# Canon 50D vs. Canon 500D



## Alex_M

Hi guys,

I'm considerung buying a new DSLR. I'm new to digital photography and want pretty much a good camera in advance in order to use it a long time. My choice is either the Canon 50D or the 500D with an extra lens (no basic-kit lens).
I thought of a Canon EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 IS USM lens. What do you guys think?

I want to take pictures of sports, landscapes, and portraits, so pretty much everything :blushing: ...



Thank you so much for your help!


----------



## UUilliam

in honesty... both are too powerful for a newbie (well the 500D is focused for Ameture Photographers.)

I like your post compared to other newbies who sign up to a forum and go "tell me a camera where i can get super High quality images for less than £500."

The 50D is for Semi Professionals. 
IF you have the cash.. then I guess why not.
But I recommend buying a cheaper body and spending the money on Lens'
The most important thing for DSLR's are the Lenses tbh.

Ofcourse the body matters but its the glass that gives the true quality and captures the image (besides you pushing the buttons)

You should get a 350D to a 450D (includes 1000D which is essentially the 450D but cheaper and a lower resolution / MP)

As said above.. If you have the cash, why not go for the best of the lot (the 50D in this case)
_**removed statement due to the correction below**_

Whereas the 450D (thats what I use therefore all I can give a true opinion  of performance on, the rest is just from what I have heard / researched.)
can take either EF or EF-s glass (meaning it can use L glass too) But as it is a 1.6x crop sensor all lens' you buy for the 450D will be focal length x 1.6

This means if you buy a 50mm f1.8 ii it is then essentially a 80mm (and also looses a little quality) but the quality loss is minimal

Remember: It isn't the camera that takes the picture, it's you!

In otherwords. You need to know how to control a camera to get good images there is no point going out buying a Canon EOS 1Ds mk II then keeping it in Auto mode (one of the best cameras in canons line btw)
Thats a waste of the money you paid for it, the reason DSLR's are so dear and popular compared to compact counter parts is because they allow for versatility thus making images more interesting and unique as you change every factor to fit the image, it's a type of witch craft

The only REAL advantage to the 500D over the 450D is the ability to record video, that isn't what a DSLR was made for, it is made for Still frame photography not movies, thats what you buy a Video Camera for (professional ones coming in at around 1.5k - 6k + which surprised me when i found them.. i was certain they would have cost more!)


----------



## NateWagner

> The thing about the 50D is that it is a Full frame sensor therefore the cheap lenses (ef-s) will not fit it / work properly on its sensor as they are designed for crop sensors



actually the 50D is a crop 1.6 aps-c sensor. It does take the ef-s 17-55 lens (which by the way is a fantastic lens)

Also, if the problem isn't the money then the 50D is a great choice. Another great choice could be the 40D which has the same excellent build quality as the 50D but is a generation older, and lacks various other features that you probably wouldn't notice if you're asking this question.


----------



## Alex_M

> It does take the ef-s 17-55 lens (which by the way is a fantastic lens)



What do you think of buying the 500D with the 17-55 2.8 USM? That should be about 1500 ... good choice for sort of "everyday" photography?

Thanks!


----------



## NateWagner

Sure, my lenses of that range is by far my most used lens. Also, as was said the lens is the most important part of the camera, so by all means go with the 500D and the 17-55 lens. Heck, if I had to go back to getting an XT or an XTi in order to have that lens I would definitely do it.


----------



## Big Mike

Welcome to the forum.

I suggest going into a camera store and holding both cameras.  The biggest difference between the two is the size and build of the body and the layout of the controls.  The 50D is bigger and more robust, with more on-body controls.  

If image quality is your top concern, then you would probably be better off with the cheaper camera body and the better lens.  The 17-55mm F2.8 IS, is a fantastic lens, especially compared to the standard 'kit' lens, but it if you plan to put your gear to some good hard use, it might be better to get the better body and get quality lenses as you go.  
I saved a lot of money by going with the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 instead of the Canon 17-55mm.  The Tamron is a great lens, but the Canon is outstanding.


----------



## Alex_M

Thank you guys a lot for your help!


----------



## Alex_M

Hey Guys, I decided to buy the EOS 50D now. What kind of lenses do you recommend for some sort of "everyday"-photography? I thought about the 17.55mm 2.8, but it's kind of expensive though.. Do you have any recommendations? I don't really need that much of a zoom, I'd rather like use my feet instead! 

