Canon 50D lense recommendations

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
the 50D is noisy. id stick with a 40D if i was going that segment of canon's dslr line. i really hope the 60d or whatever is the successor to the 50d does not attempt to cram more megapixels on that tiny sensor. they should focus on higher ISO performance.

to cover all my shooting situations i use the following with my 30D:

17-55 EFS, Sigma 10-20mm, 70-300IS, canon 100mm macro

the 17-55EFS sits on my camera for general walking about. great lens.

i also am looking to get a good low-light prime. a great weapon to have in your arsenal, just a matter of choosing your range.

a great thing to do is if you have a history of shooting is open up all your photos in software and sort by focusing range. you will then see where you shoot at most.

when i had my canon 17-85IS i sorted all the images shot with it. i found that i was either at 17mm or 85mm like 80% of the time. since i was at 17mm a decent amount more than 85mm, i realized the 17-55IS was the best upgrade for me for a walkabout lens since when i wanted zoom, i could just swap on the 70-300IS and usually id want more range anyways.

Have you actually looked at images from both? In real world cases their nearly identical, especially after noise reduction.

i looked at review images from dpreview. it was noticeable.

blown up at 100% maybe, but overall, it's just a little more cropping room. It just isn't worth it to start out. used 40D's are far cheaper to start with, or hell, a 30D. then when you've made progress, buy a 60/70D or whatever when it's out, and keep the 30/40D as your backup.

we are on the same page. i say 40D over a 50d.

There are features other than the MP count that some people may find important.

http://www.butterflyphoto.com/...mac=18&zmap=CAN50DBODY

http://www.butterflyphoto.com/...mac=18&zmap=CAN40DBODY

Those are the two best prices I could find. So we're talking about a $200 difference. For that $200 you get the obvious MP increase, HDMI output, a more usuable live view, peripheral illumination correction, AF microfocus adjustment(lots of people find this feature is VERY useful), VGA screen, and expanded ISO modes(the usefulness of this depends on how much the user cares about IQ for the shot he's taking).

I could get into small differences such as better customization of noise reduction but that's not a big deal. The point is, for $200 some will find these features, even those besides the MP increase worth the price difference. I know I do.

so you think that price is from a legitimate retailer?

getting prices from a potential rip-off merchant doesnt count at all. give me a break here. butterflyphoto has enough of the kinds of negative reviews that would give any smart consumer question of their reliability.

the fact is a new 40d vs a new 50d is closer to $400 difference from reputable stores. thats a lot of money to better glass.


i could get into some small differences as well such as that an 'obvious' MP increase is not necessarily a benefit when 10.1 MP is just fine for a huge majority of uses, and cleaner images are better anyways, especially with wedding photography and events like the OP mentioned.

Oh yes, they're clearly a rip off:

http://www.resellerratings.com/store/ButterFly_Photo

It's a $200 difference from a reputable vendor. Less than you though it was right?

Even Amazon has it for $1100, just $250 higher than the 40D at the same retailer. So I don't know where you're getting your $400 figure but it's off base.

And the only place I've seen that has said the 40D is obviously better in noise is dpreview. Any other review has said they are on par and some even say the 50D performed better. Here are the two images at ISO 3200 from dcresource.com. Besides the difference in saturation which can always be tweaked in camera, I see little difference noise wise and neither does dcresource:

http://www.dcresource.com/revi...0d-review/IMG_1385.JPG
http://www.dcresource.com/revi...0d-review/IMG_0184.JPG

"In terms of noise, I'd say that the EOS-50D does a noticeably better job, at least in this particular test."

Either way, the difference in noise we're talking about is easily eliminated in post-processing. It is nearly a non issue.

I agree that if the 50D cuts into your lens budget and causes you to get worse glass, then go with the 40D, but either is a good option.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
the 50D is noisy. id stick with a 40D if i was going that segment of canon's dslr line. i really hope the 60d or whatever is the successor to the 50d does not attempt to cram more megapixels on that tiny sensor. they should focus on higher ISO performance.

to cover all my shooting situations i use the following with my 30D:

17-55 EFS, Sigma 10-20mm, 70-300IS, canon 100mm macro

the 17-55EFS sits on my camera for general walking about. great lens.

i also am looking to get a good low-light prime. a great weapon to have in your arsenal, just a matter of choosing your range.

a great thing to do is if you have a history of shooting is open up all your photos in software and sort by focusing range. you will then see where you shoot at most.

when i had my canon 17-85IS i sorted all the images shot with it. i found that i was either at 17mm or 85mm like 80% of the time. since i was at 17mm a decent amount more than 85mm, i realized the 17-55IS was the best upgrade for me for a walkabout lens since when i wanted zoom, i could just swap on the 70-300IS and usually id want more range anyways.

Have you actually looked at images from both? In real world cases their nearly identical, especially after noise reduction.

i looked at review images from dpreview. it was noticeable.

blown up at 100% maybe, but overall, it's just a little more cropping room. It just isn't worth it to start out. used 40D's are far cheaper to start with, or hell, a 30D. then when you've made progress, buy a 60/70D or whatever when it's out, and keep the 30/40D as your backup.

we are on the same page. i say 40D over a 50d.

There are features other than the MP count that some people may find important.

http://www.butterflyphoto.com/...mac=18&zmap=CAN50DBODY

http://www.butterflyphoto.com/...mac=18&zmap=CAN40DBODY

Those are the two best prices I could find. So we're talking about a $200 difference. For that $200 you get the obvious MP increase, HDMI output, a more usuable live view, peripheral illumination correction, AF microfocus adjustment(lots of people find this feature is VERY useful), VGA screen, and expanded ISO modes(the usefulness of this depends on how much the user cares about IQ for the shot he's taking).

I could get into small differences such as better customization of noise reduction but that's not a big deal. The point is, for $200 some will find these features, even those besides the MP increase worth the price difference. I know I do.

I'm talking used. I can get a decent 40D for $700. That extra money is WELL worth it for a better lens.. or muliple lenses, lighting equipment, maybe a backup rebel... but my main point is to start off w/ the 40D so you can have a backup body by the time you do events. Because you really do want to have something.

And that's a perfectly fair point. If the person is willing to buy used then perhaps the 40D could be a good camera to get if their budget would be limited by the 50D. However, I'm simply pointing out that discounting the 50D because it is "noisy" compared to the 40D is an overblown issue. The 50D is a great camera with excellent features added from the 40D. If one needs/wants those features they should not hesitate to get it, unless their budget does not allow it.