50D vs 5D II

Just posting a couple of comparison pictures of the 50D vs 5D II.

Canon 50mm f/1.4, Canon Extension Tube EF25 II

5D Mk II (cropped slightly to match framing of 50D picture):

Wow, look how much better those 5D MKII photos are! Enjoy your camera!

I really want a 5D II, but I really love my 7Ds 19 AF points. I would need to convince myself I dont need them....and I probably dont, but I just love them so much.

How are you liking the 5Ds features?

I've never needed anything better than the 50D's AF points, and I really don't find the ones in the 5D to be that much worse. The difference between the two is really exaggerated on here as things often are. I'm sure the difference between the 5D & 7D would be more significant, but I use manually selected single point focus anyway.

I am enjoying the 5D so far. The differences in images between the two cameras are much more subtle than dramatic, but the subtleties are nice. I sold my Sigma 10-20 & 30mm, and now plan on using this as my low light & UWA camera.

Mark-B wrote in post #13437321
I am enjoying the 5D so far. The differences in images between the two cameras are much more subtle than dramatic, but the subtleties are nice. I sold my Sigma 10-20 & 30mm, and now plan on using this as my low light & UWA camera.

Which UWA lens are you thinking of getting for the 5D?

Mark-B wrote in post #13437321
I've never needed anything better than the 50D's AF points, and I really don't find the ones in the 5D to be that much worse. The difference between the two is really exaggerated on here as things often are. I'm sure the difference between the 5D & 7D would be more significant, but I use manually selected single point focus anyway.

I am enjoying the 5D so far. The differences in images between the two cameras are much more subtle than dramatic, but the subtleties are nice. I sold my Sigma 10-20 & 30mm, and now plan on using this as my low light & UWA camera.

The 50D and 5D II use the same type of AF system, which is an improvement over the older AF systems in 40D and 5D anyway. As Canon stated somewhere on their site, they use more than one spectrum band of light, making AF more accurate. And based on my own experiences with a 40D, 5D, 5D II and a borrowed 50D this is indeed the case. AF of 5D II and 50D is indeed better, especially under difficult lighting circumstances.

As to using the 5D II as an UWA camera, and for low light, these are two of the subjects why I got it too (well, plus a few more ). And if you can free the budget for it, I'd suggest to get a TS-E 17 for UWA work. You will be blown away by the IQ, I am sure .

Kind regards, Wim

comparing the price difference between the 2 i dont see a $1400 difference.

booja wrote in post #13437369
comparing the price difference between the 2 i dont see a $1400 difference.

Try blowing them up to 3'x2' instead of a few pixels on each side, and see if you can spot a difference.

Personally I think these types of comparisons do a disservice to people that do not have either camera and are contemplating the purchase of one or the other.

I say that because, although I did not have a 50D I did have a 40D. I don't think their noise performance was all that different, from what I have read.

There is no fhkhying way a 40D would produce clean shots like the ones posted at ISO3200, without some help from NR. Now, they have been downsized a lot which helps, so, if your only output is going to be small JPG's, then, maybe the 50D can work for you but it is in no way equal to the 5DII in high ISO performance, imo. I have no idea what the default NR is in Aperture.

Actually the 50D shot posted looks better at ISO3200 than anything I could get from a 7D I had for a short while. Maybe what I shoot tends to bring out the noise in images, don't know.

booja wrote in post #13437369
comparing the price difference between the 2 i dont see a $1400 difference.

Nor would you at web size resolutions. Use both extensively, then decide. I'm not even trying to say that the 5D would definitely be better - for many it may not be - but I've had my fair share of crop cameras and as much as I would love to love my 7D, in some situations the IQ just isn't where the 5D is.

booja wrote in post #13437369
comparing the price difference between the 2 i dont see a $1400 difference.

At web size I don't see a $40.00 difference.

StarTzar wrote in post #13437350
Which UWA lens are you thinking of getting for the 5D?

I've been looking at them for the last few days. Either the 17-40 or the 16-35 version 1. Looking to stay with the 77mm filter size.

Mark-B wrote in post #13437742
I've been looking at them for the last few days. Either the 17-40 or the 16-35 version 1. Looking to stay with the 77mm filter size.

What's your budget for UWA? Would you be happy with f/4?

I have the 16-35/2.8L II and have been very happy with the results so far! I will say that I haven't had a ton of time with the lens, but will be using it a lot the last week of Dec. during a photo adventure in Monument Valley and in Arches National Park.

KoalaCowboy wrote in post #13437897
What's your budget for UWA? Would you be happy with f/4?.

I don't know about happy, but I would certainly be used to f/4. The Sigma 10-20 that I used for the past year on my 50D was f/4-5.6.

I would love to have the 16-35 II for it's outstanding sharpness and image quality, but I'm not sure I want to spend the money. It's $1,000 more than the 17-40 and $500 more than the 16-35 I. Not only that, I'd have to spend another $500 to get an 82mm polarizer and ND filters that I already have in 77mm size.

Mark-B wrote in post #13438061
I don't know about happy, but I would certainly be used to f/4. The Sigma 10-20 that I used for the past year on my 50D was f/4-5.6.

I would love to have the 16-35 II for it's outstanding sharpness and image quality, but I'm not sure I want to spend the money. It's $1,000 more than the 17-40 and $500 more than the 16-35 I. Not only that, I'd have to spend another $500 to get an 82mm polarizer and ND filters that I already have in 77mm size.

LMAO

Yeah, I hear ya. I've just spent a gazillion dollars on equipment. Well, not quite a gazillion, but I've probably spent $450 on Lee Filter equipment alone in the last week alone.

Good luck in choosing your UWA lens!