Camera choices - like buying a new car?

Camera choices!! Almost like buying a new car. Slightly different features from make to make, and from model to model.

My self-imposed choice comes down to a 5DMK2 or a 50D.

What I mainly shoot is outdoor landscapes and scenery shots. I rarely use burst mode. I sometimes do shoot indoors with the pop-up flash on my 350D, but those are “snapshot” events where a P&S or my old 350D would still be fine.

I looked up the sensor size of both candidate cameras, and found the following:

5D: 36.0 x 24.0 mm, with 21.1 effective pixels gives you 24421.30 pixels per square mm.

50D: 22.3 x 14.0 mm, with 15.1 effective pixels provides 45444.97 pixels per square mm.

Now since I’m not an expert, I am assuming that the less dense pixels on the 5D full frame will translate into lower noise (for otherwise identical settings). Is this a good or reasonable assumption?

Also, what happens when you shoot at a lesser RAW setting, such as RAW1 or RAW2 settings on the 5D? What actually goes on with all those pixels? They aren’t “deactivated” I would assume, so how exactly does this file size savings work? Are some pixels just ignored? Is there a significant change in noise levels when this "lower" RAW setting is selected?

Lastly, I would likely be buying the included kit lens with either choice, and although the zoom focal length is different (as is the effective focal length due to sensor size), I understand that the L series on the 5D is a much better choice, and is a strong factor in that direction.

Anyone care to comment on my thoughts?? Am I on track with my assumptions?

Thanks all . . .

It really depends on your focus and comfort with your equipment--- personal choice is a huge factor here.
Here is how I can answer your question. I shoot professionally, most of my work is wedding work but outside of wedding season I shoot for sports teams, fashion and news work. I have several camera bodies. I think my biggest mistake was purchasing the 40D. For me not a body I use much. I have a 5D and love it. The photos in my opinion have that extra umph! By far my most used bodies though are my 1D Mark bodies -- they are just built better and are extremely sharp with fantastic focus.
Sorry to confuse you even more.
For what it is worth--- I would never want a kit lens.....just not the quality that I personally want to see.

Lots more to this than sensor size - for you I'd propose full frame would give you much better access to full frame needs for landscapes.

In general, if you can afford it the 5D Mark II will be the better choice.

The lens is a no-contest discussion. The 24-105 in the 5D kit is WAY ahead of the 50D's kit lens. Huge difference.

stathunter wrote in post #6569328
For what it is worth--- I would never want a kit lens.....just not the quality that I personally want to see.

The kit lens in the 5d is the 24-105 F/4 L IS. I'd take that lens over just about anything else in its range. An entirely different league from the 50d kit lens.

JHunter wrote in post #6569480
The kit lens in the 5d is the 24-105 F/4 L IS. I'd take that lens over just about anything else in its range. An entirely different league from the 50d kit lens.

I stand corrected. Thanks. The problem is many who get a "kit lens" tend to think that it is good for everything. As a wedding shooter this could not be further from the truth.

Thanks guys . . . I appreciate your thoughts. My obvious quest is to determine if the additional quality is worth the addidional cost in the camera choice.

What about my questions regarding pixels per square mm? Is it a good assumption that the fewer pixels per square area the less noise?

stathunter wrote in post #6569495
I stand corrected. Thanks. The problem is many who get a "kit lens" tend to think that it is good for everything. As a wedding shooter this could not be further from the truth.

True that no one lens is "good for everything", but the decision to include the 24-105L as a 5D "kit lens" was very good for us all! It's in a whole other class from the kit lenses that have come with the xxxD and xxD bodies.

buy the mercedes combo..a 5d mkII with the 24-70 mm f2.8L USM

bluefox9er wrote in post #6570491
buy the mercedes combo..a 5d mkII with the 24-70 mm f2.8L USM

Why do you like the 24-70 mm f2.8L USM over the 24-105 "kit" lens? Both are L lenses, and although one has the 2.8 for lower light, I would think the shorter focal length at the higher end would limit me for "walking around" and scenery uses.

I did look at the 24-70, and liked the specs, but if the 24-105 can be had as a part of an overall kit price, not too sure why I would want to substitute??

golfecho wrote in post #6570648
Why do you like the 24-70 mm f2.8L USM over the 24-105 "kit" lens? Both are L lenses, and although one has the 2.8 for lower light, I would think the shorter focal length at the higher end would limit me for "walking around" and scenery uses.

