While there has been a lot of clamor regarding the Canon 5DMkII vs. the Nikon D700, perhaps the real chin-rubber (at least for me anyway) will boil down to a decision between the 5DMkII vs. the Canon 50D.

Both of these cameras will have the Digic 4 chip, both will feature 14-bit AD conversion, both will utilize a 3.0-inch Clear View LCD (920,000 dots) monitor, and both claim to offer unprescedented ability to capture great images in unbelievably low light.

I am not sophisticated enough in my understanding of tech talk to say this for certain, but it seems to me that the only advantages of the 5DMkII appear to be (1) Full-Frame, (2) 21.1 mp, and (3) this new video capability.

However, it seems to me that the 50D offers is own advantages: (1) $1200 cheaper, (2) 6.3 fps continuous shooting, (3) a 1.6x conversion for those shooting macro or telephoto, and (4) at 15.1 mpx more than enough to take stellar photographs.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the only advantage to the Full-Frame found in the 5D will be its ability to make full use of a wide-angle lens for landscapes and such, is it not? Therefore, the flipside to this would be the fact a 1.6x conversion of the 50D would give better use and extra reach for both macro and telephoto lenses.

Now I "was" considering purchasing the soon-to-be-outdated 5D MkI, but it looks like Canon still believes this to be a $2000 camera I mean, who would buy an old 5D for only $500 less than a new one?

Thus it seems like perhaps the real purchase decision is going to be one's needs regarding these two new Canons. As more of an outdoor animal/nature photographer, it seems to me the 50D would not only be "suitable," but perhaps more suitable than the 5DMkII. It will have better sealing than the old 5D (and probably on a par with the new one); it will take frames at a faster rate than either the old or the new 5D; it will give better reach than either one also; and finally (while maybe the images might not be quite what the new 5D can produce) certainly at 15.1 mpx the 50D should be able to produce images more than adequate for any kind of use, and better than the previous-generation 5D.

Unless I am missing something, it doesn't appear that the differences between these two cameras are much more than what I have laid out above. Maybe the advantages of the 5DMkII apply so much to a professional wedding photographer, or landscape photographer, as to demand its purchase ... but to someone out hiking in nature wanting to document animal species (with either a macro or telephoto lens, depending on kind) wouldn't the new 50D actually make more sense?

Jack




.

If you're shooting animals get the 50D. The 5D mk II has the 5D's AF which first appeared in the 20D. The 50D has the 40D's AF. Much better for critters.

Oh, I didn't know the 5DMkII had yesterday's autofocus. Now that you mention it, I do remember on last year's 40D that one of the praises sung about it was, for instance, that even though its more advanced rival (the D300) had a 51-point AF system, the 40D in fact was the one which responded quicker and locked-in when in low light.

Oftentimes, many of the critters I capture are only found in low light or at night. All I have now is a G9---and even when just shining a flashlight on them the G9 seems to find them okay. For instance, here is a shot I took while sitting directly under a Giant Lichen Orb spider:





I am wanting to get a legitimate macro, plus ringlight to improve what I am doing, and so the ability to focus in low light is important to me. Hmm, I guess you just added one more advantage to the 50D that I wasn't aware of.

Thank you,



Jack

I presently have a 30D and the 5D.

Megapixels aside, the full frame of the 5D allows shallower depth of field with almost any shot, and my 70-200 lens can almost be used as a carry-around lens (weight aside).
The 50mm f1.4 sure feels like the 35 mm camera of days gone by; it allows me to carry a somewhat compact camera when out on my bike. (on the 30D, it is only a portrait lens)
I rarely need a lens wider than 24 mm with the 5D.
I use the 5D whenever I can; a joy to use.
When megapixels come into the picture, I really enjoy having the extra pixels that the 5D can offer.

The 30D is better for sports - faster frame-rate and longer reach due to the 1.6 crop.
This is the camera that I reach for when shooting kite-boarders on the beach and other water sport events that I just can't get close to.

With the recent announcements of two new cameras, I have to decide do I buy one or both.
I already have the 50D on order - I just WANT those extra megapixels!
The 50D will be a GREAT sports camera.
To get the same reach with the 5D, I have to spend THOUSANDS more on glass!

BTW, start buying bigger hard drives, and the 1 Gig CF cards are now a joke.
Also, if you buy a new 5D MkII, you better have L-glass, or the limitations in your cheaper lenses will show through.

Do I want the 5D MkII? Yes.
Will I upgrade immediately? Probably not right away, unless I hear that it is really, really better in low-light.

Good luck,
David

Thank you David, that was a thoughtful comparison, which essentially echoed my own chin-rubbings.

With the kind of photography I do, I almost never keep "the whole frame" of what I shoot, but instead crop it to just the needed area surrounding whatever critter I happen to be capture. I look at the rest as waste. Thus the more I think abou it, I really don't see what a FF is going to give me for my needs except more waste. Of course with landscape it is completely the opposite.

