Upgrading from 20D - should I go 40D or 50D?

[mjobling]

Hi all. I realise there are many threads on 50D vs 40D, but I'm still using a now very old (but still great) 20D and thinking of upgrading for my bird photography.

I use a Sigma Bigma 50-500mm lense for my bird photos, the optics of which are OK, but not great, and I'm wondering what people's thoughts are on whether I should go for an EOS 40D and save a bit of cash, or plump for an EOS 50D.

I'm not sure if my lense can make the most of the 50D's higher pixel density any way and I've read all the middling reviews of the 50D and would appreciate any advice.

Oh, I also do a lot of landscapes and trains/trams, for which I have some nice EFL lenses, so the resolution of a 50D wouldn't be completely wasted.

[citrinella]

20d is a fantastic camera. Wouldn't you be better to think about upgrading the glass first ? Are you sure that isn't the limit on your photography ?

Mike.

[Robert L Jarvis]

Personally if I had loads of cash I would go Nikon, but I don't so Canon are the most practical choice. I have a 400d, one son has a 30D and the other a 40D. Although the 50D may have received middling reports IMO it would still be the better choice if you cannot afford the "pro" models. As for the 40D I find it disturbing that this camera is being revealed for poor reliablity, too many breakdowns. Just scan the threads on here!!

Robert

[mjobling]

20d is a fantastic camera. Wouldn't you be better to think about upgrading the glass first ? Are you sure that isn't the limit on your photography ?

Mike.

I agree, it's a great camera, and I'll probably still use it for my landscape and transport photos, even if I get a 50D.

I can zoom in to pixel level and the optics don't look to me to be at their limit. I think the Bigma could certainly handle denser pixels - just not sure how much.

Would love to get a really nice high-end lense but It's difficult getting a mortgage at present.

[GYRob]

50d the extra MPs can give more to crop from and you can tune your lens with MA so your getting the best out of it .
Rob.

[Roy C]

If I were upgrading from the 20D/30D I would certainly go for the 50D.
The 40D to 50D upgrade is a lot less compelling IMO, the 40D is a superb camera which is capable of anything the 50D can give you apart from MA and maybe more cropability as Rob has pointed out - not worth £800 to me.

[Cashie]

Personally if I had loads of cash I would go Nikon, but I don't so Canon are the most practical choice. I have a 400d, one son has a 30D and the other a 40D. Although the 50D may have received middling reports IMO it would still be the better choice if you cannot afford the "pro" models. As for the 40D I find it disturbing that this camera is being revealed for poor reliablity, too many breakdowns. Just scan the threads on here!!

Robert

Robert, I changed over from Nikon to Canon as I was getting more reliability problems than it was worth, so I sold all my gear.

I had two bodies the D100 & D200 & both were faulty so it seems to me that they are letting them through quality control in batches.:C

At the moment I have the Canon 40D & 30D & I still prefer the 30D out of the two, as I'm getting a lot more keepers from it.

I was going to buy the Canon 1D mkIII but I'm going to wait for the MkIV to see what it has to offer.

The moral of the story is try before you buy!! 8-P

[hollis_f]

If I were upgrading from the 20D/30D I would certainly go for the 50D.
The 40D to 50D upgrade is a lot less compelling IMO, the 40D is a superb camera which is capable of anything the 50D can give you apart from MA and maybe more cropability as Rob has pointed out - not worth £800 to me.So, did you mean to say that you'd go for the 40D upgrade?

Either would be a substantial step-up from the 20D. I was so pleased when I got my 40D, but the 50D upgrade has passed almost unnoticed. Yes, there are more pixels to play with, but that's about the only difference (I've not needed MFA and the only time I'll use Face-Detection is to impress impressionable friends).

[QuantumTiger]

I also have a 20D and have been considering the upgrade to 50D. I have to confess the more I read the more uncertain I become. There are definate advantages that both the 40 & 50 have over the 20, but there are also questions which make me wonder if I'd be better off saving my cash! As Robert says, the 20D is already a very good camera.

Having read around a bit I am beginning to wonder whether a side leap to a second hand 1D MkII or 1 Ds MkII might not be a better move for me. It comes down to identifying the most frustrating limits of my current set-up and then working out which camera best addresses those. But in doing a side by side comparison of all the contenders it looks like every solution has plusses and minusses.

In the meantime I have decided to try and get out and take more pictures. :)

[IanF]

I've got the 20D and 40D and for photo quality I regard them as the same. I tend to use the 40D a lot more as I pefer the larger LCD and the button arrangement but I'm just as happy using the 20D which is my backup camera.

To be honest I don't think it's worth changing the 20D as I can't see where you're going to gain anything from.

