Canon 50D (1 Viewer)

[tringbirds]

Is there anybody out there who actually enjoys using their Canon 50D?
It would be nice to read some positive views.
I am happy with mine so far but realise that it will take a good few weeks/months to realise its full potential.

 

[tdodd]

As well as birds I do shoot wildlife in general, running dogs, scenery, motorsport and weddings so I need my cameras to be versatile. In simple terms I prefer my 40D to my 30D. I prefer my 50D to my 40D. I prefer my 1D3 to all of them, but then it does cost 3X as much as the 50D. The 50D is a good camera - the best yet of the Canon 1.6X croppers.

The only thing wrong with it, within its class, is Canon's overenthusiastic marketing of the high ISO performance. I would love pro grade AF in the 50D but that's not going to happen so there's no point dwelling on it.

So long as you have enough light to keep the ISO between 100 and 800 you should be able to get some cracking pictures (assuming your lens and technique are up to it). Above 800 ISO you just need to have realistic expectations. 15MP in a 1.6X cropper is not going to set new standards for high ISO noise per pixel, despite what the marketeers would have you believe.

If your glass has limited length and you want to place as many pixels as possible on your subject then the 50D is the way to go. If you want top drawer IQ as well then be sensible with the ISO. In good light (800 ISO max, 400 or less prefered), with a perched bird and a lens that was struggling to fill the frame, I would probably choose the 50D in preference to the 1D3 for detail. For BIF, anything in poor light or in situations where I could fill the frame I'd prefer the 1D3.

I should imagine that most of the bad press for the 50D stems from pixel peeping. Pixel peeping may have its place, but at the end of the day what really counts is how the picture looks, not each individual pixel. Some people simply can't see the wood for the trees (the image for the pixels). One should not overlook the potential benefit of AF microadjustment either, or a preview image that is actually sharp, if one is striving for ultimate image sharpness and to verify it in the field.

If you want the best 1.6X cropper made by Canon to date get the 50D. If you want to save £250 get the 40D. Both are great cameras. The 50D is the better one.

 

[Chris Upson]

I have been using a 50d for about 4weeks now ,i am very happy with it,the image detail is great,i also have taken images at ISO 1600 and was very happy with the results.I also have a 1D3 which is a great piece of kit but the 50d gives you more detail.Check out my Chaffinch flight shot taken at iso 1600 in BF Gallery or my web site
http://chris-upson.fotopic.net

 

[tdodd]

I don't have a single BIF shot taken with my 50D that's been worth keeping (birds too small in frame), yet, but I have been giving it a good workout with my dog. He is black, and not exactly slow (a 10 month old lurcher), and can be a real challenge for the AF.

Here's an example taken with my 50D and 85/1.8 at f/2.0, 1/800, 200 ISO....
and another at 85mm, 1/640, f/2.8, 400 ISO....

 

[Roy C]

Not sure that I have read too many negative reviews of the 50D myself - most of the debate seems to be centre around the 40D and if the upgrade to the 50D is worth it. To a lot of people it is not but that is not knocking the 50D, it is obviously a very fine Camera.
If I were buying new or upgrading from a xxxD Camera I would not hesitation in going for a 50D.

 

[tdodd]

Not sure that I have read too many negative reviews of the 50D myself <snip>

Well there was quite a sh!tstorm let loose when the DPReview review came out and they gave it a "Highly Recommended (just)". That "just" sent many people apoplectic.

Of course, they were first using beta ACR software and then the first "final" release of ACR for the 50D and in my experience Adobe don't seem to get it right at the first attempt when supporting a new camera. The review was flawed but the mud from it certainly stuck for a while. In the hands of end users it does seem that the response is very positive, in the main.

I know my 40D raw files looked poo the first time I processed them through Lightroom, forcing me to return to DPP, and then some time later, with a new Lightroom release, they seemed to come out looking smoother. It may be my imagination but my 50D files are looking better out of Lightroom 2.3 than they did from Lightroom 2.2. There were similar complaints about ACR/Lightroom when the 5D2 came out as well. I think the 50D got dealt a bad set of cards by Adobe/DPReview.

