• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Canon 40D vs 50D

L

Lalakai

Golden Member
This will be first major digital camera for me; up to now I've held with the film, shooting the Canon 1N and 3 (so i have good canon lenses and flashes). On a scale of 1-10 for cameral skills and abilities........8; semi-professional with alot of nature work and construction documentation.

I've read the reviews on each camera and understand the main differences. At this point the price break between two isn't significant. The 50D will give more pixals but at a cost in the noise factor. The live view option isn't critical for me. My cameras get used outside a majority of the time, so the weather sealing on the 40D is attractive.

Hopefully someone out there has used both, and can give me personal experiences between them. The 40D seemed to hit a "sweet spot" with a good balance of options and abilities. The 50D improved on some but sacrificed others. But was the trade-off worth it?

I'ld welcome any feedback or recommendations you have. Thanks
 
Both cameras have SOME weather sealing. It's not full like the 5D however. I believe the 50D actually has a few upgrades to the weather sealing over the 40D.

Most reviews agree that the detail gained by the 50D is worth the small increase in noise. Canon did a good job optimizing the sensor to handle a 50ish% increase in pixels at very little noise increase.

The major advantages of the 50D are:
AF microfocus adjust(a 1D feature)
4x resolution screen
Improved live view
Improved sensor cleaning
High ISO expansion(not that important due to noise)
HDMI out
Peripheral illumination correction

I personally found these features worth the cost increase. If you look hard enough you can find the 50D for right around $1000 right now. That's not all that much more than a 40D body.

You will need quality glass to bring out the resolution of the 50D. I recommend starting out with the 17-55mm IS if possible.
 
The camera hates bad lighting. Not high ISO. I know that sounds strange, but there is a difference. Sometimes you need to stop down with out a tripod, and you are forced to go high ISO.
But yeah, 90% of the time, high ISO is used in bad lighting.
I bought a 40D when it was new, I decided to hold out for future releases though. However, as posted by PurdueRy...the 50D is amazing at it's cropping ability. The guy that prints my large prints had a 50D in the store, so he decided to shoot some birds with it.
breathtaking enlargements. Smacks my camera around when it comes to large prints and cropping. I can't cut much out if I print anything beyond 8x10. But on a 50D, you have options.

And like above, you need good lenses. For zooms, if you can't afford L lenses, read some reviews and get some alternatives. I have the 17-55 2.8 IS, and it's fantastic. You can also get a Tamron 17-50 if you can tolerate it's LOUD AF motor. That's a sharp little sucker.
Or stick with prosumer primes. Think, 28 1.8 USM, 85 1.8 USM. For telephoto, skip most of the consumer stuff. if you can't afford the 70-200 2.8L, get the f4 version. Fantastic and sharp and way cheaper. Or get the prime 200 2.8L. They are worth every penny.

--edit--Only one possible reason NOT to get it. If you shoot indoors all the time in crappy lighting without a flash. Even then the differences aren't all that much if handled properly.
The negative comments about came from an improper DP Review.
ACR won't even handle my 40D's shots ISO 800 and above. It's pathetic. C'mon Adobe.
Canon's DPP app will pull the most amazing detail without even playing with sharpness and NR.
Then, to knock your socks off, ratchet the sharpness slider under the RGB tab in DPP. You can bring it to 70-80% before it looks over processed. I can't duplicate that amount of sharpness in LR. The only thing that comes close is one of my actions I bought in Photoshop. And that is a multi-step whiz bang approach that makes a lot of layers, and mashes up some channel wizardry.
 
Originally posted by: PurdueRy
Both cameras have SOME weather sealing. It's not full like the 5D however. I believe the 50D actually has a few upgrades to the weather sealing over the 40D.
Click to expand...

Uhhh....5D has weather sealing? Excuse me?

