50D or 5D Mk II

You knew question would come sooner or later! :D

I am looking at a new body (and camera :D) over the next couple of months. To date my camera bodies have all been 1.6x crop bodies (XT; 30D). I do a lot of macro and flora as well as birds and wildlife. My "long" lenses (not that long) are a 400mm f/5.6 and a 300mm f/2.8L IS that I use often with a 2x TC.

The only lens I have that would not work with 5D is a Sigma 10-20. I am almost 100% certain the macro lenses Sigma 70mm and 150mm will work fine with both.

I keep thinking that given my interests and lenses, the 50D would still be the best choice. But there is a nagging thought in the back of my head that I should go to full frame.

Any thoughts/recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

The 50D will give you more pixels per bird due to the higher pixel density. The 6.3 fps of the 50D are a great advantage over the 3.9 of the 5D Mk II.

for shy insects, the 1.6 crop can be an advantage.

If the 5D Mk II is as good as Canon says, it should deliver better image quality than the 50D and you have more MP when you don't have to crop.

I too want another camera (a 2nd one in addition to my EOS 40D). I think I would go for the 50D now but I will probably wait until PMA 2009.

Markus

Ed,

I have owned the 20d, sold it after 1 year to a user here on BPN, I then bought the 5D to replace it. I used it exclusively for 2 years on wildlife, loons, song birds, landscapes, sunsets, lighthouses, on everything, still use it for landscapes. I also have the MK2n. Love it for 8.5 frames per second! It screams. I use the 300 2.8, 100-400 which is up for sale, 28-135- and the 100 mm macro. All are L glass, the only way to go and most are IS.

You have to ask yourself, "What is the primary purpose for the new camera, landscape or birds". If it is landscape, then go for the new 5D Mark 2 or buy a used 5D. You want all the pixels you can get and full frame for landscape. If it is BIF, then go buy the 50D It is faster, as you already know.

I hope you continue to explore the creation around us with a camera, whatever you use. And please keep posting.

I've been thinking about the exact same thing. Now that I've seen the final specs and prices for both bodies, I'm likely going to buy a 50D as my second body (I primarily use the 1D Mark III). If your long lens is only 400mm, I'd go with a 1.6 crop. Brutus Ostling used the 50D and said it had the best AF of any Canon camera he'd ever used.

If you want to shoot birds, 50D all the way. You need at least a 600mm with a 1.4TC on a full frame camera if your shooting small birds and that isn't even enough many times. I shoot a full frame 1Ds3 with the 600. If I sit in a blind shooting warblers, I need to be within 20 feet to adequately fill the frame with 840mm on the subject...Being that close makes the birds uneasy. I have a 50D on order that I plan to use for that purpose...It will easily give me another 10 feet away from the subject (30 feet). The birds will be far less skiddish of me at that distance.

What determines the size of the subject of an image (say a small warbler) as it is projected onto the sensor of your camera is the effective focal length of the lens and the distance you are away from the subject. Subject size on the sensor remains the same regardless sensor size. Therefore if you usually expose with room around the subject and crop later, sensor size per se is not really that important. What is much more important than sensor size is the arrangement of light sensitive sites on the sensor and this is confusing when you compare sensors of different sizes. The Canon 50D would be a 39 mp camera and the 40D a 26 mp camera if they were full frame, so clearly a given subject with a given lens at a given distance is rendered using more pixels with the 50D or 40D than with the 5D mkII. The trade-off is that the larger the sensor, the bigger the pixels can be and big pixels perform better than smaller ones as I understand it (less noise for example).

Sensor size is obviously important at the wide angle/landscape end because a small sensor is simply unable to render the entire image projected by an EF (Canon) or FX (is this correct Nikonians?) lens.

