[urabus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidhunternyc /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, dpreview isn't giving the 50D great reviews and the article is pretty illuminating. I would just stick with the 40D.

I just read that review as well before coming here...

so for someone who has been using the XT and is looking at the 40D or 50D as a newer upgrade which one should I consider? Is there any reason not to save a bit of cash and get the 40D. The only feature I find truly interesting is that the 50D can shoot in 3 RAW sizes but who knows how useful that ultimately is.

Help & advice....

 

[hectuero]

I would agree that the 3 different RAW resolutions could be very useful, on my 40D I sometimes find 10mp to be a bit more than I need but the sRAW resolution to be too small. In addition the 50D has UDMA, which allows for much faster communications with the CF card. It also has a high-resolution VGA display.

However, on the downside, they squeezed a little too many pixels into such a small sensor in my opinion, and the camera thus suffers from greater noise. The 40D also has a greater dynamic range.

My opinion is that as long as you're almost always going to be shooting in a controlled environment where you can use low ISO speeds to avoid the noise problem, the 40D is almost always at an advantage with regard to image quality. Canon themselves have stated that the 50D is not a replacement for the 40D but merely another option.

That being said, I love my 40D and have not personally held a 50D.

Also, with regard to the message above about the 50D being limited by the lens Canon gives you, I assume the poster is refering to the kit lens? If so, in general, kit lenses are typically not the best.

 

[Coolidy]

There's a great review of this exact question at . . .

Canon 40D vs 50D

. . . based on that I decided on the 40D with an upgraded lens. Hope that helps.

 

[nirvanaxp]

I would wait for something more substantial for an update. Have you looked up the reviews at dpreview.com? Those are great because they are rigorous and thorough reviews.

 

[Stoin]

I use the 40d and while I do like shiny new things I've not been tempted by the 50. Well I did go into a camera shop and have a look at it, but decided to wait until I can afford the 5 mkII. Depending on the type of photograph you're trying to take the lens can be far more important than the body so it's always worth getting the right lens(es) for you. I love the 85mm f/1.8 on the 40 for portraits, but I'm struggling with a good fast, wide, prime lens. the 35 f/1.4 costs about the same as a second-hand full frame body - I already have a fast 50mm.