# Canon 550D/50D/7D as 1st DSLR?



## Annaminnnie2010 (Aug 3, 2010)

Hi there,

I'am really confused as to which camera to start with.
I currently have a point and shoot but saving for a DSLR, would be ready to buy one in the next few weeks Under $1500 is the current budget unfortunatelly.
I can afford the 550D now, but just saw that 50D is being discontinued and heard its very similar to the 7D (ofcourse 7D being better). Do you thing it's worth me getting the 50D's while they are still around?

And what is a good lens kit or lens to start with just for good all round photos. ( I take alot of portrait shots )

I'am not completely set on canon, but they are the only cameras I have been researching for the last few months. 

What is Nikon 90D like in comparison to the above I mentioned, say 50D? Did the 90D sell better then the Canon 50D and that is why they deleted it?


----------



## cfusionpm (Aug 3, 2010)

50D is being discontinued for the upcoming 60D.  7D is an amazing camera with a lot of high end features, but significantly more expensive.  The 550D isn't a bad camera, but definately lacks the build quality, burst speed, and features that the others have (rear control dial, top LCD, etc).  The Nikon D90 does not perform overal as well as the 50D.  Some will argue it has a better sensor, but differences are not even really noticeable to the eye (especially with post processing).  It probably sold better because it was cheaper.  The next camera above that (Nikon's D300/s which competes with the 7D) was a big leap in price; more than the 50D and significantly more than the D90.

Now would be a perfect time to pick up a 50D for cheap, but with a new 60D right around the corner, there may be some buyer's regret.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Aug 3, 2010)

If you're doing lots of people why not a 5Dc? Used 5D's are well within you're price range.


----------



## pbelarge (Aug 3, 2010)

Anna
Hello and welcome to the forum

What kind of photography are you interested in? Such as, portrait, landscape, modeling, still life, macro, etc...


----------



## TiCoyote (Aug 4, 2010)

I'm in the "spend more one lenses and less on bodies" camp.  The best body in the world will only take mediocre shots with a mediocre lens.  In fact, many feel that a sensor with very high resolution (7D) will actually accentuate the shortcomings of a mediocre lens.  

Why not start with the 550 and a single Canon L-series lens.  If you give up the hobby, the lens will retain its value better than the body.  Think about it, a $1000 lens might be worth $850 in two years.  A $1000 body will probably be worth $500.  

Conversely, if you love photography, you'll want to upgrade your body in a few years, and you can keep the 550 as a backup.  

I have a 50D and I love it.  I would love to have a 5DMkII as well.  I got the 50D not just for the image quality, but for the build and burst rate.  The sensor density is the same as the cheaper the T1i.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Aug 4, 2010)

For portraits, I'd get a 5d and an 85mm f/1.8... that would be a pretty good portrait/general walk around setup.  Then you'd probably want to eventually get the triumvirate of zooms (16-35, 24-70, 70-200)... All of those lenses would be great for portrait type stuff too, depending on what you want to do with the background in your photos.


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 4, 2010)

Unless you really want the video ability or need the slightly better performance I would go with the 50D. It has had some mixed reviews but is a outstanding camera and as a photography student I have used several major competitors including the 7D, D300 and some of the Rebel lines. 

The major problem the 50D had when it came out is it was priced to compete against Nikon's D300 and that was a huge mistake as Nikon D300 is one of the best cameras ever in it's class. That was a fight over before it even began. Come the time of the 7D ( A true rival to the D300) Canon dropped the price to more inline to compete with Nikons D90 this is a much more fairer battle. The D90 has video higher performance in low light but the Canon has a better build faster FPS. Having switched from Nikon using the D90 to Canon with the 50D I see it's a real trade off. I would not automatically say the 50D is better, but its a tough call and I think it boils down to what you are after.

I have been saving up and will be buying the 7D in a couple months (or perhaps the 60D) but haave no plans of hanging up the 50D. Its a super fast camera, capable of doing top of the line work and will continue to see regular use as my 2nd camera. 

I could go on more stuff, but think the 50D would be a perfect camera for you it is pro quality all the way and with the latest price drops its a steal of a deal.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 4, 2010)

Yes, the Nikon D90m did outsell the Canon 50D. The reason the 50D is being discontinued is that it has had its time in the Canon lineup. It was a poor seller for Canon because of several things, among them the Canon 30D and 40D were very successful models, and the 50D did not offer much image improvement over the 40D that came before it, and at the same time the 50D was the top consumer/semi-pro camera from Canon, Nikon had the D90 and the D300 as better alternatives for those who were not lens-committed. For peopl who wanted to break into wedding or other types of "pro" photography, the best Canon they could afford was the 50D, which was pretty sadly underfeatured compared with the Nikon D300, which offered pro-level autofocusing and a built-in wireless multiple flash commander. The NIkon D300 was also one of the only two d-slr's to offer the then-new, ultra-high resolution LCD screens with 920,000 dots, so the LCD review/playback of D300 images put other cameras fto shame, and in side-by-side comparisons, the 50D looked anemic compared with the D300, so many peopl shelled out the few extra hundred for the Nikon D300 instead of the 50D.

Also, the big web sites like dPreview roundly criticised Canon for cramming too many megapixels onto the 50D's smaller 1.6x sensor. dPreview's concerns about the noise from the 50D' high-megapixel sensor. As dPreview noted in their review at Canon EOS 50D Review: 31. Conclusion: Digital Photography Review

the 50D had "worse than 40D" High ISO performance; and its dynamic range in the sahadows was "reduced" compared to what the 40D could do; and its per-pixel level of detail was "not as good as" that of 10- and 12-megapixel cameras; and the 50D required what they called "high end" optics to get the most from the camera...

