Canon 40D vs 50D

[john michael white]

Well, this is interesting.

[John Bennett]

Still think the 40D represents the best value for the buck for DSLRs currently.

Have some friends that upgraded from the 40 to the 50. All are happy, however you really don’t gain much except the extra MPs and a little more ability to crop, if cropping is important to you.

Were it me
I might go the 40 as well and put the price differential towards some better glass. In 12 to 16 months we’ll be chirping over the 60D.

[Corey Kruitbosch]

I agree 100% .. The 40d still looks looks pretty solid and I would have a hard time throwing down the cash for a 50d vs a nice used 40d. I was disappointed in the iso noise on the 50d. Personally, I am seriously considering just saving my pennies and going for the 5D MkII … The cropping power and iso performance there seems like a worthy upgrade.

[john michael white]

Yeah, the hi ISO noise, and no better resolution for a higher price tag kind of killed it for me.

[benjamin sandoval]

Here is a link to a helpful discussion on 40D vs 50D.
40D vs 50D

I was leaning towards the 50D at the new price of $1099 from B&H. I think all the improvements made are very well worth the extra money IMO. I shoot an XTi and I think that would be a huge jump up for me 🙂

[Mike Anderson]

The Sony A700 holds it own against the 40 and the 50, is a bit cheaper, super fast AF speed, and has built in IS. I own one and have played around with the Canons too. If you aren’t already invested in Canon give the Sony 700 a look. Its a sweetheart.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos50d%2Csony_dslra700&show=all

[Shannon Drawe]

It IS difficult to knock Sony the new Sony DSLR’s for sure. I just finished a private lesson for a lady who owns one, and I was pleasantly surprised at every feature I discovered. Sony does offer a lot of bang for the buck – in a camera body. Heck, this may be urban myth, but I am of the understanding that some of the big boys have Sony sensors inside. Correct me if I am wrong on that one.

Here’s the drawback – the other majors (N & C) still have the glass – hands down – unless you include the ZEISS lenses in your selection process. That is the only real drawback I can find though, and put Sony at a solid #3. Then there’s the Betamax vs. VHS argument – how committed is Sony? They look like a real player to me.

shannon

[Eric DeWitt]

I played around with my brothers 40D this weekend, (i have a 30D) and its a great shooting camera, although in the 20 or so shots i took with his i couldn’t see a significant difference between the 40d images and the 30d images.

[Mike Anderson]

Yea Shannon Nikon sensors are Sony,, at least for now anyway. If Sony starts to take market share from them I wonder if they will find another manufacturer. If so this would be good for Sony users since I think Sony is holding back just a little on the sensors in their top end cameras…

Sony is finally getting on the ball getting out the new SSM G lenses which are top notch lenses but very pricey. The Minolta G lenses with the HS motors are great too but not much cheaper at 10 to 20 years old and yes the new Zeiss lenses are very nice too. I have a 16-70 Zeiss that I take everywhere. Then there’s also some great old Minolta glass that can be had for less $$ if you know what to look for. From what I’ve read about Minolta they were very involved with and copied Leica for a while. The lenses from that era are nothing short of outstanding!

This is an interesting article is about the history of how Minolta and Leica and Zeiss worked together.
http://www.dyxum.com/columns/dPhotoworld/Historical_perspective_Minolta_lens_design_philosophy.asp

[Carter Simcoe]

Yea Shannon Nikon sensors are Sony,, at least for now anyway.

Well Sony has been manufacturing at least some of them but Nikon still designed them.

[Author]

Posts