I think I understand what you're saying John, but I'm not sure I agree with it. Correct me if I'm wrong here. You're saying that if the projected image of a bird on a full-frame sensor measures 10mm, it will also measure 10mm on a 1.6 crop sensor. I agree with you on this point. However, you'll typically have quite a few more pixels on the bird in those 10mm with a 1.6 crop sensor than with a full-frame sensor (as you point out). When cropping, these extra pixels may well impact image quality. Also the bird looks bigger in the viewfinder making it easier to verify that the eye is sharp.

Guys what about the HD Video? What are your views on that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Brown

I think I understand what you're saying John, but I'm not sure I agree with it. Correct me if I'm wrong here. You're saying that if the projected image of a bird on a full-frame sensor measures 10mm, it will also measure 10mm on a 1.6 crop sensor. I agree with you on this point. However, you'll typically have quite a few more pixels on the bird in those 10mm with a 1.6 crop sensor than with a full-frame sensor (as you point out). When cropping, these extra pixels may well impact image quality. Also the bird looks bigger in the viewfinder making it easier to verify that the eye is sharp.

---

We are in agreement Doug. The note was really to make the point that crop factor of a camera body is important because this tends to be (but does not have to be) related to pixel density. Keeping megapixels constant, pixel density obviously increases with crop factor. The oft-mentioned advantage of crop factors in giving a magnification boost to all your tele lenses is really a red herring. This is quite a good article although a bit dated:

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrs...slrsensors.htm

What is interesting and telling is to compare different bodies keeping crop factor constant.

If you do this, the Canon 5D would be a 4.9 mp camera (2669 x 1820) if it had smaller sensor at 1.6 crop factor but kept the same pixel density.The 5D mkII works out to about 8 mp. They are therefore going to render critical detail features such as bird eyes with far fewer pixels than the 40D or 50D, all else being equal. Do the larger, less noisy pixels of the 5D and 5D mkII, or the Nikon D700 for that matter, or the tighter spacing of the micro-lenses make up for this? Who knows?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sabyasachi Patra

Guys what about the HD Video? What are your views on that?

---

Not really that interested in this myself. I guess Canon felt they had to do it for competitive reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sabyasachi Patra

Guys what about the HD Video? What are your views on that?

---

I have zero interest in video...It just doesnt appeal to me. I had a hand me down video camera that was stolen during a burglary about 10 years ago. I used the insurance money to buy lenses for my then film camera.

I'm looking forward to finding out John. One thing's for sure; not all pixels are created equally. The 40D and the Mark III are both 10 MP bodies, but there's no comparison between the pixels. The Mark III's beat the pants off of the 40D's!

Doug - if you do the math from the Canon Web Site:
40D : 22.3mm x 14.9mm APS-C CMOS sensor 3888 x 2592 pixels --> 175 pixels/mm of sensor
1D Mk3 : 28.1mm x 18.7mm APS-H CMOS sensor 3888 x 2592 pixels --> 138 pixels/mm
1Ds Mk3 and 5D Mk2 : full frame 36mm x 24mm CMOS sensor 5616 x 3744 pixels --> 156 pixels/mm
50D : 22.3mm x 14.9mm APS-C SMOS sensor 4752 x 3168 pixels --> 213 pixels/mm of sensor

For the same sensor , noise supposedly increases as you increase # of pixels per mm of sensor. Explains wht the 40D should be inferior in image quality to 1D Mk3 despite both cameras being 10 MP bodies

Canon claims 50D has redesigned photo diodes and microlenses that extend light gathering capabilities of sensors allowing for more pixels to be fitted on CMOS sensor without compromising image quality.

Waiting for someone to post same photo taken in low lighting with 1D Mk3 and 50D when camera comes out next week.

They've packed about 50% more pixels/sensors onto the 50D compared to 1D Mk3. But if Canon is right about image quality on 50D - wonder what advantage the 1D Mk3 will still have except for 10fps and 45 AF pts ( when they work) compared to 9 AF on 50D

I've seen some high-ISO 50D samples and they're pretty impressive. Basically noise-free at ISO 1600 and pretty good at ISO 3200.