I thought only Pentax and Olympus offered weather sealing at a cheap(IE: not 1D prices) price point. Hell the K20D gives you 'full weather sealing' at only 650 dollars @_@
 
Originally posted by: magomago
Originally posted by: PurdueRy
Both cameras have SOME weather sealing. It's not full like the 5D however. I believe the 50D actually has a few upgrades to the weather sealing over the 40D.
Click to expand...

Uhhh....5D has weather sealing? Excuse me?

I thought only Pentax and Olympus offered weather sealing at a cheap(IE: not 1D prices) price point. Hell the K20D gives you 'full weather sealing' at only 650 dollars @_@
Click to expand...

I don't know about the 5D, but the 40D got more sealing than the 30D, and the 50D enjoys even more seals. Full weather sealing, no. But I got caught in the rain, and nothing happened.

Weather sealing is a weird thing. It's there just in case. I have seen pros using D2/3's and 1D whatevers using weather coverings.

Just don't take it in the shower 😉
 
much thanks to everyone. gave me the info i needed. initially i was leaning toward the 40D, but now i'll go for the 50D. Thanks again. have a good weekend.
 
Originally posted by: magomago
Originally posted by: PurdueRy
Both cameras have SOME weather sealing. It's not full like the 5D however. I believe the 50D actually has a few upgrades to the weather sealing over the 40D.
Click to expand...

Uhhh....5D has weather sealing? Excuse me?

I thought only Pentax and Olympus offered weather sealing at a cheap(IE: not 1D prices) price point. Hell the K20D gives you 'full weather sealing' at only 650 dollars @_@
Click to expand...

My bad, I messed up. Just point it out and move on. For the sake of clarity, the 5D is partially weather sealed like the 40/50D. Maybe a bit more so.
 
Originally posted by: Lalakai

The 50D improved on some but sacrificed others. But was the trade-off worth it?
Click to expand...

The 50d isn't "sacrificed" or "worse" than the 40d in ANY WAY. Period. Sick of seeing this nonsense repeated everywhere lol. There may be an increase in noise at the pixel level at high isos in some situations in the raw file. However this is more than made up for by the massive increase in pixels.

A 50d print made at the same size will never, all other things being equal, look worse than a 40d print. Period.

If you have a 40d there isn't really any point in upgrading unless you need something specifically. However if you are buying now the 50d is worth it. The screen is massively improved. The camera can capture more detail in good light with a good lens. Focus micro-adjust as well. 😉
 
Originally posted by: PurdueRy
For the sake of clarity, the 5D is partially weather sealed like the 40/50D. Maybe a bit more so.
Click to expand...

I have two 5D's and AFAIK they are not weather sealed at all. When I took one to the Amazon two years agho, I was very careful to have a 1 gallon zip lock bag handy for occasional showers. 🙂

 
Originally posted by: corkyg
Originally posted by: PurdueRy
For the sake of clarity, the 5D is partially weather sealed like the 40/50D. Maybe a bit more so.
Click to expand...

I have two 5D's and AFAIK they are not weather sealed at all. When I took one to the Amazon two years agho, I was very careful to have a 1 gallon zip lock bag handy for occasional showers. 🙂
Click to expand...

http://www.usa.canon.com/consu...modelid=17662&pageno=3

Canon calls the body "weather resistant". It has seals, similar to the 40/50D(and maybe before that) around the memory card, battery, etc. It's not fully weather sealed like the 1D no, but it does have some level of environmental protection.

I say the 5D might be a bit better in terms of weather sealing than the 50D because it doesn't have a pop up flash.
 
Originally posted by: extra
Originally posted by: Lalakai

The 50D improved on some but sacrificed others. But was the trade-off worth it?
Click to expand...

The 50d isn't "sacrificed" or "worse" than the 40d in ANY WAY. Period. Sick of seeing this nonsense repeated everywhere lol. There may be an increase in noise at the pixel level at high isos in some situations in the raw file. However this is more than made up for by the massive increase in pixels.

