• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Upgrade options: 50D vs 5DMk2 vs 500mm (1 Viewer)

D

dwd

New member
I have been using a 40D for the last year, primarilly with a 100-400mm lens. Generally I have been very pleased with the results. In fact, so pleased on occasions, I found it hard to believe I have done so well. This has unfortunately raised my expectations, so I am disppointed when the results are not so good. This is usually attributable to a lack of reach. It is amazing how well you can magnify a bird that did not even fill the spot metering circle, but obviously this is not ideal! I do have a Canon 1.4x TC, but don't use it too often, due to the lack of AF and the viewfinder is a bit dark for accuate manual focus (well it is with my dodgy eyesight).

I had always planned to upgrade after I had a bit of experience, so with the release of the new cameras, it looks like an ideal time to consider the options! (Also, I will be going to the US in a months time.)

50D: ~£1,000
This has 1.5 times the pixels, so I can crop off a third and have the same size image as with the 40D. Also, the high ISO performance is supposed to be better, so I can use a faster shutter and/or smaller aperture for sharper images.

5DMk2: ~£2,000
21MP full-frame. Having done the sums, this will not actually improve the reach, but the images should still be better, as a result of a bigger, better sensor. Not so sure about the AF.

500mm F1:4 Lens: ~£4,000
With a 1.4 TC this will still AF, with a focal length of 700mm. That will definately bring things a bit nearer. Without the TC it will have a faster aperture.

I'm sure the lens will give the most dramatic improvement, but will it be at least 4 times greater than a 50D (to justify the cost). Of course, in an ideal world I would buy both, but £2,000 would be nearer my immediate limit without a fair amount of saving.
 
Personally I'd go for the lens, rather than a new body because, as you say yourself, the lens will give the best improvement, especially with full AF as it's f4 and a focal length of 700mm with the converter.
 
Lens, no question.

I will say that with my 100-400mm, it's as sharp wide open as it is at f/8 so for me stopping down provides very little additional sharpness, but it can lose some by reducing the shutter speed to "touch and go" territory (I only shoot hand-held though).

I mention this in relation to your proposed "benefit" of the 50D.

It may be better at high ISO than the 40D (although I use mine at 1600 and higher quite happily) but I wouldn't expect a huge overall sharpness improvement to come from stopping down the 100-400mm and cranking the ISO - at least I'm certain it wouldn't benefit me.

Another argument for real reach over cropping (and one I don't think I've seen mentioned, but it's real) is that cropping a dot in the frame is all well and good, but it's much harder to get accurate AF on a speck in the first place, whereas with real reach, you can be far more effective in placing the AF point properly and allowing the camera to do a good job of focusing.

Oh - and welcome to BF!
 
Last edited:
dwd said:
50D: ~£1,000
This has 1.5 times the pixels, so I can crop off a third and have the same size image as with the 40D.
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. You can crop away 33% of the pixels and have a photo that corresponds in size to the output from your 40D. But that doesn't give you that much more reach. If you crop away 33% of the photo horizontally and vertically (which in terms of FOV corresponds to using a 1.5x TC) you end up with a photo that's little more than 6 MP

Thomas
 
dwd,

This is a real no-brainer question/quandry you find yourself in. Without question the single most important piece of equipment you can buy is your 500/4. You will have many cameras but if you look after your lens then it will last a lifetime.

On another note too many of the 100-400 brigade think that think that by attaching a 1.4x TC they can compete with the long lens legions ~ just no contest, sorry.
 
Last edited:
Definitely the lens. It looks as though the 50D will be a very desirable bit of kit, but ultimately a higher pixel density isn't going to help get all that much more out of the lens when you are talking about a subject which is small / far away.
 
Keith Reeder said:
Oh - and I've just looked at your site, and I see precious little to support that level of arrogance. [/url]
Click to expand...

Congratrulations, you are obviously competent with your kit. However my point, badly made I grant you was this. That if dwd has the money available then he should invest in the 500/4 instead of relying on being able to crop more with more pixels with a 100-400. Too many folks who are new to photography think that a new digital camera and a 100-400 is some sort of panacea for their photographic ambitions. They spend the money and invest very little time in knowing how to use it effectively, nor employ any fieldcraft.