The Mark III has a number of advantages, the biggest of which is the ability to autofocus at f/8. AF in general is much better than on the XXD bodies. It's also built like a tank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sabyasachi Patra

Guys what about the HD Video? What are your views on that?

---

I feel movie making ability is a kind of identity quandary. A nature photographer photographing nature in the field. If I would like to make movies then I would buy a related top product. The same issue why we post any images here taken by mobile phones. Mobile phones are to start and accept calls, sending sms etc. Making a picture of an event by the handy is a nice possibility but waste of nothing.

So I would be happier if manufacturers would put more focus on the customers' demand especially on nature photographers. We are respecting the loved brands and making nice amount of money for them. So it is time to listen to us carefully :D

Szimi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sabyasachi Patra

Guys what about the HD Video? What are your views on that?

---

To me, this is a very cool feature from Nikon and Canon. Put it this way..... no more the extra weight of a video camera. In the other hand, you can now shoot and HD video your scene and sell it to the paper in both format and excellent option for the media...... :)

HD video RULES!! in my book!

Just got back from two days out of town on business and WOW! I am really impressed with the responses and discussions. Very informative. I am still leaning heavily toward the 50D. I'm just not sure I'll jump on Day 1 or hold off for a couple of months to make sure all is well and the new release lives up to the hype and no glitches..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sabyasachi Patra

Guys what about the HD Video? What are your views on that?

---

Nature photography is my first love, but I'm in school for photojournalism and the convergence of still and motion capture is really exciting. That the 5D Mk II also has a microphone jack means that I won't have to carry both a still and video camera--I can just take the 5D. Way cool.

This by e-mail from top Swedish bird photographer Brutus Ostling. (I have not had the time to read it yet...)

As I wrote also in Swedish, I was paid to be in the video for the new camera, but Canon does not pay me to write this:



A quick and, of course, subjective evaluation of the new EOS 50 D - after three days photography





Late in June, the Netherlandish advertising agency working for Canon in Europe contacted me. They asked if I wanted to take part in a product and advertising film for a new camera. They did not yet know exactly which camera it was, just that it was going to be a camera for amateurs, and that the auto focus should have been improved, having sports and bird photographers especially in mind. I said yes, my experience of Canon is that they supply excellent cameras. But I would like to have time to test the camera first.





Competition between camera manufacturers has hardened, and there is of necessity much hush-hush about new products to be introduced into the market. In the middle of July, the camera house arrived at my favourite place in Norway, being well packed in an anonymous cardboard box — and accompanied by a Canon representative from its European office.





I am of course used to Canon’s big pro cameras, the EOS 1 D Mark III and the 1 Ds Mark III, respectively. The former, with its extreme frame speed of up to 10 frames per second, I use for real quick action and when I have to exceed 1600 ISO (the noise level of that camera is extremely low). The picture files, of 10 Megapixels, tolerate a certain cropping. I am using the model EOS 1 Ds, with 22 Megapixels, when a frame speed of 5 per second is enough and I have light enough not to have to exceed ISO 800-1600. Then, it is in a class of its own as regards picture quality.



What I got into my hand, in July, proved to be an advanced amateur camera, or semi-pro camera. With its 15 Megapixels sensor and 6.3 frames per second, it may be compared to a cross between the two pro models. This camera was thus the next model, the EOS 50 D, in the Canon series together with the 20 D, the 30 D, and the 40 D.



I have not photographed with the earlier models, besides the 10 D. But although there were no instructions for use (there did not exist any yet) it took me just a couple of minutes to grasp the functions of the new 50D.



What, among other things, interested me a lot in this camera was how the auto focus might react. The camera - I was told - had a new DIGIC IV-processor. Before I went with the rent boat to photograph gulls, I therefore tested the auto focus on land. In the One-Shot position, I adjusted the focus of my 300/2.8 IS to infinite, directed the camera towards the gravel three metres away, and pressed the shutter. I repeated the procedure with various motifs, and the focus was there with lightning speed every time. Amazingly quick, I have to add.



