Anyone gone from a 40D to 50D?Was it a good move?

[senatore]

I've just come into a bit of unexpected cash so I could go from a 40D to a 50D without much trouble.I use the 40D with the 400 prime for birding pics and am pleased with it although it's getting a bit battered and has a scratched LCD panel.

I was wondering if anyone has gone from a 40D to a 50D and if they have any comments/advice to give.

Max

[tdodd]

I have a 30D, 40D and 50D. As far as birding goes, the two crucial advantages the 50D gives are....

- the extra pixel density, which comes into play if your glass is too short to fill the frame and you could do with a bit of cropping;

- microfocus adjustment, which, if you have any doubt at all about your lens calibration, could be a significant advantage to get maximum sharpness from your lens, and fully make use of that extra resolution.

If a higher resolution screen floats your boat, especially when using Live View, then that's nice too, but it doesn't offer any advantage when checking the histogram.

As for AF performance, some say the 50D is a mite quicker, especially with initial lock. I can't say I've noticed any change, but then it's hard to engineer fully valid back to back tests. Certainly the same issues with a teleconverter and f/5.6 lens are still there.

On the downside, you do get much larger file sizes, which gobbles up storage space (on memory cards and computers) and also each file takes longer to open, fully render and convert (assuming you shoot raw).

I know there has been a bit of a hoo-hah about the high ISO performance of the 50D and 3200 is definitely a stretch too far, if you want to preserve feather detail, but I've used 3200 with good success (just) at a wedding. I'm not really sure whether there is an advantage one way or the other for birding, as I don't have enough comparable data.

Since I shoot raw, I don't care for new features like ALO, LPI, or the extra control over NR strength, but they might matter to you if you shoot JPEG.

Supposedly the weatherproofing is a little better, but still not to the standard of 1 series bodies. If it's raining hard enough to harm my gear I doubt I'd want to stand in it, or that the pictures would look too great with sheets of rain between me and the subject.

I think those are probably the main points to note, the big ones being resolution and microfocus adjustment.

I understand that the replacement cost for a new LCD protection panel for a 40D is actually pretty low - maybe around £10-£15 if my memory serves from when I looked into the topic - although I have never bought one. It's a DIY replacement. You need some sort of suction cup device to remove the old LCD and the new one is supplied with a fresh sticky tape seal so that you simply push it into place yourself.

If you are looking to get a new camera then you may want to act fast in order to beat the impending price rises caused by the weak sterling vs Yen. The RRPs have just increased on the Canon UK website - 50D from £1200 to £1250 and the 1D3 from £3050 to £4000. I bought a 1D3 from Jessops last weekend for £2251.

[QuantumTiger]

As for AF performance, some say the 50D is a mite quicker, especially with initial lock. I can't say I've noticed any change, but then it's hard to engineer fully valid back to back tests. Certainly the same issues with a teleconverter and f/5.6 lens are still there.
Thanks Tim for an informative post. Can you expand a bit on the issues with the TC and f/5.6 lens?

I'm currently using the 20D with the 400mm f/5.6L prime and a Tamron 1.4x, which works pretty well. It will autofocus in good light although it hunts a bit if the image is cluttered. I was thinking about upgrading to the 50D but not sure that it will give me a huge benefit if I can't autofocus with the TC. The way I read it the move from 8 to 15mega pixels gives me the equivalent to a 1.35x TC in extra cropability, so if I can't use the TC I will end up with a pretty similiar image size and a one stop advantage with the 50D.

I appreciate that there are a lot of other advantages (spot metering, bigger buffer, bigger LCD etc), but I'm teetering as to whether these are really enough to lay out some cash!

[tdodd]

Apart from the 1 series cameras, all other Canon bodies are only designed to AF correctly with a lens of f/5.6 aperture or faster. If you add a 1.4X teleconverter you lose 1 stop of light and what was f/5.6 becomes f/8. If the camera can see that you have the teleconverter fitted (suitable pins present to register its presence) the camera will disable AF altogether. If your teleconverter has no such pins, or it has them but you apply some tape over them to hide them, the camera will not see the teleconverter and will stil be under the impression that you have an f/5.6 lens fitted. It will thus permit the AF to (attempt to) function, even though in truth the lens is out of spec.