I don't recall singling you out for any criticism Keith.
 
Just gone through the same process myself and everyone says to invest in the glass. So that's what I have done, and booked a weekend all to myslef in three weeks.

Personally I have found that because of the limitations in reach of the 100-400 my fieldcraft has improved immensely as I needed to get close and low to get some rewarding pictures.

Still plenty to learn!
 
Chris Galvin said:
On another note too many of the 100-400 brigade think that think that by attaching a 1.4x TC they can compete with the long lens legions ~ just no contest, sorry.
Click to expand...


Ouch. What about the 400mm f5.6 brigade? I assume we are tarred with the same brush then?

Considering that both the 100-400mm and the 400mm f5.6 both cost in the region of £900 or less (as well as being superb optics) and therefore are within reach of us ordinary mortals who cannot afford 500mm (or larger) super-telephoto lenses, that comment comes over as more than a touch arrogant, intended or not. Not all of us are loaded and can go and drop upwards of £4000 on a lens, so a 400mm with a tc attached is a very good alternative.
 
Well, it looks like the lens is the winner. Shame I can't afford it at the moment. I was hoping the 50D would give a cheaper option for improvement, but I take all the points in favour of the glass. I had intended to buy it about now, but alas £4K is hard to save. Something always takes priority before I get there. (So far this year a new boiler, expensive computer and car breakdowns etc.) Perhaps I need to find a way to raise the extra money with my existing kit (without having to sell it all:) Any suggestions?

AMM said:
Something else that hasn't been mentioned yet (probably because its inconceivable), but if you get fed up with the lens or photography and want to sell, it'll keep its value much better than a camera body.
Click to expand...

That is actually a problem. It is not much cheaper to pick them up second hand
 
I'd always go for glass first. Plus glass doesn't depreciate half as fast as bodies, get the lens, try it on the 40D, if you're still unhappy perhaps the 50D will have come down in price a bit. I use a 40D with the 100-400, sometimes the 1.4 and i'm pretty happy.
 
ok I'm still learning - very much an amateur so be gentle!!! I have a Canon 300D Digi Rebel and looking to upgrade. I'm NOT loaded either - in fact, I'm still seeking employment - but continuing to think of the first gift I want to give myself when I can afford to do so. I've only got a 75-300mm zoom with a 1.5x TC - it's all I have to my name outside of the standard lens and a nice macro. I've been considering putting the 50D at the top of my wish list with a nice 400mm prime for later on. So, what's the story with the 50D? Is it worth considering as an upgrade to my poor 6.1 Megapixel 300D? I know the 400mm will come later but I genuinely feel that the body upgrade should come first.

Thoughts? Comments?
 
Hi Sunshine, to be honest, I would hold on a few months until the 50D price comes down a bit. The 50D looks like a great camera, but at the moment it costs more than it will do maybe four months later. Have you considered the 40D? The 40D is still a current model and it's a superb camera, although 10MP as opposed to 15MP (though, as people will tell you, megapixels aren't everything).
If you get the 40D you'll have some money left over to put towards a nice 400mm f5.6.
 
I think by the time I am actually ready to make a purchase, the prices will have dropped. I just assume go for a 15.1 megapixel if the quality of the camera is good. What I'm looking for is insight into the differences between the two camera - again, I am not a pro but would like the most bang for my buck. I'm just scoping things out until I obtain a job first and foremost.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 16 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

MrYama
Fuji 70-300mm +1.4 TC vs +Cropping (w/ X-T4)
Replies
2
Views
401
Ignatius
Ignatius
Steve Babbs
Zuiko 100 - 400 vs 300
Replies
9
Views
712
Steve Babbs
Steve Babbs
W
Considering a Partial Camera Upgrade - D500 w/ 200-500mm lens
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
BriLee
B
dwatsonbirder
Compact comparisons: Low end vs high end
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
Rg548
R
A
Desperately seeking advice: MHG vs Conquest vs SFL (10x)
2 3
Replies
49
Views
4K
Paultricounty
P

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top