new 50d or used 5d?

I'm thinking of purchasing a new rig this fall, and I was thinking about getting the new 50d coming out. Then I started thinking I could probably find a descent used 5d for not a whole lot more, especially with the new 5dII coming out.

What would you do, go with newer technology or proven older technology?

Would you even buy a used camera?

Let me know what you think.

Thanks,
Kevin

Kevin....being a FF fan, the 50D is not an option I would consider as my primary body. the extra 3 MP and newer technology may be great, but you just cannot get around the fact that 1.6x lower enlargement factors for FF vs. APS-C makes for better big prints. The difference I see in prints is far more profound than the mere MP would lead one to believe - both in resolution as well as tonality. Of course, I have a vested interest in saying all this - I am selling my 6-month old, mint condition 5D for $1350 - that's cheaper than a 50D, and half the price of the new 5D Mk II which I have already ordered :-). If you are interested in buying it, please do let me know. It's hardly been used in thr 6 months I've had it - I shoot landscapes, so it's always been on a tripod, single shot snaps, occasionally used....none of the wear and tear that sports/wildlife shooters put their cameras through.

I'd go for the 50D. New technology matters. The 5D, despite FF and 12.8MP, is outdated technology. That certainly doesn't mean it doesn't still make great images (photographer dependent, of course), but if I were starting from scratch, I'd consider the 5D a dinosaur.

Well Todd, it might be a dinosaur...so's 4x5 film! The fact is, it shoots better for landscape than any camera I've tested. If you're a landscape shooter, you typically use low ISO, and tripod mount your camera, fine-tune your focus slowly, shoot a single frame (or multiple exposures for blending), and print large. For all of these factors, the 5D is simply stellar and unrivalled except by higher resolution cameras. It's why I am upgrading to the Mark II version. All the new bells and whistles of all the new cameras (and even the 5D for that matter) are pretty much of no real value to a landscape shooter who does things slowly and methodically. About the only feature I wish it had was a dedicated mirror-lockup button, but Canon is too stupid to actually implement that feature. I am willing to bet that any head-to-head PRINT comparison between the 5D and the 50D will give the edge to the 5D.

I am willing to bet that any head-to-head PRINT comparison between the 5D and the 50D will give the edge to the 5D

I highly doubt that.
I've never met anybody that can tell the difference between a print captured by a 5D or a 40D (what I use).
My vote goes for the 50D with the latest technology. I'm curious as to what you're using now and why the need to upgrade?

John - I use the 5D. I used to use a Rebel XT. I played with 40D before deciding on the 5D. The results were close in terms of resolution between the two, for sure, with a slight edge to the 5D. But that was just resolution. The actual ineffable WOW factor was all 5D. It all depends on print size. You may not see any difference at 13 x 19, but I sure as hell see the difference at 17x25...really, the tonality, the crispness, the overall impact....it looks like it should - an image that has been enlarged less. It's why MF always trumped 35mm even at smaller print sizes where the "resolution" differences should have been moot. I look around regular posters on ESS - a huge chunk of them shoot with the 5D, and for good reason. Why else would I or anyone else pay double the cost for a 5D over a 40D? Many of the top shooters who come to mind on ESS - Marc Adamus, for example - used the 5D or still use it. Marc A. recently upgraded to the 1Ds Mark III, but used a 5D till then.

For the record I'm currently shooting on a rebel xti...

Keep the opinions coming, I appreciate the different views.

You've got me curious now, Kartik.
If your nearly new 5D is so stellar, why are you upgrading to the 5DII?

Kevin,
What shortcomings does your current camera possess that would be remedied with a different one?

I knew my 50D suggestion might stir things up a bit. My sense is that, with gapless photosites, 14-bit A/D, integrated sensor cleaning, Digic IV, highlight tone priority, four levels of noise reduction (wildlife shooting at high iso, etc.), the 50D by comparison is a better camera, and close enough in image quality that these improvements will ultimately lead to a better photo experience.

