1000d or 500d ?

dnme

Dear readers,

I apologise for yet another "which camera" thread. I can assure you that I have real the stickys and done my homework on the web. I am a beginner and about to join a camera / photography society. I need to get a decent entry level DSLR. I am torn between the 1000d and the 500d by Canon.

I am worried that the 1000d is too entry level, whereas the 500d seems to be selling itself based on its ability to capture HD video which I have no interest in. I am worried by some of the shortfalls of the 1000d e.g. no spot metering.

As a beginner buying my first DSLR, I obviously want as much value as possible. I want a camera that will afford me as many possibilities and as good a quality as possible for the money.

So should I go for the 1000d or spend a few more quid on the 500d ?

one2one

Hi dnme,

I bought the 1000D and I can honestly tell you it produces wonderful images. I photograph anything and everything and it does the job. Its fairly simple to use, too.

sasar

I would choose neither and go for 40D.

dnme

Guys

thanks for the replies. I am aware that the 500d uses the DIGIC 4 processor upto 15mp, so this tempts me greatly. I balk at the 40d just yet as it maybe too advanced yet, (while I'm learning I would still like the camera to hold my hand to a degree so the speak). Also the 40d is out of my price range (student u understand).

sasar

Have you considered bying used 40D? It is a great camera and worth every penny!

dnme

I kinda wanna go new on this one, I was never a fan of buying sensitive electronic kit second hand due to a bad expereince a few years back. Also the 40d is aimed at the more advanced user whereas I am literally just beginning

AnimalRights

To the original question, 500D

Also Google 500D vs 1000D

AnimalRights

I googled it, Like Sarsar said 40D....I started off on the 400D and was told to go straight to the 40D as I'd end up getting it, I never listened and cost myself more money...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090507001643AAlCcqW

dnme

if people are stronglty recommending that I move away from the rebel (entry level) series, and opt for a 40D then I might aswell look at the 50D again. I'm keen to be in the DIGIC4 technology bracket and I see the 40d (while being a fab camera) as being to much of a step back at this stage.
So would the 50D be worth the money ?

AnimalRights

Yes, then again theres always a Camera a bit better again, the all new 7D! But that would probably be a Euro bridge too far!
The 50D is a very fine Camera.

sasar

Forget about the 50D!
Do you really need that many megapixels? Compare the pixel density between 40D & 50D - there is a lot more noise on 50D. Also dynamic range is lower on 50D.

dnme

sasar wrote: »

Forget about the 50D!
Do you really need that many megapixels? Compare the pixel density between 40D & 50D - there is a lot more noise on 50D. Also dynamic range is lower on 50D.

I'm not obsessed with megapixels but its nice to have the option. One of these days you're gonna shoot that once in a lifetime shot, wouldn't it be great to have it in higher resolution for printing if nothing else. I am however a fan of DIGIC4 v's III.

Moore's law is alive and well in digital cameras aswell as processors and I am aware that we will see new generations every two years or so, all the more reason not to go for an older cmos/processor at this stage. Having said that, I am also aware of the 60D coming soon.

God almighty this thread is really throwing spanners in the works now and I am more confused than ever. (in a good way )

sasar

These are the improvements that I found for new digic 4 processor:

Much faster image processing when compared to previous processors. I do not think you'll actually see any difference between 40D and 50D
Improved noise reduction in high-ISO images. Based on dppreview 40D handles noise a lot better.
Improved performance while handling larger 14-bit RAW images. Not sure of what performance they are talking about...
Live Face Detection AF during Live View. I don't use live view, so it doesn't attract me.


As for me, I would never swap my 40D for a 50D. But this, of course, is your decision.

AnimalRights

The 50D has a fantastic LCD screen, the one on the 40D is pretty poor in comparison.
I too read that DP review but I also read other sites too...
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/50D_vs_40D_vs_D300_vs_D90.html
"If you're a Canon shooter with a bag of Canon lenses, you'll obviously be looking at the EOS 40D and EOS 50D. The choice is really based on price. The 50D has everything the 40D has, and more. More pixels, more features, a better LCD, microfocus adjustment, peripheral illumination control, faster operation and a price that's currently around $350 higher then the EOS 40D. I'd pick the EOS 50D at $1200 if I could afford it, but if not the EOS 40D is quite a bargain at around $850. Yes, the 50D may have slightly higher intrinsic noise than the 40D, but the increased resolution and noise reduction software work together to produce an image at least equal to and usually better than that of the EOS 40D. That, together with the more advanced features of the 50D would make it my preferred choice. Of course I'm still personally using and EOS 40D and it is a very good camera. If you want to save around $350. then I'd have no hesitation in saying that the 40D is a camera worth owning (I do!). "

Compared to Canon EOS 40D

Canon EOS 40D



We’ll kick-off with the EOS 40D with which the new 50D shares a number of key respects. Both cameras share essentially the same body design, viewfinder and 9-point AF specification; they also share the same external accessories including the BG-E2N battery grip and WFT-E3(A) wireless transmitter. Continuous shooting is also similar at 6.5fps on the 40D to 6.3fps on the 50D, although in practice they're essentially the same speed, and when equipped with a UDMA CF card, the 50D can shoot larger bursts of JPEGs.

Beyond these specifications though, the new EOS 50D boasts a number of enhancements. Most obviously the pixel count is around 50% greater at 15.1 Megapixels to the 40D’s 10.1, and by using gapless microlenses, the 50D manages to match the noise levels of the previous model. Further, the maximum sensitivity has also been boosted from 3200 ISO to 12,800 ISO, although in practice this is arguably a step too far.