 

[tjsimonsen]

If I were buying new or upgrading from a xxxD Camera I would not hesitation in going for a 50D.

Two things convinced me to go for the 40D and not the 50D.
1. The 40D dropped almost 50% in price.
2. I'm pretty sure the 50D's 15mp sensor would well and truly out resolve my lenses (perhaps with the exception of my 100/2.8 macro)! So at the end of the day I would end up with considerably bigger files (and a tiff from the 40D is quite large to start with) without much added resolution. If I was using the 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 it would be a different matter

Just my 2 cents

Thomas

 

[Nikon Kid]

I have been using a 50d for about 4weeks now ,i am very happy with it,the image detail is great,i also have taken images at ISO 1600 and was very happy with the results.I also have a 1D3 which is a great piece of kit but the 50d gives you more detail.Check out my Chaffinch flight shot taken at iso 1600 in BF Gallery or my web site
http://chris-upson.fotopic.net

Thats a great shot Chris but also shot with a great lens 500 f4 one which I don't think i will be able to afford in the near future.
I have the 50d and I am also getting use to it but each week that goes by I am getting better I like the 50d alot.

EDIT heres a little pussy cat that was after my birdies in the garden taken with the 50d + 400mm f5.6 crap day

 

[hollis_f]

The only negative comments I've seen of the 50D are comparing it to the 40D. Almost without exception they seem to be written by either -

1) People who don't actually own a 50D but have read the review on DPReview at least twice.

2) People who print their images at 80"x20" and view the result with a loupe.

 

[tjsimonsen]

The only negative comments I've seen of the 50D are comparing it to the 40D. Almost without exception they seem to be written by either -

1) People who don't actually own a 50D but have read the review on DPReview at least twice.

2) People who print their images at 80"x20" and view the result with a loupe.

Frank, you are probably not wrong. But I think it is legitimate to ask whether the lens can actually keep up with the sensor. Otherwise you will just get bigger files - or at least the increase in file size will not be proportional to the increase in resolution. Though I have no proof, I do think the limit has been crossed for all but the very best lenses.

I'm not saying that the 50D isn't a better camera than the 40D. It probably is (though I have never used it), but I am doubtful it will deliver noticeable better IQ with anything but the very best lenses.

Thomas

 

[tdodd]

At http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos they have now started testing lenses with a 50D. If you can compare reviews of the same lens taken with the 50D and their 8MP camera (350D?) and look at the MTF figures you can see for yourself whether or not the 50D yields higher MTF scores. If it does then that means the extra megapixels are yielding benefit.

If you want to compare modest birding glass then look at the reviews of the Canon 55-250 lens....

8MP review - http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/194-canon-ef-s-55-250mm-f4-56-is-test-report--review?start=1

15MP review - http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/411-canon_55250_456is_50d?start=1

For convenience, here are the MTF figures for the 8MP camera and the 15MP camera respectively....

http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews/lenses/canon_55250_456is/mtf.gif

http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews/lenses/canon_55250_456is_50d/mtf.gif

At 250mm and f/8 the 8MP MTF figure is 1863. For the 50D it is 2200. That's an 18% increase in linear resolution, which translates to a 40% increase in total resolution. In other words, even with that modest zoom lens you will get 40% more pixels on your subject with the 50D compared to the 350D. Looked at another way, that's the equivalent of adding 18% to the focal length of your lens, assuming a 50D pixel is of equal (or better) quality to a 350D pixel in terms of nice, dynamic range, colour etc..

For the record, at 55mm and f/5.6 the 50D will give you an MTF of 2457 LW/PH while the 350D will give you just 2000. That's a linear resolution increase of 23%, or 50% in total pixels on the subject.