BTW, I shoot a 5D. I love the camera, but to deny that a three-year-old digital camera is a dinosaur is beyond credulity. I'm not saying it doesn't produce excellent images, but I'm not convinced the 50D couldn't match it, and do so feature-rich. I'm not going to be ordering a 5D-II anytime soon, but that's a matter of economics, not desire. But if I was starting from scratch or upgrading from something like a Rebel XT, 20D, 30D, 40D, Rebel XTi, etc., and my budget was $1500, I'd get a 50D, hands down.

My thoughts of upgrading started when a friend of mine showed interest in buying my camera. The idea of still getting something out of mine, and transitioning into something newer with the upgrades Todd mentioned sounded descent. When I saw the 50d listed on BH for $1599 with a 28-135IS lens it sounded even better, never had an IS lens.

I also have to admit I'm a techy kind of guy and I love new toys...

So I've been tossing around some upgrade ideas for a bit now.

Does an upgrade from an xti to a 50d make sense?

John, my 5D is stellar - does not mean the 5D Mark II will not be even more so. 4x5" LF prints are well beyond anything a digital 35mm SLR can hope to match....but an 8x10" LF print trumps that too. I love huge prints - 24x36" prints are routine for me. The 5D does brilliantly up to 17" wide - it starts showing loss of detail at 20" wide and wider....so I want the extra resolution. As simple as that.

Todd, first off as I previously noted - the 5D is a dinosaur, much like 4x5" LF is. All your points about the 50D features are completely valid. But I am a purist when it comes to image quality (within my budget). The 50D offers highlight tone priority - makes life a lot easier shooting broad DR lighting situations. I circumvent the lack of that in 5D by shooting multiple exposures or using GND filters. The gapless photosites increases pixel density, I don't know what other real world effect is has on print quality. Noise reduction at high ISO is of little value to me as a landscape guy since I shoot 99% of my shots at base ISO 100. And so on....I need next to nothing but high resolution and low enlargement factors. I'd shoot MF film ideally, but I find it prohibitively expensive to shoot film.

Low-noise features like gapless photosites would not be useful at 100 iso, but I'd rather have a technology and not need it than need a technology and not have it. Although I consider myself a landscape shooter, and although that would normally entail always shooting at a low iso, there are a whole lot of times when I actually do kick up the iso for one reason or another. If you were shooting a field of wildflowers that were being lightly buffeted by breezes, would you prefer to shoot a camera at 800 iso and a faster shutter speed, if that 800 iso image was comparable to a 100 iso image on a 5D? One of the many beauties of shooting digital over film is the options it gives you in situations like that.

Kevin,
Back when I was looking to upgrade, I did a lot of research on the 5D and one of the reasons I didn't go the FF route was lenses. Many folks on various forums complained of edge sharpness issues and having to buy new glass. I think Erik S. has a recent post here about the same issue. I'm drooling over the new 5D MKII, but when I factor in the possibility of having to upgrade several of my lenses, I think I'll be drooling for awhile longer.

Does an upgrade from an xti to a 50d make sense?

Well, it does if you plan to sell the XTi, because you're going to need another camera.
You still didn't describe the limitations of your current setup, though.

The lens issue raised here is a valid point. 1.6x 'crop' cameras use the sweetest spot of any lens. You can read the complaints from 5D users re: image quality with the 17-40L lens on the edges of their images here and in other online photography forums.
Which lenses are you currently using?
One almost always sees better results using better lenses than with using another body (within reason).
If you currently use any EF-S lenses, then you would have to get replacements if you choose a 5D.


I wouldn't go for the bundled lens if I were you. I owned the 28-135IS and really liked it, but when I upgraded to the 24-105IS lens, I really saw a difference in image quality.

