Canon 50D vs Canon 5D

[Lalakai]

okay, i need to pick the brains of people who use or have used these cameras (not the Canon 5D II). I've stayed with film for long time and now getting ready to experiment with the digital. For now i'm looking at either the 50D or 5D, due to price and output. My current platform is Canon (1N and EOS3), with assorted lenses and flashes, so I'll be staying with Canon. I've read the differences between them, but I'm looking for real world experience. I'm not at the fully professional level, but i'll shoot a handful of weddings each year along with assorted grad pics and sports teams; with film we're set up for color developing, so i have a decent background in photography.

So any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

[finbarqs]

5D Because it's full frame... 50D because it's newer, high rear LCD.... decisions, decisions...

 

[sigurros81]

I've used the 50D, but only got to play around with the 5D a few years ago. Currently shooting with the Mark 2.

If you can get the 5D at a much cheaper price for the body than the 50D, then I'd say go for it, otherwise I'd say go for the 50D. The 50D has a bigger megapixel and faster processor (newer technology)--while this sort of stuff may not seem that important, once you start shooting, you'll start noticing.

As the user stated above, fullframe is pretty important, but for what you're shooting, it may not be worth the price or sacrificing newer technology for, especially if you are shooting graduations and sports.

 

[Lalakai]

from what i'm seeing, there's maybe a 50% increase from a 50D body to a 5D body (money wise), so i don't think i could find a 5D at a lower cost. The full frame would be nice but for right now when i get to the serious shots that i know i'll be blowing up, I work with the Mamiya.

Appreciate the response.........but don't be shy...i know there are more folks out there with hands on experience.

 

[996GT2]

I personally shot with a 40D for several years. One of my good friends has a 50D and I've shot with that quite a bit as well. I currently own a 5D and my opinion in a nutshell is that I'd never go back.

Here is a recent wedding shot I took with my 5D

 

[finbarqs]

shot it wide open? it can be done with the crop sensor, you just need a bigger aperture to compensate for the smaller sensor.

 

[Cattykit]

shot it wide open? it can be done with the crop sensor, you just need a bigger aperture to compensate for the smaller sensor.

Yes, but in reality such lenses do not exist.


Anyways, here's my input:
If you need mechanical performance, go with 50D. If you need higher IQ, 5D is way to go. As for wedding photography, I'd go with 5D without a doubt: what 50D offers is nice but not much useful for wedding photography. In fact, 5D was argubably a de-facto standard among wedding photographers.

I've used 5D and now uses 5d mk2 but I still miss 5D to the point I wanted to dump mk2 and go back to 5d. To this date, I've not seen a camera that produces images like 5d does. Thanks to its generous pixel pitch, weak low-pass-filter, and great tone curve, it produces sharp and detailed images that are color rich.

 

[Lalakai]

Quality is my highest requirement as I'm pretty demanding on how my work turns out. "Lugability" isn't a big consideration but the camera will go with me out into the field and at sporting events.

sigh...i miss the days when the choices were easy and clear cut. No doubt the 5D's are running more then the 50D's, so maybe i have to save more pennies now. I've laid the groundwork with the lenses i have so they won't be the weak link in the system. I've had a chance to handle the 50D, but not the 5D. Is it comparible to the 1N or 3?

good info, pls keep it coming

 

[angry hampster]

My 5D has been my primary camera for 3 years now. It is absolutely wonderful thought a little slow.

 

[finbarqs]

try the Kodak DCS 14c or 14n. NO AA filter, and produces colors like no other. Oh yeah, 1Ds Mark 2. That produces images that 5D can only dream of as well.... or go Medium Format! Or go film...

you might hit that image with the 24 f/1.4L that's wide enough...

 

[996GT2]

try the Kodak DCS 14c or 14n. NO AA filter, and produces colors like no other. Oh yeah, 1Ds Mark 2. That produces images that 5D can only dream of as well.... or go Medium Format! Or go film...

you might hit that image with the 24 f/1.4L that's wide enough...

The picture I took above was taken with a 5D and Sigma 50mm f/1.4 HSM wide open. The only way to get the same framing, perspective, and depth of field with a 50D is to use a ~31.25mm lens with an aperture of around f/0.95.

Good luck finding one of those.


Going back to 5D vs. 50D, the 50D is undoubtedly a faster camera with a better AF system (all-cross points vs. 1 cross point in the 5D and 5D2), but the 5D is wonderful to use once you get used to its quirks. I usually bring a 1D Mark IV with me on shoots where I need 2 cameras, and still I end up using my 5D for most of the shots.

