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

[Derrel]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Idahophoto]

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]

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

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

 

[Idahophoto]

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

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

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.