50D - A Cost Effective Alternative To A New 1 Series?

I have been using a 1D Mark 2 (original) for 5 years and have liked it. However, it is beginning to get long in the tooth. My wife's 40 D produces great images and has performed well for flight photography this past week in the Everglades. So, I have been contemplating getting a 50D.

The cost f a 1D Mark 3 is almost $4,000; the new 1D (when it ever comes out will be at least $4,000). The 50D is about $1,300. I can get a 50D and a 5D Mark2 for almost the same as a new one series. So, is it really worth it to get a 1 series. I know the last time I got my Mark 2 the ability to AF at f8 was important so I could use my 500 and a 2 X TC. However the 500 with a 2 X TC gives 1000 with a 1.3 crop the angle of view will be about 1,300 mm. The 500 and 1.4 X TC combo on a crop body will be 1,120mm but many more pixels so I could crop the image more.

So, bottom line question is I wonder if the 50D is a good alternative at $1,300 vs about $4,000 for a 1 series?

Hi Ed:

I have a 40D and I've loved it so far, and I don't believe I've seen yet what it really can do...however from what I understand you won't be able to auto focus your teleconverter with even a 5D2...that's one of the things you pay for when buying a 1 series...this is what another photographer told me who has a 1 series...but if you want to switch, and can afford the 5D2 I'd get that one...more MP and full frame.

Hi again...I guess my point was full frame from what I've noticed in the end is a sharper picture than a cropped camera. It sounds like you're trying to get the same thing your Mark 2 does, but by cropping less pixels with a cropped camera...but I'm wondering in the end if you're sacrificing quality as well as an auto focusing teleconverter.

I made the decision a while back that i'd rather spend my money on getting to beautiful places than on cameras. I have owned a 20D, 40D, and now a 50D. The first two on this list never really satisfied me... In fact the 20D never even came close. The 50D, so far, has surpassed my expectations. Great resolution, autofocus (thanks to the micro adjustment calibrations I've made), and good features. Sure, I'd love to be able to blast away at 10 fps, but really? 6.5 fps is pretty great for $1300! I love the live view for landscapes, the AF seems more accurate & faster than the 40D. In fact, Art Morris is always saying that he has found the 50D AF to be better (in AI Focus) than any other Canon camera. Granted this could be some new fangled pr work, but he does seem very happy with it. I'm going to be following the idea you laid out, a 50D for telephoto work, with a 5D mk2 for landscapes, etc. Plus, as you know, money is almost always better spent on good glass than cameras - so I'll be adding to my lens collection too.
In short, the 50D has been awesome. My images have never been more detailed or sharply focused. With the economy the way it is, we have to be careful.

Hi again...I guess my point was full frame from what I've noticed in the end is a sharper picture than a cropped camera .

This simply isn't correct.
There may be any number of reasons to get a "full frame" camera, but improved image sharpness isn't one of them.

I'm a very happy 40D owner with no regrets whatsoever.

So, bottom line question is I wonder if the 50D is a good alternative at $1,300 vs about $4,000 for a 1 series?

Yes.

I think so Ed, I just bought a 50D for my wife (I have a 1dmk3) and find myself grabbing it instead if I need any reach and the lighting is not low. To me, the only real reason to buy a Mk3 instead would be if you spend a lot of time photographing in dark places like rain forests because the iso performance is so much better. Other than that in a lot of respects I prefer the 50D.

I thank everyone for their input. I just wanted to make myself clearer. I almost went for a 1DMK3 a year ago, but the AF flap scared me off of spending that kind of $$ on something that might have frustrated me. Then my wife got a 40 D and, like Nate, I am impressed with the images a lot. The AF is very good - we are currently in the Everglades where she has done a lot of flight shooting. When she did her job of keeping the focus point on the bird the focus is great.

So, while I was hoping for an announcement for a new 1 series at PMA this is apparently not forthcoming. I therefore started thinking that a 50D might meet my needs and save me $$. Yes, I am fully aware of the no AF at f8 issue. However, if I use my 500 and 1.4 on a 1.6 crop camera the angle of view comes close - not quite as long as a 2 X TC on a 1.3 crop, but close.