Todd, I am completey with you on the last point. Technology is great, I am myself an engineer in the semiconductor hardware industry. I am all too happy when there's a push to newer and better microprocessors, it keeps my company alive with business :-). I do agree there were times I have kicked up the ISO - exactly as you said, for flowers in the breeze, or even for night shots. I just look at the frequency I have needed those high ISO shots. Literally, only 5 of my landscape shots come to mind - 3 of those were night shots where I wanted the stars to not leave trails! But those were novelty shots anyways. This is the same dilemma an LF shooter faces isn't it? To merely set-up a view camera to take a shot is about 10 minutes of work even for a seasoned pro, which may be too little too late if you're trying to capture the last fleeting light upon a scene you just stumbled into. Does that mean LF is not a superior shooting tool? Depends on your priorities as a shooter. I can totally see why the 50D will be a better tool for a lot of photographers. But if you shoot like I do, you'd go with the 5D. While we can debate which is a better overall tool, I am only debating the image quality - true, I have not seen the pics from a 50D, so I cannot debate it. But John's contention that there's no difference between a 40D and 5D quality - hard to imagine why anyone would buy a FF camera if there was no difference! I certainly don't have the $$ to burn on a camera that I was not completely convinced by my own eyes provided better prints.

I think you should definitely go with a used 5D. Todd just doesn't know what he's talking about. By the way did I mention that mine will be going on the block sometime in November???

Ok seriously, one thing you haven't mentioned is your current lens collection. If you've paired your XTi with any ef-s lenses then you're gonna need to replace any of those if you go the 5D route. That'll increase your costs in that case. Lens issue aside, it also depends on your shooting style. If landscape is all you do, then the 5D would suit you very nicely. If you like to mix in wildlife or any type of action photography, then the 50D's versatility might be a better match (although that's a bit debatable). Personally if I was only to allow myself one of those two cameras, I'd chose the 50D cuz I also enjoy wildlife photography and would need something more versatile than the 5D. You have to examine your needs to determine which best suits you.

I am myself an engineer...

Should've known. I can usually spot you guys in the field because you're all using homemade DOF gadgets, and calculating your circle of confusion/diffraction issues on the fly. I can usually see the gears turning from 100 paces. Why I didn't pick up on that on the forum just means my engineer-detector's battery is low. (please know I'm just joshing you, I like engineers!)

But I do have to wonder how much pixel-peeping an engineer does, compared to one of us mere mortals.

Now, speaking as someone who shot LF for years, if you subtract standing-around time waiting for something to happen (which would be true of any format), I've have NEVER taken 10 minutes to set up my camera and take a shot. Sure, it's more involved than an SLR, but it's not that difficult. I scrapped that system simply because I got tired of lugging around all that weight.

Todd - I am far from a pixel peeper, actually loathe the concept. I am a print peeper :-). Even that's not quite accurate, I simply admire big pretty prints. I am not a nose-to-print peeper like most LF shooters. That said, I like big prints that look life-like and do not have distracting artifacts and loss of detail when viewed from say arm's length. Sure, I have a 24x36" print produced from my humble Rebel XT that looks stunning. But I also have an even more impressive print from my 5D. And sure enough, I can produce one even more refined with a 5D Mark II. I look more for color, tonality, "crispness"...there can be no question that an LF print blows away anything from a DSLR at any size larger than A3, even though "resolution" is a moot point at smaller sizes when comparing the two. There's simply something special about a print where the enlargement factor is small. As an LF shooter, you know this very well of course. Prints depend on so many interdependent factors - lens MTF, film/sensor resolution that the less you enlarge, the less you magnify tiny errors. Even if on paper the number of pixels is the same, if you have to enlarge on array of pixels less than another, you have less magnification of the small errors in lens and sensor MTF.

I'd still pick the 50D...

hey, Todd,
Thanks for all the comments. Now how about me paying you 50K$ and you give me that gift of yours of seeing/making wonderful images ??

And oh yes, thanks a lot one moretime. I was planning to get a 5D, but will stick to my D80 (dying). I still don't have any 'to be proud' of image made with that 'smaller dinosaur'. Once it dies, I will use the saved money and bring those 50K to you and keep on telling people that the print of 'this' image in my hall is actually done by me. Don't listen to that Todd guy, he is a lier.

oh by the way, has anybody got 50K to borrow?