I did look at the 24-70, and liked the specs, but if the 24-105 can be had as a part of an overall kit price, not too sure why I would want to substitute??

Faster glass. I know my 24-105 is in the bag lots more than the 24-70 because of the 2.8 alone.

I also like the lens hood/design much better on the 24-70; better protection.

golfecho wrote in post #6570648
Why do you like the 24-70 mm f2.8L USM over the 24-105 "kit" lens? Both are L lenses, and although one has the 2.8 for lower light, I would think the shorter focal length at the higher end would limit me for "walking around" and scenery uses.

I did look at the 24-70, and liked the specs, but if the 24-105 can be had as a part of an overall kit price, not too sure why I would want to substitute??

Here is Scott's opinion again but the biggest mistakes I made in lens purchases was getting f/4 vs 2.8 or better. For me I do weddings, sports etc and need fast low light glass----I love my Canon 17-40L but it is f/4--- which does not do well inside. I did take a killer shot with it (kind of by accident) which made the cover for an entertainment mag recently though.
For landscape you really do not need the 2.8 but as your photography expands and you do more diverse work you might find the need for 2.8 or better.

stathunter wrote in post #6570704
Here is Scott's opinion again but the biggest mistakes I made in lens purchases was getting f/4 vs 2.8 or better. For me I do weddings, sports etc and need fast low light glass----I love my Canon 17-40L but it is f/4--- which does not do well inside. I did take a killer shot with it (kind of by accident) which made the cover for an entertainment mag recently though.
For landscape you really do not need the 2.8 but as your photography expands and you do more diverse work you might find the need for 2.8 or better.

Well put - same here. All the slow ones sit in the bag long term.

golfecho wrote in post #6570648
Why do you like the 24-70 mm f2.8L USM over the 24-105 "kit" lens? Both are L lenses, and although one has the 2.8 for lower light, I would think the shorter focal length at the higher end would limit me for "walking around" and scenery uses.

I did look at the 24-70, and liked the specs, but if the 24-105 can be had as a part of an overall kit price, not too sure why I would want to substitute??

stathunter wrote in post #6570704
Here is Scott's opinion again but the biggest mistakes I made in lens purchases was getting f/4 vs 2.8 or better. For me I do weddings, sports etc and need fast low light glass----I love my Canon 17-40L but it is f/4--- which does not do well inside. I did take a killer shot with it (kind of by accident) which made the cover for an entertainment mag recently though.
For landscape you really do not need the 2.8 but as your photography expands and you do more diverse work you might find the need for 2.8 or better.

I find the 24-105 is a very good walk-around lens -- much more compact and light-weight than the 24-70, and with the IS it does very well in overall use. But if you plan to do a lot of low-light shooting, you certainly do want faster lenses in your kit, but could do with one or two primes as well as the 24-70.

stathunter wrote in post #6570704
Here is Scott's opinion again but the biggest mistakes I made in lens purchases was getting f/4 vs 2.8 or better. For me I do weddings, sports etc and need fast low light glass----I love my Canon 17-40L but it is f/4--- which does not do well inside. I did take a killer shot with it (kind of by accident) which made the cover for an entertainment mag recently though.
For landscape you really do not need the 2.8 but as your photography expands and you do more diverse work you might find the need for 2.8 or better.

If I go with the 5DMkII, will the lower noise levels allow me to bump the ISO the 2 or 3 stops to overcome the F4.0??

You all are making some really great suggestions. The 1 or 2 faster primes instead of a 24-70 2.8 (allowing me the 24-105 as a walk around) was also a good option.

I just continue to be amazed at the many choices!

golfecho wrote in post #6570826
If I go with the 5DMkII, will the lower noise levels allow me to bump the ISO the 2 or 3 stops to overcome the F4.0??

You all are making some really great suggestions. The 1 or 2 faster primes instead of a 24-70 2.8 (allowing me the 24-105 as a walk around) was also a good option.

I just continue to be amazed at the many choices!

a 50mm 1.4 on the 5D Mark II would be great and give you that low light usage.

Main thing isn't low light - the lower DOF allow creativity. For example I use a 85mm 1.2 for the VAST majority of people-related imagery. Often using it at 2.0 or 2.8 or so.

All this said, if I had a single lens, it would probably be the 24-105mm. It is the lens I took with the 5D when I travelled for personal trips.