Toronto Photography Meetup Group

Hello

I'm trying to decide if I should get get a used Canon 40D or spend $100 to $150 more for a used Canon 50D.

I bring this up because it seems there are some benefits in the Canon 40D. Aside from being cheaper, apparently the Canon 40D has less noise at higher ISO.

Then the Canon 50D has higher noise due to the fact that it has more megapixels. Although, how bad is the increase in noise for the Canon 50D? Then apparently the 50D has a better image processor which I hear helps with the noise.

So, is it worth going the extra mile in cash for the Canon 50D? Also, are there other opinions of why one is better than the other?

P.S I know I have a similar thread about a Canon 40D vs Canon T1i. I guess now I'm looking for some advice to fine tune my decision.

Thanks for your help

I have a 40D and love it. It is good up to 800 ISO, depending on the scene. I ahve never used a 50D so I can't really comment on it.

The 50D's LCD blows the 40D's out of the water. If you do a lot of chimping it's worth the extra $$.

I think I chimed in on that other post on the 40D vs t1i.

I did once have a 50D but now I currently use the 40D as a backup, but if it was my primary, I may lean towards the 50D for the LCD and MF adjustment capability, and holds reference lens properties for post adjusment/corrections which I really miss in the 40D, and way better lcd.

But then again thinking about the 50D, it did have quite a bit more noise compared to the 40D.

Conclusion: none well maybe I'd be leaning towards a 50D

50D image downsampled to 10mp is cleaner than 40D.

Go 40D and save the cash for lenses. You'll always get more life out of lenses than bodies.

The differences you'll be seeing, will probably give you a few months of growth in your photography from one to the other. I would save the cash until you want or can, buy 5D or something.

I have a 40D and I'm happy with it. I look at the 50D as a small upgrade, mexapixels, LCD, focus points, etc., in comparison and not worth the $100-200 more.

I have the 40D for over four years and I love it. Very good low noise performance, fast shutter count.

I'd take it over the 50D any time of the week.

40D or 7D, forget 50D, you'll be disappointed having spent extra 150

I have the 40D and "upgraded" to the 50D... had it for 2 weeks before returning it as the effective image quality I could get from the newer 50D was actually less than what I got out of my 40D. This takes into account downscaling and differences in resolution. 50D was a dud in my opinion. Stick with the 40D or jump to the 60 or even better, move to the 7D or 5D (mk1 or 2)

Actual photo test results that I did are as follows:
http://pbruch.dyndns.org/40vs50/

After that episode, I upgraded to the 5D2 but have kept my 40 as my backup camera and continue to be very happy with it.

Have to agree with fizbot. I had the 50D for a time and also consider it a dud. Personally I think they crammed in too may megapixels and it has had focus issues imho. Stick with the 40D.

Thanks for everyones opinion. I wanted to confirm my suspicion that the Canon 40D could be a better choice over the 50D.

Instead of spending a bit more money on a camera body. I'll probably put more money towards a better lens. That being said, does a Canon EF lens go well on the Canon 40D (which is a EF-S mount I believe)?

the 40D is compatible with both EF and EF-S lenses.

However, if your question is, what EF lens will be good for the 40D, then that is a different question altogether and cannot be answered before you tell us what you want to use it for.

Well, getting an EF lens in oppose to EF-S could be a long term investment.

So, if I get an EF lens now I can still use it if I upgrade to Canon 7D or 5D. Also, I could benefit now if the image quality is better in an EF lens.

When it comes down to it. I'm looking at spending $130 for a lens for a Canon 40DD. Although if getting an EF lens is $150 more, I might consider it.

the 7D can also take EF-S lenses.

What focal length range are you looking at?

If you are looking at the ultra-wide field of view, there are no EF-only lenses suitable for the 1.6 crop sensor size.

Yes, but the 5D cant take EF-S lenses. I'd like to keep my options open to upgrade. Although, I could be contempt with the 1.6 crop for the next while.


Right now I'm just looking for a kit standard lens. Perhaps a Canon 18-55 II with IS. Used ones seem to go for around $140. I'm also thinking about cutting corners and just getting a Canon 18-55 for $80.

so, you'd prefer EF. Ok.

But kit standard lenses are all EF-S.

EF Lenses in that similar range include the 16-35, 17-40, 24-70, 24-105, and the 28-135.

The first 4 lenses are L lenses, which are not cheap.

Even the 28-135 costs around $440 at B&H.

EF-S wise, there's the 18-55, 15-85, 17-85, 17-55, 18-135...

but i suppose you're not interested in those.

Next question: What's your budget?

Really my budget for a lens is about $140. Then I'd go $200 if I feel its worth the money.

If $440 is the cheapest for an EF lens, that is too much at the moment. In that case I might start thinking which is a good first EF-S lens.

Don't know about used, but for new lenses, take a look at this page:

http://www.photoprice.ca/cm/00010-00001 ... enses.html

I'm curious ... for people who did not like the 50d ... what lens were you using with it? Personally I use the 17-40 and 70-200 F2.8

*I'm only asking because I read that lens quality seems to really effect sensors at the density of the 50d/7d

As for the 7D ... had had one for 2 weeks and found ISO 1600 and up to be better then the 40d/50d noise performance wise. But under ISO 800 and down was better on the 40d and 50d.

My final decision.

I'll probably get a 18-55 II IS lens and the 50mm prime lens for my 40D.

Excellent choice!