View Full Version : Someone persuade me to invest in a 50D
Anyone got one yet?
It's getting to that time of year again when events start to move indoors and the light levels drop dramatically as the day goes on, so I was looking at something to give me a higher ISO potential and hopefully reduced noise levels than my 30D. The extra mp would come in handy too.
Only downside is it costs a lot of money, although it's at least down to less than a grand now.
Taq
Sprout Crumble
13-10-2008, 20:49
Certainly improved high-ISO performance but more to offset the increased resolution. Its certainly better than the 30D but it doesn't look earth-shatteringly improved in absolute terms.
Of course, the 50D looks a belter in other terms as well and well worth every penny. I wouldn't buy one if increased high-ISO performance was the only real reason in the same way I wouldn't buy a D300 or a K20d. Improvements are incremental these days rather than revolutionary. The 30D is no slouch.
RobDickinson
13-10-2008, 20:53
Not convinced yet the 50D has any real worthwhile increase in ISO capability.
Its a cracking all round camera though.
Go for a 5D mkII...
heh I'd have to sell alot of photos to afford that one! Be nice though.
The main problem is having to keep at 1/500sec minumum all the time.
RobDickinson
13-10-2008, 21:23
Do you need the framerate?
Would a 5D do? ISO 1600 is very usable with them.
Mate, buy one. OK? :thumbs:
RobDickinson
13-10-2008, 21:38
gregh is looking for a 30D!! :D
bollecks
14-10-2008, 08:43
Nah don't bother. It's basically an EOS 300 with a different shaped control wheel on the back.
Nah don't bother. It's basically an EOS 300 with a different shaped control wheel on the back.
What is?
hmm after spending most of the day yesterday in a poorly lit arena shooting at f/2.8 and ISO1600 as a bare minimum (and still getting underexposed shots for most of the time, only about half of which are rescuable at all) I think I really need something that'll go to at least 6400. It's not the quality at 1600 that bothers me (the 30D is fine really for that) it's getting anything at all at that level that's not a black horse jumping over a black fence in a black arena.
The light's not going to get any better for the next four months after all. Better start flogging some old kit!
Most of the prints will be at 8x6 so with some NN'ing it should be okay at higher ISOs.
Taq
still average joe
27-10-2008, 09:17
Sounds like you will be moving to Nikon then. Going for a D700 perhaps?
Sprout Crumble
27-10-2008, 09:18
6400 is last resort on any camera. A Canon 1D3 would be about the most usable at that speed, certainly as good as the D3 at holding fine detail in low light, but obviously its expensive.
Asking any APS-C dslr, and I'm a big fan of them, to be great at 6400 with sensor-tech as it is today is just too much. Usable, but with caveats.
SAJ, there's bugger all difference between a D700 and a 1D3 at 6400. The extra money is well covered by what it would cost to change anyway and its fairly easy to pick up a minty 1D3 for well under two grand. If budget is limited to under a grand, there really isn't anything that shines at 6400.
Matholwch
27-10-2008, 10:13
Hmm, perhaps worth holding fire waiting to see the 6400 ISO on the 5D mkII? Mmh, slower fps mind.
mbuckhurst
28-10-2008, 07:36
hmm after spending most of the day yesterday in a poorly lit arena shooting at f/2.8 and ISO1600 as a bare minimum (and still getting underexposed shots for most of the time, only about half of which are rescuable at all) I think I really need something that'll go to at least 6400. It's not the quality at 1600 that bothers me (the 30D is fine really for that) it's getting anything at all at that level that's not a black horse jumping over a black fence in a black arena.
The light's not going to get any better for the next four months after all. Better start flogging some old kit!
Most of the prints will be at 8x6 so with some NN'ing it should be okay at higher ISOs.
Taq
If ISO 1600 isn't enough surely you need to be thinking about faster glass, not replacing the camera?
mike
RobDickinson
28-10-2008, 07:39
Its actualy cheaper to replace the body nowadays isnt it.. especialy if you already have f2.8 zooms...
Unfortunately they don't do a 70-200 f1.8 and if they did I couldn't afford it :)
Prime lenses aren't really an option either as I need the flexibility of a zoom lens running around an arena trying to avoid getting flattened.
I have however since found out about the 30D's 3200 custom function so I might try that next time if the need arises :)
Radiohead
29-10-2008, 18:06
1D3 for what you shoot methinks.
So have you bought anything yet?
Thanks for all the advice!
I'd absolutely love a 1D3 but atm £2300 is a bit out of my price bracket unless I start going out every week (and sell a lot more photos). At least my next shoot in November is outdoors so I'll just have the elements to worry about :)
I'll think about what to get in the future over the next few weeks.
Damn keep thinking about buying a 1D3 now ;) The dpreview review of the 50D has put me off a bit really about its higher iso performance
Might have to talk to my bank manager - I hear they're lending out money left right and center at the moment! Oh wait.
Taq
I'm wavering... Sunday's lighting conditions will be the swayer I thing :D
Unfortunately they don't do a 70-200 f1.8 and if they did I couldn't afford it :)
Or even lift it! Imagine the size of it!
guess it would be like running around with the hubble space telescope flung over your shoulder :D
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.