So...the 50D met with an icy review result from probably the single most-influential photography web site on the planet, and it was not a big seller, for a number of reasons. Even seasoned Canon fans often suggested that newcomers to the system buy a 40D instead...quite a few TPF Canon users made that suggestion, as recently as early this year. If you are looking to get into a system, you want to actually hold and handle the options you have.

Canon's 7D is their answer to the Nikon D300s, and is a bit more expensive than your other options. I shot a Canon 7D two months ago on a commercial small product/company staff shoot. I was not impressed by its poor viewfinder image quality,poor focusing screen for manual focusing on small products,and by how noisy its images were at low ISOs under studio flash illumination. The color it had was rather anemic too at its base ISO...not as good as the 40D or 5D in terms of color richness and saturation.


----------



## cfusionpm (Aug 4, 2010)

Idahophoto said:


> The major problem the 50D had when it came out is it was priced to compete against Nikon's D300 and that was a huge mistake as Nikon D300 is one of the best cameras ever in it's class. That was a fight over before it even began. Come the time of the 7D ( A true rival to the D300) Canon dropped the price to more inline to compete with Nikons D90 this is a much more fairer battle.


I don't agree that it was priced to compete with the D300.  The 50D's original price was only $100 more than the D90 and $300 _less_ than the D300 (based on launch MSRPs: $1400, $1300, and $1800 respectively).  The D90 and 50D launched about the same time; the D300 a year earlier.  I couldnt find a price for D300's circa 2008, so maybe it dropped closer to the 50D's price.  I didn't pick up mine until spring '09, and having already invested into Canon, didn't even look at Nikons.



> I have been saving up and will be buying the 7D in a couple months (or perhaps the 60D) but haave no plans of hanging up the 50D. Its a super fast camera, capable of doing top of the line work and will continue to see regular use as my 2nd camera.


Feeling's mutual here!  My 50D isn't going anywhere.  I practically never pick it up as my primary anymore (just because the 7D is better in every way), but I would happily use it as a second body.


----------



## cfusionpm (Aug 4, 2010)

Derrel said:


> the 50D had "worse than 40D" High ISO performance


This is a compelation from DPReview's own test results. You be the judge who has "better" ISO performance:





Iduno about you, but it looks like the 50D has a little less luma noise and significantly less chroma noise.



> and its per-pixel level of detail was "not as good as" that of 10- and 12-megapixel cameras; and the 50D required what they called "high end" optics to get the most from the camera...


This argument is getting old. Here's what it boils down to:

1: High MP cameras with decent or cheap lenses will yeild about the same (maybe a bit worse, but not noticeable unless printed the size of a bilboard) results compared to a low MP camera using similarly decent or cheap lenses.

2: High MP cameras _require _good glass to get the most out of the sensor.

2: (rephrased) High end lenses will yeild better, more detailed results with a high MP sensor.

Therefore, high megapixel cameras have more performance potential.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 4, 2010)

Canon EOS 50D Review: 31. Conclusion: Digital Photography Review

From their conclusion, a few "highlights":

"in terms of per-pixel sharpness the 50D cannot quite keep up with the better 10 or 12 megapixel APS-C DSLRs in the market. At higher sensitivities the smaller photosites are clearly producing more noise (as shown from our RAW comparisons) and so Canon is having to apply more noise reduction to keep to acceptable noise levels, this of course means a loss of detail from ISO 1600 upwards."

and "Canon has reached the limit of what is sensible, in terms of megapixels on an APS-C sensor."

and "Even the sharpest primes at optimal apertures cannot (at least away from the center of the frame) satisfy the 15.1 megapixel sensors hunger for resolution. Considering the disadvantages that come with higher pixel densities such as diffraction issues, increased sensitivity towards camera shake, reduced dynamic range, reduced high ISO performance and the need to store, move and process larger amounts of data, one could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that at this point the megapixel race should probably stop"

and "...the 50% increase in pixel count over the 40D results in only a marginal amount of extra detail."

and "We're by no means saying the 50Ds image quality is bad but it's simply not significantly better than the ten megapixel 40D. In some areas such as dynamic range and high ISO performance it's actually worse"

and  "The EOS 50D has to stand its ground in a highly competitive bracket of the DSLR market. It is currently almost $500 more expensive than the 40D, almost $500 more expensive than the Nikon D90 and for an extra $100 you can bag yourself a Nikon D300. Looking at the specification differences between the EOS 40D and our test candidate it appears you pay quite a premium for the 50D's extra megapixels and as we've found out during this review you don't get an awful lot of extra image quality for your money."


----------



## cfusionpm (Aug 4, 2010)

Derrel said:


> "in terms of per-pixel sharpness the 50D cannot quite keep up with the better 10 or 12 megapixel APS-C DSLRs in the market. At higher sensitivities the smaller photosites are clearly producing more noise (as shown from our RAW comparisons) and so Canon is having to apply more noise reduction to keep to acceptable noise levels, this of course means a loss of detail from ISO 1600 upwards."


So why do their own visual test results contradict this?

Edit: and let's not forget the "firestorm of criticism" DPR got over this 50D review:



> The problem with DPR's review of the 50D, IMO, is one of a self-fulfilling prophesy.
> 
> Before the 50D was released, DPR staffers had opined (while rhapsodizing over the D300, if I remember correctly) that 12MP was the highest resolution for aps-c cameras, and that any higher number would result in image degradation (due, in their words, to "the laws of physics").
> 
> ...


Quote taken from DPR's own forums, and some quick googling shows some a decent amount of questioning about DPR's highly opinionated "review" of the 50D.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 4, 2010)

Yeah...go back and look at dPreview's actual,published stated review's conclusions...you can always find a fanboy who is in love with Canon, and who cannot see things objectively. The fact is, dPReview's review, and the 50D's anemic level of improvement over their 10 megapixel 40D, and the strong competition from the Nikon D90 and D300, made the Canon 50D a poor seller for Canon...that's a fact... the 40D was a mega-hit for Canon,and I personally know several Canon shooters who deliberately SKIPPED the 50D because it did not offer them much of an advantage over their 40D bodies...same AF, same feature set, basically...

