Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Upgrading My Camera  
User currently offlineFighterPilot From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 1399 posts, RR: 22
Posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3166 times:

Well it's finally that time. I've decided I want to upgrade my camera body. It was either that or buy the 24-105mm L to replace the 18-55mm. I've been leaning towards the 50D, or possibly the 40D or T1i.
So what should I do? Buy the 50D to replace my 350D, or buy one of those other options?

Thanks,
Cal  airplane 


*Insert Sound Of GE90 Spooling Up Here*
23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAcontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3164 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi Cal,

If you have a limited budget, and/or want to spend a few bucks on additional lenses, I would go straight to a 40D and grab one while you still can!
AFAIK, the image quality is almost the same between the 40D and 50D, but any of these is in a different league when compared to any of the Rebels - forget them.
If you can't afford one of the pro bodies, then the 40D/50D is as close as you can get.

Hope it helps  Smile



Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
User currently offlineCpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3144 times:

If you can't afford the 5D Mk.2, then go for the 50D. I wouldn't go for the 40D, it is an older camera.

But if you can afford 5D2, go for it - that is a superb camera.


User currently offlineMoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2325 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3139 times:

The 40D is an outstanding camera. Yes, the 50D has some additional features, but the 40D will give you high quality photos and will be a huge step up from your 350D. You need to decide if the added features of the 50D make it worth the premium you will pay beyond the 40D.

Here are some examples from my "older" 40D  Wink


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Musolino



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Musolino



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Musolino



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Musolino




KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineWakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 16
Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3135 times:



Quoting Cpd (Reply 2):
If you can't afford the 5D Mk.2, then go for the 50D. I wouldn't go for the 40D, it is an older camera.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! I needed a good laugh, thanks!



Jetwash Images - Feel the Heat!!!
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4817 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3116 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Cpd (Reply 2):
If you can't afford the 5D Mk.2, then go for the 50D. I wouldn't go for the 40D, it is an older camera.

If he could afford the 5D Mk.2, he could afford a new (cheaper) body like the 40/50D AND the 24-105L.

And that statement about the 40D being older...so what? Some argue it's slightly better in image quality than the 50D especially at the highest ISOs. I said this in another thread, but I have heard some ex 40D users who upgraded to the 50D regret that decision and are now frantically looking for a new 40D. That thing is like gold to some...



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineRuudb From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 164 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3102 times:

I (luckily  Big grin ) don't owe a Canon, but I would go for the 40D instead of the 50D, I read this article some time ago http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/ and it seems to be less good as the 40D in some important parts.

Ruud.


User currently offlineCpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3100 times:



Quoting WakeTurbulence (Reply 4):

So you take aim at me, but leave the screener alone who said basically the same thing.

There is probably little difference in ISO performance between 40d and 50d. Surely not enough to justify the older camera. The 40d would now be a bit hard to find as well.


User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4817 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3092 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Cpd (Reply 7):
There is probably little difference in ISO performance between 40d and 50d. Surely not enough to justify the older camera.

Actually, if you read some of the many debates online attacking the very issue of choosing the 40D or 50D, you will find that there surely is plenty of justification to choose the "old" 40D! Seriously man, it's really hard for people to justify spending around $400 more just because it's newer. The differences are very small IMO...The jump in megapixels isn't that big of a deal and is responsible for the image quality claims....a high rez screen (big whoop, I say) and a few other features...big deal. There is little difference in performance, yet a pretty big difference in price for someone on a tight budget. The 40D is a great camera and isn't THAT old compared to 50D. So while you may think small differences in image quality doesn't justify going for the 40D, many folks like myself thought that was perfect justification to save a good $400!!

Yes, they are becoming harder to find new. So I recommend getting one while you can! It's a great price for a damn fine piece or hardware!



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineAcontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3062 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER



Quoting Cpd (Reply 7):
So you take aim at me, but leave the screener alone who said basically the same thing.

He's a smart guy  Wink !