I also tested the camera with the zoom 70-200/2.8 IS and then let it focus continuously with both objectives, while I very quickly panned down from the beach, 200 metres away on the other side of the water, to the water surface just a few metres in front of me. Focus followed all the time.



When I took out my EOS 1 D Mark III and did the same, the result was good but not as convincing as the new camera house. Sure, I have felt the Mark III's were quick, but the EOS 50 D felt quicker. I repeated the manoeuvre some ten times.



At least as regards stationary motifs, I judge that the EOS 50 D may have the quickest auto focus so far in the world. (Addition: I know that the EOS 40 D also has a very fast AF in the One-Shot-mode, how much these camera models differs in reality I will leave for more scientific tests to show us. But my immediate reaction to the 50D was that it had the fastest AF I have ever experienced, when it comes to stationary subjects.)



The next question was how the camera would work in the field. Photographing flying birds is one of the toughest tests of a camera as regards auto focus.



The new EOS 50 D house with EF 300/2.8 IS and EF 70-200/2.8 IS respectively, with and without a 1.4 times converter, succeeded most of the time in following the gulls flying after the boat or towards me after anchoring. That is, if I aimed correctly and allowed the camera some tenths of seconds for reacting, I got sharp pictures. When it did not get sharp, it was me who had missed having the bird in the centre. It also seemed to be tracking the bird very good, that will say as long as I could manage to hold the bird close to the center focus point.



I used the AI-SERVO AF with only the central focal point — which I recommend that one should do when it is a question of birds in flight. My experience is that the AI SERVO auto focus is functioning best with just one point, at most you sometimes add a couple of points immediately around the central sensor itself (this in the pro models). If you use the whole field of AF points in AI-SERVO position, the camera has not the time to calculate the connection between all the different AF points and the movement, at least not if it is a question of birds in quick flight.



Anyway, to test the EOS 50 D I switched to all focal points, still with the AI SERVO AF. At the same time, I checked that I had stopped down one and a half stop to increase the depth of field. If you use all focal points and the bird occupies relatively much space in the viewfinder, then you do not know if the camera will be focussing a wing-tip or if it succeeds in focussing the eye, which is where I want the focus. With some stopping down, the eye stays sharp even if the main focus is a bit away, say on the wing.



To my surprise, the new EOS 50 D, with the 70-200/2.8 and 300/2.8 respectively, pretty well succeeded in following the gulls even when I used all AF points. I do not think it works all the time, but this was better than in any other camera I have used.



The 6.3 frames per second speed is enough for the camera to be able to catch, e.g., the wing-beats of the White-tailed Eagle in every different position. With some of the early, slower digital camera houses, it happened that I always got the picture in the very same spot in the wing-beat of the majestic bird. My experience tells me that the critical point is somewhere around five frames per second. Is the frame speed greater, you should get the wing-beats in different positions even with larger birds of prey and owls.



If you compare with the ten frames per second that I can theoretically get out of my 1 Ds Mark III, there is of course a difference, but in practice it is seldom that I should miss pictures because the speed is “only” 6.3 per second.



In my hotel room, I checked the picture files — unfortunately, I had had to photograph in JPEG format, as there was not yet any RAW converter. The files were, as I have mentioned, larger than I had expected. I had, as I mentioned, thought that it would be a question of maximally 11 or 12, maybe 13 Megapixels.



The picture size gives me, as a photographer, ample possibilities to crop the pictures drastically and still use them for example for a full page in a book (with some interpolation). Large picture files are not least important to a bird photographer. How many times is the perfect cropping to be found directly in the camera, when you are to follow a bird in flight with the AF centre point? Everyone who photographs birds knows that you sometimes have to crop for another reason as well, namely that you were not close enough.