I know you purchased a 50D,and therefore want to desperately find a way to discredit anybody who can comment objectively on the camera, or its limitations, or its sales history. I "get that"....you own a 50D, and so you feel threatened when objective commentary,or rigorous scientific lab tests, like those dPreview performed, show your "baby" to be, well, a little bit behind in school.

I stand by my comments: the 50D was a poor seller, it did not offer much of an advantage over competing cameras, and it was clobbered by its lack of true semi-pro features among newcomers who were not already system-committed: the Nikon D300 was a LOT better camera, with many more features than the 50D, and the buyer who wanted a semi-pro body could get a true "semi-professional" Nikon D300 for just a little bit more than a 50D, which had severe limitations in AF, lack of flash commander, color-blind metering, and sensor performance that was only so-so compared to the Canon 40D or the Nikon D300 or Nikon D90.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Aug 4, 2010)

It's worth the extra money for the LCD screen alone.


----------



## cfusionpm (Aug 4, 2010)

Derrel, you're missing my point entirely and putting words in my mouth.  

It seems to be the general consensus that Canon users upgrade by skipping a generation or two (from what I gathered reading articles about 50D before purchasing).  The conclusion that seemed to be drawn more often than not was that owners of the 30D or below (or Rebel, like myself) wanted to purchase a 50D, while 40D owners were content enough with their cameras to pass on the marginal upgrade.  I think it's silly to keep upgrading every model when a new one comes out.  

I will gladly concede that the 40D is the better value for money, but then again I don't remember ever saying otherwise.  Plus until the 50D is officially discontinued, it is/was the only option for someone not wanting to buy used gear.  

Anyway my point was to show the obvious (and pretty clearly explained) predisposed bias present in the DPR 50D review.  I don't really care what they have to say in their highlights section about ISO if their OWN test results don't agree with it.

You can stand by your comments of the 50D being a poor seller all day long if you like, (and it very well may be true) but until you provide some kind of actual sales numbers (which I have personally not been able to find), it's nothing more than your opinion.  I've asked for this a number of times, you planning on getting on that any time soon? Or is this going to degrade into empty rhetoric like it always does?  

I've also never once said the 50D did (or should) compete with the much better D300, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up.

Forgive the disorganized nature of the post; on a long conference call and posting from my phone.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 4, 2010)

The OP asked why the 50D is being discontinued: in my first post, I gave the simple answer: bad reviews, poor sensor performance compared to 10- and 12-MP APS-C d-slrs from both Canon and Nikon, and being caught in the crossfire of being under-featured and under-performing the $100 more expensive D300...and having a $500 price premium over the 40D...the sales figures for the 50D were poor because the 40D was $500 cheaper, and offered very similar image quality....as did the Nikon D90 and the Nikon D300, which used the same sensor.

The 50D was a known poor seller. Talk to anybody in the camera business. Look at sig files--the 50D is quite underrepresented. The 50D was simply over-priced, and was out-competed by both Canon and Nikon offerings, for several reasons. dPreview's review of the 50D was an example of how poorly received the model was: the 40D did great,sales-wise, and was a HUGE hit....the 50D had the unfortunate worldwide economic collapse as its day in the sun era, and that alone sent a chilling influence into the d-slr market.

As to "you" stating anything about the D300 competing with the Canon 50D--that's a total non-sequiter. Who cares what "you" said: the fact is, dPreview pointed out that for $100 more, consumers could buy a Nikon D300, or for $500 less than a 50D, they could get the very,very good Canon 40D. Matt, what "you" say about a Canon 50D has basically no impact on worldwide sales--but dPreview's review is probably the single, largest and most-critical published review in the world. And, retail prices world-wide determine what cameras compete with one another, which is a FACT, a REALITY, that "you", Matt, constantly try and ignore, and disagree with. Years ago, I used to work in retail camera and video sales Matt, and I KNOW how people compare cameras, and PRICE is the way actual,real people make buying decisions....you seem to lack that type of real-world camera-buying inside information; you constantly try to point us to feature matrixes and product category placements that "you" have determined, but you fail to recognize that DOLLARS, Euros, and Yen are what determine which camera "competes" with what other models.

Canon pitting the 50D against the D300, and pricing the D50 $500 higher than the their own 40D was stupid,stupid,stupid. That is why the 50D never sold well. Ask anybody you know, personally, in the retail camera business. Oh....you don't know anybody in the business and have never worked in it...oh..I see...yeah...and you bought all your gear on-line...oh...

Really simple....plop a 40D, a 50D, and a D300 on the sales counter Matt...see which ones walk out the door day after day...THAT is how sales are made. Not by product matrix charts that Matt in California draws up and posts on-line, but by price, and the actual cameras each maker has in a category,and by what the other,leading sales company offers in the same or very close price ranges. Do you understand this now, why the 50D was a sales dud for Canon?


----------



## emh (Aug 4, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> This argument is getting old. Here's what it boils down to:
> 
> 1: High MP cameras with decent or cheap lenses will yeild about the same (maybe a bit worse, but not noticeable unless printed the size of a bilboard) results compared to a low MP camera using similarly decent or cheap lenses.
> 
> ...



There's a fair amount of evidence to suggest there's a sweet spot for pixel density, beyond which adding more pixels hurts more than helps. 

Some food for thought... If you take the pixel density of a 7D or T2i and populated a full-frame sensor at that density, that works out to about 47 megapixels. But Canon only uses 21 megapixel sensors in their high-end full-frame cameras. If super-high pixel density is such a good thing, why is Canon holding back at the high end? Surely it's not because people are routinely slapping cheap, low-end glass on their 1Ds Mk IIIs. It's certainly not because the camera prices can't justify it. It's not because such a sensor is impossible to manufacture (the sensor would still be the same size). I doubt it's because Canon thinks the buyers of high-end cameras won't notice. I wonder why...