Seriously, as far as I understand from Cal's original post, it's not like he has unlimited resources to spend on any camera he likes, if he would I would tell him to get FOR AVIATION PHOTOGRAPHY a 1D Mk3. For sure it doesn't sound like he is thinking of spending the amount of money necessary for a 5D Mk.2, besides, I would rather stick to a 40D/50D and spend the remaining 'pocket money' on some L-glass...
I am not saying the 40D is better than the 50D, just that it is cheaper and gives comparable results in terms of image quality and autofocus, which is what matters. And, while already discontinued, you can still find some new ones at very good prices.

Anyhow, that's just my opinion.



Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
User currently offlineDazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2913 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3047 times:



Quoting FighterPilot (Thread starter):
I've been leaning towards the 50D, or possibly the 40D or T1i.
So what should I do? Buy the 50D to replace my 350D, or buy one of those other options?

John J has been discussing the same question here.

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlineJohnJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1659 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3044 times:

Yep - I did quite a bit of research and wound up going with the 40D - that thread Dazbo5 linked is worth a read, as the folks here gave me a lot of good information.

I will say the research I did tells me that the image quality on the 50D or T1i should be just fine. Most of the complaints I've seen stem from perceived noisiness at higher ISO levels, ISO 800+ - seems there are a lot of guys on the dpreview forums who do astronomy photography who regularly shoot ISO 1600 and have experienced higher noise and "banding" at those levels. While astronomy photography would probably be great fun, it's not my main area of interest. Trains and planes, now that's another story, but they don't require ISO 1600.

As for the 40D vs. the 50D, it came down to cost. Dan Vincent turned me on to Amazon.com, who offer the 40D at $849 (free shipping) for the body only via Adorama. Adorama also offers factory-refurbished 40Ds at $699. By contrast, the best deal I could find on the 50D, body only was $1199 from various sources, so the 40D is a LOT cheaper now.

As for why I went with the 40D vs. the T1i, which is roughly the same price, it came down to having a better-built camera with more features, coupled with the fact that my research led me to believe that the extra 5 megapixels on the T1i would be wasted with the lenses I have.


User currently offlineWakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 16
Reply 12, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3026 times:



Quoting Cpd (Reply 7):
So you take aim at me, but leave the screener alone who said basically the same thing.



Quoting Acontador (Reply 1):
I would go straight to a 40D and grab one while you still can!

Where did the screener say the same thing as you? He said he would also go with the 40D.

-Matt



Jetwash Images - Feel the Heat!!!
User currently offlineMichlis From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 737 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2989 times:

Question: Are you looking to make large (poster-size) prints? If so, the extra resolution of the 50D will serve you well else you may want to consider the 40D.

A few other nuances of the 50D to consider:

1) To get the max performance you want to use good glass (preferably Canon). The camera has pre-programmed settings that work with specified lenses to optimize performance.

2) File sizes are going to be larger. RAW images can easily hit 20 mb a piece and JPEG fine upto 5 mb apiece. There are two lesser RAW settings as well as the standard JPEG settings, but these will not fully utilize the 15 mp resolution of the sensor.

3) ISO noise at ISO 800 plus: Personally, I rarely shoot at anything over ISO 800 without a flash but even without a flash I've gotten good results even with ISO 1000.

4) The 50D is geared for beginners to professionals so you have to adjust settings (Picture Style) so it doesn't act like a point and shoot (kind of the factory default setting) and post-process photos for you.

5) The screen is awesome to preview photos, but it's also a big target for potential damage. When you're shooting your face is pressed up against it and anything that strikes the back of the camera is sure to hit the screen. A good hard screen protector is highly recommended. You can get one for the screen and the dorsal readouts for about $20.00 on eBay.

And yes, I own a 50D; I upgraded from a 20D.   



