40D Vs 50D

Plays, basketball games, hockey: f/4, not fast enough really. It will be a struggle to stop motion. f/2.8 is better though still not best, f/2 or faster would be better which means a prime (85 f/1.8, 100 f/2, 135 f/2). But the zoom is versatile in other ways of course but expect to use 3200 ISO if you have it or 1600 at the very least to try and get a decent shutter speed at f/2.8.

Nooooo, not 40D vs 50D again!!!

Get the 40D. It's a classic.

I had the same decision to make about 2 weeks ago. I went with a used 50D. I would agree with others that the micro adjust feature makes the 50D worth it.

I don't know if the micro adjusts translate to real world shooting yet (only been out once since getting the camera) but in test shots around the house the micro adjusts seem to make a pretty big difference.

For what it is worth in my area the 40D goes for $550-675ish used. I got my 50D used for $750 with less than 4k actuations.

I agree with themadman, used in good condition is an excellent way to go. I would recommend the 50d over the 40d for the micro focus adjust alone.

isn't the iso on a 50d supposedly a lot better?

yogestee wrote in post #9709793
I had to make a choice when I bought another body.. I chose the 50D over the 40D on AF Micro adjustment alone.. I my opinion this feature alone is worth its weight in rocking horse manure..

The other day I was playing with a friend's 40D and the first thing I noticed was how good the LCD screen is on my 50D compared to the 40D..

Totally agree!

I had a 40D then upgraded to the 50D. Microadjustment alone is worth every penny.
I used to send the 40D camera and some lenses back for calibration, but with the 50D, I can do it in camera. So I save on postage and the camera and lens stays with me.
The 50D screen is also 100% better than the 40D's.

I would say go for the 50D or even 7D if you want better high ISO performance.

yogestee wrote in post #9709793
I disagree..

I had to make a choice when I bought another body.. I chose the 50D over the 40D on AF Micro adjustment alone.. I my opinion this feature alone is worth its weight in rocking horse manure..

The other day I was playing with a friend's 40D and the first thing I noticed was how good the LCD screen is on my 50D compared to the 40D..

I was also able to tinker a 40D last week...and except for the LCD screen, I find it a LOT better than my 500D, so I guess 50D is really nice...it has my LCD and all the features of the 40D plus more...

Haven't we all lived without micro-adjust for years and years and years and still gotten sharp, crisp good looking photos out of our cameras? The answer to that would have to be yes. The 5 lenses I own work perfectly with my 30D body and no real adjustment is needed. Do I think that micro-adjust is a usable feature, yes, in probably what would be rare cases for a lot of people in real world shooting.

I think that a lot of you have "drank the Kool-Aid" on that feature when your use of the actual feature may be minimal to nothing. I also think Canon is forced to come up with new features in each successive body to justify the increased price from the previous model.

I had both. I love the microadjustment feature of the 50D. It improved most of my lenses. The screen is much nicer than the 40D.

I thought MA would be of more use to me when I bought my 50D. As it turned out, only one of my lenses needed it. I can definitely see it being an excellent feature when needed, though.

For me, the LCD and the 50% more pixels for cropping without lower quality are what have been the major benefits.

bauerman wrote in post #9712909
Haven't we all lived without micro-adjust for years and years and years and still gotten sharp, crisp good looking photos out of our cameras? The answer to that would have to be yes. The 5 lenses I own work perfectly with my 30D body and no real adjustment is needed. Do I think that micro-adjust is a usable feature, yes, in probably what would be rare cases for a lot of people in real world shooting.

I think that a lot of you have "drank the Kool-Aid" on that feature when your use of the actual feature may be minimal to nothing. I also think Canon is forced to come up with new features in each successive body to justify the increased price from the previous model.

I think as the sensors get higher and higher res, focus will become more critical. What looks sharp on an 8mp 30D file might not when you get into detail capable with twice the resolution.

cdreemz17 wrote in post #9711130
Nooooo, not 40D vs 50D again!!!

Thats what I said when I saw this thread!

Thanks, Now its a matter of finding a deal.

bauerman wrote in post #9712909
Haven't we all lived without micro-adjust for years and years and years and still gotten sharp, crisp good looking photos out of our cameras? The answer to that would have to be yes. The 5 lenses I own work perfectly with my 30D body and no real adjustment is needed. Do I think that micro-adjust is a usable feature, yes, in probably what would be rare cases for a lot of people in real world shooting.

I think that a lot of you have "drank the Kool-Aid" on that feature when your use of the actual feature may be minimal to nothing. I also think Canon is forced to come up with new features in each successive body to justify the increased price from the previous model.

At first I thought the same.. After buying my 50D I found lenses that are sharp on my 20D (and 350D before that) were just so-so on the 50D.. One lens in particular my Sigma EX 50-150mm f/2.8 is great on my 20D but terrible on my 50D before AF Micro adjustment..I had to adjust this lens to +15 on my 50D.. My Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM was also adjusted.. My Tamrons are fine..

In many cases it's not the lens nor the camera alone but the combination of the two.. Also higher density sensors like found on the 50D (and 7D) are more critical when it comes to lens performance and any camera movement is also amplified so shutter speeds have to be kept up..

yogestee wrote in post #9709793
I disagree..

I had to make a choice when I bought another body.. I chose the 50D over the 40D on AF Micro adjustment alone.. I my opinion this feature alone is worth its weight in rocking horse manure..

The other day I was playing with a friend's 40D and the first thing I noticed was how good the LCD screen is on my 50D compared to the 40D..

Fair enough. I only used the screen to check the histogram, so the lower resolution of the 40D's screen was fine for me. As for the micro-adjust, I've been lucky enough to have (in my judgement) never needed it (yet?!).