A 50d print made at the same size will never, all other things being equal, look worse than a 40d print. Period.

If you have a 40d there isn't really any point in upgrading unless you need something specifically. However if you are buying now the 50d is worth it. The screen is massively improved. The camera can capture more detail in good light with a good lens. Focus micro-adjust as well. 😉
Click to expand...

Thank you for stating this. Too many people put too much faith in a, in my opinion, overly harsh and inaccurate dpreview review. Read other reviews. They almost all conclude that the 50D is an amazing camera(as is almost any DSLR nowadays!)
 
Yeah it was a bit of an odd review. I really like dpreview but it makes me facepalm when they test the brand new cameras all with adobe camera raw for the majority of the raw shots.

The rebel xsi has been out for a long time now and even now new versions of DPP give me noticeably better results than ACR does (latest versions of both--however NOT the "preview" acr version that hasn't been released yet). ACR is useful sometimes but using third party software isn't the be-all-end-all test of a camera's image quality. Files generated from iso 1600 shots that are done by dpp with noise reduction are way, way better than results by acr (for my xsi). Night and day difference. That's not even taking into account the automatic Canon lens corrections available in DPP (the auto CA removal is so good it's mind blowing).

They did the same thing with the olympus camera reviews lately (ep-1 and e620). Why would you use acr that barely has support for these newly released cameras? It's useful to see *some* identical comparison or whatever, but it doesn't show you the potential maximum image quality provided by the camera--all it is is a test of how good acr's support for the camera is *facepalm*.
 
I know when I was contemplating between a 40D or 50D many months back I decided to just get the 50D. At the time the 40D was not a whole lot cheaper and went for about $900 used. I snagged the Canon 50D and it feels very nice in my hands and I'm a small guy (5'4" Asian). The Canon 50D cost me $1250'ish with a 28-135mm kit lens. This lens sells for about $200 used which is not bad. You can learn on the kit lens and check out your camera and still sell it for most of what it cost you vs just the 50D body alone when you move up in lenses.
 
if buying new, just get a 50D. buying used, 40D's can be had for a great deal, allowing you to splurge more on glass. talking about weather sealing on the xxD line is a joke IMO, heh.
 
Originally posted by: extra
Yeah it was a bit of an odd review. I really like dpreview but it makes me facepalm when they test the brand new cameras all with adobe camera raw for the majority of the raw shots.

The rebel xsi has been out for a long time now and even now new versions of DPP give me noticeably better results than ACR does (latest versions of both--however NOT the "preview" acr version that hasn't been released yet). ACR is useful sometimes but using third party software isn't the be-all-end-all test of a camera's image quality. Files generated from iso 1600 shots that are done by dpp with noise reduction are way, way better than results by acr (for my xsi). Night and day difference. That's not even taking into account the automatic Canon lens corrections available in DPP (the auto CA removal is so good it's mind blowing).

They did the same thing with the olympus camera reviews lately (ep-1 and e620). Why would you use acr that barely has support for these newly released cameras? It's useful to see *some* identical comparison or whatever, but it doesn't show you the potential maximum image quality provided by the camera--all it is is a test of how good acr's support for the camera is *facepalm*.
Click to expand...

dpreview is far too influential. they spend the almost the whole review showing you menus and pixel peeping (using a raw converter that everyone seems to hate, or default jpgs), and pretty much none of it telling you how the camera is in use or how prints are. so why are they so influential? oh, because it appeals to gadget fetishists and bench racers to pixel peep.


someone should pick a standard size print (bigger than 8x10, maybe 13x19 or maybe even larger like A2) or several print sizes, and tell us where the cameras are indistinguishable. i'm going to guess that you'd need at least 13x19 to see the difference between current APS SLRs. imaging resource used to print their samples and tell you how they looked, but i think they've stopped doing it now.
 
I would get the 50D for the AF Micro Adjust alone. Back when I was using Canon I was sick and tired of lenses that front/back focused, especially third party ones, and being able to do nothing about it.
 