[Edited because my caffeine level is dropping and thus my attention span]

[Edited 2009-06-18 09:59:59]


If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
User currently offlineChampfence From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2980 times:

Regardless of what body you wind up with, the best money you'll spend as far as image quality goes would be the $$ you drop on the 24-105L! Glass is the KEY! The best sensor in the world won't do crap with cheap glass. Any Canon"L" lense will do far better on ANY body than you'll EVER see with the 18-55. Get top quailty glass FIRST. My $.02.

BRB


User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2959 times:



Quoting Michlis (Reply 13):
Question: Are you looking to make large (poster-size) prints? If so, the extra resolution of the 50D will serve you well else you may want to consider the 40D.

Go with the 40D, it may be a bit outdated as far as the release date goes, but it still is a fine piece of equipment.

Btw....you can print those poster size images with a 40D, just need the right lab.

This one is hanging on my wall (20x30"). The resolution is absolutely sufficient!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vasco Garcia (VDG-Images)



Vasco Garcia


User currently offlineFighterPilot From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 1399 posts, RR: 22
Reply 16, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 2945 times:

First off thanks for all the information and input.

I'm going to do a little bit more research as well I've gotta find a buyer for my 350D. I have a friend who said he'd buy it but I'd prob be keeping the 18-55mm so he'd have no lens'.

Anyways,
Thanks for the info so far.
Cal  airplane 



*Insert Sound Of GE90 Spooling Up Here*
User currently offlineFighterPilot From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 1399 posts, RR: 22
Reply 17, posted (5 years 3 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2897 times:

Well I think I've made my decision. I'm most likely going to go with the 40D!
My reasoning: It's cheaper and practically the same camera as the 50D. As well, this will give me more money for lens'. However this has brought me to my next dilemma, what to buy for a new lens. I have narrowed it down to roughly three choices: the 24-105mm L IS USM, 17-40mm L IS USM, or 17-80mm IS USM. I won't make this purchase right away but I'd like to replace the 18-55mm. I'm leaning towards the 24-105mm as it will fill the gap with the rest of my lens, (50mm 1.8f Mk II, and 100-400mm L) but I'm wondering if I'll miss the wideness of the 18mm.

Thanks once again,
Cal  airplane 



*Insert Sound Of GE90 Spooling Up Here*
User currently offlineC182rgt From Canada, joined Sep 2007, 3 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 3 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2851 times:

I would suggest, if you think of 24-105 L IS , also check 24-70 F 2.8 L. It's sharper and F 2.8 and at those lenght IS is not that much an asset since it is one stop brighter. BTW 17-40 is not a IS lens.

J-P


User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 46
Reply 19, posted (5 years 3 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2841 times:



Quoting FighterPilot (Reply 17):
but I'm wondering if I'll miss the wideness of the 18mm.

sometimes even 10mm are not wide enough. Down the road, if there is some cash left, go buy a 10-22 or similar.

As for the 24-70, that is a keeper! I bought it back in 2006 and image quality is nothing but stunning. Personally, the 30mm gap would not bother me.

Vasco


User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4817 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (5 years 3 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2834 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting FighterPilot (Reply 17):
However this has brought me to my next dilemma, what to buy for a new lens. I have narrowed it down to roughly three choices: the 24-105mm L IS USM, 17-40mm L IS USM, or 17-80mm IS USM.

I chose the 24-105, however my decision was between the 24-105 and the 24-70 2.8. I needed something that had decent range and could be used in all sorts of applications. The 24-105 has served as a great walk-around lense and I have enjoyed the benefit of IS. Most people will probably point you to the 24-70 though...

For stuff wider than 24, I bought the Sigma 10-20 which is supposed to be a great lens at a great price. However it appears I have a crap copy.  Sad



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineAlevik From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 1027 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (5 years 3 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2805 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

All I can say is one word - glass. Buy the best glass you can - it doesn't go obsolete. Look at Vasco's image of the A380 - the camera played a small part, but I guarantee the 600 f/4 deserves the lion's share of credit for the quality (ascribing only to equipment, and not photog skill and expertise).


