50d vs 5d

Hi all 5d users, do you love it? I am looking into getting a 5d(not mark II), I currently use a 50d, but want something a little better in low light. Does the 5d blow the 50d out of the water?

Certainly not in terms of AF. IQ is better but an OOF shot is worthless. You need to asess what you shoot most and deide which is more important.

I have a 5D and use it for some years now. Yesterday, I had the occasion to shot a couple of pics with a 50D. In terms of ergonomics and size they are indeed pretty similar, even though the 5D felt slightly heavier. To me, the most important difference when shooting was the size of viewfinder. It was so tiny on the 50D compared to the one of the 5D, that I had a hard time to focus manually. Actually I aslo have to say that I am used to the "high percision" Ee-S screen installed on my 5D, which is probably part of the difference I observed. In terms of image quality the 50D does well, but the rendering of the tones is again... just different, I would say more subtle on the 5D. I just prefer my 5D. But it's probably also because I got so used to it.

daisypat7 wrote in post #12041050
Hi all 5d users, do you love it? I am looking into getting a 5d(not mark II), I currently use a 50d, but want something a little better in low light. Does the 5d blow the 50d out of the water?

A VERY interesting question! I have a 400D and would like to get better low light performance (I live above the arctic circle) and have a strong focus on IQ. For my taste, on my 400D I can not get above iso 400. Anyway, I have been looking at these two cams (second hand here they are about the same price). Question is low light performance without loosing too much IQ. I understand that AF is better on the 50D? Any thoughts from you guys / girls that have used both?

5D.

iso 1600, dont think i did any noise reduction.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

daisypat7 wrote in post #12041050
Hi all 5d users, do you love it? I am looking into getting a 5d(not mark II), I currently use a 50d, but want something a little better in low light. Does the 5d blow the 50d out of the water?

I think the 5D is 1-2 stop better at iso. what lenses do you have and what do you take picture of? sports, portraits, landscape etc

50D, ISO 2000, +2/3 EV, horrible light, small amount of NR

Last year i also wanted to switch from 40D backup / 50D main camera to a 5D and keep the 40D as a backup. I wanted to trade the 50D instead of the 40D because in the same deal i wanted to buy the 100-400 lens as well.

From a nearby shop i got a almost new 5D for a weekend tryout before buying. To be honest, and it was also because of my high expectatiens towards a FF camera, it was a bit of a disapointment.
Indeed colours and imagedepth are more lively and make a crop image look a little flat and dull, but it wasn't the wow feeling i espected to be. ( again this could be my false expectation )
I found that both had their good points but not enough for me to make the switch from the 50D to a 5D.

I then got a 5DII for tryout and this really was a big step up in performance, ended up not buying the 100-400, selling my 40D backup and made the 50D my new backup camera.

---------------
5DII ~ 17-40L ~ 24-105L ~ 70-200L IS f/4 ~ 50 f/1.4 ~ 85 f/1.8 ~ 100 macro
50D ~ Sigma 18-250 OS HSM
Sold the 50 f/1.8 + 55-250IS + Sigma 18-50 OS HSM Cokin filter rebuild.

Stepping up to 5dm2 from 50d with the same lenses, did you experience a great improvement in your photos then?

Could you elaborate on this a bit more, please?

Anyway what lens do you have?

5dc is superiour in low light, the 50d constantly give me bad noise and banding when I do not expose it enough. And sometimes that is unavoidable. The 5d always givem e usable shots up to 3200.

I've been quite satisfied with my 40D about noise at iso 1600, but it's far from great. Especially considering that with a newer high end camera (like 5D2 or 1D4) you seem to be sitting on at least a 2 stop noise improvement in the final image at a certain resolution / print. I'm not talking pixelpeeping here, but looking at both images at like 1920 pixels wide (what I call "wallpaper resolution").

I just bought a 5D next to my 40D, which I'm picking up in a few hours, so I wonder if I can chip in a better comparison after this weekend
I'm not expecting wonders, but I do somewhat expect to be able to shoot with a 28mm f/1.8 @ f/2.0 - 2.5 or so in low light with ISO 1600 with less noise than my 40D gets. Is expecting 1/2 to 1 stop improvement realistic?

I have a 400d and a 5dc and the two cameras are hugely different in terms of overall IQ.

As for noise, the 5dc performs brilliantly up to about ISO 800, and still performs well at 1600 (although newer cameras such as the 550d and 7d begin to catch up at 1600 and above).

Here's a shot at ISO 800:

(click for full-sized photo)
https://dl.dropbox.com​/u/41858/IMG_7385.jpg

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

tomme wrote in post #12042670
I think the 5D is 1-2 stop better at iso. what lenses do you have and what do you take picture of? sports, portraits, landscape etc

IQ wise alone, 5Dc is superior to 50D. Noise performance is about 1 stop better, not more. What 5Dc does well is maintaining more details at high ISO, sharper out of camera image. 5Dc is also a lot more forgiveable at improper exposure.

The 5D (and FF i general) is great in low light and has so many other benefits over the 5D. The AF may be better on the 50D but I haven't had any issues with missed focus on my 5D.

Camera Canon EOS 5D
Exposure 0.01 sec (1/100)
Aperture f/1.8
Focal Length 50 mm
ISO Speed 1600

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/malh777/5376799​423/