I also have read about high ISO noise with the 50D. However, I have been told that up to 1000 the high ISO noise of the 50D is better than my 5 year old 1D Mark 2 (6 year old technology).

So, is a 1 series camera really more than $2,000 better? From what I read in your responses you all generally agree that it is not.

As an aside, I thought that the $$ spent on a 1DMK3 or 1DMK4 could buy a 50D and a 5DMK2 if I really wanted less crop factor. Buying 2 cameras would not be my first choice.

So, I will look forward to your continued input and ponder for a short while and make a choice.

Ed,,,,,,,the 50D is a fine performer for the money. I rarely go over iso 800 and noise isn't a big issue if you're careful about exposure. I find that it is less forgiving than my 30D was on under exposure. The autofocus tracking is worlds better, but surely not up to speed with the 1 series. So far I'm very pleased with the 50D.

Ed. I've been using my 50D since last November. Autofocus performance is very good. I regularly shoot with a guy who has a 1D Mark III as well as a 50D. He fully believes the 50D is just as good, if not better than the Mark III at acquiring and holding lock on a subject. His specialty is hand held flight photography of birds. I don't own a Mark III and have never shot with one so I can't compare directly, but I've seen the results from my 50D, as well as others. High ISO noise performance... I'm comfortable taking my 50D up to ISO 1250, or 1600 if needed. It requires some post processing noise reduction to satisfy my needs. I've found the images clean up very nicely after the post processing. Detail is superb. For my $$, the 50D was the choice rather than spend the extra on a 1 series body. I'm guessing that in the next 2-3 years, the replacement for the 50D will come along and be even better. If it is enough of an upgrade I'll look at buying one. If I were to spend the $$ on a 1 series, I'd have a really hard time justifying a new body for many years. I still see the technology growing fast enough that the new bodies outperform older (2 to 3 year old) bodies.

I think the 50D would be a great choice and using only a 1.4x teleconverter should improve image quality over the 2x. I really don't think the 1D III is worth One thing you need to take into consideration is that a 1.4x canon TC may still not AF because the camera will tell the lens not to AF because it isn't an f2.8 lens. Some people have solved this dilema simply by taping a couple of the pins on the teleconverter so the camera doesn't know that there is a teleconverter attached and will then attempt to autofocus. Also the tamron 1.4x TC doesn't report that info to then lens so you don't even need to tape anything with that TC. Then again I could be wrong and it may just work, this is just what my understanding is from what I've read online about using TCs with non-pro bodies and non f2.8 lenses.

Thanks again for all the input. Austin, Yes the 50D and 40D will AF with a 1.4 on my 500 f4. It will not AF with the 2 X. However, like I stated the focal length with the 1.4 is 700 and with the 1.6 crop factor it almost makes it equivalent to the 500 f4 and 2 X on my 1DMK2 with its 1.3 crop factor. Either is a monster focal length.

The thing that started me thinking along these lines is the fact that 2 friends of mine who are highly regarded pros who made the switch to Nikon right after the 1DMK3 fiasco hit the fan. They are now switching back! They need a 500 and 600 lens. While they could get them as they are NPS members, the cost is driving them away. They are planning on 2 50D bodies, one 500 and one 600 along with a shorter lens I am not sure of. They state they will still have $$ in the bank after selling their Nikon gear. Here is a case where if Nikon had reasonable prices they would be staying. BTW they both shoot 200-400 mostly with 1.4 TCs. We tested my 500 with a X TC in good light so a high SS could be used to avoid camera shake degrading the image on a tripod licked down on my old 1DMK2 (not N) and it was tack sharp. I understand the they ordered yesterday. If the new one series comes out and is good they plan to keep one 50D and get one 1D4 or 3N or what ever Canon will name it.

So, if it is good enough for them it should be good enough for me. I have asked them to send me some RAW files both a low and high ISO - say 1000 so I can evaluate it myself as well as hearing what they have to say.

Enjoyed this discussion as I am trying to decide on a 50D vs a 5DMKII. Thanks for the frank, open comments.

Bill Brennan

I own both the 40d and the 5dMKII and really like both cameras. The 5dMKII is incredible! The only thing I am missing is a reasonable focus speed with the TC. I have tried many attempts at flight shots with the TC on both cameras and can't get focus quickly enough.