XTi to 40D/50D

I have been looking for awhile now to upgrading to a 40D in hopes of having some lower noise from taking shots at higher ISO. I am also interested in the ergo's of the XXD and higher lines. Not really a fan of the Rebel line unless it has a grip, then I am ok. Although with the drop in prices of the 50D lately I have decided to keep that in mind too.

I will be taking more shots of our first born in a couple of months but also plan on taking more shots at our local Gym for MMA/Jiu Jitsu.

Would I be more likely to notice the difference between XTi to 40D or to a 50D? I have the Sigma 30/1.4 and love it but feel that some shots could still use a cleaner higher ISO. Also in the plan is a 85/1.8.

I did my searching for 40D vs 50D threads but can't seem to get a complete answer to my specific question.

I went from the XTi to the 50D last year. There is no comparison to the feel of the 50D. It seems to be very well built for the price. Noise at ISO 3200 is comparable to what I got at ISO 1600 on the XTi. The controls are better laid out and the QCD on the back is very handy. That being said, I think for the same money, you could get a T2i which may be just a bit less noisy(so say users on this forum). You will like the 50D but you might want to check out the 7D. About a third more money but the AF system may make that worth it for sports.

PS- I have the 85 f/1.8-you will like that also!

The difference in high-ISO noise between all these cameras is minimal IMHO. That's assuming you're shooting RAW, as the cameras apply different levels of noise reduction in JPEG shooting. I went from an XTi to a 40D and the 40D is maybe 1/3 stop better, if that. The 50D is no better than the 40D (although its JPEGs, and even images processed in DPP, have more noise reduction applied, giving the impression of lower noise).

Here are some higher ISO shots from the 50d.
800:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/40483547@N07/5​320711335/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/40483547@N07/5​309107555/

then again, I did this with the XTi at ISO1600 and 55-250mm

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/40483547@N07/4​222428206/

In term of image quality, it's hard to tell the difference between 40D and 50D by using the same lens. What you get with a little bit more money (about $100) for 50D - back LCD with higher resolution, micro adjustment for lens back/front focus.

The LCD alone is worth it.

Bleufire wrote in post #11566951
I have been looking for awhile now to upgrading to a 40D in hopes of having some lower noise from taking shots at higher ISO. I am also interested in the ergo's of the XXD and higher lines. Not really a fan of the Rebel line unless it has a grip, then I am ok. Although with the drop in prices of the 50D lately I have decided to keep that in mind too.

I will be taking more shots of our first born in a couple of months but also plan on taking more shots at our local Gym for MMA/Jiu Jitsu.

Would I be more likely to notice the difference between XTi to 40D or to a 50D? I have the Sigma 30/1.4 and love it but feel that some shots could still use a cleaner higher ISO. Also in the plan is a 85/1.8.

I did my searching for 40D vs 50D threads but can't seem to get a complete answer to my specific question.

I see you said you are not a fan of rebels, but you could get a NEW T2i with video, which I would think you would want with a child on the way,,,,,for what you would pay for a used 50D....the 50D, you get banging FPS, but I don't think you need that.

BTW,,,where do you see a drop in 50D prices, I wish I did...I see clean used ones going for $750-800....

robertwsimpson wrote in post #11572713
The LCD alone is worth it.

Yeah, the shoulder LCD. It's the #1 reason I can't go back to a Rebel. Gotta have that shoulder LCD.

Tim S wrote in post #11566999
PS- I have the 85 f/1.8-you will like that also!

I am browsing through the FS forum... My prime addiction is starting to flare up!

gcogger wrote in post #11572605
The difference in high-ISO noise between all these cameras is minimal IMHO. That's assuming you're shooting RAW, as the cameras apply different levels of noise reduction in JPEG shooting. I went from an XTi to a 40D and the 40D is maybe 1/3 stop better, if that. The 50D is no better than the 40D (although its JPEGs, and even images processed in DPP, have more noise reduction applied, giving the impression of lower noise).

I searched alot of forums and have discovered that the 40D/50D will not give me what I am looking for because of the exact reason you described above.

mark2009 wrote in post #11573699
I see you said you are not a fan of rebels, but you could get a NEW T2i with video, which I would think you would want with a child on the way,,,,,for what you would pay for a used 50D....the 50D, you get banging FPS, but I don't think you need that.

BTW,,,where do you see a drop in 50D prices, I wish I did...I see clean used ones going for $750-800....

I don't *think* i need video. but then again, i didn't think i needed a prime after my 17-55 lens. I also don't need high FPS cause i don't tend to take shots like that. I considered a 5Dc but am not sure if I want to mess with selling the 17-55.


I have seen a few on the forums for $660-$700. From when i started looking at them, roughly back in Aug, I noticed that the priced drooped into the $600 mark a few times and ALMOST picked one up but i over research things and couldn't justify the purchase. I think what I learned since my first post is I need to learn to expose my shots better.

thanks all who replied!

Wait... Does a better lens produce less noise? Or just the aperature of the lens?

wide aperture = more light = low ISO = less noise .

I think you need an external flash if you don't have one already. A good flash will produce more consistently good indoor shots of kids than shooting at f/2 and ISO 1600. The 40D and 50D have better AF than the XTi, which will help when your kiddo starts running around.

shaftmaster wrote in post #11589921
The 40D and 50D have better AF than the XTi, which will help when your kiddo starts running around.

I wanted to move up to the XXD line mainly for the AF but that is really all. I am kind bummed my ISO tops at 1600 but figured that could be remedied by using things like f/1.4-/2.0, so recently i have been researching primes.

onick wrote in post #11589839
wide aperture = more light = low ISO = less noise .

What I meant, was let's say, you take an L lens at f4.0 vs. a kit 18-55 at f4.0, will the L(or better... don't want to get into a debate) produce less noise?

Better lens @ f4 > Crappy lens @f4 ?