Prices shouldn't be above 800-900 / 1100$..

Thanks!


----------



## Big Mike

> Hey Guys, I decided to buy the EOS 50D now


Good choice.

How important is a wide aperture to you?  The 17-55mm F2.8 is an outstanding lens, but yes, expensive.  I went with the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8...not quite as good, but very good in it's own right...and much less expensive.

I've also got the 17-85mm F4-5.6 IS.  It's a decent lens and a great range for walking around, but the smaller max aperture is limiting at times.  

The 17-40mm F4 L is a top quality lens in this range and at a decent price as well.

Since you prefer to use your feet for zooming, what about prime lenses?  A 50mm F1.4 and maybe something in the 24-30mm range?


----------



## UUilliam

50mm II f.18 - $100
50mm f1.4 - $385


----------



## Soocom1

I am going to throw out one piece of advice that will prob. get me yelled at and tarred-feathered here. 

Save some money, and get teh 70-200mm F 2.8. IS USM. 

Good range, very popular, (yes very heavy) but this lens will do you no wrong, and it will probably out live the body.  

I know cost can be a factor here, but in the end its sorta like buying a BMW over a Chevy Caprice Classic.


----------



## Dao

I also have the Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 as memtioned by Big Mike. Very nice lens for the price. It is my walk around lens with my 40D.  (Sold the kit lens 28-135mm IS that shipped with the camera )


----------



## Alex_M

Big Mike said:


> Since you prefer to use your feet for zooming, what about prime lenses?  A 50mm F1.4 and maybe something in the 24-30mm range?



I'm not much of an expert, so for what exactly do I need a wide aperture? I'd like to take pictures at night and at daylight, lets say for landscapes..


----------



## Dao

2 typical situations that will use a wide aperture.

1. Low light condition.
2. Create a image with shadow depth of field.


----------



## JFew

Sigma f/1.4 50mm - $499

Includes Lens Hood and Soft Body Case, neither of which come with the Canon f/1.4. In most tests there's little to no difference (in terms of image quality) between the Sigma and Canon's 50mm f/1.2 "L" series lens, which costs 3x as much.

50mm is an ideal focal length for portraits since on the 50D it becomes 80mm, some macro, though it's not a macro lens at all, and you can pretty much get away with any lighting situation with the fast f/1.4 aperture.

A shallow depth of field means that only a very small portion of the picture will be in focus IF that's what you want. Given the right scenario, with an f/1.4 lens you could have the center of someone's eye in focus and their nose completely out of focus.


----------



## Big Mike

Alex_M said:


> Big Mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you prefer to use your feet for zooming, what about prime lenses?  A 50mm F1.4 and maybe something in the 24-30mm range?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not much of an expert, so for what exactly do I need a wide aperture? I'd like to take pictures at night and at daylight, lets say for landscapes..
Click to expand...


Photography is about exposure.  The exposure equation has three main things that you can control.  The shutter speed, the aperture (size of the hole through the lens), and the sensitivity (ISO).

The shutter speed is pretty simple.  The shutter opens then closes.  The longer it's open, the more light it can let in.  The shutter speed affect how movement is recorded.  A longer shutter speed will show motion as blur.  Part of that motion could be the motion of the camera because it's never fully still while you are holding it.  So if your shutter speed drops too low (open too long), your shots will be blurry because of the camera movement (unless you are using a tripod etc.)

The 2nd part is the aperture of the lens.  The bigger the aperture, the more light that can get in.  Aperture also controls the Depth of Field (DOF).  Aperture is represented by the F number...lower number is a bigger aperture, higher number is a smaller aperture.  The number on the lens is the maximum.

Shutter speed and aperture work in together to regulate the amount of light that gets into the camera.  So if the light is the same, the setting can trade off with one another.  If the aperture gets bigger, you would need a faster shutter speed, in order to keep the same amount of light (same exposure). 
This becomes important when the light levels are getting low, be cause you probably wan to avoid having to use slower shutter speed (because of the blur)...so a lens with a larger maximum aperture will be able to let in more light, thus letting you use a faster shutter speed...thus getting less blur.  That is the main advantage to a lens with a larger max aperture (usually called fast lenses).  Also, some people like shooting with a shallow DOF, so a large aperture is good for that.

So that is why someone would choose a lens with a large maximum aperture.


----------



## johnj2803

i would still go for the 17-55mm f 2.8 canon.

they say its a hidden "L" lens


----------