BTW, if you take the pixel density of a Canon full-frame sensor and populated an APS-C sensor at that density, it works out to about 8 megapixels.


----------



## cfusionpm (Aug 4, 2010)

Derrel said:


> The OP asked why the 50D is being discontinued: in my first post, I gave the simple answer: bad reviews, poor sensor performance compared to 10- and 12-MP APS-C d-slrs from both Canon and Nikon, and being caught in the crossfire


Wow, where to even begin?! First of all, those things have nothing to do with why it's being discontinued (or at best very little). That may be an _interpretation_, but at best its correlated and not causal. It's already had a lifespan double that of the 40D, and will be replaced (within a month or two), but it's successor, currently known as the "60D."

In simple terms: It's being discontinued because its over two years old and a brand new model in the same line is coming out.




> being under-featured and under-performing the $100 more expensive D300...and having a $500 price premium over the 40D...the sales figures for the 50D were poor because the 40D was $500 cheaper, and offered very similar image quality....as did the Nikon D90 and the Nikon D300, which used the same sensor.


Where are you getting these prices?! MSRP at launch for the 40D was $1,299. MSRP for the 50D at launch was $1,399 ($100 difference). If the price of the 40D was "$500 cheaper" it was probably some skewed pairing (like kit lens 50D vs body-only, discounted 40D). The D300 had an MSRP of $1,799 ($400 more than the 50D and $500 more than the MSRP $1,299 D90). And the D90 may have had similar image quality but trailed in a lot of features and speed compared to the 50D (which is where they differ most).



> Who cares what "you" said: the fact is, dPreview pointed out that for $100 more, consumers could buy a Nikon D300, or for $500 less than a 50D, they could get the very,very good Canon 40D.


DPR's notoriously bias "review" of the 50D is already debunked in my eyes. I've already talked about the numbers, and I've provided plenty of evidence in this thread to refute any kind of legitemacy that opinion article holds in my eyes. 



> dPreview's review is probably the single, largest and most-critical published review in the world.


And Fox News is the most watched news network in the country.



> Years ago, I used to work in retail camera and video sales Matt, and I KNOW how people compare cameras, and PRICE is the way actual,real people make buying decisions....you seem to lack that type of real-world camera-buying inside information; you constantly try to point us to feature matrixes and product category placements that "you" have determined, but you fail to recognize that DOLLARS, Euros, and Yen are what determine which camera "competes" with what other models.


Yeah, damn me for being a wise, rational consumer who does reaserch on products before buying them! If only I just looked at prices and listened to salesmen!



> Really simple....plop a 40D, a 50D, and a D300 on the sales counter Matt...see which ones walk out the door day after day...THAT is how sales are made.


Yeah, I was in that position when I bought my 50D. I weighed the pros and cons of getting a 40D vs 50D (which, btw, when I bought mine, the prices were not this huge $500 difference you keep repeating, more like $100-200). Remember: repeating it over and over doesnt make it true!



> Not by product matrix charts that Matt in California draws up and posts on-line, but by price, and the actual cameras each maker has in a category


What does me being from California have to do with anything? (Ironically I was born in Minnesota.... go figure). Or could you not go one post without another unecessary personal attack?


----------



## cfusionpm (Aug 4, 2010)

emh said:


> There's a fair amount of evidence to suggest there's a sweet spot for pixel density, beyond which adding more pixels hurts more than helps.
> 
> Some food for thought... If you take the pixel density of a 7D or T2i and populated a full-frame sensor at that density, that works out to about 47 megapixels. But Canon only uses 21 megapixel sensors in their high-end full-frame cameras. If super-high pixel density is such a good thing, why is Canon holding back at the high end? Surely it's not because people are routinely slapping cheap, low-end glass on their 1Ds Mk IIIs. It's certainly not because the camera prices can't justify it. It's not because such a sensor is impossible to manufacture (the sensor would still be the same size). I doubt it's because Canon thinks the buyers of high-end cameras won't notice. I wonder why...
> 
> BTW, if you take the pixel density of a Canon full-frame sensor and populated an APS-C sensor at that density, it works out to about 8 megapixels.


I base a lot of what I think on that subject on what's here as well as my own use of these high density sensors. If there is a better technical explaination, I'd be happy to read it. With regards to pixel density, they seem to put it well:



> Thus far, you're probably thinking, "diffraction more easily limits resolution as the number of camera megapixels increases, so more megapixels must be bad, right?" No -- at least not as far as diffraction is concerned. Having more megapixels just provides more flexibility. Whenever your subject matter doesn't require a high f-stop, you have the ability to make a larger print, or to crop the image more aggressively. Alternatively, a 20MP camera that requires an f-stop beyond its diffraction limit could always downsize its image to produce the equivalent from a 10MP camera that uses the same f-stop (but isn't yet diffraction limited).


 
As far as why they don't put huge MP sensors in their top cameras... well, maybe they will in future iterations. The 5D jumped from 12 to 21. The 1Ds jumped from 11 to 16 to 21 and the 1D from 4 to 8 to 10 to 16. I would gather the next 1Ds would be in the high 20s or low 30s MP range.


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 4, 2010)

Most of this debate is pointless in my opinion to the original post. Fine, Everyone has there favorites we got that. The bottom line is between the models listed the 50D would probably be the best option and best bang for the buck right now. It offers quality, though not up to the 7D does a good job and provides build and speed the T2I (550D) can not. With the coming of the D60 the prices will drop big, making it a great starter camera. Yes, both the 7D and the T2I are amazing cameras, the 50D is the happy middle ground between them.