In order to see what the 50 D manages, I used high ISO (ISO 640 to 1600) almost all the time. Unfortunately, I had no possibility in such a short a time to make a real test. My feeling is that the noise level was really low, especially as I had to work with JPG files and Canon had pressed in as much as 15 Megapixels into a APS-C-sensor, 22,3 x 14,9 millimeter.



Another exclusive feature that was introduced already in the former model, EOS 40 D, is the function of Highlight Tone Priority. The aim is to save highlights from being burnt out. As you know, I have several times earlier in this newsletter mentioned the difficulty in exposing, for example, a white bird correctly against a dark background. Even if the white bird occupies relatively much space (25—35 %), a dark, for example green, background steals so much light that the camera thinks the whole motif is darker — and therefore the camera exposes lighter than the white bird really tolerates. By the way, this is true for all cameras and camera brands.





My general advice for this kind of motif — a white bird against a dark background — is that you should underexpose with 2/3 up to one full stop, in intense sunshine still more. This in order to save the bird’s highlight areas, that is its lightest parts, from totally burning out. To burn out means that all details and nuances in the pale parts are lost.



The darker background cal always be enlightened afterwards. Digital pictures contain so much information in the details of their shadowy parts that these — in contrast to burnt-out highlights — can be saved by enlightening them afterwards. The disadvantage is that the noise increases.



For those who forget in their haste to underexposure 2/3 up to one stop, the function Highlight Tone Priority will save thehighlights — and save the pictures from landing in the trash. Whether the Highlight Tone Priority function in addition increases tonality with which I can work, or if it just automatically underexposes the picture so that the highlights survive, I would not like to say. Regardless of which, it is not a bad function.



When testing the EOS 50 D, I used automatic white-balance, which I never do in JPG position. Only when photographing in RAW format, I usually dare to use auto white-balance, because then I can always change the colour temperature afterwards, while converting from the RAW-files. But this time I wanted to see how well the auto white-balance worked.



In 50 % of the cases I was quite satisfied, but when there was water in the motif and a little warmer evening light, the camera often changed the colour temperature in a way I didn't like. Therefore, I recommend that when you photograph in JPG, you should as far as possible manually change the white-balance — then you are in full control. Moreover, there are the well-working pre-selected icons for sunshine/daylight, shadow, overcast weather, and so on.



As regards auto-exposuring flashes, my experience is that pro cameras often underexpose, which is certainly better than the opposite. Thus, I had no expectations when I took some test pictures with the built-in flash of the EOS 50 D. I used P, auto-program, and photographed a face that occupied 15—20 % of the space with, apart from that, a very dark background — a big, badly lighted room. I photographed with white walls etcetera. I have no experience of the earlier cameras of this series, the 30D or the 40D, and I am amazed at how the camera managing all these situations. The white walls did not become grey but remained white, and the auto white-balance worked well, too.



Thus, I now got just three days to test the camera, and moreover, during the last forty-eight hours the film team from Holland was shooting a couple of various product films in which I participated. During those two days, I prioritised giving the film-photographer from Holland the best angles with the best light and the best background, since I know the fjords and fjelds in this area more or less inside out - and ne evening the Eagle guide Ole-Martin Dahle accompanied us.



Based on these few days, my overall judgement on this camera is that it is easy to work with — to my surprise, it felt good holding it in my hand, never before did I like small cameras. But also without the battery grip, the 50 D feels comfortable. And after three days with such a lightweight camera, I have to admit that there is a lot to be said for not having to drag my heavy professional camera house along.



The LCD screen was light, clear and big enough for me to easily control picture quality and the histogram.



With the expanded file size of 15 Megapixels, a speed of 6.3 frames per second and with the possibly quickest auto focus of any camera, there was just one thing to make me sulk when the Canon representative wanted to re-pack the camera in its anonymous package. That I was not allowed to keep the so far secret camera.



Perhaps there is still another thing that might bother me: when the price of 1100-1200 EURO would allow most people (in our part of the world) to buy a camera house that is in many ways in the same class as the best pro cameras, how much difference is there left between professional and amateur equipment?