The result is variable or completely unsatisfactory focus. The 30D, which I also have, could limp along with a 100-400 and 1.4X teleconverter but the 40D and 50D really don't like it at all, at least with the central focus point. The outer diagonal points can work fairly well even with the teleconverter, but I suspect they would not be good for BIF, only perched birds. This seems like a backward step for the 40D and 50D but I suspect it is fallout from the superior cross point sensor that also occupies space in the centre of the focus array, which will give improved performance for lenses that remain within spec.

If you fit a 1.4X teleconverter to a lens of f/4 or faster then there will be no problem at all. If your lens is f/2.8 then you can even get away with a 2X teleconverter as that will still only bring you to f/5.6.

[QuantumTiger]

Thanks for the detailed explanation, Tim.

Sorry, I should have been a bit clearer in my question in that I know the technical bit - I'm looking more to understand the user experience.

Have you used a 400mm 5.6 prime with the 50D or just the 100-400? Is anyone out there who can comment on using the 400mm f/5.6 prime with a TC on the 50D compared to the 20D? Does it just hunt even in good light, or does it lock but not really in focus?

[tdodd]

I'm afraid I have no experience of the prime, only the 100-400.

[JohnZ]

I don`t have a 50D Quantum but I think it has been explained elsewhere on the Canon bit that both the 40D and the 50D have very similar focussing systems. Hence neither working particularly well with a TC.

[Roy C]

Thanks for the detailed explanation, Tim.

Sorry, I should have been a bit clearer in my question in that I know the technical bit - I'm looking more to understand the user experience.

Have you used a 400mm 5.6 prime with the 50D or just the 100-400? Is anyone out there who can comment on using the 400mm f/5.6 prime with a TC on the 50D compared to the 20D? Does it just hunt even in good light, or does it lock but not really in focus?
From what I can gather the 50D is similar to the 40D with regards to using a taped tc.
I use the 40D + 400/5.6 and 1.4tc (taped) - AF is not quite as good as with the 30D but well usable IMO. BTW I always use just the centre focus point. When the combo can not acquire AF I find a little tweak of the manual focusing ring to bring it roughly in focus helps, just use the AF to finish the focus.

[postcardcv]

The problem with questions like this is that how well a f5.6 lens with a taped tc and a given camera, is that it may work for some and not others. Even if someone else has a 400 f5.6 work with a 50D and taped tc it doesn't mean it will definitely work for you.

[tdodd]

The problem with questions like this is that how well a f5.6 lens with a taped tc and a given camera, is that it may work for some and not others. Even if someone else has a 400 f5.6 work with a 50D and taped tc it doesn't mean it will definitely work for you.
That's a very good point. Strictly speaking my 40D can AF with the centre point and the teleconverter (on the 100-400) if the subject has enough light and strong contrast. I even have video evidence here....

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=STvuECPWR7c

However, for low contrast birds against a low contrast background, in low contrast light, or even good light, (e.g. a blue tit in a bush) the centre point is a complete waste of time. The outer diagonals work quite well for a static subject though, even if the contrast is not stellar. In this regard I have found my 50D performance to be on a par with my 40D.

[kevindurose]

Max, my advice would be to keep your 40D. You will be just wasting money. The amount of difference you will see will be undetectable in a printed picture or on a computer. A better idea would be to take a trip to Florida and spend two weeks blsting soft targets with your 40D.

[eastwood]

I found not much difference except perhaps for the croppability.

[senatore]

Thanks for the comments everyone.However I am a bit disappointed no one has come forward who was pleased with going from a 40D to a 50D so it looks like it may not be the way to go.

Max.

[GYRob]

Thanks for the comments everyone.However I am a bit disappointed no one has come forward who was pleased with going from a 40D to a 50D so it looks like it may not be the way to go.

Max.

im suprised too as i thought with all the extra MPs to crop from the 50d would have been great for birding over almost any other cam.
i would have one but waiting for a 1dmk4 .
Rob.

[Adey Baker]

Well, the cropping has been mentioned a couple of times. It's something to consider but there must be a limit to how much you can crop before the image gets degraded.

The frame is already cropped by 1.6x times to start with and further cropping will eventually show up the limits of resolution of the lens (not sure at what stage this will be with various good quality lenses).

