Dehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1083 posts, RR: 31
Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4023 times:
The 40D is an excellent camera and apart from some cosmetic changes and the MP boost is almost identical.
The XXD series of cameras have been a mainstay of many users here and elsewhere and can be highly recommended.
I'd grab the 40D and use the extra cash on glass...
In one way it is and in another it isn't.
The 50D is one of the camera's I have and to be honest the least pleasing and to be real honest I like my good old 20D more then the 50D but that doesn't make it a bad body.
You have to do some reading to understand I am afraid.
Start here(diffraction): http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...tanding-series/u-diffraction.shtml
As said this doesn't make it a bad camera but it is a camera with limitations.
If I know in advance that I am going to need big prints I"ll happily use it but only with glass of F/4 and faster.
And if you can live with these limitations and are prepared to invest in expensive glass you will have a cracker of a camera.
It might be worth to wait for the 60D though as it has been rumored to have extra computing power to combat diffraction.
Something I expect to be present in most next gen camera's because a resolution limit has been reached with the 15mP APS/c sensors and because diffraction is not some sort of magic fixed number like the speed of sound.
There are ways to fight it, even USM works to some extend albeit at the cost of extra noise.
So I am kinda curious to what Canon comes up with.
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
FighterPilot From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1456 posts, RR: 21
Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3923 times:
I'd go with the 40D. Recent another A.netter and myself had the same question. We both ended up going with the 40D. You can save a nice amount of money and get the same camera essentially. That's my 2 cents.