Time to upgrade 50D vs 5D

OK, with the new 5D release there are a lot of the original 5D bodies hitting the classifieds at a price that is about the same as you can get a new 50D. So my dilemma is should I go for the 5D or the 50D. The 50D is a new camera with enhanced Digic IV processor and electronics, 14 bits/channel, and 15 Mpix. The 5D is 3 years old (which is an eternity in terms of electronics), Digic II processor, 12.8 Mpix, and 12 bits/channel. For landscapes I can use the EFS 10-22 with the 50D or the EF 17-40 with the 5D and I already have a EF 24-105mm. I am kind of leaning towards the 5D if I can find one that is relatively new with low shutter clicks. However the practical side of me says a new camera with up to date technology is better than a used one that is one generation technologically removed. Any comments from the jury box on this one, I'm sure I'm not the only one considering a similar route--Larry

I'm in the same boat, Larry. I've swung back and forth but likely will grab up a lightly used 5D.

There are many features in the new 50D that are pretty sexy, like microadjustments in focus for different lenses and such. Also, I've borrowed/rented the 5D and shot a lot of images through that body at weddings at iso3200 and compared them with 50D images (borrowed from a buddy) at the same iso with the in-camera noise reduction set at "strong", and they look pretty much the same.

I'm upgrading for two reasons. One is that my 30D bodies do quite well regarding noise at iso1600 for my indoor wedding work, but 3200 is not as clean, and the 5D/50D images are better at iso3200. The reason I'm likely to pick the 5D is because it's full frame, and if I buy the 50D I'd have to kick in another $600 for the 10-22 for true wide angle. I have the 17-40, and it's a sweet lens on the 5D.

I'm not at all interested keeping up with others when it comes to upgrading camera bodies. My decisions must be based on what's most profitable for my business. So far I've made prints to 30x45 with my 8 Mp sensors on carefully chosen images (images that don't have a ton of small detail) with excellent success, so I'm pretty much disinterested in how many pixels a camera maker says they can pack onto the sensors of their new models. Customers don't care which body I use either. They just want their images to look good.

I have one question for you, however. Are you planning to shoot fast-moving subjects like sports or birds in flight? If so, the fast burst rate on the 50D could tip the balance in that direction.

The 50D is a new camera with enhanced Digic III processor and electronics, 14 bits/channel, and 15 Mpix. The 5D is 3 years old (which is an eternity in terms of electronics), However the practical side of me says a new camera with up to date technology is better than a used one that is one generation technologically removed.

Seems to me you have the answer already.
Assuming you already own the 10-22 lens, then a new 50D has almost all of the advantages of a 3 year old 'full frame' camera along with the advantages of a new camera with a warranty, newer technology and the 'crop factor' of the 1.6x sensor (greater telephoto).
Another advantage of the 50D is that it will use the 'sweetest spot' of the lens you choose to use. You just need to review the complaints from 5D owners re: the 17-40 lens edge quality to see that inherent advantage.

Just my 2cents worth. I upgraded from a 20D to a 50D about 3 weeks ago. I have limited use on the 50D because about the same time I got it I also got a serious cold/flu bug. The one thing they didn't tell me was that you need CS4 or Elements 6 to process RAW without using the Canon software. Adobe has a plug-in for CS4 and Elements 6, but it won't work with CS3. Just another glitch to overcome. However, the large JPEG has more pixels than RAW in my 20D. Love the camera so far and the large menu with improved scrolling through the settings is great.

Merle - If you get the latest DNG converter from Adobe, you can convert 50D files to DNG and process them in your current ACR (CS3). This is Adobe's way of providing some support for newer cameras in older PS versions.

I've got both the 40D and the 5D. Aside from megapixels, the 40D and 50D aren't that dissimilar. Digic III (40D) vs Digic IV (50D) aren't going to make a difference in RAW shooting. DPReview seems to think noise is a bigger issue on the 50D than 40D. Anyway, to the point - I use them for different things. The 5D is for outdoors/nature/landscape and the 40D is primarily for sports. I've used it a few times in similar situations that I'd use the 5D just to try it out and the images from the 5D are superior. Not a huge difference, but enough. Canon hit the sweet spot with the sensor size and pixel pitch on the 5D and images made with it are very nice. I'd pick up another 5D before getting a 50D, but that's me. I may not be normal.

You also should be able to save them as a tiff using DPP and then process them in CS3--Larry

I shoot the 5D and the 40D. 5D for scenics and 40D for wildlife. Happy with both a great team. I would wait a little while longer if I was going to pick up another 5D. More and more our coming in on trades. Take a look at B&H used department.

it depends.

I recently got a 5D to replace my D80. I miss the bright and larger LCD. However, for me the important thing is the viewfinder. And 5D has a bigger one, I recently got a bright screen for it and it rocks while using old and beaten MF Olympus lenses.

The way I would look at it is cropped sensor versus full frame sensor.

What kind of pictures do I take mostly?? BIF = 50 D.

If you have never used/tried a full frame camera then you should find someone who will let you try it before you go out and buy it.

Go to camera compare site I posted. You can pull both cameras up and compare technical data side to side. This is by an independent lab. Then you have data to copare cost/benefit ratio.

