40D? Or will I regret not getting the 50D?

[redsnapper]

Dear All,

I'm looking to upgrade from my trusty 400D, and am losing sleep (and hair. And friends.) umming and erring over whether to go for a 40D or a 50D. Perhaps you can help...

Some info:
- I'll be using it for a bit of everything. Portraits, landscapes, travels, general photography. I'm a capable enthusiast, not a professional.
- I'll probably be investing in a Canon 18-200mm EF-S lens too. I've also got a Canon 50mm f1.8 prime and a Sigma 10-20mm.

I'm attracted to the higher ISO capability of the 50D, but I've read and heard that despite the lower megpixel count of the 40D, its image quality is better, particularly when the cameras are compared using a non 'L' lens like the 18-200mm.

Am I an idiot to care about the sky-high ISOs?
Does the 50D really suffer when attached to a 18-200mm lens? Would a relatively untrained eye like mine notice?
Are there other reasons you think I should definitely be getting one or the other?

Your thoughts, advice, reviews etc all hugely appreciated.

Thanks in advance...

[Mickster]

Good side-by-side comparison IMHO:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS50D/

50D user opinions:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/read...y=canon_eos50d

[flake]

I think you'll be quite happy with the 40D, however the 18 - 200mm will not provide high quality images, if you really want a lens like this, perhaps you should consider a point & shoot?

lenses like the Canon 17 - 85mm IS or the Sigma 17 - 70mm would suit you better?

[Tezzy]

I have had a 40D for almost a couple of years and not too long after I bought it the 50D was released. Grrr, I thought. I knew what was "wrong" with the 40D as soon as I got it - the LCD is low res and "not enough pixels". But I can tell you that I have had had excellent results from the 40D and if you want to see one taken at high ISO (640) see the following in my gallery...

http://www.photoradar.com/photos/104...s-of-the-choir

It was taken on a 24-105 L lens, handheld leaning against a stone column. Noise? Not much, is there? And any that is there suits the atmosphere of the pic, I reckon. Bear in mind also that this is a quite severe crop from a bigger image so that I could really fill the frame with the choristers. If I'd got any closer I'd have been singing from their hymn sheets!

I've also read that some photographers reckon the 50D is not as good a camera as the 40D. Iin one forum, I read the other day a comment from a guy (in the US, I think) who said that trading in his 40D for a 50D was "the worst mistake" he had ever made!

So,I can thoroughly recommend the 40D and definitely will not be upgrading to a 50D. I can print my pix up to A3 with no problem. The quest for the latest and newest camera model is always tempting and irritating, too. We're all guilty of that. My old 20D has been unused since I got the 40D. Shame... Don't chase the 50D. Go for a 40D - they're quite a bit cheaper now than when I bought mine - and invest in an L lens. Good luck!

[redsnapper]

Thanks Flake. Do you mean a point & shoot as in a non-SLR? From what I read, the 18-200mm is a decent all-purpose zoom lens. For my purposes, skillset and budget, it looks like a good bet. It may not be up there with the L ranges, but I haven't read anything about it that would lead me to abandon (SLR) photograpy altogether! It's comparable to the 17-85mm and 17-70mm you suggest, isn't it?

Do others agree with Flake's warning about the 18-200mm, or not?

That aside, any other opinions on the 40D/50D debate gratefully welcomed. Thanks all.

[Forseti]

Canon 40D. Lens Canon EF70 - 200mm f/4L IS. Focal length 165mm. ISO 200. 1/180s f/4.5 - hand held. Nothing more needs to be said really - the 40D suits my needs just fine.

Edit: the image looks even better full sized.

[flake]

Taken from Photozone:

Canon had a somewhat weird timing regarding the release of their EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. It is extremely difficult to design such a lens to start with and more so under low-cost requirements. Combine these side conditions with the rather extreme quality requirements of a high resolution APS-C DSLR a la EOS 50D (@ 15mp) and this sounds like trouble. The Canon lens has a couple of weak spots. At 18mm the border resolution is soft and heavy vignetting, extreme barrel distortion and CA problems don't help either. The situation improves significantly at 24mm and 50mm before deteriorating again towards the long end of the range. The situation would have been a bit different a couple of years ago when the sensor requirements were lower but combined with the EOS 50D the lens is somewhat outdated straight from the start. Better look elsewhere unless you still intend to use an older generation DSLR for a while.


Taken from DPreview

The EF-S 18-200mm F3.5-5.6 IS is a lens which many Canon users have been waiting for with great anticipation, as an ideal 'all-in-one' lens for travel and 'walkaround' use. In the flesh it behaves much as we'd expect from such an ambitious design, as an 11x zoom range will always necessitate some fairly major optical compromises. Wideangle performance is distinctly mediocre due to a combination of barrel distortion, chromatic aberration, and softness at wide apertures; and while the lens is respectably sharp at longer focal lengths, this is tempered by pincushion distortion around 50mm and chromatic aberration at 200mm.

You're asking the question which camera is better, I would say what does it matter because you're going to severly handicap whatever you buy by your choice of a poor optical quality lens, it's optical quality scored a mere 1.5 stars on Photozones tests, by contrast the Sigma 17 - 70mm gets 3 stars and the Canon 17 -85mm scores 2.5

One of the main reasons for choosing a DSLR is the ability to change lenses which will give the highest quailty in each situation, by choosing a superzoom you are going against all the resons for buying a DSLR and for that reason I think a Prosumer point and shoot will suit you better, as you don't have any of the issues such as sensor cleaning etc. Image quality will be broadly similar and you'll save a whole load of money.

[JeffCohen]

having done the same as your planning (gone from 400d to 40d ) its a very sound move ,the capabilities of the 40d are far better if your shooting birds or wildlife the high burst rate and higher useable iso is worth the move ,and as the 40d has now been delisted there's some bargains to be had .the only downside is the low res screen, but just bin your pics from the computer rather than camera to avoid errors.i .cannot comment about the 50d but the comments from others that its better to get a slightly cheaper 40d and spend the saving on a quality lens is very valid

[redsnapper]

Thanks All - have just ordered a 40D, so will let you know how I get on!

[pavman]

I upgraded from 450D to 4D 2 years ago and combined with a couple of L Lens (24-105 F4 and 70-200 F2.8) I am more than satisfied, a pro friend of mine told me that most of the mid to entry level pro cameras will do a decent job providing you had top quality lenses his advise if you can buy the best lens you can afford
here's an example of 40D plus 70-200 F2.8
http://www.photoradar.com/photos/825...ld-series-2009
Thanks Peter