pilotalltheway From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2008, 247 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 years 6 months 1 hour ago) and read 3632 times:
Am very close now to getting my 50D - but just before I do, I need to clear this one more thing.
Seeing as the 50D is now dis-continued and was released was it in 2008(?) and I wont be upgrading the body for quite a few years is it still worth going for it and maybe buy a 7D which is newer and maybe more 'future proof' and wont be outdated maybe as quickly as the 50D would.
Just wanted to see if anyone else is still looking at buying a 50D or even if you aren't and own one or don't even own one - what are your thoughts? Go for it or pay extra and get the 7/ 60D?
Thanks a lot,
P.S I'll be looking at getting the Canon EF-S 18-135mm F.3.5-5.6, anybody got that with the 50D or any other camera? What's it like?
5J From Philippines, joined Aug 2009, 26 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3585 times:
The 50D is still one heck of a camera. It's still very competitive even with the swarm of new DSLRs. I'd say it's better than the 60D. The best advice i could give you though is, get the 50D, and then save some money for some L glass. The lens will matter as well, and they don't depreciate unlike bodies.
hanbar From Netherlands, joined Dec 2007, 14 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3536 times:
Alfie, two months ago I was wondering the same and I did the same as what 5J advises you now. I bought the 50D (I had a 400D) and it gives me everything I want. I don't need the 60 or 7D's extras. And adding the money I saved buying the 50D I have bought the 70-120 2.8 L. Man, and now I feel rich!!!!
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4738 posts, RR: 8 Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3465 times:
You may struggle getting one now (I'm aware of a few people who can't get hold of one). If you can though, go for it. Despite being discontinued it's still right up there with the most modern of today's DSLRs (heck, it's barely two years old!) and is capable of producing excellent images. Only faults I have found are that it can produce a pronounced red cast in certain light, and also it tends to 'out-resolve' many cheaper lenses. Sometimes my 28-105 can struggle keeping up with it but for the most part it's fine.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4738 posts, RR: 8 Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3414 times:
Quoting cpd (Reply 5): You can manually set white balance, right? That should solve that issue, I'd have thought
Yes, but many choose to use AWB, which seems to do a better job of producing the red cast than many other Canon cameras. For a lot of people manually setting the WB is a chore - I rarely do it manually as it's easy enough to remove the cast in Photoshop. Plus of course light can change so quickly, especially here in the UK at this time of year.
Call me lazy but it works for me most of the time.
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4538 posts, RR: 26 Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3404 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 6): Yes, but many choose to use AWB, which seems to do a better job of producing the red cast than many other Canon cameras. For a lot of people manually setting the WB is a chore - I rarely do it manually as it's easy enough to remove the cast in Photoshop. Plus of course light can change so quickly, especially here in the UK at this time of year.
Call me lazy but it works for me most of the time.
LOL It's as easy as taking one shot. Press, click, set...DONE.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, RR: 24 Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3368 times:
Quoting 5J (Reply 1): The 50D is still one heck of a camera.
Clearly, you have very low standards. Many folks got a 50D and then dumped it and went back to their 40D. The extra MPs would be nice if they didn't come with more noise, softness, and worse high ISO performance...
Quoting 5J (Reply 1): I'd say it's better than the 60D.
A brick painted like a camera is better than the 60D.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4738 posts, RR: 8 Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3297 times:
Quoting SNATH (Reply 9): Clearly, you have very low standards. Many folks got a 50D and then dumped it and went back to their 40D. The extra MPs would be nice if they didn't come with more noise, softness, and worse high ISO performance...
I nearly went back with my 30D until I realised that the 50D (if you got a good copy) is actually a very decent camera. Mine definitely seems to have better lower ISO performance than the 30D (which was very similar to the 40D), and the extra detail in images is noticeable. Unfortunately that extra detail comes at a price and images straight from the camera can look much softer than those from previous models. This perhaps isn't helped by the 50D's reputation for being very choosy with lenses.
In light of a few dodgy batches which obviously did the rounds I think the 50D has taken a pretty unfair bashing during its time on the market, mainly due to teething problems upon release. Ask most users here now and I'm willing to bet they wouldn't swap for a 30/40D. It appears to be one of those cameras which takes some getting used to, but once you're familiar with its pros and cons it's fine. Took me ages to find a set of lenses that worked perfectly with it, but once you've locked an L on the front the performance is fantastic.
Seriously though, a big drawback of the 50D (and a reason why it often gets slated) is it's fussiness with lenses. I currently own only one cheap(er) lens (28-105 II, not 28-135, although they're in the same range) and in some situations communications between camera and glass aren't too clever. With Ls however there isn't an issue.
I'm not advising against the 50D here but I know many who've been disappointed with its performance when coupled with cheap lenses. I once used an 18-55 kit lens on mine and the camera just chewed the thing up! On the flip side I know people who are successfully using 50Ds with budget lenses, but I suspect the copy needs to be absolutely spot on. Check out a friend's images (with the 75-300 USM III) here:
It is an excellent body but for the most part you need to get the maximum out of it by buying good lenses.
Quoting FedexL1011 (Reply 12): Im looking at getting a SLR( trust me im on topic) and have looked at the 20D and 30D as they are lower priced are they still good? Is it the same rep as the 50D?
The only reason I'd avoid a 20D is because of the age (I'm thinking about shutter actuations and servicing here, not capability). It's a great camera but the 30D addressed the 20's (very few) minor issues. Both the 30 and 40D are great cameras, andsome of the complaints about the 50D are testimony to that.
On a lower MP camera it maybe fine, but with the 50D, you really need quality glass as the camera will quite often outresolve the cheaper glass and show up any flaws it may have. If you're serious about a 50D, you need to factor in the cost of quality lenses in the future. Lenses you have now will work fine, but you'll soon see their limitations. I wouldn't waste money on the purchase of cheaper lenses as a stop gap; save the cash until you have the funds for higher spec lenses. It's L's all the way with the higher spec cameras if you want to get the best from them, or Sigma EX etc.
Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4738 posts, RR: 8 Reply 22, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks ago) and read 3239 times:
But would you rather have reduced ergonomics but fantastic image quality? Besides, you get used to the feel of the camera you own. The lens is the real investment; the tool. The camera is just what makes it all work. The lens will last you a long time and will hardly lose any value when (if?) you come to sell.
You'll have long forgotten about the 50D in 5 years but you'll still be using the 70-200 with the latest batch of DSLRs.
5J From Philippines, joined Aug 2009, 26 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks ago) and read 3239 times:
As what the others were saying above, you could get the same "right" feel with a 40D. It's even cheaper than the 50D and some say that noise performance is better with the 40. But you'll need some luck to find one nowadays, though.