Speaking of lenses, I would also imagine that even the 50D, with the newer advancements, will demand L-series lenses also. I am wondering how the old 100-400L will hold up to some of these newer Canons, or if there is an upgrade on the horizon for some of these too (?). It would seem there would have to be now ...

Jack




.

I don't think there is such claim re the 50D. Canon stated, that it is pixel-wise the same as the 40D, and this matches with my own measurement.

The 86% larger pixels, and probably more sophisticated electronics on the sensor chip will have its effect.



Much lower noise and higher dynamic range. Just what I need.


I read somewhere, that the 5D is not in production any more.


It is possible, that you would be served better with the 50D, though then the question arises, why not the 40D. IMO the only real advantage of the 50D is the higher pixel count (vs. the 40D) - it is valuable for some, but not for others. I, for one, does not give a fig for the extra 5 million pixels; I need greater DR. (But I can not justify the 5D MkII.)

Here is the verbiage which made me think the new 50D will likewise offer unprescedented low light capability: "It's capable of recording at sensitivities previously too noisy for shooting in low light or subjects in motion. With a maximum ISO rating of 12800 combined with a 4-level High ISO speed noise reduction function, images that would have been impossible without the use of a strobe or flash become simple to record."






Exactly.






Do you mean in the 5DMkII? From what I read, the 50D offers this too, by virtue of the Digic 4 sensor.






As well it should be. I would imagine that whatever un-bought cameras are left shall remain un-bought too, until such time as they lower that price to below $1,500.






There seem to be more advantages than just the 5.1 mpx. Truly, this would be advantage enough (as I have started making 2009 calendars with some of my images, some of which have to be blown-up to 13" x 19"). But the 50D also offers the next-generation of sensor, better weather-proofing, as well as this (supposedly) tremendous upgrade in low-light/motion capability.

I wouldn't even consider a 40D at this point anymore. It seems to me the 50D is actually the perfect merger of the 40D + an even improved image quality of the old 5D, with more capabilities than either of the older models, for only a $300 price hike over the 40D.

When all is said and done, it seems like the 50D is in fact the better value. (For nature shooting, anyway.)

Jack




.

Frankly speaking, you'd better check first if you see real world value.

There are numerous reports about the pixel sharpness of the 50D being lower than previous iterations.

I don't intend to turn this into a Canon vs Nikon discussion, but just as an example there was a recent comparison of the 50D vs D90 is a well regarded Japanese magazine, and the conclusion was that the 12MP D90 does actually deliver more detailed images than the 15MP 50D.

Cheers,
Bernard

There are a few other considerations too. More MP means more storage required per shot. Moving from a 20D to a 40D made my whole computing rig seem a lot slower.

Then there's the question of how many MP you really need. I stuck with crop frame because I don't print bigger than 8.5X11 very often. Simple as that.

I don't need really narrow depth of field that often either, and seem to get by with my 50 1.4 and other 2.8 lenses.

If cost were no concern, of course I'd get the full frame camera and a collection of newer L lenses. But, for me cost is a big deal, so the 40D made more sense at the time. I'll probably wait for about a year and a half or more, when the 5DMkII gets closer to $2k, and then buy one. I'll still keep the 40D for shooting things that move, or for use when I know 10MP will be sufficient.

I don't worry too much about the argument that newer cameras with finer pixel pitch don't show better real resolution. The newer ones usually have other features that make a bigger difference to my work than the absolute resolution available. For example, I'd really like to have the better LCD screen that comes on the newer cameras.

[quote=JohnKoerner,Sep 23 2008, 08:33 PM]
It's capable of recording at sensitivities previously too noisy for shooting in low light or subjects in motion. With a maximum ISO rating of 12800 combined with a 4-level High ISO speed noise reduction function, images that would have been impossible without the use of a strobe or flash become simple to record."

Let's keep this clear: the top real ISO is 3200 (vs. 1600 of the 40D). However, the noise at 1600 is the same as that of the 40D.

Somewhere else Canon stated, that the enhancements allowed to achieve the same noise level as with the 40D. This is truely a big enhancement at 50% more pixels!

[quote]Do you mean in the 5DMkII? From what I read, the 50D offers this too, by virtue of the Digic 4 sensor[/quote]
The noise (and the dynamic range) does not depend on the processor but on the sensor.

The main question is If the noise of the 5DII is better than that of the 5D despite the much higher pixel count. It is not impossible: three years advance in technology may achieve that. But even if the noise is the same as that of the 5D, it is much better than the 40D and thus much better than the 50D.

All this does not mean, that you would be served better with the 5DII. For example your need for much cropping is better served by high pixel density (if your lens is good enough). On the other hand, I can imagine that you need to shoot with very small aperture for DoF, and diffraction with these tiny pixels is a real threat.