----------



## cfusionpm (Aug 4, 2010)

Idahophoto said:


> Most of this debate is pointless in my opinion to the original post. Fine, Everyone has there favorites we got that. The bottom line is between the models listed the 50D would probably be the best option and best bang for the buck right now. It offers quality, though not up to the 7D does a good job and provides build and speed the T2I (550D) can not. With the coming of the D60 the prices will drop big, making it a great starter camera. Yes, both the 7D and the T2I are amazing cameras, the 50D is the happy middle ground between them.


^This. 

I just like to jump on Derrel because he doesn't seem able to pass up an attempt to continue his "I hate high MP cameras" and "The 50D and 7D suck!" campaigns. And rather than offer some constructive information to the thread (like... I don't know, suggesting a camera?) he just continues his random, skewed attacks against Canon, the 50D, and the 7D.

I'll personally apologize for Derrel and his complete obsession with making sure everyone in the world knows how terrible Canon high MP cameras are based on one arguably bias article. (Here's one that takes those same attributes into consideration, but presents it in a way that doesn't sound like radical damnation.) 

I'll also apologize for continuing this joke of an argument with Derrel. It's clear that he has his opinions, and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. The 50D is a terrible, terrible piece of trash camera that no one should ever buy. The 7D is even worse. I mean look at all those pixels! Awful camera. Everyone should buy a 6 year old 20D.*

*To the original poster, this is satirical mockery. Right now is probably the best time to get the 50D, as prices are dropping like crazy in preparation for the new 60D. Despite what a single biased article may lead you to believe, it's actually a pretty good camera and will fit many needs at a great price. I've owned one for over a year and a half and have used it for lots of things from air shows to football games to model shoots. I was very pleased with the images I was able to get. And in the end, thats's all that matters right? :thumbup:


----------



## emh (Aug 5, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> emh said:
> 
> 
> > There's a fair amount of evidence to suggest there's a sweet spot for pixel density, beyond which adding more pixels hurts more than helps.
> ...



It's not a diffraction issue -- it's a matter of how much light falls on each pixel. It's pretty simple really... for a given lens in a given setting, the total amount of light that falls on the sensor is the same regardless of pixel density. So as you add more pixels, that total light is divided up among more pixels. That means each pixel gets less and less light as pixel density increases. The less light each pixel gets, the more quickly each pixel is overwhelmed by the thermal noise inherent in the CMOS sensor. In other words, the smaller the pixel, the lower the signal-to-noise ratio, and hence more susceptible to noise.

Here's a page from the same site you linked to that describes this effect. To quote:


> The greater the area of a pixel in the camera sensor, the more light gathering ability it will have-- thus producing a stronger signal.  As a result, cameras with physically larger pixels will generally appear less noisy since the signal is larger relative to the noise.  This is why cameras with more megapixels packed into the same sized camera sensor will not necessarily produce a better looking image.


----------



## cfusionpm (Aug 5, 2010)

That makes sense, but it's still a generalized statement. I don't disagree with the point that bigger pixels collect more light per pixel, but it doesn't take into account sensor interpretation. This physical limitation implies that the 7D, with a higher pixel density than the 50D, should have worse noise performance. But with advances in how the sensor and processor(s) deal with that SNR, the 7D seems to not only provide cleaner results than the 15MP 50D, but about equal (or better) than that of the D300s (according to DRPreview's visual ISO tests). So while the high MP may not be absolutely ideal for light capturing, technological advances seem to make it work quite nicely. It may not be as perfect and clean as say, a 12mp FF camera (which I never claimed it to be), but Canon seems to hold its own pretty well with its high megapixel 7D.


----------



## emh (Aug 5, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> That makes sense, but it's still a generalized statement. I don't disagree with the point that bigger pixels collect more light per pixel, but it doesn't take into account sensor interpretation. This physical limitation implies that the 7D, with a higher pixel density than the 50D, should have worse noise performance. But with advances in how the sensor and processor(s) deal with that SNR, the 7D seems to not only provide cleaner results than the 15MP 50D, but about equal (or better) than that of the D300s (according to DRPreview's visual ISO tests). So while the high MP may not be absolutely ideal for light capturing, technological advances seem to make it work quite nicely. It may not be as perfect and clean as say, a 12mp FF camera (which I never claimed it to be), but Canon seems to hold its own pretty well with its high megapixel 7D.



No one's saying pixel density is the only thing that matters. But all else being equal (i.e. comparable generations of cameras from same-tier vendors), pixel density beyond a reasonable level hurts. In current technology, that limit seems to be about 12mp for APS-C sensors.The DPreview visual test you linked looks to me like the D300s is indeed cleaner than the 7D from ISO 400 to 1600. Then at ISO 3200, the 7D seems to resort to heavy filtering and trades off gobs of detail for noise reduction. In DPReview's own words, the 7D produces "a marginally cleaner image" than the 50D, which is to be expected given the technology evolution and price gap between the two.

You seem to believe that Canon sensors are immune to the laws of physics and Canon has access to ninja technology that no one else has (we aren't even talking optics here, we are talking silicon sensor manufacturing). If that's what makes you happy who am I to try to argue logic and reason...


----------



## cfusionpm (Aug 5, 2010)

I don't believe Canon is immune, I just feel that the tiny marginal differences are blown wildly out of proportion.  And for the purposes that I use my camera for, the higher MP provides me with more cropping and resizing options.

Truth ne told, I would love it if Canon had a full frame, mid MP speed camera like the D700, but they don't, so I enjoy the cameras available to my lenses.


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 5, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> I don't believe Canon is immune, I just feel that the tiny marginal differences are blown wildly out of proportion.  And for the purposes that I use my camera for, the higher MP provides me with more cropping and resizing options.
> 
> Truth ne told, I would love it if Canon had a full frame, mid MP speed camera like the D700, but they don't, so I enjoy the cameras available to my lenses.


