I'm deciding between upgrading my camera body (350D/XT) or getting a new lens. I'm wondering if the 50D is worth the extra money or should I just get the 40D. I do only have one lens right now though (Tamron 17-50). I really can't decide?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Canon 40D/50D or new lens?
- Thread starter djstarrock
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
350D - Rebel XT?
Depends if you want a bigger camera with more features.
I looked at the Rebels and found them uncomfortable, and ended up with a used 20D and love it.
You plan on trading in your 350D to help pay for newer body? If so, I'd do that...
Depends if you want a bigger camera with more features.
I looked at the Rebels and found them uncomfortable, and ended up with a used 20D and love it.
You plan on trading in your 350D to help pay for newer body? If so, I'd do that...
I recently bought a new 40D after many, many years on my rebel. The 40D is a great camera - I prefer the heft, speed, and features; self-cleaning, mirror-lock up, etc. The 50D, for $300 more, doesn't have features, for me, that warrant the additional $. 40D is a great camera, no doubt.
Having said all that, if you only have the one lens at the moment, you might get more photography for your $ by buying more lenses first. Depending on what you shoot, more / better lenses is - to my mind - almost always the better answer.
I have 4 lenses (still wanting to get a 5th) and have to say that each of those has done more to increase my capabilities than a new body.
what kinds of photos are you taking, and what lenses might you be considering?
Having said all that, if you only have the one lens at the moment, you might get more photography for your $ by buying more lenses first. Depending on what you shoot, more / better lenses is - to my mind - almost always the better answer.
I have 4 lenses (still wanting to get a 5th) and have to say that each of those has done more to increase my capabilities than a new body.
what kinds of photos are you taking, and what lenses might you be considering?
I said in my OP that I had Tamron 17-50 F/2.8. The main thing I don't like is the screen not that great, it's too small and the colours seem a bit off. Also the layout seems better on the 40/50D, plus the extra features look quite useful.
missed the part about the 17-50, sorry. if you aren't limited by having just that lens, then go ahead and get a new camera.
if you really want a nice screen, though, you'll have to get a 50D.
I wouldn't bother with the 50D - it really isn't worth the money.
Perhaps upgrade to the 30D and buy another lens. Still a great body.
But yes - you are quite limited with only one lens, so try and get a second.
Perhaps upgrade to the 30D and buy another lens. Still a great body.
But yes - you are quite limited with only one lens, so try and get a second.
Unless there's limits to your actual photography taking, I'd suggest sticking with the XT. But, there is quite an argument for stepping up to the 40D/50D, like the better build, control wheel, faster fps, etc. One thing that is also appealing to upgrading to an xxD model over a Rebel model is there's a separate LCD screen with the shot settings, and you don't have to use the main screen. I like this a lot on the XT and it's one of the things that make me not want to upgrade to another Rebel-series camera.
And I sympathize with your complaints about the screen... it really is pretty pitiful. As Toxic said, you'll need to get the 50D if you want the 640x480 screen. The 40D's 233,000-dot screen is still better, but they both pale in comparison to the VGA screen. One could argue that, for the most part, the screen doesn't matter... it all depends on how you think about it.
The Tamron lens you have is well-liked, but you don't have longer focal lengths covered.. Perhaps you could invest in a good telephoto, like the 70-200 f/4L? Just a suggestion.
And I sympathize with your complaints about the screen... it really is pretty pitiful. As Toxic said, you'll need to get the 50D if you want the 640x480 screen. The 40D's 233,000-dot screen is still better, but they both pale in comparison to the VGA screen. One could argue that, for the most part, the screen doesn't matter... it all depends on how you think about it.
The Tamron lens you have is well-liked, but you don't have longer focal lengths covered.. Perhaps you could invest in a good telephoto, like the 70-200 f/4L? Just a suggestion.
Something to think about, the 40D body only runs around $900 right now, what lens would you look to get as opposed to the new body? Maybe the Canon 70-200 f4?