You'd gain much more from your money by upgrading the glass - maybe to the Canon 400mm f5,6 or Canon 100-400mm IS.

[Roy C]

So, did you mean to say that you'd go for the 40D upgrade?

.
What I said Frank was if I were upgrading from the 20D or 30D then I would go for the the 50D. But if you already have the 40D then the upgrade is not worth it IMO.

[Roy C]

Robert, I changed over from Nikon to Canon as I was getting more reliability problems than it was worth, so I sold all my gear.


You are right there Paul, one has only got to go on to a few Nikon forums to realise that they have also got a lot of reliability problems.

[gmax]

I also have a 20D and have been considering the upgrade to 50D. I have to confess the more I read the more uncertain I become. There are definate advantages that both the 40 & 50 have over the 20, but there are also questions which make me wonder if I'd be better off saving my cash! As Robert says, the 20D is already a very good camera.

Having read around a bit I am beginning to wonder whether a side leap to a second hand 1D MkII or 1 Ds MkII might not be a better move for me. It comes down to identifying the most frustrating limits of my current set-up and then working out which camera best addresses those. But in doing a side by side comparison of all the contenders it looks like every solution has plusses and minusses.

In the meantime I have decided to try and get out and take more pictures. :)

I thoroughly agree with you! I've been in the same boat and for some months I've been pondering on the best choice ... the side-leap to a second-hand 1D MkIIN has been my best bet - I feel that now I'm able to exploit better the limits of my combo with more consistent results and far more keepers in my bag ...

Obviously - as Ian pointed out - upgrading the lens would surely provide some tangible improvements

Cheers,

Max

[hollis_f]

What I said Frank was if I were upgrading from the 20D or 30D then I would go for the the 50D. But if you already have the 40D then the upgrade is not worth it IMO.Ah, yes. Obviously brain not working proper this morning. Yup, I think I'd agree 100% with that.

[QuantumTiger]

I thoroughly agree with you! I've been in the same boat and for some months I've been pondering on the best choice ... the side-leap to a second-hand 1D MkIIN has been my best bet - I feel that now I'm able to exploit better the limits of my combo with more consistent results and far more keepers in my bag ...

So you've gone for the 1D MkIIN? How are you finding the controls relative to the 20D? Had a play with one this week and it feels a little clunky! And what glass are you using? I already have a 70-200 f/2.8L IS and 400 f/5.6L so really the next obvious upgrade is the 500mm f/4 IS and that feels a little too far to go at present. Although I am considering hiring one for a week when there is better light (and after I upgrade the camera).

[mjobling]

I'm swinging now towards going for a Canon 100-400 lense to replace my Bigma (with a 1.4x teleconverter) instead of upgrading the camera, and maybe save up for a 5D Mark II next year instead.

[vkalia]

Well, I still use a 20D for underwater use and it still produces really good images (no problems getting them to my stock agency or for editorial sales). Shooting in RAW, the 20D images up-res pretty well for large prints as well.

The biggest benefit of the 50D over the 20D and even the 40D, which everyone seems to ignore, is high-ISO performance. Even ISO 12,800 is usable, if you shoot RAW and convert using Noise Ninja or NeatImage... not perfect or ideal, but definitely usable. And I find ISO 1600 and 3200 to be a lot more usable on the 50D, especially once you down-res to the 40D's resolution (or up-res the 40D to the 50D's).

Vandit

[davem]

Interesting thread! My dilemma exactly!

However, give it a month or so and the 40D will be at the end of its 18month)life cycle and probably at a clearance price in various outlets (as the 30D was a years ago) so may be significantly cheaper than the 50D and all I really want (apart from 8fps) is a bigger RAW buffer as I am limited in sport horse photography with a RAW buffer on my 20D of 6 RAWs.

Does anyone consider the noise levels on the 40D to be noticeably better than the 20D or are we still about the same level?

As for the glass question, can never afford the big stuff so have all I want with the 100-400 and the 70-200 2.8.

TIA

Dave.

[JohnZ]

The 40D sounds almost silent compared to the 20D. Just my opinion.

[gmax]

So you've gone for the 1D MkIIN? How are you finding the controls relative to the 20D? Had a play with one this week and it feels a little clunky! And what glass are you using? I already have a 70-200 f/2.8L IS and 400 f/5.6L so really the next obvious upgrade is the 500mm f/4 IS and that feels a little too far to go at present. Although I am considering hiring one for a week when there is better light (and after I upgrade the camera).

Well, the controls are a bit different (read: poorer usability), but I managed to get used to in a week ... although I keep missing the joystick of my 20D, but mainly when reviewing my captures.