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: extra
Yeah it was a bit of an odd review. I really like dpreview but it makes me facepalm when they test the brand new cameras all with adobe camera raw for the majority of the raw shots.

The rebel xsi has been out for a long time now and even now new versions of DPP give me noticeably better results than ACR does (latest versions of both--however NOT the "preview" acr version that hasn't been released yet). ACR is useful sometimes but using third party software isn't the be-all-end-all test of a camera's image quality. Files generated from iso 1600 shots that are done by dpp with noise reduction are way, way better than results by acr (for my xsi). Night and day difference. That's not even taking into account the automatic Canon lens corrections available in DPP (the auto CA removal is so good it's mind blowing).

They did the same thing with the olympus camera reviews lately (ep-1 and e620). Why would you use acr that barely has support for these newly released cameras? It's useful to see *some* identical comparison or whatever, but it doesn't show you the potential maximum image quality provided by the camera--all it is is a test of how good acr's support for the camera is *facepalm*.
Click to expand...

dpreview is far too influential. they spend the almost the whole review showing you menus and pixel peeping (using a raw converter that everyone seems to hate, or default jpgs), and pretty much none of it telling you how the camera is in use or how prints are. so why are they so influential? oh, because it appeals to gadget fetishists and bench racers to pixel peep.


someone should pick a standard size print (bigger than 8x10, maybe 13x19 or maybe even larger like A2) or several print sizes, and tell us where the cameras are indistinguishable. i'm going to guess that you'd need at least 13x19 to see the difference between current APS SLRs. imaging resource used to print their samples and tell you how they looked, but i think they've stopped doing it now.
Click to expand...

Their stupid door thing pisses me off to no end. Is it worth it to nag Canon to hell and back about something that easily avoidable?
 
I just got a 50D new and I gotta say I am happy I went with a 50d instead of the 40d. the micro af adjustment alone is worth the extra bucks spent.
 
Yeah. Don't get me wrong, I like dpreview very much but some of their stuff is quite nonsensical. They do a good job of being non-biased though imho. However they tend to be afraid to portray anything negatively.

Like, for Canon stuff (i shoot canon fyi) they complain about stuff that does not matter at all or stuff that is flat out wrong (image quality in 50d review)...But don't ever harp on the *real* failings Canon has over Nikon....The flash system for example. Hello, why aren't you complaining that the built in flash in a Canon slr can't be used for wireless control like, oh, I duno, the Nikon stuff can? With the amount of viewers they get they might be able to make Canon finally do something about that!

Then lets take some of the latest slr reviews. 500d. Image quality: 8.5. Sure, makes sense. Nikon D5000 review, also has excellent image quality, 8.5. Yep, I'd agree with their assessment of these two excellent cameras and I'd recommend them both to anyone--they'd be my top picks for anyone getting an slr in that price range, for sure.

Sony A380, similar cost to those two, absolutely horrible high iso compared to the Nikon/Canon and even the EP-1 lol...gets a 7.5 for image quality. You would have thought it would have been more like 6 or something. The high iso isn't even in the same friggin league starting at 800. Just strange, the numbers don't seem to really mean anything. They are still great reviews though and there doesn't seem to be many alternative places to get real detailed in-depth reviews.
 
My wife has used both and I do remember her saying the 50D was better than the 40D. She didn't like the 40D that much.
 
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
I would get the 50D for the AF Micro Adjust alone. Back when I was using Canon I was sick and tired of lenses that front/back focused, especially third party ones, and being able to do nothing about it.
Click to expand...

A must if you keep running into Sigma lenses. Some are great like the 30mm/1.4, but the front/back-focusing issues are certainly there. Most Canon and Tamron lenses seem to be OK in that department. I have yet to run into some of these issues, but AF adjust is certainly a useful thing if I decided to buy a couple of Sigma lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top