The EOS 50D additionally sports the latest DIGIC 4 image processor, which supports in-camera correction of lens vignetting and sports a refined user interface. There’s also micro AF adjustment of lenses - a feature inherited from the 1D Mark III.

Both bodies may use 3in screens, but the 50D’s boasts a VGA model with double the resolution in each axis, giving it 640x480 pixels to the 40D’s 320x240. This allows for much more detailed views in playback and Live View, not to mention smoother menu fonts. The 50D also sports HDMI output for connection to High Definition displays which works for playback and Live View. Speaking of Live View, the 50D now supports contrast-based AF and a new Face Detection option.


http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_50D/verdict.shtml
So the EOS 50D essentially takes the 40D body and adds 5 extra Megapixels, a VGA screen, HDMI output, four times the sensitivity and a number of processing and interface enhancements. If you value these improvements, then it’s worth spending the extra or for existing owners to upgrade, but remember the body, viewfinder and AF are the same, so if you want a tough and quick semi-pro DSLR at a bargain price, the 40D remains a superb choice. See our Canon EOS 40D review for more details.

I'd buy the 50D over the 40D everytime.....although I'd get the 7D, hehe

AnCatDubh

I remember recommending previously that someone buy to their budget which basically meant buying a race horse forgetting that they didn't even know how to ride, the animal at this stage. Well tbh, there is some logic to it but to put an unseasoned jockey on a race horse mightn't be the best of ideas, and by the time they know how to ride, the race horse may be past its prime and a newer race horse may be available at a nominally better price. (all of this pointed out to me by another poster).

Chances are that what you buy won't be the last camera that you buy, so the moral of buying a pony before you buy the race horse is that at least you will know how to get the best out of the animal before you get unleashed with the top of the range racehorse.

Also by the time you do upgrade, things will have moved forward - perhaps sensors will have become normalised and everything will be a full frame sensor, perhaps ISO performance will have improved significantly, etc..

I think the 1000 or 500 would be great entry level cameras. With that in mind check out here.

Ciaran500

dnme wrote: »

I balk at the 40d just yet as it maybe too advanced yet

Was in a similar position to you, completely new to DSLR's and not sure where to start. Was looking at beginner models or a bridge camera, but an old fried sold me his Nikon D80 at a good price. I've had no problems using the camera and learned more in the first day with it than the weeks I spent reading up on cameras and technique when trying to decide on a camera. Don't worry about the camera being too advanced, you'll probably own it for the next few years and don't want to run into the limits of the camera just to have an easier learning curve.

dnme

Many thanks to all for this very useful discussion. When I say I'm a beginner, I have been using a highend Canon bridge for a few years now so am familiar with messing around in aperature priority / shutter priority modes etc. I have also read Peterson's 'Understanding Exposure'. So yes I am a beginner but do have a fundamental base to start from, I'm technically minded and creative.

I see my first DSLR as being a major step not least financially. I do not want to break the bank but I also do not want to compromise myself or limit myself with a poor camera. If I'm gonna spend a few quid now, I might aswell spend a few quid and get it right. Couple this with the fact that I am joining a decent camera club where we will be messing around with many scenarios such as - action, still life, portrait, landscape, macro etc etc. We will be doing a few outings (1 or 2 international possibly).

...and if I do get to go to Monza next year, I want to capture Jenson Button whizzing by properly. As I say - if I'm gonna spend a few quid now, I mght as well spend a few quid.

dnme

After a few more days of research, I have now gone into an actual shop and held both the 50D and the 500D in my hands. I am more or less now decided on the 50D for all kinds of reasons.

So I have a new question, can anyone help me with lenses? Will I go for kit (18-55) ? or should I but a couple seperate?

I know you might start by asking me - "what do you want to photograph ?" and th answer is everything. I'm experimental and in the photo soc we are covering a wide range of topics / subjects.

I'd like to start off with the cheap but cheerful 55mm f1.8, and I'd like a reasonable zoom also. Should I go for IS regardless? Should I go for manual / auto focus ? Any advice greatly appreciated.

TelePaul

It really comes down to the HD video functionality. If you can see yourself using it, go 500D. If you can't, go 1000D. Don't bother with a 40/50D, put the extra money into a Canon 50mm 1.8 and Sigma 70-300mm.

Edit: Ah, I see you've gone prosumer. It's a 50mm 1.8. And they'll all have AF. IS is pretty useful on zooms, less-so on primes (which are less common now anyway). IMO you're making a big jump from entry-level. The 50D is better than the 1000D - but that in no way suggests the 1000D is a bad camera, far from it.

thatsnotmyname

Have you taught about the 450D ?
its basically the 500D minus the Hd video recording
less Megapixels 12.2 compared to 15.1
the 1000D only has 10.1

it has a 3" LCD screen too where the 1000D is 2.5

Some great deals around at the moment
D.I.D and Harvey Normans have a bit of a price war going on !

dnme

well folks you see basically I can get the 50D for €780 atm (camerabox.co.uk) so its not a million miles away from 500d / 40d in terms of price. A year ago it would have been twice the price but it has dropped a bit.

I love the layout of the camera, the fact that menus and extra buttons are designed to get the settings quickly, the burst rate and the AF fine adjust, spot metering, multiple AF modes, pentaprism etc etc are all features that I like. Having a seperate LCD screen is another benefit I love to allow me to use the camera and get more out of my batteries etc.
I have no interest in video and hate the idea of paying for a camera where maybe 1/3 of my funds went towards video functionality that I do not want and will never use (I hate the fact that they are putting video on DSLR's now aaaaagagggghh)

The price for the 50D is within a couple of hundred smackeroonies of the 500d now so I may as well go for it.