All in all, the main controls you use more often (e.g. set ISO: need 3 fingers :C) become quite automatic after a while, and are balanced by new useful features (e.g. switch from one card to the other: 2 fingers o:D)

I mainly use the 400mm f/5.6, with a Tc on, and the upgrade you mention is on top of my wish list :t: .. for the time being, though, I'm quite happy with this combo and - since I love BIFs - I've seen a major improvement, thanks to the faster burst, larger buffer and - most of all - stunning AF performance :king:

[postcardcv]

So you've gone for the 1D MkIIN? How are you finding the controls relative to the 20D? Had a play with one this week and it feels a little clunky! And what glass are you using? I already have a 70-200 f/2.8L IS and 400 f/5.6L so really the next obvious upgrade is the 500mm f/4 IS and that feels a little too far to go at present. Although I am considering hiring one for a week when there is better light (and after I upgrade the camera).

I recently made a similar change (40D to mkII) so have had to adjust to the different controls. I agree with Max that after a while (a couple of sessions) it becomes instinctive, even though you often have to press twice as many buttons as seem needed. Reviewing images is definitely more fiddly, but then just buy a couple of big cards and give up chimping! The extra fiddle is well worth it for the huge number of selectable AF points and the AF speed.

I wouldn't recommend renting a 500 f4 unless you are prepared to buy one, they are stunning lenses...

[gmax]

I wouldn't recommend renting a 500 f4 unless you are prepared to buy one, they are stunning lenses...

WORDS OF WISDOM :king:

[mjobling]

WORDS OF WISDOM :king:

With a lense that would cost more to buy than my car, I'd hope the picture quality was good, and that it'd edit and publish the pictures for me as well!

[QuantumTiger]

I wouldn't recommend renting a 500 f4 unless you are prepared to buy one, they are stunning lenses...
Well I kind of figure that if I do one major photography holiday in a year and hiring a 500mm set me back about £200-250 for two weeks then it would eighteen years before I was out of pocket. Yes; I know I'd probably miss it when I didn't have it - but with the number of weekends I currently manage to get out and shoot I can't really justify £4.8k.

[Roy C]

On the subject of Lens prices, I see the cheapest UK source for the 500/4 is now £4400 (was £3900 a month ago). I guess the Yen/£ rate is really starting to bite as retailer replenish their stock.

[paul goode]

On the subject of Lens prices, I see the cheapest UK source for the 500/4 is now £4400 (was £3900 a month ago). I guess the Yen/£ rate is really starting to bite as retailer replenish their stock.

The only retailer at that price is Jessops and they've got no stock. The next lowest is £4800. I'll be surprised if they hold that price when new stock arrives. Jacobs have put the price up £1000 since last thursday!

[Roy C]

The only retailer at that price is Jessops and they've got no stock. The next lowest is £4800. I'll be surprised if they hold that price when new stock arrives. Jacobs have put the price up £1000 since last thursday!
Does not surprise me Paul, the yen is very strong against most all currencies at the moment. I was reading a thread on another forum where people from all over the world were commenting on the recent photographic price hikes.

[Vectis Birder]

The only retailer at that price is Jessops and they've got no stock. The next lowest is £4800. I'll be surprised if they hold that price when new stock arrives. Jacobs have put the price up £1000 since last thursday!

By £1000??! Good grief. :eek!:

[Roy C]

By £1000??! Good grief. :eek!:
That is about right - most prices are up 20%-25%. Just been reading about a couple of users in Croatia and Poland and they are seeing 25% rises.

[mjobling]

OK, moving away from the discussion of platinum coated, diamond encrusted, king's ransom priced lenses and back to my problem, what do people think of the EOD 450D sensor? Is this an alternative worth considering for someone who wants some increased croppability, or is the sensor poor compared to the EOS 50D?

I'm aware of the functional limitations of the 450D, but it would be a stop-gap, until hopefully prices improve and I save some money to buy a EOS 5D Mark II next year.

Also, I plan to this year upgrade my Bigma to a Canon 100-400 with a 1.4X teleconverter, to make the most of increased resolution.

If I went the 450D route, until the 5D Mark II, my EOS 20D would still be my camera of choice for landscapes, portraits, trains and anything that I don't intend to crop much. The 450D would just be a birding camera.

[Robert L Jarvis]

I think getting a 450D would be a waste of resources. Stick with the 20D and get canon glass in front. I recently bought a 100-400 which I use with my 400D and have used a taped kenko 1.4 tc with it. Focussing on good light has certainly been quick enough and much detail retained.

So IMHO go for the Canon glass and hang fire until you can afford to get a 50D or better. Keep your eye on the S/H deals for cameras.

