Canon 40D or 50D

[jachym.czech]

For most ppl 40D would be better because the 50D is just not worth the extra money, however.....my problem is that I got an offer for a 50D with the same lens (EF-S 17-85mm IS) and for almost the same price as the 40D. Both cameras seem to have pros and cons. 15Mpx compared to 10Mpx of 40D gives more detailed shots (sometimes I would use that because I often do macrophography and crop the images), however more Mpx also means much bigger file sizes and more grain at higher ISOs. The 40D also has a much better battery-life.
What do u think? Some reviews say 40D has better image quality, others say the opposite. If I was to buy it normally from the shop, I would go for 40D because paying 30% more for 50D is not worth it, but for the same price?
As I said, the reason why I dont go for the 50D straight away is that it also has cons compared to the 50D.
What do u think? Wut would be a better choice?

As a side note, I do mostly macrophotography and use my Canon EF 100mm f2.8 Macro lens.

 

[NateS]

I would buy the 50d for one reason (and this reason will seem pretty dumb to most probably). Three years from now (or 5-6) the 50d will be worth significantly more than the 40d. So, if you can get the 50d for the price of a 40d (about 300 bucks cheaper I'm guessing), then you are essentially making/saving money on the other end when you upgrade.....and we all eventually upgrade or quit the hobby...one of the two.

 

[Big Mike]

50D, hands down. The micro adjust feature is well worth the price difference.

 

[Montana]

I always hear how microadjust is worth it. I just got a 5D mk II and every lens I own is spot on.....kind of disappointing. LOL