Improvise, adapt, overcome.
User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3247 posts, RR: 22
Reply 22, posted (5 years 3 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2773 times:

Cal,

Quoting FighterPilot (Reply 17):
I have narrowed it down to roughly three choices: the 24-105mm L IS USM, 17-40mm L IS USM, or 17-80mm IS USM.



Quoting FighterPilot (Reply 17):
I'm leaning towards the 24-105mm ... but I'm wondering if I'll miss the wideness of the 18mm.

Well, the only person that can answer that is... you  Smile since only you know what type of shooting you do. Do you like shooting wider, or do you tend to shoot at longer focal lengths? Go back to the pictures you took with the 18-55 and see whether they were on the wide end, or on the longer end (the EXIF data should include the focal length of each shot). Did you have any real keepers on the wide end that you would really miss?

Myself, I like shooting wide and ultra-wide. If I go somewhere sight-seeing and I carry only one lens, I take my 17-40. But, I usually, couple my 24-105 with my 10-22, as I don't think 24mm on a 1.6x crop camera (almost 40mm eq on 35mm) is wide enough (again, for me). I do like the 24-105 in many situations though. It's a great low-light lens due to the IS (e.g., for streets with illuminated signs, museums, etc.). It's also the lens I mostly often use when I take skyline shots. But, a lot of the time, being able to switch to 10-22 for the wider shots is imperative.

Quoting C182rgt (Reply 18):
also check 24-70 F 2.8 L. It's sharper

I've never used the 24-70, but from what I've read, I don't think it's sharper. The 24-105 does get a bit soft on the longer end, but that's a focal length the 24-70 never reaches anyway...

Quoting C182rgt (Reply 18):
and at those lenght IS is not that much an asset since it is one stop brighter.

Again, I would respectfully disagree with such a generalized statement. Sure, f2.8 is helpful when you're shooting moving subjects in low light. But, for stationary subjects, the IS of the 24-105 (with an up to 3-stop advantage) is definitely more beneficial. Also, I definitely appreciate the IS in the longer end, even in daylight!

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 20):
The 24-105 has served as a great walk-around lense and I have enjoyed the benefit of IS.

+1 to that. I decided on the 24-105, over the 24-70 (they were in fact roughly the same price) due to (a) its extra range, (b) its IS, and (c) its lighter weight / smaller size. As Bryan said in his review of the 24-105 here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/

"Indoor event photographers will *probably* select the 24-70 while landscape/outdoor, travel and portrait photographers might prefer the 24-105."

Also, please, check the reviews on photozone.de:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos

Hope this helps,

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineChampfence From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 3 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2721 times:



Quoting SNATH (Reply 22):
As Bryan said in his review of the 24-105 here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/

I rely on Bryan's reviews quite heavily as I find them to be very thorough and objective. I vote for the 24-105. I use that and a 300 f/4L.

BRB


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Have I Damaged My Camera? posted Sun Mar 4 2007 16:04:48 by JakTrax
Is My Camera Broke posted Thu Jul 6 2006 00:36:23 by Pavvyben
Please Help! I Think My Camera Is Broken! posted Fri Jun 2 2006 15:16:45 by AirKas1
Help! Is My Camera Damaged? posted Mon Feb 27 2006 23:51:31 by BuyantUkhaa
My Camera Is Acting Weird.. Help! posted Fri Feb 17 2006 23:16:31 by AirKas1
Is My Camera Suitable? posted Sun Jan 22 2006 18:07:14 by RichM
4 Heavies Taken With My Camera Phone posted Tue Oct 11 2005 06:14:11 by Tsaord
Felt Like Smashing My Camera posted Tue May 31 2005 06:34:30 by RG828
Shipping My Camera posted Fri Mar 25 2005 21:33:09 by BigPhilNYC
Why Is My Camera Taking Bad Exposure Pictures? posted Thu Dec 23 2004 08:38:29 by JumboJim747