I'm not familiar with that lens so I can't comment on that. I upgraded from the original Rebel D300 to the 40D and am really, really happy. The 40D is faster at everything, the larger screen makes it easier to review images, image redisplay is very fast, the camera has less noise so you can actually use ISO 1600, the 40D digitizes at 14 bits rather than 12 bits, and it has Live View. Live View is mostly useful for still photography. It moves the mirror and gives you a live view through the lens on the LCD. You can zoom in 5x or 10x and pan around to manually focus with great precision. This feature alone has been a huge help for me.
There are two timers, 2s and 10s. I use the shorter time a lot when I just want to let the camera stabilize itself for a shot.
There are some other niceties such as seeing the ISO value in the viewfinder and being able to separately change aperture and shutter speed with separate scroll wheels. On my Rebel you had to hold down a shift button to access aperture changes with the scroll wheel in full manual mode. The biggest thing is the picture quality is a huge improvement over the D300 and I'm guessing the same is true for the D350.
If you live near a large camera store take a CF card with you and take some photos with your card around the store and take them home and look at them. I think you'll be impressed. If the pictures don't look that different then go with a new lens.
There are two timers, 2s and 10s. I use the shorter time a lot when I just want to let the camera stabilize itself for a shot.
There are some other niceties such as seeing the ISO value in the viewfinder and being able to separately change aperture and shutter speed with separate scroll wheels. On my Rebel you had to hold down a shift button to access aperture changes with the scroll wheel in full manual mode. The biggest thing is the picture quality is a huge improvement over the D300 and I'm guessing the same is true for the D350.
If you live near a large camera store take a CF card with you and take some photos with your card around the store and take them home and look at them. I think you'll be impressed. If the pictures don't look that different then go with a new lens.
I upgraded from the XT to the 40D, and couldn't be happier. Right now the 40D is the best bang for the money compared to the 50D. I would just upgrade to the 40D, and take my time buying a couple of primes.
I used the XT for around four years, and slowly bought a few lenses: Tokina 12-24mm f/4, Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, and then Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L USM (an outstanding bang for its money, around $700.00). Then last year I upgraded to the 40D, bought Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro, and just this week EF 400mm f/5.6L. Going from the XT to the 40D "would be a piece of cake," so I thought. But when I had the 40D in my hands I realized that the new one was not a toy. I bought a book titled, "Canon EOS 40D Digital SLR Photography Guide" by David D. Bush, and it helped me a great deal learning how to use the 40D. I still page through the book every now and then.
I used the XT for around four years, and slowly bought a few lenses: Tokina 12-24mm f/4, Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, and then Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L USM (an outstanding bang for its money, around $700.00). Then last year I upgraded to the 40D, bought Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro, and just this week EF 400mm f/5.6L. Going from the XT to the 40D "would be a piece of cake," so I thought. But when I had the 40D in my hands I realized that the new one was not a toy. I bought a book titled, "Canon EOS 40D Digital SLR Photography Guide" by David D. Bush, and it helped me a great deal learning how to use the 40D. I still page through the book every now and then.
Get a lens and pick up a used body. This is what I usually do as lenses tend to be more useful usually than a brand new body. A new body will usually only bring more megapixels and speed(shutter, fps, af etc) to your photography. It rarely adds anything else to the equation.
If you not feeling lacking then a lens would be the better bet. I just got myself a 28-300mm Canon L and its a heck of a lot more useful than a new body would have been
If you not feeling lacking then a lens would be the better bet. I just got myself a 28-300mm Canon L and its a heck of a lot more useful than a new body would have been
Like you Moose I upgraded to the 40D - but also like you, after a few years acquiring a number of lenses. Seems to me that the OP would get more bang for their buck, right now, by getting those additional lenses first.
BTW - the lens I still hanker for is that 2.8 100mm macro - color me jealous.
I thought about it a little, and have decided that your idea is a good one.
I wonder if the OP will be able to resist the urge to buy a new body?
This is pretty tough to do, specially after posting the questions on a forum.Bodies vary a whole lot less than marketing companies will have you believe. Upgrades are marginal, not leaps and bounds. Lenses on the other hand can be leaps in bounds...and will last you time and time again.
I have a friend shooting ridiculously good stuff for magazines with a 350 rebel whatever it is. Spend wisely.
Paul
I have a friend shooting ridiculously good stuff for magazines with a 350 rebel whatever it is. Spend wisely.
Paul