The arguably best Canon lens on an APS-C camera, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is very sharp, but diffraction is visible already at f/13 (actually, even sooner, but tolerable) on the 40D, This will be worse on the 50D.

Oh, okay. Forgive my ignorance, I don't know a whole lot about that stuff as of yet. Hasn't there been any improvements to the sensor?






Why wouldn't the 50D have the same (or similar) advancements?






Okay, I understand what you're saying I think, but doesn't the 15.1 mp offer enough pixel density? In other words, I am not really trying to produce fine art, so much as fun art

I do want the blown-up images to be nice for display on a calendar, or maybe even a poster, but I am not trying to sell my work for hundreds or thousands of dollars, at the level of some of you folks, just professional and nice to look at.

What I am getting at is, if the old 5D could produce saleable images at 12.7 mpx, shouldn't the new 50D be able to better than this with 15.1 mpx? Heck, while most of my 12.1mpx G9 photos aren't quite good enough for blow-up, I have taken a few shots that I have blown-up to 19" and they still look fantastic.






The lenses that I will be purchasing are the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS, the EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM, and the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macrophoto. I will probably not even purchase a "regular" or wide-angle lens.

How do you think these would do?

Thank you,

Jack




.

Doubtless the benefits of each will become clearer as people like Michael get their hands on samples to review, but in the mean time, what lenses do you have? How well do they suit what you like to shoot on a full frame camera v. a 1.6x crop camera?

I suspect the concerns about diffraction are overrated: film showed diffraction too, I am reliably informed. (I have shot film; I was pretty darn ignorant and not fussy about quality in those days though.)

The difference perhaps is that "diffraction not visible" to "diffraction is visible" is more sudden transition with digital, but at the end of the day there is always something that is the limit to resolution. If I have sensor(s) that out resolve my lenses, then my lenses are my primary bottleneck. If my sensor(s) are out resolved by my lenses, then it's the other way around. Short of perfectly matching the limitations of lenses and sensors, there is no solution I can think of!

The real temptation of course is to buy both a 50D and a 5D MkII. Storage is cheap, right??

Cheers,

Giles

Hi,

I'm in the exactly same situtaion regarding the Sony Alpha 700/900. Although the situation is a bit more extreme vid the Alpha 900 having 24 MP vs the Alpha 700 at 12.5.

In favor of keeping Alpha 700:

I can make A2-prints which are about perfect
16-80/3.5-4.5 is perfect walk around lens, covers 90% of my shooting. Very good at f/8.

In favor of switching to Alpha 900:
Much better resolution which I may not need.
New lenses which may be better than what I have, although I have not seen convincing proof that they are sharp corner to corner.

Most new lenses are for full frame, like a 24-70 is pretty useful on fullframe but would be like 38-112 on an APS-C. All vendors make 16-80 or so lenses howeve specially for APS which usually are quite good.

I guess I'll see the outcome of tests, and adjust my priorities in accordance.

Erik

from my experience with the 20D, 40D, and 5D the 100-400 is much happier on the crop frame camera - if the 50D really does have a one stop advantage in high ISO i will order one immediately as the 100-400 is a slow lens that is not that sharp wide open (but generally the generally useful long lens you can buy) - a useable ISO 1600 will really help

on a crop frame camera i'm not sure i would spend the money for a 180 macro - the 100 macro is an awfully good lens - 160mm equivalent, and works pretty well with a Kenko 1.4x extender if you really need more reach.

have no experience with the 65, but again it becomes 104 effective and an increase of working distance with this lens is a real benefit

50D or 5D Mark II? I would get both. In fact I probably will get both unless Canon announces a new full-frame high-speed pro body that competes with the D3. (Call it a 1D Mark IV or something.)

The 1.6x crop is perfect for long lens work -- I use my 40D on my 300/2.8, and it's a great combination. Quick focusing, long reach. But the wide angles don't work so well.

The full frame is good for wide angle work and for more control over depth of field. My fast wide angles are okay on my 1-D series cameras with their 1.3x lens factor, but they really sing out on a full frame body.

So, yeah, if you only do one kind of work, you can make a decision based on that. But if you are a generalist, having both cameras makes some sense.

as a 30D user, i'm going to be moving up to the 5DMkII. The only reservation I had was if I should go to the d700. The ultimate decision will be made after the real reviews come out, but aside from the new 5d getting slammed, I've pretty much made up my mind.

However, if I were just starting out again I would buy a used 40D, likely. The 30d has been good to me, but iso noise and the lower pixel count don't suit my needs anymore.

When I upgrade, I will be selling my 30D and EFS lens. I can't afford to keep both

[quote=JohnKoerner,Sep 23 2008, 10:05 PM]
Why wouldn't the 50D have the same (or similar) advancements?
Okay, I understand what you're saying I think, but doesn't the 15.1 mp offer enough pixel density?[/quote]
The 50D offers [b]too high[/quote] pixel density. The sensor of the 5D is 2.56 times larger than that of the 50D, but the pixel count is only 1.4 times higher. In other words, the 5D's pixels are much larger, and that is, what counts at equal technology.

