To 50D or Not to 50D! That is the Question

I am on the cusp of upgrading to the 50D; I've read the posts, but can't make up my mind. So, I go to the people.

My use: landscapes and better BIF focusing (birds in flight), as compared to the 40D (sluggish)

Are there any significant short comings that should make me think twice. It does seem to have more noise at higher ISO's, but I've also read that the additional resolution does a great job on detail.

I've also heard that the AI Focus is markedly improved over the 40D. I don't do much low light work, but nature is when nature is.

So? Any input?

Two things you didn't mention: can you safely afford it, and will it make you happy? If you answer yes to both - go for it. Beyond the quality of your gear, your images also reflect your state of mind - don't underestimate the improvement in your work from being happy.

Guy

I'm not unhappy with my work. I am merely wondering if the 50% increase in resolution produces noticeable detail improvement for landscapes. And, if it actually focuses on AI Servo, somewhere between the 1DMkIIN and the 40D.

I have wanted the resolution of the 40D or 50D with their price, but with better servo focusing. And, yes to both quesitons.

I have been shooting with the 50D since October and love it. I stepped up from an 8mp 20D which I use as a backup camera. So yes a big difference for me. I use all L glass. the big selling point for me was the larger LCD (like the 40D) and the nearely double pixel count over the 20D. The very high ISO does get noisey but then you can darn near shoot in the dark! I would take a CF card to a camera store and shoot a bunch of test shots. I don't think you will be disappointed. You will need to downlaod the latest RAW converter though.

I wouldn't worry too much about the noise, as long as it is not a step down. If you were to resize the image to the file size of the 40D, a lot of the noise will be averaged away. Not everything, but a lot of it. Keep in mind that noise is more noticeable as you print bigger (which for this camera is pretty big) and that it is far easier to notice when you pixel peep (which you will do, at least when you first get the camera).

And from someone who shot Velvia 50 rated at 40 for years, ISO 1600 on pretty much any current DSLR camera looks far better than it has any right to.

Beyond that, the above comments sound good to me.

To complicate your dilemma I see this morning that Canon has announced the new EOS 500D/Rebel Ti which also has 15.1MP and (like the new 5D MKII) has full HD video recording capability all for a MSRP of $799. Can anyone explain to me why Canon keeps undercutting it's XXD series by putting more features on the Rebel series than they do on the XXD models? The XXD line is more solidly built and has a better control layout but it seems like every time they upgrade it, within 6 months they match those upgrades on the Rebel plus a feature or two that they did not put on the latest XXD model.

Hi Wayne, I don't shoot landscapes often, mostly avian. I got my 50D in December and I have to say it was a great move for me. I see a huge improvement in the DETAIL in my photos, and so far the noise issue has been a non issue for me since I can now shoot in higher ISOs than I was with my XTi's.
As a side note, several other things may attribute to the improvement I've been seeing:
1) I''ve learned a trememdous amount here on this site.
2) My technique has improved
3) I took a PS course
I'm super happy with mine. I have a lot more keeper photos. Hope this helps you! Sharon

The AF is superb, I bought a 50D for my wife and I often end up using it when she's not along. I shoot a lot of flight shots and my keeper rate has gone up when I use this body. IMO the AF is better than the MkIII which is/was my main camera body. In low light the noise levels are too high for me and I use the MkIII then, but up to 400 iso they aren't bad.