Mirror mirror on the wall which is the finest DSLR of them all?

[Octane (Humayun)]

Fred,

You're comparing two different classes of cameras. One's a semi/professional tool, whilst the other is for a dedicated enthusiast. That's not to say that you can't obtain professional results from the lower-end camera. It is just a tool, after all. Conversely, there's so many cases where you see people with very expensive gear taking mediocre images.

The 5D Mark II is aimed at portrait photographers and landscape artists. Although, a lot of wedding photographers use it with great results, too (it's worked for me, at least). Full blown professionals (sports photographers, wedding photographers, photojournalists) use the 1Ds/1D series camera for their blazing autofocus -- the keeper rate in fast moving action images is very, very high. These systems also have very high burst rates. Then again, you pay big money for those systems.

The biggest difference between the 5D Mark II and the 50D is resolution. You're comparing 21 megapixels to 15.1 megapixels. Two points here: 1) you can create mega prints from the 5D Mark II (I make 36x24" prints and they look insane); and 2) 21 megapixels gives you enormous latitude when it comes to cropping images.

Next, is pixel density. 2.4 megapixels per centimetre squared (for the 5D Mark II at 6.4 micron pixels), compared to 4.5 megapixels per centimetre squared (for the 50D at 4.7 micron pixels). Generally speaking, the larger the pixel, the greater the image quality.

The 50D has a higher frame rate (6.3 fps vs 3.9 fps), but, that's to be expected from a 1.6x crop factor sensor.

Lastly, ergonomically, the 5D Mark II is big, especially with a battery grip and a heavy lens, it feels wonderful in your hands. Although, I suspect for astrophotographers this means nothing at all.

Just my 2 cents. I'm sure others have conflicting views.

H

Originally Posted by Bassnut

Im curious (not being as knowledgable as others here on DSLRs). Greg started this thread on DSLR choices including the Eos 1D and 5D Mk2, but didnt mention the 50D. What would make one pick the 5D over the 50D?.

Obviously the MP and sensor size are different, but is that the main reason?, what are the other significant factors, built quality?. They both seem similar otherwise (both use the DIGIC 4 processor for instance), or is it features generally?.

Given they both appear to reach the limit in maximum usefull MPs, would the diff there be that significant in real world use?, and the 5D cant use EFS lenses.

Have I missed something obvious?.

[Bassnut (Fred)]

H. Ok, so there is an erganomic diff too, I can appreciate that, my 350D was woefull compared to the 40D, a huge diff. I noticed in the DP review the diff in AF speed btween the 1 and 5D mk2, you pay for.......

Im not doughting there is a diff, the 5D mk2 sounds awesome, and youve shown that in yr pics, the res would be seen in mega prints as you say.

I have a modded 40D, clear (no glass) unforch, so its a pain for terestial (manual focus), so Im looking for another one, its the 5D mk2 or 50D, thanks for making it a harder choice, but I do have EFS lenses ;-).

[acropolite (Phil)]

Peter, I'll be interested to see how that fisheye performs, I have the Canon 15mm fisheye, the abberations at the edges are horrific to say the least. Bright stars/planets appear as triangles.

[gb_astro]

Canon 60D 18MP due out soon.....

gb.

[mithrandir (Andrew)]

Why does everyone assume Canon? There are others.

[sejanus (Gavin)]

lol! mega respect to anyone that gets a blad for astro work.

They'd prob be awful at long exposures as well Great for moon pics though! Imagine the cropping ability with those files.

[gregbradley]

Originally Posted by Bassnut

H. Ok, so there is an erganomic diff too, I can appreciate that, my 350D was woefull compared to the 40D, a huge diff. I noticed in the DP review the diff in AF speed btween the 1 and 5D mk2, you pay for.......

Im not doughting there is a diff, the 5D mk2 sounds awesome, and youve shown that in yr pics, the res would be seen in mega prints as you say.

I have a modded 40D, clear (no glass) unforch, so its a pain for terestial (manual focus), so Im looking for another one, its the 5D mk2 or 50D, thanks for making it a harder choice, but I do have EFS lenses ;-).

Perhaps I can add a dimension to that.

My first really good camera was a Canon EOS7D. About late 80's early 90's. A 35mm film camera and it came with a 35-105mm zoom lens.

Taking an awesome shot was totally easy. Full frame (35mm sized area) with that lens meant a narrow depth of field - in other words you could frame an object or person and have the background gloriously out of focus with lovely mottled colours. Try that with the APS sensors - it is very hard as the APS sized sensors mean a wider depth of field.

I have had a Nikon D70, a couple of 20Ds and a 40D and whilst their electronics etc are all great and useful none of them were as good as the 35mm film camera for a great image every time.

I mainly put that down to the depth of field and 35mm size. Possibly also due to CMOS being not as high fidelity as film even today unless you've got a 39mp Hasselblad.

So full frame sensor to me is everthing and APS sized sensors are very nice but they lack that depth of field. Also the range of lenses for 35mm is very broad. Leets face it - how hard is it to manually focus a lens? All that autofocus - for what - 2 seconds to manually focus something?

I have some Pentax 67 lenses and they are incredible value for money, wonderfully sharp and that wonderful depth of field from the longer focal length as well.

So I would at a minimum want the 35mm sized sensor for the above and then compare from there otherwise in my opinion you haven't even caught up with 1980's 35mm film cameras yet.

Greg.

[sejanus (Gavin)]

I wouldn't say it's very hard to get low DoF on a aps sized sensor. It's certainly easier on larger sensors but there are many, many guys out there getting great low DoF shots with things like 7D's. Just get close and use fast apertures.

One of the best wedding shooters in the world uses aps sized sensors and near all his shots are low dof/fast aperture.

Having said all that, I do use FF chips.

[gregbradley]

Originally Posted by sejanus

I wouldn't say it's very hard to get low DoF on a aps sized sensor. It's certainly easier on larger sensors but there are many, many guys out there getting great low DoF shots with things like 7D's. Just get close and use fast apertures.

One of the best wedding shooters in the world uses aps sized sensors and near all his shots are low dof/fast aperture.

Having said all that, I do use FF chips.

Thanks for the tip. The only problem with that of course is that a fast aperture prime lens with good quality is worth more than the camera. So you would be investing in a system that is somewhat of a compromise, albeit a good one. I guess my point here is that even a cheaper lens gets great BOKEH with the FF size. So overall a similar cost?

Then again a fast aperture zoom lens and 5D Mk11 (or is that soon to be Mk111?) would be hard to beat.

Greg.

Greg.

[sejanus (Gavin)]

There are some good f/1.x lenses that don't cost the earth ie. 50/1.4 and 85/1.8

Not a fan of fast aperture zoom lenses, but thats another topic.