Re the sensor technology: the electronics on the sensors of the 1D serie is more complex than on the sensors of the xxD serie, particularly regarding on-chip noise reduction. Note: this noise reduction has nothing to do with what you are applying in raw conversion or afterwards; perhaps one should say it is "noise avoidance".

I don't know abput the technology of the 5DII. Canon usually publishes white papers with such details, but I guess that will appear later.

[quote]I am not trying to sell my work for hundreds or thousands of dollars, at the level of some of you folks, just professional and nice to look at[/quote]
I am an amateur. That means: I am spending money on photography, not making it.

Again, I did not want to suggest you, that the 5D would be the better choice in your case. I intended only to sort out some facts, so that your decision is based on sound considerations.

Re the lenses: I know nothing of those; I suggest you to read the test for example at http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview (they are testing the lenses on cropping cameras, so their results are useless when using FF). A cursory look reveals, that the resolution of the EF 100-400mm IS at the long end is far from that at the short end. I would check out other lens reviews as well.

The resolution with the tiny pixels can become a real problem; but if you don't need that many pixels, you can downres the result and the resolution problem is gone. On the other hand, the resolution in the APC-C cropping area is always higher than closer to the edges, so much of the FF may be useless for you.

That's the key issue here.
The amount of 'waste' you have, may well be due to how you currently shoot. With proper macro lenses on either body you'll probably be able to fill frame better than with the G9. Normally macro on these sorts of cameras is only at wide end of focal length. So if you've been shootiong with a 35mm equivalent and then use a 100mm maco on a 5D, then you'll get an awful lot less 'wastage', even before considering the 50D or the fact that you may be able to focus closer as well.

Misirlou said,
"I don't worry too much about the argument that newer cameras with finer pixel pitch don't show better real resolution. The newer ones usually have other features that make a bigger difference to my work than the absolute resolution available. For example, I'd really like to have the better LCD screen that comes on the newer cameras."

This is a very good point, and another reason not to get the 40D.



>>>>>>>




Stever said,
"from my experience with the 20D, 40D, and 5D the 100-400 is much happier on the crop frame camera - if the 50D really does have a one stop advantage in high ISO i will order one immediately as the 100-400 is a slow lens that is not that sharp wide open (but generally the generally useful long lens you can buy) - a useable ISO 1600 will really help
on a crop frame camera i'm not sure i would spend the money for a 180 macro - the 100 macro is an awfully good lens - 160mm equivalent, and works pretty well with a Kenko 1.4x extender if you really need more reach.
have no experience with the 65, but again it becomes 104 effective and an increase of working distance with this lens is a real benefit"

Yes, from what I have read, the movement factor in the 65mm 5:1 lens is unforgiving.

And truly, if I am already getting some pretty good shots with a freaking G9 and a flashlight, LOL, I can only imagine that my shots with a 50D and a 100mm USM macro would be stellar



>>>>>>>



Giles said,
"The real temptation of course is to buy both a 50D and a 5D MkII. Storage is cheap, right??

You are more ambitious than I. I am just wanting one good, solid camera for my purposes, and don't plan on buying another one for at least 5 years. I have no interest in "keeping up with the Joneses" or in having the greatest photographers in the business "oohh and aahh" over the flawlessness of my shots at ISO 64,000,000. None of that means anyting to me. Just as long as the general consumer (or interested kid) says, "Hey that's a nice shot!" I am good with that

I think a lot of times the people here forget that the average person would be floored by some of the images you guys take and "criticize," as the average consumer doesn't know 1/1000th as much about the finer points of photography as most of you do.



>>>>>>>



Panopeeper said,
"The 50D offers too high pixel density. The sensor of the 5D is 2.56 times larger than that of the 50D, but the pixel count is only 1.4 times higher. In other words, the 5D's pixels are much larger, and that is, what counts at equal technology.

Oh, okay. Thank you for the clarification. Hey, I learned something




Panopeeper said,
"Re the sensor technology: the electronics on the sensors of the 1D serie is more complex than on the sensors of the xxD serie, particularly regarding on-chip noise reduction. Note: this noise reduction has nothing to do with what you are applying in raw conversion or afterwards; perhaps one should say it is "noise avoidance".

No disrespect, but I am not sure anyone can speak about the current sensor technology at this point. From what I have read, especially about the 5DMkII, the noise reduction is actually even less than the 1D ...

In other words, what you're saying is true for the older 5D, but I am not sure it applies to the newer version.




Panopeeper said,
"I don't know abput the technology of the 5DII. Canon usually publishes white papers with such details, but I guess that will appear later."

