Well, there's the rub. If you never intend to print at anything larger than 11 x 14, you can use just about any camera out there 6 megapixel or higher. The 30D is an excellent camera for that range of print. Dynamic range, noise, etc, not going to be any better or worse than any other camera. The 50D has a tad more dynamic range, lower noise and better color retention than the 30D going by the DXO Mark ratings, and both are about equal to a 40D as well, but I don't think you'll see a bit of difference in standard size prints between any camera.
The difference over the 30D comes with the ability to shoot at higher native ISO's, Live View and burst buffer, along with the added resolution. The difference between the 40D and 50D is simply resolution and maybe a better LCD screen and lens customizations. I've used all three cameras. Put it this way, if somebody placed a D300, 30D, 40D and 50D on a table and said "take one, it's yours", I'd be picking up the 50D. (Never mind the fact I already own three of the above listed bodies, don't have a 40D)
All the talk about noise with the 50D is just that...noise, print for print, it's the best of the current crop of APS-C bodies out there.
mfurman wrote:
I would not even dream of printing 16x24 from a 8 Mpixel camera.
I have had 20D, 30D, 400D, 40D crop cameras and tested 50D. I claim that the progress has stalled. I do not see that 50D is better than 30D as far as dynamic range or color depth at higher ISO (1600) is concerned. 40D at $800 (or C$820) is the best value on the market now.
Let me put it differently, if I crop 50D image to 10 Mpixels, the results will be worse than what I get from 40D.
Gary Gray:
All the talk about noise with the 50D is just that...noise, print for print, it's the best of the current crop of APS-C bodies out there.
You mentioned DXO mark ratings. If you go carefully through them, you may notice that Nikon D90 seems to have good test scores. The results of the tests look strange but it appears that D90 is a winner in APS-C category
The problem I have with the DXO Mark ratings is that it doesn't seem to account for resolution and body features, which in my opinion trumps noise issues. Haven't used the D90, but I'd bet it's a damn good camera. Video aside (which I find useless from a professional standpoint), the real difference at that level is simply a choice of features and what makes the best sense economically. Since most of my glass is Canon glass, the choice for me would be to stick with Canon, but if somebody was invested in Nikon glass, the D90 would probably be a good all around choice. I personally wouldn't need a D90. Now, if the D3x dropped in price a couple of grand, I might pick one up and invest in more/better Nikon glass.
I hate to resurrect an older post, but I just wanted to comment and thank the above. I have been struggling with my 50D for a few months now and the noise at lower ISO's 400 and 800 in particular. The tip about adding 1/3 exp comp really makes a difference. Noise at even the pushed ISO of 1250 is now better than my 800 exposures before, and even 3200 looks not too shabby when adding 1/3. For those of you thinking the noise is bad, try this, it just might help you as well!
I had the 50D for a while and it was great when the exposure was correct. However, when shooting wildlife (and things change quickly), I found that when underexposed, even at lower ISO's, the 50D was poor. When PP, the noise was awful. I switched back to the 40D and love it. I find that even when underexposed, I have much more freedom and the files hold up better than the 50D. In reality, the 50D just takes more PP than the 40D (from my findings).
