Misirlou said,"I don't worry too much about the argument that newer cameras with finer pixel pitch don't show better real resolution. The newer ones usually have other features that make a bigger difference to my work than the absolute resolution available. For example, I'd really like to have the better LCD screen that comes on the newer cameras."
This is a very good point, and another reason not to get the 40D.
Stever said,"from my experience with the 20D, 40D, and 5D the 100-400 is much happier on the crop frame camera - if the 50D really does have a one stop advantage in high ISO i will order one immediately as the 100-400 is a slow lens that is not that sharp wide open (but generally the generally useful long lens you can buy) - a useable ISO 1600 will really help
on a crop frame camera i'm not sure i would spend the money for a 180 macro - the 100 macro is an awfully good lens - 160mm equivalent, and works pretty well with a Kenko 1.4x extender if you really need more reach.
have no experience with the 65, but again it becomes 104 effective and an increase of working distance with this lens is a real benefit"
Yes, from what I have read, the movement factor in the 65mm 5:1 lens is unforgiving.
And truly, if I am already getting some pretty good shots with a freaking G9 and a flashlight, LOL, I can only imagine that my shots with a 50D and a 100mm USM macro would be stellar
Giles said,"The real temptation of course is to buy both a 50D and a 5D MkII. Storage is cheap, right??
You are more ambitious than I. I am just wanting one
good, solid camera for my purposes, and don't plan on buying another one for at least 5 years. I have no interest in "keeping up with the Joneses" or in having the greatest photographers in the business "oohh and aahh" over the flawlessness of my shots at ISO 64,000,000. None of that means anyting to me. Just as long as the general consumer (or interested kid) says, "Hey that's a nice shot!" I am good with that
I think a lot of times the people here forget that the average person would be floored by some of the images you guys take and "criticize," as the average consumer doesn't know 1/1000th as much about the finer points of photography as most of you do.
Panopeeper said,"The 50D offers too high pixel density. The sensor of the 5D is 2.56 times larger than that of the 50D, but the pixel count is only 1.4 times higher. In other words, the 5D's pixels are much larger, and that is, what counts at equal technology.
Oh, okay. Thank you for the clarification. Hey, I learned something
Panopeeper said,"Re the sensor technology: the electronics on the sensors of the 1D serie is more complex than on the sensors of the xxD serie, particularly regarding on-chip noise reduction. Note: this noise reduction has nothing to do with what you are applying in raw conversion or afterwards; perhaps one should say it is "noise avoidance".
No disrespect, but I am not sure anyone can speak about the current sensor technology at this point. From what I have read, especially about the 5DMkII, the noise reduction is actually even less than the 1D ...
In other words, what you're saying is true for the older 5D, but I am not sure it applies to the newer version.
Panopeeper said,"I don't know abput the technology of the 5DII. Canon usually publishes white papers with such details, but I guess that will appear later."
Exactly. And I am unsure about the technology of 50D as well. Hell even if I had the papers in front of me, I don't know what sense I could make of them
If both carry advanced technology, then I think my choice will be the 50D. But if the 50D's sharpness sucks (as what one person claimed), then probably not. I want to make a long-term decision so as I can enjoy my camera and not look back, nor worry about "what's next" right after I buy it. If that means I have to fork out an extra grand for the 5DII, then so be it. But I also don't want to spend extra money on yesterday's focusing, only to have a "barely-better" image than the 50D, with less advanced focusing.
I personally refuse to believe at this point that the 50D doesn't take great images. Canon has not come out with crap SLR cameras, but with industry-changing cameras, behind whom everyone else has been trying to play catch-up. I just can't believe at this point what one person said about the 50D taking less-sharp images than a D90. Maybe so, or maybe some writer's pocket is getting greased.
Panopeeper said,"I am an amateur. That means: I am spending money on photography, not making it."
Panopeeper said,"Again, I did not want to suggest you, that the 5D would be the better choice in your case. I intended only to sort out some facts, so that your decision is based on sound considerations."
And I appreciate that, thank you.
Panopeeper said,"Re the lenses: I know nothing of those; I suggest you to read the test for example at http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview (they are testing the lenses on cropping cameras, so their results are useless when using FF). A cursory look reveals, that the resolution of the EF 100-400mm IS at the long end is far from that at the short end. I would check out other lens reviews as well."
My understanding is Nikon offers better wide-angle in general, and a slightly better macro. However, the Nikon's 100-400 is pretty lousy compared to Canon's. Canon's 100 macro and 180 macro may not be the best, but they are very good. And while I have heard of complaints of older 100-400s, the consensus seems to be it is a pretty darned good lens.
I don't believe the 5:1 Canon has a rival anywhere ...
Panopeeper said,"The resolution with the tiny pixels can become a real problem; but if you don't need that many pixels, you can downres the result and the resolution problem is gone. On the other hand, the resolution in the APC-C cropping area is always higher than closer to the edges, so much of the FF may be useless for you."
Some of that was Greek to me, LOL, but my own thinking was that FF may be useless to me, yes. I don't know how to downres anything at this point, but I am considering enrolling in the University of FL just to take some basic photography classes. Or maybe take some other kinds of classes to get a better grasp on some of these finer details.
JJJ said,"That's the key issue here.
The amount of 'waste' you have, may well be due to how you currently shoot. With proper macro lenses on either body you'll probably be able to fill frame better than with the G9. Normally macro on these sorts of cameras is only at wide end of focal length. So if you've been shootiong with a 35mm equivalent and then use a 100mm maco on a 5D, then you'll get an awful lot less 'wastage', even before considering the 50D or the fact that you may be able to focus closer as well."
Wow. Very interesting observation, thank you. I didn't even think of the fact I might be able to fill the whole frame with a camera change, in which case a larger frame (with much better resolution) would produce the best images. Hmmmm.
Of course, the better reach of a 1.6 would still prove more likely to "fill" that frame, and so then the question defaults back to whether the image the 50D produces will be all I ever need for my purposes. With the same LCD, light-capturing, etc., will the 50D produce good enough images to satisfy 95% of the human population? I am fine if 5% of the people (and even that is probably an over-estimate) can find flaws in the image, I am comfortable with that.
I am just looking to produce images that the average person is going to say, "Damn! That's a nice shot!"