Exactly. And I am unsure about the technology of 50D as well. Hell even if I had the papers in front of me, I don't know what sense I could make of them

If both carry advanced technology, then I think my choice will be the 50D. But if the 50D's sharpness sucks (as what one person claimed), then probably not. I want to make a long-term decision so as I can enjoy my camera and not look back, nor worry about "what's next" right after I buy it. If that means I have to fork out an extra grand for the 5DII, then so be it. But I also don't want to spend extra money on yesterday's focusing, only to have a "barely-better" image than the 50D, with less advanced focusing.

I personally refuse to believe at this point that the 50D doesn't take great images. Canon has not come out with crap SLR cameras, but with industry-changing cameras, behind whom everyone else has been trying to play catch-up. I just can't believe at this point what one person said about the 50D taking less-sharp images than a D90. Maybe so, or maybe some writer's pocket is getting greased.




Panopeeper said,
"I am an amateur. That means: I am spending money on photography, not making it."

LOL




Panopeeper said,
"Again, I did not want to suggest you, that the 5D would be the better choice in your case. I intended only to sort out some facts, so that your decision is based on sound considerations."

And I appreciate that, thank you.




Panopeeper said,
"Re the lenses: I know nothing of those; I suggest you to read the test for example at http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview (they are testing the lenses on cropping cameras, so their results are useless when using FF). A cursory look reveals, that the resolution of the EF 100-400mm IS at the long end is far from that at the short end. I would check out other lens reviews as well."

My understanding is Nikon offers better wide-angle in general, and a slightly better macro. However, the Nikon's 100-400 is pretty lousy compared to Canon's. Canon's 100 macro and 180 macro may not be the best, but they are very good. And while I have heard of complaints of older 100-400s, the consensus seems to be it is a pretty darned good lens.

I don't believe the 5:1 Canon has a rival anywhere ...




Panopeeper said,
"The resolution with the tiny pixels can become a real problem; but if you don't need that many pixels, you can downres the result and the resolution problem is gone. On the other hand, the resolution in the APC-C cropping area is always higher than closer to the edges, so much of the FF may be useless for you."

Some of that was Greek to me, LOL, but my own thinking was that FF may be useless to me, yes. I don't know how to downres anything at this point, but I am considering enrolling in the University of FL just to take some basic photography classes. Or maybe take some other kinds of classes to get a better grasp on some of these finer details.



>>>>>>>



JJJ said,
"That's the key issue here.
The amount of 'waste' you have, may well be due to how you currently shoot. With proper macro lenses on either body you'll probably be able to fill frame better than with the G9. Normally macro on these sorts of cameras is only at wide end of focal length. So if you've been shootiong with a 35mm equivalent and then use a 100mm maco on a 5D, then you'll get an awful lot less 'wastage', even before considering the 50D or the fact that you may be able to focus closer as well."

Wow. Very interesting observation, thank you. I didn't even think of the fact I might be able to fill the whole frame with a camera change, in which case a larger frame (with much better resolution) would produce the best images. Hmmmm.

Of course, the better reach of a 1.6 would still prove more likely to "fill" that frame, and so then the question defaults back to whether the image the 50D produces will be all I ever need for my purposes. With the same LCD, light-capturing, etc., will the 50D produce good enough images to satisfy 95% of the human population? I am fine if 5% of the people (and even that is probably an over-estimate) can find flaws in the image, I am comfortable with that.

I am just looking to produce images that the average person is going to say, "Damn! That's a nice shot!"

Jack




.

Gabor,
Not worse, but at least equal and perhaps very marginally better.
You make it sound as though blur is something that can be recorded with greater sharpness using a sensor with greater resolving power .

how big an image that's "damn, a nice shot"?

from the 20D and 100-400 i get very good to maybe excellent wildlife shots for 13x19 prints (no extra pixels available for cropping). my 40D is not really noticeably better (not too much experience as it had a focus problem only recently corrected).

landscapes are iffy at 13x19 with either camera (no problem with 5D) and i haven't felt that macros can be enlarged to more than 10x15 - maybe

these are prints that invite close inspection

using good lenses and technique, i think the 50D should consistently make "damn, a nice shot" 13x19 prints with room for cropping some subjects and up to 16x24 with minimal cropping on many others. if that's not enough, it should also be very good for panoramas.

I have both an old 1ds (the first model) and a 40D. Both are close in number of pixels, but the 1ds has full frame and larger sites.

I've had cases in the studio shooting product against white, where I needed the most DOF at close range, and could only do that with the 1ds vs the 40d, because of hitting defraction limits sooner, and with the same lens.

Only a real world test will tell if the 50D's new design defeats or negates that arguement. If so, and ignoring DR, that feature alone would shelve my 1ds at 1/4 the cost.

Do you want a general purpose camera with one lens or do you want a specialized camera with 2 or more lenses and the added cost? 50D + sigma 18-200 OS is quite a good value (I have a Xsi with the sigma and its Macro capability is pretty good). The cost of a 5DII + 24-105 IS/70-300DO/Macro lens will get expensive.
Marc


Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment

Here are some thoughts I had on this topic in a different thread from a couple weeks ago.