  They do and at a very good deal, I have been looking very hard at it. The 5D (Often called Classic or Mark 1) For about 1K used seems like its a very good deal. I have been debating very hard on buying the 7D in a month or so or buying the original used 5D and using the money left to finally claim my 135/2. I just might go that route as I have yet to hear anything bad about them and I so want the 135


----------



## icassell (Aug 5, 2010)

You might consider a used 40D.  It's still a great camera!


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 5, 2010)

icassell said:


> You might consider a used 40D.  It's still a great camera!



I have and I agree it is. But short of the 7D I would lean towards the 5D for the full frame I have been wanting to start shooting in. Not saying the 40D is out of the question but am wanting to upgrade the 50D and would not see that as a upgrade. I know the 40D is better in some areas, but still. I don't know lol. It's so hard to choose then I have to look towards the D60 I'm going insane


----------



## icassell (Aug 5, 2010)

Idahophoto said:


> icassell said:
> 
> 
> > You might consider a used 40D.  It's still a great camera!
> ...



My response was directed towards the OP.  I agree, if you have a 50D, I wouldn't go for a 40.


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 5, 2010)

icassell said:


> Idahophoto said:
> 
> 
> > icassell said:
> ...


LOL My bad then. And would agree aswell its going for around 600 now used from what I have seen which is a fantastic deal.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 5, 2010)

Speaking of "the OP"...one post, on the 3rd of August...no follow-ups...do I smell something very under-the-bridge-like here? Is this just another wind-up thread?


----------



## Derrel (Aug 5, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> Idahophoto said:
> 
> 
> > Most of this debate is pointless in my opinion to the original post. Fine, Everyone has there favorites we got that. The bottom line is between the models listed the 50D would probably be the best option and best bang for the buck right now. It offers quality, though not up to the 7D does a good job and provides build and speed the T2I (550D) can not. With the coming of the D60 the prices will drop big, making it a great starter camera. Yes, both the 7D and the T2I are amazing cameras, the 50D is the happy middle ground between them.
> ...



Well, Matt, you're a young, inexperience shooter, who doesn;t own a full-frame camera, and who simply isn't technically-minded enough to know and understand why excess pixel density HURTS overall,total,system performance. I can understand that you want to defend yor 50D and your 7D...you have a lot of your "ego" tied up in them.

Unfortunately my good young man, you simply do not have the basis for comparison that older, more affluent and more dedicated shooters have. Like, for example, let's read about your perfect 7D and how it stacks up against FULL-frame sensors...shall we?

Rob Galbraith DPI: Canon announces 17.92 million image pixel, 8fps EOS 7D

"What the pictures look like is perhaps easier to digest. So far, the photos we've taken with a beta 7D look a lot like they've come from a 50D, except with 2.9 million additional pixels of resolution. Canon appears to have done a masterful job of wringing out every ounce of quality from the 7D's little pixels (smaller than any Canon before), resulting in photos that are fairly crisp, reasonably clean and usable up to about ISO 1600.

Noise, when it appears, has a natural graininess to it, up until about ISO 1600 as well. At ISO 3200 and beyond you'll run into increasingly unmanageable amounts of digital dandruff (white pixels spread throughout darker areas) and plugged shadows. At all ISO increments, other than the very lowest ones, pictures can take on a somewhat harsh, chunky appearance not present in larger-pixel cameras in Canon's lineup, such as the EOS-1D Mark III. Or Nikon's D3 and D700.

Correcting for digital dandruff requires image detail to be softened, sometimes considerably, while the slight harshness is simply a trait to be lived with.

This means that overall, 7D image quality is shaping up to be decent, though not groundbreaking. If you're coming from a 50D or Rebel T1i, you're likely to be right at home with the picture quality from this camera. If you're coming from a camera like the 5D Mark II, the 7D's pictures will almost certainly seem inferior, in some instances by a fair margin."

End quote. Sorry Matt...there are many people out there besides you, with more experience than you, and a better basis from which to judge. I liken you to the Japanese import car owner who cannot believe for a second that his brand and model isn't the best-ever! I see your posts all over this board, trying to defend your 50D and 7D purchases, as if they somehow reflect on you, personally. Give it a rest. Do the math. Bigger is better. Maybe if you had a FF camera, you'd know what you were talking about WRT to performance of FF and lower-density sensors and modern lenses. As a 40-year PJ and pro sports shooter and digital learning instructor says, "if you're coming from a camera like the 5D Mark II, the 7D's pictures will almost certainly seem inferior, in some instances by a fair margin."

As to the OP,who seems to have disappeared into the ether: just purchase a d-slr. For your first one, you just need to BUY one. Any one. I smell a trollish absence of the OP...


----------



## cfusionpm (Aug 5, 2010)

Derrel, please learn to read.  I never mentioned anything about the 7D being perfect, nor comparing it to a full frame camera whatsoever.

And that article is about a pre-production beta 7D.  Good job mate.  

I'm done "arguing" with you.  At least for now.  This waste of text has taken up valuable time I could be using to edit the photos from a shoot last saturday.


----------



## Overread (Aug 5, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Speaking of "the OP"...one post, on the 3rd of August...no follow-ups...do I smell something very under-the-bridge-like here? Is this just another wind-up thread?




There is nothing inflamatory in the OP's post - nothing to suggest that it is anything but a simple question being asked. Not everyone checks the net every day and its only been 3 days. Heck the OP might have read the forum several times since then without logging in. 

Any winding up was done long before this thread was started and the toys were already well wound before the discussion here got under way.