 

[tringbirds]

Thanks guys for all of your comments.I am reasured that I bought the correct camera. Some fantastic shots, especially the Chaffinch, and now I have got something to aim for. Comments re DP review were a little alarming and perhaps they will review their review soon to revise some of their comments. Thanks once more, all your comments made very interesting reading.
Doug

 

[tdodd]

There are several reviews of the 50D collated and summarised onto this page....

http://www.cameratown.com/reviews/review_listing.cfm?id=4410

The review scores listed are not for the camera but for the actual reviews. i.e. a review with a score of 9 was a very well regarded review whereas one of maybe 6 or less was not so well thought of.

 

[tdodd]

Here are some samples comparing my 40D and 50D when mated to my 100-400 @ 400mm. f/8, 1/800, 400 ISO on a tripod with mirror lockup and 10 second timer release.. The target was an A4 marketing flyer at about 20' (7m). To my 46 year old eyes some of the text looked quite small, though easily readable, so I thought it would make a good test for judging resolution for feather detail on a bird. Both cameras made easy work of the target but the 100% crops show that you can get a much larger image from the 50D, hopefully without sacrificing IQ.

Here is the full image from the 50D, two 100% crops from the 50D and then two 100% crops from the 40D, refocusing between each shot using AF. These were shot raw and converted in Lightroom with no edits. Perhaps I should move the target further away.

 

[Adey Baker]

Tim, that really just shows that there's more pixels on the 50D sensor which we already know. What it needs is a test of some sort (perhaps a lens test chart) which shows the point at which the 40D (or whatever) reaches its limit and can't define any smaller detail and then take an identical shot with the 50D to see if the extra pixels can record more detail. If so, then it would need to be repeated with a cheap/expensive lens (depending on which one you've done the first test with!) to see if you need a better lens to fully exploit the extra detail.

This is only possible if you've got access to various lens, unfortunately but I think the test report in 'Amateur Photographer' magazine did check this out and broadly came to the conclusion that, yes it could resolve more detail but did need the highest quality lenses to fully exploit it. I don't think they produced any side-by-side shots to show this, though, so you have to take it on trust, I suppose.

 

[Nikon Kid]

Reading most of the forum threads on this subject, I just get the idea that all those that own a 40d are in denial that the 50d is a better camera I have even read that they
say the 40d is better. I have not been doing this photography very long, but I cant see Canon bringing out a camera being the next one up in the series being inferior to the last one ?

Now please if I have upset anyone, be gentle with me

 

[Roy C]

Reading most of the forum threads on this subject, I just get the idea that all those that own a 40d are in denial that the 50d is a better camera I have even read that they
say the 40d is better. I have not been doing this photography very long, but I cant see Canon bringing out a camera being the next one up in the series being inferior to the last one ?

Now please if I have upset anyone, be gentle with me

The biggest thing for a 40D owner Terry is deciding whether the 50D is worth upgrading to. I have no doubt that the 50D is as good if not better than the 40D BUT personally I do think it is £500 worth of difference which is what it would cost to sell a 40D and buy a new 50D.
Put it another way, if they bring the 60D out next week would you be willing to take a £400-£500 hit by selling your 50D and buying a new 60D?

 

[Nikon Kid]

Put it another way, if they bring the 60D out next week would you be willing to take a £400-£500 hit by selling your 50D and buying a new 60D?

I have had to sell on ebay most of my Peterborough Postcards to finance the buying of the 50d I have racked back £550 to date.
But alas the short answer to the your quote is NO I am runnig out of postcards to sell.

 

[Roy C]

I have had to sell on ebay most of my Peterborough Postcards to finance the buying of the 50d I have racked back £550 to date.
But alas the short answer to the your quote is NO I am runnig out of postcards to sell.

There we go then Terry - maybe the 40D owners have run out of Postcards as well

 

[tringbirds]

Your views have made interesting reading. I went to a photo group last night and the subject was flash photograpthy. The results I was getting caused a great deak of conversation between the 40d owners and the Nikon brigade.They all agreed that there was a discernable difference given the same lighting conditions. Yet more to ponder on!!
Doug