Earlier Discussion

Benefits to FF
More wide angle lens options.
Better dynamic range.
Better high ISO performance.
Diffraction effects are less pronounced.

Liabilities to FF
Vignetting will be more pronounced when it is present.
Lens distortion is more noticeable, particularly near the edges of the frame.
Telephoto lenses don't benefit from cropped-sensor 'magnification.'
Substantially more expensive (including body and longer lenses)

Benefits to APS-C
Increases the effective focal length of lenses
Decreased vignetting.
Substantially less expensive (including body and lenses)
Lens distortion is less noticeable, typically because it occurs near the edges of the frame that are 'cropped' from view.

Liabilities to APS-C
Increased noise at higher ISOs.
Decreased dynamic range.
Diffraction effects are noticeable a few stops sooner.
True wide angle lenses are hard to find.

I am sold on the cropped sensor for me. the price difference and the performance characteristics mesh with my needs. I have a 30D and will probably upgrade to the 50D some time this fall, hopefully after the 50D sees $1200 or so.

I don't think so, not at the same resolutions on both formats. The difference would be about one stop (DX compared to FX), the same as the difference in DOF (e.g. you would experience it at f/16 on the larger format and f/11 on the smaller format).

BTW, you missed one benefit to the cropped sensor when shooting for more DOF, and that is faster shutter speeds.

To the OP: I'd actually wait for a production model of the 5DII to be tested.

Regarding the autofocus, I can't simply believe that Canon put the same, old autofoces of the 5D into the 5DII. It sounds very illogical that the 50D should have a better autofocus than the the 5DII, which costs twice as much and is geared towards demanding photographers.

There is always the possibility to still buy a 40D. I bought a 40D, and even though I'm sure the 50D is a great camera, I prefer having the 40D, as I regard 15 Megapixels an overkill for APS-C. It also balloons files, especially when you go into more complex Photoshop work.

I expected the 50D to have 12 MP, which seems to be the reasonable maximum for a sensor of that size. Too tightly pixel-packed sensors are a turn-off for me, and I honestly feel a bit uncomfortable with the 5DII having 21MP. But this is, of course, without having seen any actual images or tests, and so I delay judgement on this until I see tests and user comments.

I would rather have the 50D than the 40D, simply because of the far superior LCD and the latest processor. Every day of my life, the 50D would just be more pleasurable to use. I am not sure why you don't think the new 15.1 mpx wouldn't be a good thing, but like you said we'll have to see.

The more I have thought about it, I really don't need full-frame, and I really don't need video, and to be quite honest I am a little turned-off by the "yesterday's" focusing of the 5DMkII. I don't understand why they would have put focusing that wasn't even up to the 40- and 50D. So I have ruled out the 5DMkII.

Therefore, actually, if the price on the 12.1 mpx D300 comes down just a bit more, the Nikon might wind up being the better buy after all. It will be interesting to see Michael's impressions on the 50D's image quality. If the image quality is drab, as one person suggested, then none of the rest of it means anything. But if (as expected) the image is noticeably superior, its low-light capability is superior, and the weather-sealing is superior, then I am going with the 50D.

But if the image quality somehow goes backward on the 50D (for whatever reason), and especially if the D300 drops another notch in price, I believe I will actually prefer the Nikon to the 50D for my needs. The D300 already has the superior LCD, it has an even more modern focus system, and it has possibly better weather sealing also.

My hope is that the 50D's images are excellent, and that it's low-light capability is too, because then it will be a slam-dunk for me. But if not, I will go with the D300 ... as the descent of its price makes its value increase proportionately. The D300 is a better camera than the 40D, I just didn't think it was $700 better when they both first came out.

But at even money with the 50D, or even a hair less, this is where the decision is going to be for me now, I think. So we'll see if the 50D is all it's cracked-up to be ... and I sure hope that it is.

I think the depth of field issue is a draw. More depth of field can be good or bad depending on your intent. So perhaps it could be added to both lists as a notable difference. I am not sure what you mean by faster shutter speeds.

Faster shutter speeds for the same DoF. The 50D can be used at approximately 1 & 1/3rd stops wider aperture for the same DoF.

However, such an advantage is also associated with a disadvantage. If the wider apertures used are in the range of optimal lens sharpness, say F4 to F8 (or in the range dominated by diffraction), then the faster shutter speeds allowed are pure advantage.

When shallow DoF is sought and one uses say the 50/1.4 at F1.4, as opposed to F2.25 with full frame, then any advantage due to the faster shutter speed has to be offset against the softer image that the 50/1.4 inevitably produces at full aperture.

This problem is compounded by the fact that the higher density of the 50D sensor actually requires a sharper lens in order to deliver image resolution on a par with that of the full frame sensor of similar pixel count, so in a sense there's a double whammy in this situation.