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 5, 2010)

I noticed that to Cfusionpm. Derrel often refers to beta version so it seems he has never even probably picked up a demo at a store. Right now the 7D is the top rated cropped sensor Camera on the market. Those ratings and sales I would assume did not come from a work in progress but of a full released version. I think someone needs to perhaps visit there local Best Buy


----------



## icassell (Aug 5, 2010)

As a 7D owner, I can vouch for the fact that the camera does not do well with less sophisticated glass.  If you are going to sink $$ into a 7D (and I absolutely love the camera), be prepared to invest in the higher-end glass as well.  I don't know if it's pixel-density or what, but it does make a difference. My Sigma EX 100-300mm f/4 is a good lens and works fantastically well on my 30D.  My Canon 400mm f/5.6L is not noticeably better on that body.  On the 7D, the 400L runs circles around the 100-300.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 5, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> Derrel, please learn to read.  I never mentioned anything about the 7D being perfect, nor comparing it to a full frame camera whatsoever.
> 
> And that article is about a pre-production beta 7D.  Good job mate.
> 
> I'm done "arguing" with you.  At least for now.  This waste of text has taken up valuable time I could be using to edit the photos from a shoot last saturday.




Nice try Matt. The beta had no differences from the cameras they began shipping two weeks later...same camera....again,if you'd ever owned a full-frame camera your point of view would make some sense....but you're a crop-framer all the way...the point Galbraith is making is that to those who have experience with full-frame or professional-level Canon's, the images a small,cramped sensor makes are not as good as those from the higher-priced cameras...from either Canon, or Nikon.

Bigger is better. I agree, your post has been a waste of text. Yeah, now run along and edit those photos.


----------



## cfusionpm (Aug 6, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Yeah, now run along and edit those photos.


You got it! :thumbup:


----------



## Overread (Aug 6, 2010)

I'm confused.
Why are we debating fullframe vs crop sensor in a thread where the OP hasn't expressed any interest in going fullframe nor have they expressed any interest in subjects that would greatly benefit being shot with a fullframe body over a crop sensor. If its a fullframe vs crop general argument you might as well start recommending medium and large format as well (pretty sure they blast 35mm out of the water!).


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 6, 2010)

Pretty much which is why I said much of this debate is pointless. Its getting off track. T2I (550D),50D and D7 were the cameras being asked about not anything else. Welcome to the forums though I guess lol


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Aug 6, 2010)

Either a Nikon D200, D2h, or the D5000. 

D5000 with 18-55mm kit - 12mp up to a clean ISO3200, HD video, 4fps, articulating screen, 11 af points, little beefier grip than the rebels. 

D200 + 35mm f/1.8 - 10MP up to a clean ISO 800-1600ish, 5fps, 11 AF points, big viewfinder, solid professional build that's completely weather sealed, pop up flash can act as a commander for other speedlights.

D2h + 35mm f/1.8 - 4mp, up to a clean ISO 800-1600, 11 AF points, HUGE viewfinder, 8fps solid professional beast of a motherf***er. Don't let the 4MP fool you and besides, how many times do you print larger than 11x14?

If I were in your budget, those would be the kit's i'd consider

D2h: Nikon D2H Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

D200: Nikon D200 Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

D5000: Nikon D5000 Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

So if you were to categorize the three cameras you'd have this:

Working Professional: D2h

Prosumer: D200

Amateur: D5000


Personally, for a budget around 1100, i'd do a D5000 kit or a D200 (d2h is too big for me), get the 55-200VR, and the 35mm f/1.8. Than next paycheck drop $200-$350 on a solid Manfrotto or Gitzo tripod and the Nikon ML-L3 remote. That combination will let you do almost anything, and you'll still be under your budget.


----------



## Naphtali14 (Aug 7, 2010)

Hmm... 

Here is what I suggest with that budget:

-Canon T2i/550d (body only)
-Canon f/1.4 prime lens 
-Quality Camera Bag (I like Lowerpro)
-Quality Tripod and Tripod head (check out flashpoint for a nice meeting between quality and price)
-High Class SD Card(s)
-Extra Battery
-UV Filter (I like Hoya)


That will probably put you a little above your budget but it's a great starting set up.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Aug 7, 2010)

I'll never understand why people would recommend a prime as a first (and only) lens. There is a reason that camera kits come with zooms and not primes.


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 7, 2010)

TiCoyote said:


> Think about it, a $1000 lens might be worth $850 in two years.  A $1000 body will probably be worth $500.



A $1000 lens would actually probably be worth $1200 in two years.  A $1000 body will be hard to give away...

Every single lens I own is worth more now than I paid for it.  I bought them all new too...  Blame the economy, I guess...

To replace all of my gear, I would probably have to spend about double what I originally spent...


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 7, 2010)

Scatterbrained said:


> I'll never understand why people would recommend a prime as a first (and only) lens. There is a reason that camera kits come with zooms and not primes.



Personal preference I guess.

The only zoom lens I ever really use is the 70-200...  Everything else is prime.


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 7, 2010)

I favor primes so much more over Zooms. I admit though that quality of zooms have really gone up in recent years. Right now I own only 2 for the wide focal lengths. I really like em, but will probably replace with primes at some point, probably after my 85 and 100.


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 7, 2010)

Bah, forgot to add that the reson for suggesting primes over zooms is  of composure and having to think about your shots before taking them. Most people with zooms don't do this. They just zoom and shoot. By taking the time and slowing down you can see if a distracting element is in the photograph you use you feet to "Zoom" often giving much better results than if you did have a zoom and did that instead. I fully believe these new cameras should be supplied with a 35mm prime instead of the zooms they come with. the 35 being about a 50mm on crop sensor cameras. But then most people would not buy them as everyone is set on zooms. A shame really.


----------



## cfusionpm (Aug 8, 2010)

I always love this guy!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOcJaHX8x4c&feature=player_embedded[/ame]


----------



## Derrel (Aug 8, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> I always love this guy!
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOcJaHX8x4c&feature=player_embedded



06:05 The stop at the ice cream truck named Mobile Softee was nice

06:36 "It even tastes like Britain... there's slightly funny hint of sweet and sour" (great ice cream they have there!)

06:55, "Oh no, I'm creaming myself!!!"

