50d difference to 5d Mk II (1 Viewer)

I was very surprised when I put both cameras side by side to view the specs.

The sensor size of the 50d is 3.32 sqcm and the 5d MKII is 8.64 sqcm thats 2.6 times bigger that has amazed me, and its got
full HD video and 22 mil pix the bit that lets it down for me is the frames per sec 50d is 6.3 5d MKII is 3.9

How much does this full frame sensor give in overall Quality above the 50d
Did you upgrade from 40d or 50d to 5d MKII what do you think of it

Quality the 5D has it way over the 50 because of the size of pixels, not just the number of them. I'm sure that to keep the price reasonable for the 5D the frame rate had to be sacrificed, as there is certainly more to be processed, and speed costs money.

My first DSLR was the original 5D, so I have never shot less than full frame. In fact I waited for the 5D before I got a DSLR. My upgrade was to the MkII, and quality wise it is significant. The colors are much more vibrant than the original 5D, and the ISO can be pushed to the point where one almost doesn't need a flash! With quality! Can't go th extremes though.

The old 5D is no slouch for good pictures, and I imagine that there would be less noise than on an APSC sensor. Since the camera is obsolete it should be attractively priced as an entry level for the prospective Canon full frame shooter.

Nikon Kid said:

The sensor size of the 50d is 3.32 sqcm and the 5d MKII is 8.64 sqcm thats 2.6 times bigger that has amazed me, and its got
full HD video and 22 mil pix the bit that lets it down for me is the frames per sec 50d is 6.3 5d MKII is 3.9

How much does this full frame sensor give in overall Quality above the 50d

Click to expand...

I don't know why you are amazed at the difference in area. With a crop factor of 1.6X the area should differ by 1.6X1.6 = 2.56X, as you have found. It's simple maths and not amazing at all.

As for the IQ difference, it really depends. I don't have a 5D2 but look at it this way - the pixel density of the 5D2 is equivalent to the pixel density of the 30D. Let's say you have a 400/5.6 lens and you are struggling to fill the frame with your subject on your 50D. If you switch to the 5D2 with the same lens all you will accomplish is a load of extra wasted space around the subject. The sensor will be bigger but the image projected onto the sensor by the lens will be no bigger at all. The 21MP will be of no value to you if you have to crop like a mad thing to get a matching composition. Once you have cropped to create equal compositions you will find that the 5D2 gives you only half as many pixels on your subject as the 50D. Sure, the quality of each pixel will be superior in terms of noise and DR, but the detail will be less well defined. At low ISOs I would think the 50D would comfortably outgun the 5D2 with a lens that was not really long enough. At higher ISOs I'm not sure which the winner would be.

To really gain big benefits from the 5D2 you will need a lens with a focal length 1.6X greater than the 50D, to fill the frame to an equivalent field of view. Well 400mmX1.6 = 640mm. Since you can't go smaller than f/5.6 and still retain AF, never mind good AF, what are your options to get close to 640mm? A300/2.8L IS + 2X? A 400/4 + 1.4X? A 500/4 + 1.4X? A 600/4? Whichever option you pick you'll be looking at a bill of around £4,000 and upwards for glass vs the ~£1,000 for the 400/5.6. Add on the extra £1,000+ for the body and it's going to be an expensive solution to improving IQ.

If, on the other hand, your glass is long enough to fill the frame on the 5D2 then the IQ should be killer, so long as the AF can match the 50D.

Like I say, I don't have a 5D2 but I do have a 30D, 40D, 50D and 1D3. I performed a little test recently to try to determine which camera would give me the most useable "reach" for a small subject at a distance, taking into account detail captured and noise. I left the 30D out of the test but compared the other three at full stop ISOs from 100-3200. I produced three albums showing the results as....

- full frame images, resized to 800x533;
- crops to the size of my subject of interest;
- 100% crops.

The album that matters is the second one, since that represents a real world crop to a composition/subject that is equal across the board. Pixel peeping at 100% is really irrelevant, as is staring at full frame images that don't give me the picture I want. IMO, for any given ISO, the camera that produces the best looking images overall within that second album is the camera to use for perched birds. Once things start moving around then the AF performance and photographer skill becomes far more significant but I can't really engineer controlled tests of those things, so static targets will have to do.

Here are the albums. The images were shot raw and processed in DPP without any fancy editing. DPP was allowed to choose default NR for each image/ISO, as it saw fit. All other parameters (picture style, sharpening etc.) are identical for all images.

Full Frame Album
Crop to Subject Album (the important comparison)
100% Crop Album

I also reprocessed the images in Lightroom, just for the "Crop to subject" framing. All settings were at Lightroom defaults.

Lightroom Album

You can form your own opinions about noise, but to my eyes the 50D shows a clear edge in terms of pulling out detail from the subject. I used furry animals to simulate feather detail but the writing on the CD is the real giveaway. Comparing the 800 ISO examples, it just seems so much more crisp/contrasty in the example from the 50D. If the £800 50D can best, or at least equal, the £3,000 1D3 it's probably fair to say that it can best/match the 5D2 as well, when mated to the same glass.

EDIT : p.s. since the pixel densities are very similar, what might be interesting is to pitch a 5D2 against a 30D at 100 ISO, with the same lens and same subject/lighting,cropped to give an equivalent field of view, and see whether there is an obvious winner. As I don't have a 5D2 I'm afraid that's not a comparison I can perform.