 

[Lalakai]

Going back to 5D vs. 50D, the 50D is undoubtedly a faster camera with a better AF system (all-cross points vs. 1 cross point in the 5D and 5D2), but the 5D is wonderful to use once you get used to its quirks. I usually bring a 1D Mark IV with me on shoots where I need 2 cameras, and still I end up using my 5D for most of the shots.

My first serious camera was the OM1 so having just one focus point and shooting with that, is second nature. Adjusting to the mechanics of the camera isn't the highest concern; I just have to prioritize where the bulk of my shooting will be (action, informal, formal, studio), then go from there. lol and yes, i'll always have my 35mm's and 2 1/4's nearby. had some friends get together couple months back and we dug out boxes and boxes of shoots that started in the mid 70's; passing those old pics around is definitely different from looking at them on the computer screens.

 

[996GT2]

My first serious camera was the OM1 so having just one focus point and shooting with that, is second nature. Adjusting to the mechanics of the camera isn't the highest concern; I just have to prioritize where the bulk of my shooting will be (action, informal, formal, studio), then go from there. lol and yes, i'll always have my 35mm's and 2 1/4's nearby. had some friends get together couple months back and we dug out boxes and boxes of shoots that started in the mid 70's; passing those old pics around is definitely different from looking at them on the computer screens.

Basically, for everything except sports/fast action, I'd take the 5D over the 50D. The 5D is excellent for portraiture, landscapes, studio use, etc. If you were planning to shoot sports seriously I'd go for the 7D, which is much better suited to shooting fast action than the 5D due to its better AF and faster burst speed.

 

[Lalakai]

.........now to see if I can find a 5D at decent price. Thanks everyone, you've helped alot. if i can get a 5D within acceptible price i'll go that route. otherwise it's the 50D

 

[996GT2]

.........now to see if I can find a 5D at decent price. Thanks everyone, you've helped alot. if i can get a 5D within acceptible price i'll go that route. otherwise it's the 50D

Look on the Canon forum (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/) or on the buy/sell section at Fred Miranda forums. You should be able to find a 5D with low shutter count for between $850 and $950.

 

[sigurros81]

The picture I took above was taken with a 5D and Sigma 50mm f/1.4 HSM wide open. The only way to get the same framing, perspective, and depth of field with a 50D is to use a ~31.25mm lens with an aperture of around f/0.95.

Good luck finding one of those.


Going back to 5D vs. 50D, the 50D is undoubtedly a faster camera with a better AF system (all-cross points vs. 1 cross point in the 5D and 5D2), but the 5D is wonderful to use once you get used to its quirks. I usually bring a 1D Mark IV with me on shoots where I need 2 cameras, and still I end up using my 5D for most of the shots.

How about just taking a step back.

 

[Cattykit]

How about just taking a step back.

Once you step back, you may get same framing but perspective and depth of field changes.

 

[Cattykit]

try the Kodak DCS 14c or 14n. NO AA filter, and produces colors like no other. Oh yeah, 1Ds Mark 2. That produces images that 5D can only dream of as well.... or go Medium Format! Or go film...

you might hit that image with the 24 f/1.4L that's wide enough...

Kodak cameras...I LOVE images Kodak DSLRs produce. Only Kodak DSLRs produce that subtle/fine gradation with amazing color. Most of them had certain problems and were terrible over ISO 200, yet I loved them for what they could do. It's too bad they stopped making cameras and the emphasis on gradation is dead.

 

[sigurros81]

Once you step back, you may get same framing but perspective and depth of field changes.

The differences is negligible at most with the kind of photography similar to the photo example posted. Point is, it doesn't matter what camera body you use, you make it work as a photographer with the gear you have. Posting a a random photo and saying that it would be impossible to recreate that photo with a different camera is rather silly. who's to say that the same shot with different perspective or DOF wouldn't be better than the example?

 

[Lalakai]

Look on the Canon forum (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/) or on the buy/sell section at Fred Miranda forums. You should be able to find a 5D with low shutter count for between $850 and $950.

aaahhhhh learn something new everyday; the Miranda forums have alot of gear, thanks. kind'a skinny on the 5D's but I'll be watching

 

[Cattykit]

The differences is negligible at most with the kind of photography similar to the photo example posted. Point is, it doesn't matter what camera body you use, you make it work as a photographer with the gear you have. Posting a a random photo and saying that it would be impossible to recreate that photo with a different camera is rather silly. who's to say that the same shot with different perspective or DOF wouldn't be better than the example?