07:08 "Another bonus of the 50D, is the high continuous burst rate, of 6.3 frames per second--listen to this (click-click-click-click!) OHHHH! Which is bound to make you more attractive to the opposite sex...if they like cameras, that is....click-click-clikc-YEAH! You like that baby? Oh,my God!"

07:35 " (click-click-click-click!) OHHHHHH! It's making me cream myself. I'm making a mess of myself here. So the 50D would seem like the obvious choice wouldn't it? Well, no, not really..."


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 8, 2010)

LOL. Never seen  him before, but loved it. Thanks for sharing


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Aug 9, 2010)

LOL i like at 9:47 when he's baning the 50D on the railing


----------



## Annaminnnie2010 (Aug 9, 2010)

Thanks everyone for your input! I didn't have access to the internet since I asked that and come back to 4 pages worth.

50D sounds like a steal at the price it is now, the shops here have mostly sold out but I have seen it online,except how do I know which to buy as some stores have "japan version" ? Does that mean it's made for the Japan market so is in Japanesse? 

I would like to have video aswell...so maybe I should just go for 550D, as it would be lighter to carry around etc, esp that I'am a begginer. I can always 'upgrade' later to a 5D mark II or 7D..or 60D??! (if that is comming, as the people in the camera store tryed to tell me that the 7D and 50D is pretty much identical, there is no point in Canon bringing out a 60D) There is a difference ofcourse I think she just tryed to explain it to me in the lamest terms...never mind!

If I was to get the 550D what kit should I go for to start with? Unles someone can convince me to just get a 50D body and a lens? 

I like taking portraits (50mm?) ,animals,  scenery, night events /parties etc.

I also saw there is a ef 15mm f2.8fish eye. Would that fit a 550D or is that only for a full body camera like a 50D /7D /5D etc etc...


----------



## Annaminnnie2010 (Aug 9, 2010)

Overread said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of "the OP"...one post, on the 3rd of August...no follow-ups...do I smell something very under-the-bridge-like here? Is this just another wind-up thread?
> ...


 


Yea, I haven't been able to get online, and today I read the whole 4 pages without signing in....forgot my password!!! Had to get one to be sent to my email.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Aug 9, 2010)

The 15mm fisheye is for a FF camera.  As far as lenses go  I would start with the kit zoom and work on your pictures first.  Different photographers see the world different ways and will offer lens opinions based on their personal preferences. What works for them you may find limiting.   After a while you will find yourself using certain areas of the focal range a lot or desiring certain features that your lens doesn't provide; you would then be in a better situation to determine what will fill your needs and can get specific advise to help you fill that (as yet undetermined) need.  Bear in mind that these camera companies spend a decent amount of coin determining what focal lengths would be most desirable for the camera's intended market so while the kit lens may not do everything you want it to it will be a workhorse of a lens.


----------



## Annaminnnie2010 (Aug 9, 2010)

Naphtali14 said:


> Hmm...
> 
> Here is what I suggest with that budget:
> 
> ...


 
Is this the lens you mean?

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/B00009XVCZ/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_1?ie=UTF8&index=1]Customer Image Gallery for Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM Standard & Medium Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras[/ame]


----------



## Annaminnnie2010 (Aug 9, 2010)

Thanks, which kit would you suggest?

18 -135? (550 D kit)

28-135? (50D kit)

17 -85? (50D kit)


B&H Photo Video Digital Cameras, Photography, Camcorders

Is that a good store to buy from?
I'am googling different lenses right now...

Just came across this,

Canon EOS learn - World of EOS Learn: Choosing a camera lens


----------



## robertwsimpson (Aug 9, 2010)

if you're going to get a 50d, get a used one on ebay.  Try to get the body only.  Then, if you want a cheap fast zoom that will work for portraits, get the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8.  body and lens together would be under $1000 if you look hard enough.


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 9, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> if you're going to get a 50d, get a used one on ebay.  Try to get the body only.  Then, if you want a cheap fast zoom that will work for portraits, get the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8.  body and lens together would be under $1000 if you look hard enough.



I would advise new, and if used go Amazon. Much more assurance I don't use ebay hardly at all anymore just for rare times I need something odd and cant find anywhere else. The 50D price will keep dropping as the new models (Hopefully Wed) are announced. I love mine and just might get another instead of the 7D or 60D. Waiting to see what specs that brings. For kit lenses I would take the 28-135 OS it's a fantastic lens in many ways, sure it has its limitations but for only 100 bucks more over the body alone you can't go wrong in my opinion. As I said on another post I have been thinking of buying this lens again its cheap used about 250 and its light weight and fairly sharp for a lens in this price range and the OS comes in real nice. Hope this helps good luck


----------



## Scatterbrained (Aug 9, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> if you're going to get a 50d, get a used one on ebay.  Try to get the body only.  Then, if you want a cheap fast zoom that will work for portraits, get the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8.  body and lens together would be under $1000 if you look hard enough.


When it comes to bodies I would only consider used (by an anonymous user) from Adorama or B&H; they have limited warranties that last long enough for you to get the camera out and shoot with it for a while to make sure everything is working well.  E-bay can be a crap shoot.


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 9, 2010)

I also use B&H and Adarama sometimes and would recommend them. They have always gave good service and fast shipping. I would also stay away from Japan or any other version on gear. Probably nothing wrong with it but might as well get US unless you live in another country. Easier on warranties and what not though if going used you dont have those usually, but still...


----------



## robertwsimpson (Aug 9, 2010)

I have bought 2 bodies off of ebay, neither have had an issue.  Maybe I'm just lucky.  All I know is that used camera gear > new.


----------



## cassio (Aug 11, 2010)

Why don't you try looking at this Canon upgrade guide


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 11, 2010)

Cool guide. Thanks for sharing


----------



## Annaminnnie2010 (Aug 11, 2010)

cassio said:


> Why don't you try looking at this Canon upgrade guide


 

Thanks for sharing!!!:thumbup:


----------