Interesting tests there Tim, it brings home the advantage of a 1.6 cropper for birds - thanks for posting.

There is another matter to consider, if we are trying to make the comparisons as "like for like" as possible. That extra focal length required for the 5D2 to make those extra pixels matter will also have an impact on DOF. For a matching field of view the DOF on the 5D2 setup will be shallower than on the 50D at equivalent apertures. That means you will have to stop down more in order to maintain your DOF, to keep enough of the bird in focus, and give some safety margin for focus errors. If you stop down it means your shutter speed will have to drop, or you will have to bump up the ISO. The likely solution will be to bump up the ISO.

If you plug in some numbers to the calculator here - http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html - here's a reasonable comparison....

50D + 200mm, f/5.6, 20m distance has DOF of 213.4cm
5D2 + 320mm, f/5.6, 20m distance has DOF of 130.6cm

I picked a 200mm starting point because the website includes a 320mm option as well. There is no 640mm option to match against a 400mm lens on a cropper. But the principles apply equally for any equivalent combinations of focal length

In order to get roughly the same DOF from the 320mm lens on the 5D2 we would need an aperture of f/9, which would give a DOF of 207.7cm, so still just a little less.

But that's 1.3 stops slower than f/5.6, so if you were shooting at 1/800 and 800 ISO on the cropper at f/5.6 you would need to shoot at 2000 ISO and f/9 on the 5D2 in order to maintain both shutter speed and DOF, as well as field of view. I imagine then that the noise advantages of the 5D2 would be reduced somewhat. Of course, you'll still have the satisfaction of having spent a good deal more on your kit, and having more of it to lug around with you.

One of the big attractions of full frame is the ability to purposely achieve a shallow DOF, for creative DOF control such as in portraiture, for example. Obtaining shallow DOF on a cropper is that much harder - virtually impossible on a compact. "Unfortunately", this feature that makes full frame so attractive from one standpoint may be its undoing from another. For landscape photographers, the shutter speed issue is not of much consequence so stopping down to f/16 or f/22 is no hardship, but a landscape photographer with a crop body will run into diffraction softening beyond around f/8 and generally that will be my limit on stopping down with an XXD body, although I might go to f/11 if I had to. Beyond f/11 you trade DOF for overall image sharpness. Bottom line - pick the camera most suited to the task in hand - full frame for ultimate IQ, if you can fill the frame without cropping, otherwise, for action, the croppers get my vote. If you want a camera that balances the trade-offs at either end, and throws a little extra into the mix, then I guess the 1Dx might be your tool of choice.

Well thanks for your replies, But I am amazed at most anything when learning photography.
So big bucks camera = big bucks lens. After your post I now understand more regards to
sensor size = camera = lens, I am afraid I cannot go down that road of big camera big lens
as my pockets are half empty. Just now sit and wait for the 60d/7d and see its spec.

Thanks again for you very informative post.

Nikon Kid said:

So big bucks camera = big bucks lens. After your post I now understand more regards to sensor size = camera = lens, I am afraid I cannot go down that road of big camera big lens as my pockets are half empty.

Click to expand...

For birding, wildlife, sports, yes. But for portraiture and weddings possibly not.

e.g. on a 50D you might use a 50/1.4 (£295) for portraits. With a 5D2 an 85/1.8 (£310) might be a better match. Hardly worth worrying about the cost difference. However, I would think the 5D2 and 85/1.8 combination would slay the 50D and 50/1.4 for performance and IQ.

For a wedding you might find the 17-55/2.8 IS (£780+hood) and 70-200/2.8L IS (£1430) to be a good choice on the 50D. On a 5D2 you'd probably find the 24-70/2.8L (£1025 including hood) and 70-200/2.8L IS (£1430) would be a great combo, so not such a great difference in lens cost. In fact, given the DOF/ISO element, you could potentially go for the 24-105/4L IS (£800 including hood) and the 70-200/4 IS (£941) instead of the f/2.8 version and actually save money on the glass overall. Mind you, I doubt many wedding pros would take the f/4 lens when there was an f/2.8 option available.

For the landscape photographer the 50D owner might pick the 10-22 (£576+hood) to cover the range equivalent to 16-35 on a full frame camera. Strictly speaking the 16-35/2.8L (£1177) would be the best match in terms of focal length on the 5D2 but there is a stiff price premium for that potentially unnecessary f/2.8 aperture. A closer/fairer match might be the 17-40/4L (£616 including hood))

The real hit, costwise and weightwise really comes into play only at the longer focal lengths, when you are struggling for reach and the gap in prices is measured in the £thousands to move up from croppers to full frame.

I think were talking about quality of images so I might add that there has been one major issue left unturned. I know it isn`t about gear but knowing your subject, knowing where it perche`s, knwoing at what time it is most active, knowing how close you can get to it and using the best light will all come together to bring off a fantastic picture.......the gear we use is great for allowing us to get 'the' image (provided we know how to use it ) but is no substitute for knowing your subject........for me that will have more say in the quality of the pick.



I may be being a simpleton (woudn`t be the first time) but sometimes these thigs ae overlooked when talking about gear.

Mark, while I don't disagree with you, that sounds like a topic for the Technique forum rather than a thread specifically about the 50D vs 5D2 in the Canon Gear forum.

tdodd said:

Mark, while I don't disagree with you, that sounds like a topic for the Technique forum rather than a thread specifically about the 50D vs 5D2 in the Canon Gear forum.

Click to expand...

Ahhhhh yeah good point.............sorry ||