hasanahmad wrote:
So i go through a lot photography forums and there is a dislike of Canon 50D. Some even say the high ISO performance of the 40D is better than 50D. So what is true? Why is it that the latest in the double digit D models is getting the crap while 40D is being the 'preferred' option?
If you read enough photo forums, you can find people holding almost any opinion imaginable, and often offering a great deal of hyperbole about whatever issue they post on.
molson wrote:
By comically hysterical people who haven't actually tried using the cameras themselves...
I've hired, used, and shot hundreds of frames on both 50D and 5DII on multiple shoots and decided that
a) the 50D does absolutely nothing for me that the 40D doesn't and
b) I'm not prepared to pay professional camera money for a camera that isn't professionally specced, I'd rather wait for Canon to either admit the D700 exists and/or save up a bit more for a D700 itself......if the 7D does turn out to be the response to the D300 then probably very much the former, a professional quality crop camera would go a long way to dismissing a lot of people's (including my own) skepticism about Canon's recent products.
Believe it or not it is possible to dislike the 5DII without being a troll.....sometimes people can have different requirements from each other without having to resort to insults about the other party! This is how religion starts :-P
garyvot wrote:
But Canon is clearly pushing the boundaries of current technology to reach this pixel count
I think that's kind of the point, a lot of people think that pushing megapixels at the expense of pretty much every other area is a very cynical and marketing-led way to develop cameras....others say this is how business works.
Kolor-Pikker wrote:
I have a friend who used to shoot a MF Mamiya, and sometimes large format, yet he bought a 5DII the moment it was available. For those switching from MF to digital, the 5DII actually has an "amazing" 4fps shooting speed, AF that actually works, and any sort of weather sealing. It all depends on the point of view.
Haha...true! I just took the 'plunge' into digital recently with a 5DII and before that I was using a (manual) Hasselblad exclusively. This thing called "autofocus" is great and the camera even has a meter!
ONE THING FOR SURE:
There are a few guys over on Nature an Wildlife, using 50Ds exclusively, who are consistently posting some of the best BIF shots I've ever seen. Sharply focused, incredible detail, and great IQ. So for sure, the camera is capable of getting great shots ........ consistently.
ONE THING NOT FOR SURE:
That the guys who complain about the 50D, are capable of getting good photos with ANY camera, no matter how good the camera is.
hasanahmad wrote:
So i go through a lot photography forums and there is a dislike of Canon 50D. Some even say the high ISO performance of the 40D is better than 50D. So what is true? Why is it that the latest in the double digit D models is getting the crap while 40D is being the 'preferred' option?
(I'm paraphrasing here) 'I look at a lot of forums where people are saying X. Would you say X for me here, too, please? And, why X, anyway?'
I used the 50D, it's quite noisy, though not much different from other Canon Cameras. I'd say it's about on par with the 400D (XTi) in terms of the absolute quantity of noise, but the noise characteristics are more like that of the 5D Mark II (heavy chroma blotching etc.)
gdanmitchell wrote:
If you read enough photo forums, you can find people holding almost any opinion imaginable, and often offering a great deal of hyperbole about whatever issue they post on.
I recall the forums during spring and summer of 2008, before the 50D appeared, were filled with haters of the 40D: old skool, uncompetitive with Nikon, low MP, terrible LCD, etc. And when Canon addressed most of those issues, the haters moved on to the 50D.
Although the 40D and 50D are more alike than different, I really can't think of anything I liked better on the 40D. I do like the LCD and quick control menu on the 50D a lot better. I also find 50D metering handles backlit subjects and fill flash much better. Both cameras are pretty noisy at ISO 1600 and above and are essentially great cameras for good light or ISO 800 and lower.
I thought the 50D microadjust would be way cool but all my lenses seem to nail focus without it.
Wait, there is one 40D feature I like better: the battery door. I prefer the 40D metal hinge over the 50D plastic hinge.
jkurkjia wrote:
The 50D battery door can be added to or removed from a body in an instant; this a real blessing if you share a battery grip across a few bodies.
Regards,
Joe Kurkjian
Unfortunately it was the 30D that had the metal hinge that you had to break your nail to remove ;-) the 40D also had the 'quick release' plastic hinge
Chris Beaumont wrote:
Unfortunately it was the 30D that had the metal hinge that you had to break your nail to remove ;-) the 40D also had the 'quick release' plastic hinge
Hmm, maybe they changed the design during later production? My 40D had a metal hinge: press a small spring loaded tab to release the hinge and it was off. Ah dunno, took less than a second to remove.
Gochugogi wrote:
Hmm, maybe they changed the design during later production? My 40D had a metal hinge: press a small spring loaded tab to release the hinge and it was off. Ah dunno, took less than a second to remove.
Interesting....I bought my 40D in May 08, was yours an early one ?
Every time I have seen someone complain about 50D noise relative to 40D it has gradually emerged that she was comparing pixel for pixel. The mistake of comparing these two cameras at 100% without allowing for the greater enlargement of the 50D file is rife.
Generally, the majority of opinion on the web about digital cameras is quite heavily biased towards the lower megapixel cameras for this reason. This may be why Canon has decided to give in to the ignorance of the market and return to 10 Mpixels from 12 and 15 in the G11. Hopefully one day the deluded market will recognise its mistake and progress can resume.
I would advise you to adjust for this effect by assuming that cameras are better than consensus in proportion to the greater number of pixels, so a 50D is about a 50% better camera than a 40D.
cineski wrote:
If this was search only, it would be a library, not a forum. If we were only allowed to chat about things that have never been covered, there'd be about 30 active threads.
Bingo. Furthermore if we added up all the times the forum police replied "do a search" there would be enough time gathered there to say something really useful. We can dream...
I skipped the 40D, but now own two 50D's (plus 30D, 20D & 300D)
my first 50D was purchased last October when they first arrived, the 2nd purchased this July
If it didn't serve a purpose in my bag, I would never have bought #2. This is an amazing low light sports camera, the jpgs out of camera using the in camera noise reduction software are amazing, the RAW's, well at 6400 you don't want to view the RAWs but shoot sports on lg JPG and all is great.
Of course, a properly exposed image produces less noise than an underexposed image, and I often wonder if the knockers of this (or any) camera truely are using them correctly.
As a portrait camera alone, I would not have upgraded
the MP count of the 50D is waaay too much, twice the file size of my 30D which is crazy on a sports camera
but I purchased the 50D, because it was $3K cheaper than the 1DnMIII which is the only other sports camera with good low light abilities.
the first 50D has over 80K clicks on it, #2 is pushing 20K ... neither body has given me an ounce of trouble, once I learned to use it the way it should be used, I've been very happy with the results.
If you want to see images at ISO 6400 visit my proof gallery, then dog sports, then choose any agility or flyball trial that was shot indoors from Apr 09 forward ... the proof is in the proofs These images print noise free up to 11x14
I've gotta quit shootin' and hang with the Forums more. 