However, matters balance out when extensive DoF is sought. A lens at F10 should be sharper than the same lens at F16. And generally a lens at F7.1 should be sharper than the same lens at F11.

Edit: To add further complication, whilst it's true that at large f numbers the cropped format will have a shutter speed advantage which is not offset by lower lens resolution, the larger format, as a result of its larger light-gathering capacity, will tend to produces less noise at high ISOs (comparing equal scenes with same DoF but different focal lengths).

The fact that one might be able increase ISO on the larger format, in order to achieve the same shutter speed as the cropped format at equivalent DoF, without pushing noise beyond the level that exists on the cropped format at a lower ISO, sort of canels out that shutter speed advantage.

Not sure if it completely cancels out the shutter speed advantage. One would have to do careful comparisons with both cameras to be sure. At this stage, it seems likely I'll be getting both cameras. The 50D has the advantage of a faster frame rate, compared with the 5D2, and the advantage of micro-adjustment of lens auto-focussing characteristics, compared with the 40D. It should also prove to be at least a marginally better lens extender than the 40D as well as a few other bells and whistles.

Absolutely.

Larger format = shallower DOF

Smaller format = deeper DOF



If you get the same DOF at f/11 on a smaller format that you get at f/16 on a larger format and the optimum EV for f/11 is 1/250, then the larger format's shutter speed will be 1/125.

This issue regarding DoF and shutter speed advantages of the cropped format is not clear cut when both cameras being compared represent the latest technology, both boasting low noise and high ISO.

We need to compare, for example, 50D images at ISO 100 with 5D2 images at ISO 200, (at one end of the scale), and 50D images at ISO 3200 with 5D2 images at ISO 6400, at the other end of the scale, and preferably ISOs in the middle of the range also.

I would guess that a 5D2 image at F11, ISO 3200 and 100th second might be very similar in quality, in respect of resolution and noise, to a 50D image at F8, ISO 1600 and 100th second exposure, when both images are compared at equal size.

I wouldn't like to predict which would have the edge in those circumstances, but it seems clear that the 5D2 will usually have a noticeable advantage when the shallowest of DoF is sought, in terms of both shallow DoF and resolution at the plane of focus.

Hi John, just looking back at the original posting - I am having the same dilemma at the moment. I am using an ageing EOS-1Ds and I'm not sure whether to go with the 50D, wait for the new 5D-II or switch to a D700. Having tried a 20D the image quality is fine but the crop factor and user interface adds an undesirable learning curve.

Just a question unrelated to your query - how do you find the G9 for general macro work? I get the impression it's technically easier and less cumbersome than an SLR / macro lens set up, given the greater depth of field.

Well, in this case I would imagine it would depend on your needs. For me, the crop factor is an enhancement.






The G9 is absolutely wonderful for macro work: it's light, it's easy, (yes) it has great depth of field, and I don't have to lug a buncha stuff around to wind up with a respectable shot




.

I love to shot critters with a Canon, a cannon is a bit messy. grin duck run

Seriously, the movie mode of the 5D mkII offers the potential to catch say a bee darting in and out of a flower.
The only question is what is the resolution of each video frame, 1920 x 1080 (16:9), is good enough to capture a single frame from for a small print. Remember when we thought 2 megapixel was the the cat's meow?

So now I have to buy two Canon's - a 50D as an upgrade of my 40D, and a 5D mkII?
At least the 50D has the higher ISOs. And the 1.6x crop factor does help stretch the reach of a lens. I always bought full frame lenses so that isn't an issue.

Nigel,

If what I have read is true, the Mark II will be able to capture a full frame image at the same time it is recording video. I have no idea how but that is what was posted somewhere. If true, I will be standing in line with everyone else for one of these cameras. Can anyone verify or dispute this?

I also understand it is possible to take stills while shooting in video mode, but if you missed the 'still' shot and instead wanted to print up a frame of the video what would the quality be (I think this is what Nigel was asking and what I have also been wondering)?

The quality will be 1920x 1080 pixels regarding resolution, same as the full HDTV spec, but will have impressively low noise compared with video from a P&S digicam or consumer grade videocam because the 5D2 pixels are quite large.