If so, that's good for you for you can can eaily stick with APS-C cameras.
To my eyes, the difference is very much evident. Images that I can get with FF cameras and prime lenses, I can't never get them with APS-C cameras. For that reason, I have to stay with FF although there're many great APS-C cameras I'd love to jump-ship.

Point is, it does matter what camera body(also lens) you use. Look at Ansel Adams and Bresson. You don't give Ansel a Leica and Bression a large format and expect them to be fine with it. They knew what it takes, made a great decision, and worked with it. I'm not saying everyone should get the most expensive and feature-packed camera. It's about knowing your need/want and finding the right gear that best matches it. To me, it's FF. For others, it may be a iPhone cam.

BTW, here's a story of Stanley Kubrick. He asked the cinematographer to use 35mm lens (I'm not so sure about the number there) in specific distance. The cinematographer changed it to 50mm along with distance so that the framing reamin the same. Kubrick noticed the difference right away and raised hell.

 

[sigurros81]

If so, that's good for you for you can can eaily stick with APS-C cameras.
To my eyes, the difference is very much evident. Images that I can get with FF cameras and prime lenses, I can't never get them with APS-C cameras.

So you're saying you can tell from looking at a photo whether it's shot with a full-framed sensor or a cropped one? Impressive.

If money is not an issue, I'd always use a full frame, but as the original poster's predicament, full frame on older body vs. cropped on newer body, I'd go for the newer cropped body if it's cheaper.

Yes, I agree that a full frame is a better camera, but to think that it'll allow you to take better pictures is complete BS.

 

[996GT2]

So you're saying you can tell from looking at a photo whether it's shot with a full-framed sensor or a cropped one? Impressive.

If money is not an issue, I'd always use a full frame, but as the original poster's predicament, full frame on older body vs. cropped on newer body, I'd go for the newer cropped body if it's cheaper.

Yes, I agree that a full frame is a better camera, but to think that it'll allow you to take better pictures is complete BS.

50D vs. 5D? 1) there isn't a huge price difference between the two, and 2) OP's budget could cover either camera, since he was choosing between one of the two based on which is better for his needs, not based on budget.

If you give me two photos shot with the same settings using lenses that give the same perspective on FF and APS-C, then it's quite easy to tell which photo was shot with the FF camera and which photo was shot with the APS-C camera.

With regard to your last sentence...who said it would let you take "better" pictures? "Better" is subjective. If your photography skills are up to par, you can take good pictures with just about any camera. But the fact remains that a FF sensor allows you to do some things that you cannot do with an APS-C camera. That flexibility is worth it when you're getting paid to deliver pictures to clients.

 

[sigurros81]

With regard to your last sentence...who said it would let you take "better" pictures? "Better" is subjective. If your photography skills are up to par, you can take good pictures with just about any camera. But the fact remains that a FF sensor allows you to do some things that you cannot do with an APS-C camera. That flexibility is worth it when you're getting paid to deliver pictures to clients.

That is true, but is a 5D really better than a 50D when the only thing it's better at is that it has a full frame sensor? And to shoot a few weddings, graduations and sports, either camera will work.

 

[996GT2]

That is true, but is a 5D really better than a 50D when the only thing it's better at is that it has a full frame sensor? And to shoot a few weddings, graduations and sports, either camera will work.

5D's advantages: Full frame sensor, much better high ISO performance, better color depth, more RAW headroom. Basically, in all of the aspects that affect image quality, the 5D is better.

The 5D's viewfinder is also much larger than the cramped, tiny viewfinders on APS-C cameras. It's really something you have to use to understand. Looking through the viewfinder of a FF camera like the 5D or Nikon D3 is much more enjoyable than squinting through the tiny viewfinder on something like a Rebel or 50D.

The 5D is a slower camera than the 50D, but that honestly doesn't matter unless you're shooting fast action. For everything else, the 5D easily wins. On paper, many the 50D's specs may look better because it's the newer camera, but once you've used both cameras I have a feeling you'd come around to the 5D too. I've owned many APS-C cameras in the past (30D, 40D, D200, D300) and all of them seemed to be pretty good...until I got my 5D, that is.