If you can get away with it on the 50D then it's one way of catching up with the big lens boys - until they get a 50D and pull ahead again! A 400mm F5.6 lens is a really handy lens to carry around all day and bring into play quickly but there's a limit to how much you can achieve with bird photography and I'm wondering whether Max has hit the photographic equivalent of 'writers' block!'

Sooner or later you have to consider getting a bigger lens (no, I can't afford one and don't want to lug one around, either!) or concentrate on subjects that are more suitable for a 400mm lens and try for the highest quality shots there, rather than getting a record shot of just about anything.

[Saphire]

I have gone from 40D to 50D, I initially bought it for the better LCD so I can check for out of focus shots as I am losing my eyesight and now have to rely on AF fully.
I am very Happy with my upgrade, the extra mps are a bonus it seems to give a bit more reach so the birds look closer at the same crop size, which is brilliant I don't have to use the 1.4 converter quite so much.

I haven't replied to this thread as I cannot see to read or write very well what has been written so forgive me in being a bit brief.

There has been a couple of threads on 40d versus 50d that have been running for some while. They are here
http://www.birdforum.net/forumdisplay.php?f=292&order=desc&page=2
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=126363

[hollis_f]

I did the 40D to 50D upgrade just for the extra cropability (after talking about it in this forum). The new camera seems to be as good as the 40D in all other departments. The promise of Micro Focus Adjustment was tempting, but I ain't seen the need for it yet, I may try it on my 300 f2.8 with 2x TC.

The difference was nowhere near as great as the jump from 20D to 40D. But I had some spare cash at the time.

[vkalia]

MAde the upgrade. Very happy with the decision (although I should have just kept my 40D for underwater use... but that's a different story). Big points for me - greater pixel density and improved ISO (and no, comparing 100% crops does not constitute a valid comparison of ISO).

Vandit

[senatore]

Thanks again for the replies.

Max.

[tdodd]

Cropping illustration from a tripod mounted 50D and 100-400 + taped Kenko 1.4X at 400mm (560mm), 400 ISO, 1/400, f/7.1 (f/10)...

Full image :

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_4_R8TkwT74w/SSmMCXXju8I/AAAAAAAA4eY/thfCkkl1M8g/s800/20081122_112845_1795_LR-3.jpg

100% crop :

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_4_R8TkwT74w/SSmMA-m422I/AAAAAAAA4eQ/MCyaq8W8VUA/s800/20081122_112845_1795_LR-2.jpg

If we believe what we read, at f/10 on the 50D the image would be showing signs of diffraction softening when viewed at 100%. It doesn't look too shabby to me. This has had some sharpening tweaks in Lightroom.

In order to make those 15MP work for you, your focus must be absolutely faultless and shake/blur entirely absent. This is where I have my doubts that the 50D offers much advantage over a 40D for BIF. I expect someone with better technique/skill/light/luck/glass than me could prove otherwise.

[jeffs55]

I went from the 40D to the 50D and I have not seen any differnence. The 50D files are bigger so I suppose you could crop better but not much. I have taken 20meg images and cropped severely and have very blurry images. I broke the 40D and got a good insurance pay out so I got the 50D right. I would not upgrade under the assumption of getting better pics. They are basically the same. Save your money for lenses that you dont have. There is no substitute for millimeters in birding!

[tonky]

I'm a bit late coming to this thread, but I upgraded from a 40D to a 50D, and I've seen a huge jump in my effective shooting distance, primarily using the Canon 500mm f4L IS, easily getting usable shots without a converter at a distance where I'd previously have used the 1.4X TC. Using the 1.4X TC, which I do a lot, the AF performs flawlessy.

The 50D is by far the best body I've used yet for small bird photography. I can't say I've used it in anger much for BIF shots, where obviously it wont match the likes of a 1D2 or 3 with their better AF systems, but it will significantly outreach either of them which is the main priority for me and the reason I sold my 1DMK2n.

The 50D is pretty much the ideal birding camera for me until Canon stick it into a 1 Series body with the 45 point AF system. Please Mr Canon if you're listening.

[senatore]

I started this thread and wish to thank everyone for their comments.

It's obvious that the 50D is a great camera but may not be worth upgrading to from the 40D.

Having decided to stick with the 40D I bravely changed the scratched LCD panel which was one of the reasons I was considering a change.

Max.

[JohnZ]

Not too happy with the 100% crop.