The latter I, as a professional photographer, take as a challenge.



Note: I was remunerated for participating in the product films. However, I get no fee from Canon for writing this.

Artie - thanks for posting the review

Most interesting quote: Perhaps there is still another thing that might bother me: when the price of 1100-1200 EURO would allow most people (in our part of the world) to buy a camera house that is in many ways in the same class as the best pro cameras, how much difference is there left between professional and amateur equipment? - - THAT'S WHY I'm WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO TEST THE 50D vs new 5D against the 1D Mk3 before placing any orders.

As you have had access to most of Canon's camera's and lenses , how much do you think his using 2.8 versus 4.0 lenses impacted the AF performance . With a 2.8 lens, several AF points will work as cross-hair AF sensors versus horizontal AF sensors with a 4.0 lens. Do you have any personal experience or opinion on this with either the 40D or 1D MK3?

Hi Peter, Good to see you posting. Here's news: Linda's hummer guide should be here any day now.

re:

- thanks for posting the review

YAW

Most interesting quote: Perhaps there is still another thing that might bother me: when the price of 1100-1200 EURO would allow most people (in our part of the world) to buy a camera house that is in many ways in the same class as the best pro cameras, how much difference is there left between professional and amateur equipment?

In the right hands either class of cameras can make great images. I am not much into comparing. Either something can do the job or it can't.

THAT'S WHY I'm WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO TEST THE 50D vs new 5D against the 1D Mk3 before placing any orders.

It will be a while till I get my hands on a 50D and I have no intention of every using a 5D.

As you have had access to most of Canon's camera's and lenses , how much do you think his using 2.8 versus 4.0 lenses impacted the AF performance. With a 2.8 lens, several AF points will work as cross-hair AF sensors versus horizontal AF sensors with a 4.0 lens. Do you have any personal experience or opinion on this with either the 40D or 1D MK3?

Not much experience as I am not using any 2.8 lenses regularly now--used to use the 70-200 f/2.8. I do know for sure that whenever you add a teleconvterthe speed of initial AF acquisition is slowed and focusing accuracy is somewhat reduced. Why? AF depends on light (and contrast) to see and whenever you add a TC to the mix you lose light, one stop with the 1.4X and 2 stops with the 2X. I imagine that Nikoners using the 1.7X would be losing about 1 1/2 stops.

As I am sure that you know I feel that way too many folks concentrate too much on equipment and not enough time on improving their skills and developing their creative vision...

True and accurate, one point I like to add 5DMKII will have 8.2 mpixel if cropped to 1.6 FOV, 40D has 10 and 50D has 15 mpixels. but If you shoot at ISO 400-800 and 5DII ends up being one stop or more better in terms of noise that means you don't have to shrink that 8.2 mpixel image to make it look good, in fact you may be able to enlrage a little bit and print it. however if the 15 mpixel end up being noisy and low DR, you need to shrink it to hide the imperfections and it might end up being slightly worse than the MKII.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Chardine

What determines the size of the subject of an image (say a small warbler) as it is projected onto the sensor of your camera is the effective focal length of the lens and the distance you are away from the subject. Subject size on the sensor remains the same regardless sensor size. Therefore if you usually expose with room around the subject and crop later, sensor size per se is not really that important. What is much more important than sensor size is the arrangement of light sensitive sites on the sensor and this is confusing when you compare sensors of different sizes. The Canon 50D would be a 39 mp camera and the 40D a 26 mp camera if they were full frame, so clearly a given subject with a given lens at a given distance is rendered using more pixels with the 50D or 40D than with the 5D mkII. The trade-off is that the larger the sensor, the bigger the pixels can be and big pixels perform better than smaller ones as I understand it (less noise for example).

Sensor size is obviously important at the wide angle/landscape end because a small sensor is simply unable to render the entire image projected by an EF (Canon) or FX (is this correct Nikonians?) lens.

---