Larry

Larry--thanks, I did go there and it is very informative. However, I really hoped to hear from folks with practical experience shooting both cameras or at least the 5D and 40D like Steve's post above. I like the potential versatility of the 50D and the only thing pulling me to the 5D is the larger sensor for landscapes. So I guess my question to the group would be is the 5D with say a 17-40mm any better than a 50D with a 10-22mm for landscapes and other wide angle shooting and John seems to have addressed that--Larry

Check out "http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/701238/0" there are some comparison photos of the 5D and 50D. Based on the samples although I'm not sure how scientific the experiments were the 5D seems to come out way on top of the 50D as far as noise levels and overall image quality are concerned. I guess the larger sensor makes a bigger difference than a newer imaging processor as far as image quality is concerned. All though the 50D does have many new technologies developed after the release of the original 5D. These include a sensor cleaning function, larger LCD, live view, improved AF, ISO up to 3200 and expandable to 12800, exposure compensation +/- 3 stops and I'm sure there is more that I forgot to list. Despite the many new features of the 50D, the apparent better image quality of the 5D and its recent drop in price(which might drop again when the 5D MKII hits the market) is definitely making me consider selling my 40D and 10-22mm as well as tamron 17-50mm aps-c specific lens to make the move to FF. If the price drops again and I can get the 5D and 17-40mm lens for just a few hundred dollars extra after selling my gear I'll probably make the switch.

I haven't seen the Miranda comparison, but on DPReview they ran comparisons between 40D and 50D at the same iso but left the in-camera noise reduction off on the 50D, so of course the 40D blew away the 50D. It's that in-camera NR that allows the 50D to play on a pretty level playing field with the 5D regarding noise.

To me, it made no sense to compare the 40D and 50D in that way. It's like comparing horsepower in the last model Mustang to the newest, turbocharged Mustang, but leaving the turbocharger off in the new one. Sure, you can do it, but why would you?

The iso3200 images I shot on borrowed 5D and 50D bodies, when in-camera NR on the 50D was set to "strong" were really close together, and I couldn't really see a clear winner. In some cases one camera seemed to produce less noisy images, while in different cases it was the other.

So, not having seen the Miranda review, I'm going to go have a look and see if they made a real-world comparison by allowing in-camera NR on "strong" with the 50D. If not, it's not a useful comparison.

Whoa, too much information overload on the Miranda forum and they're still arguing both sides of the fence. There also are good comparisons and reviews on the http://www.cameralabs.com/ site. What I'm seeing is that for the higher resolution cameras you really need the high quality glass to realize the full resolution and that seems to be true for both the 5D and 50D. I think I'll wait a little while for the dust to settle and maybe they'll agree to agree on this. There was a lot of criticism of the act that they used a kit lens on the 50D for the tests which was almost guaranteed to limit its performance. At any rate after the first of the year when the DOW is down to about 100, prices have to go down--Larry

I see the Miranda thread is the typical goofy stuff. Never know what to believe and what to dismiss on many of those wide-open photo boards. And no one mentioned whether the in-camera NR was turned on or off on the pixel peeping comparisons between 5D and 50D.

I also looked over the camera labs review, which compared the 40D and 50D, and in noise performance it had the 50D in-camera NR set at "standard." The review said noise was pretty much the same.

Until I see other comparisons between 5D and 50D allowing for the in-camera NR on the 50D set for "strong," I'll stand by the results of my own comparison of those bodies: So close it's hard for me to call one or the other. Unfortunately I never had both bodies at the same time so my test images are of different subjects.

I use Lightroom 2 and CS3. If I upgrade to the 50d, will I not be able to edit raw images without using the canon raw software?

It's my understanding that the 50D came out enough before CS4 that Adobe issued a Camera Raw plug-in for CS3 that included the 50D.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. I got that from the friend of mine who uses CS3 and bought the 50D a few weeks ago.

I'd go for the 50D, as I actually did 1 month ago. Of course the 5D is a great camera, and I had the opportunity during the years to test it a few times, borrowed by firends. But the 50D - and all the other newer Canon bodies - is from another planet in terms of technology. I think people tends to overrate the full frame against the cropped size, and I speak for direct experience. The 50D coupled with a Tokina 12-24 (a sharper lens than the Canon 10-22, and cheaper too!) delivers outstanding results, with sharp prints up to 24x36. Yo just can't tell the difference between a 24x36 from the 50D and one from the 5D.
So while image quality is theoretically pretty the same, the 50D has another great advantage against the 5D that will results in greater versatility and, at the end of the day, in better image quality. I'm speaking about the amazing 3" LCD at 920'000 with the 10x magnification live view. This is the best feature of the 50D in my opinion, as you can actually find sharp focus through it and you can therefore use with great results any kind of lens. It's just as having a view camera ground glass coupled with a latest generation DSLR. Thanks to the live view magnification I started to use again my Zeiss MF lenses from my old Contax 35mm system. I own the Distagon 28 and 35 mm, the Planar 50mm and the Sonnar 85mm. They're all outstanding lenses, much sharper than the equivalent focal lenght from Canon. And even if you don't have high quality MF lenses at the moment, you can always buy them from ebay or your local store for a few bucks. If image quality is your main concern, I think this the way to go.

Cheers,
Paolo

With respect to using the 50D with Camera Raw in CS3. I just finished checking the Adobe website and you can download the plug-in for v 4.6 and that does include support for the 50D. Check your version of ACR since you may have that version already. I purchased my CS3 upgrade back in Sept 2008 and have ACR v 4.6 installed. Don't know whether it came on the installation disk or was downloaded and installed automatically during one of the background updates. It will be interesting to compare an ACR conversion and one using the newest version of DPP. The question being is the native Canon converter better at it than the ACR plug-in--Larry

PS: The DPreview test compares ACR and DPP conversions and they were pretty much a wash--LP