[mjobling]

I think getting a 450D would be a waste of resources. Stick with the 20D and get canon glass in front. I recently bought a 100-400 which I use with my 400D and have used a taped kenko 1.4 tc with it. Focussing on good light has certainly been quick enough and much detail retained.

So IMHO go for the Canon glass and hang fire until you can afford to get a 50D or better. Keep your eye on the S/H deals for cameras.

Thanks Robert - makes sense.

[davem]

However, if you've already got L lenses in your bag, can we have an opinion on the 20D to 40D/50D upgrade from anyone please?

Am most interested in high ISO noise level differences, the 6.5fps will be nice, as will the quieter shutter not to mention the comparatively HUGE Raw buffer (only 6 on the 20D).

[mjobling]

Well, I took the plunge and got the 50D. Not done any bird photography yet, but some interesting findings already.

Out of the box settings have a major flaw. A feature called "Auto Lighting Optimizer" is enabled by default, which leads RAW images to look noisy even at 100 ISO, when viewed in DPP. Once this is disabled and the images which had it enabled have the effect removed in DPP, the there is no noise at low ISO and noise handling via DPP at higher ISOs is superb.

I'm wondering if this Auto Lighting Optimizer setting combined with poor RAW handling algorithms from Adobe are causing the lukewarm reception for this camera, as many owners may be oblivious to the problem.

Will hopefully get the Bigma on it this weekend and see how it does for the birds, but 100% crops with my Canon EF-L Lenses are looking amazing so far.

[Jim Almond]

I'm wondering if this Auto Lighting Optimizer setting combined with poor RAW handling algorithms from Adobe are causing the lukewarm reception for this camera, as many owners may be oblivious to the problem.


You're a star! :t: I too had noted acceptable but more than expected noise at 400ASA. Second time out with a 50D, switching off Auto Lighting Optimizer yesterday seems to have an instant effect. I haven't conducted a major comparison of precise on/off effects of this and other in camera settings on images yet though. There are a few images of willow Tit taken with 500mm f4 + 1.4 x - virtually 100% crops on my blog from yesterday (ignore the 'into the light' Lesser Pecker) which apart from some sharpening have had no noise reduction. All processed using DPP.

Jim

[Vectis Birder]

With a lense that would cost more to buy than my car, I'd hope the picture quality was good, and that it'd edit and publish the pictures for me as well!

Plus, at the prices Canon 500mm, 600mm and 800mm lenses cost, I would also hope they'd come gold plated and encrusted with jewels... :-O

[Clive Watson]

My lens cost six times what my car cost. Although that says more about my current car than my lens.

[mjobling]

You're a star! :t: I too had noted acceptable but more than expected noise at 400ASA. Second time out with a 50D, switching off Auto Lighting Optimizer yesterday seems to have an instant effect. I haven't conducted a major comparison of precise on/off effects of this and other in camera settings on images yet though. There are a few images of willow Tit taken with 500mm f4 + 1.4 x - virtually 100% crops on my blog from yesterday (ignore the 'into the light' Lesser Pecker) which apart from some sharpening have had no noise reduction. All processed using DPP.

Jim
Lovely shots Jim - what ISO were they taken at?

[Jim Almond]

all taken at 400 ISO.

Jim

[Ray Seagrove]

Hi
I have been using a 20D and Sigma 50-500 for a couple of years now and have just bought a 50D.
Whilst I agree with most of the points that others have mentioned re pixel count, screen resolution and size, hi ISO performance one point that has not been mentioned is the spot metering on the 50D which the 20D does not have which I have found very usefull in tricky lighting.
I am pleased with the 50D and it is a big upgrade from the 20D but I will keep using my 20D as my second body as it is still a more than capable camera and produces very good images.
Hope this is usefull to you.

Ray Seagrove

[Nikon Kid]

OK, moving away from the discussion of platinum coated, diamond encrusted, king's ransom priced lenses and back to my problem, what do people think of the EOD 450D sensor? Is this an alternative worth considering for someone who wants some increased croppability, or is the sensor poor compared to the EOS 50D?

I'm aware of the functional limitations of the 450D, but it would be a stop-gap, until hopefully prices improve and I save some money to buy a EOS 5D Mark II next year.

Also, I plan to this year upgrade my Bigma to a Canon 100-400 with a 1.4X teleconverter, to make the most of increased resolution.

If I went the 450D route, until the 5D Mark II, my EOS 20D would still be my camera of choice for landscapes, portraits, trains and anything that I don't intend to crop much. The 450D would just be a birding camera.

I am using the 450d with the 400mm I am happy with the results. I would like
to upgrade to the 50d with the 400mm and keep the 450d with the 70-300mm
but money is really short at the moment take a look at some of my pics with
450d+400mm see what you think..........