I spend time on film sets doing stills. Now why would the producer want a stills photographer hold up production taking shots of the scene just captured on film?
2 reasons one technical, one artistic.
Movies are shot at low shutter speeds, so sharpeness is a problem.
Shots that look good as part of an edited sequence can look drab as stills. I often condense the essence of a scene into a shot if possible and sometimes stage things to convey an aspect of film or the entire film in a single shot.
The technical reason is the important one here. Screen grabs are not usually great quality even when the pixel count is higher than the 5D posesses.
Oh and if you shoot at higher shutter speeds the film tends to strobe unless you also use higher frame rates when shooting and projecting

Would there not also be compression issues which would affect the quality of a single video frame used as a still? I imagine one could not expect the same quality as one would get from a 2mp RAW image from the same pixels.

hi John,...
i have the 30D for a few years now ...and am very happy with the image quality( better than 35mmfilm)i usually print to 20x30 inches. so the 50D would be even better, i will be upgrading to the 5D2 simply because of ff( and better image quality) if you find that you have to crop your images a lot, then i think a better pixel count and larger sensor would allow you to get a cleaner image, though like a previous post said, with the right lens you may find that you can fill the frame better.

both will be great in low light conditions( compared to your G9)
i don't think the focusing of the 5D2 will be old technology, I find it hard to believe that Canon wouldn't upgrade

As with taking a shot that the general public would say "thats a nice shot" mostly depends on the subject, composition , etc...
both cameras will give great quality (in realworld) pixel peeping is a matter of what you need now, and in the future,... i would be happy to just have my 30D for another few years,... but the possibilities of the newer technology is to great to ignore
Adrian

When I moved to the 24.6MP Sony A900 Full-frame, I immediately placed my APS-C 12MP A700 and the 16-80CZ lens on sale.

Note that a move to FF is not the same as the difference between 2 different APS-C models but is a move to a whole different FORMAT. With the change in format, you are actually shooting with a whole different lineup of lenses for the same types of photos as before.

The Digic 4 is not a sensor. It is a processor chip. This is the processor that works on the image data that comes off the sensor and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Dynamic Range or Noise performance of the sensor.

Not if shooting on film! Or on a RED camera.

While the Digic 4 processor has nothing to do with the Dynamic range or noise performance of the sensor, I think it does factor in the dynamic range and noise performance of the camera itself.

As far as this thread is concerned, if deciding between a 5d Mark II and a 50d, it's hard to say because so many factors are involved. I demoed a 50d for a few days, and I think it's a winner. I wouldn't trade my 1Ds Mark 3 in for it, and I would suspect the 5D Mark2 will be very close if not equal of of the 1Ds Mark 3.

Both the 50d and 5d Mark 2 will deliver great quality for their respective formats. So the decision will be more about budget and formats.

Couple of shots with the 50d. First one is ISO 400 taken with 100mm macro, cropped to approximately 50% - (needed a touch more depth of field, but I still like how it turned out). Second is ISO 100, hand held high over head using live view for cropping. Obviously really can't tell much from little web jpegs, but I've printed both out on 17x22 Ilford Galerie Gold Fiber Silk, and I think they look great.

Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment

Hi,

Just a small comment. Diffraction is not related to sensor size but to pixel density. A sensor with higher pixel density will be affected by diffraction sooner than a sensor with lesser pixel density. A 21 MPixel FF sensor has about the same pixel density as a 9 MPixel APS-C sensor. If you compare a Canon D40 with and Canon D5 diffraction would be apparent earlier on the D40 than on the Canon 5D, if you would compare the Canon D40 with the coming Canon D5II the effect of diffraction would be visible at the same aperture. To get the same depth of field you would need to use a smaller aperture on the 5D, however. If you want to use long shutter speed I would say that an ND filter makes more sense than stopping down, regardless of format. But use a decent one like B&W, I have never been impressed by the optical quality of Cokin filters and I guess that would apply to all plastic filters.

Regarding diffraction I would say that it is not really a problem above f/16 whatever format you are using and definitively a problem below f/16. If you are using very good lenses on small formats the loss of sharpness due to diffraction may be visible below f/11, but certainly not severe.

If you look at lens tests, like on www.photozone.de, you can clearly see that performance peaks somewhere around f/5.6 or f/8. More often than not two stops down from maximum aperture. When you stop down most aberrations decrease and depth of focus increases. This causes image quality to improve. Diffraction is increasing with aperture. That is the only negative effect of stopping down.

If a perfect lens could be built it would perform best at maximum aperture, that is it would be diffraction limited at maximum aperture. Very few lenses do have that capability, some Canon L telescopic lenses may be there and some of the Leica APO lenses. At optimum aperture a lens may outresolve the sensor so diffraction effects may not be measurable until stopping down significantly. If the lens outresolves sensor moiré patterns will be visible, unless optical resolution is reduced by an "antialiasing filter".

From what I can see there is not much difference of image quality between different sensor sizes with the same amount of pixels at low ISO. Unfortunately it seems that only Pentax, Olympus and Panasonic really go for smaller than 24x36 format, so we don't see very much high quality lenses for APS-C from Canon and Sony. Previously Nikon was essentially an APS-C player, but their high quality lenses were still made for "full frame". I think that the future of APS-C format would be better if lenses were exclusively designed for it.

Best regards
Erik

Good comments, Wayne, I really appreciate your contributions to the forum!

Erik

I use several non-DX lenses on my D300; in fact, all of the lenses I use are non-DX.