etc. I'm no pro and only shoot outdoor portraits for colleagues, friends and their family plus a lot of landscape and macro. The Sigma 17-70 is a 1:2.3 macro, which is good enough for me for now. Wish there was a EF-S 17-70mm f/2.8 or 2.8-4 IS.
I was thinking the same thing with a lil variation
70-200 F4 on my 30d
17-40 on a new 50d since youll be able to bump it up a stop or two in ISO no need for the more expensive 16-35
I am pushing 50yrs old and near sighted wearing contacts. Now I am both far and near sighted able to see near much better without glasses. I've tried a combination of glasses and one contact but I don't like either combination.
I'm in the same boat. I've always been very nearsighted (20/400+, -8.5 diopter correction). Now I'm in my mid 50s and presbyoptic. My range of sharp vision is from six to seven inches in front of my face (yes, a whole inch of focusing capability). I call that my "built-in macro" range.
I used to wear contacts, but can't now, unless I want to wear contacts and reading glasses. The so-called bifocal contacts are for people who want to look good, not for people who want to see well. And you're right, the combination of glasses and one contact doesn't work very well either for people with strong corrections.
So I'm wearing high-index no-line bifocals (hideously expensive). With the two focal areas of my spectacles, I'm covered from 20 inches to infinity. When I need to see closer than that (the camera LCD, for instance), I peer over the top of my spectacles and move in to "built-in macro" range.
And for doggone sure, a larger LCD is a major advantage. When I went from the 1.8 inch of my 10D and 20D to the 5D, that was a huge measure of relief. Basically, it meant I could read the menues at normal reading distance rather than moving to my "built-in macro" range.
therock wrote:
A backup is to me, worth more than what I could sell it for.
Up to four cameras, that is true. With four cameras, you're well covered. Two cameras to shoot with, one camera as a backup, and one camera to be in the repair shop,
Thanks RDKirk. I am only -1.25 and -1.50 with an astigmatism in both eyes and might give bifocal contacts a shot first. I use contacts because in the winters up here, glasses are a pain.
I am sure I'll eventually have to switch to glasses.
