Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Canon EOS 50D 15.1MP SLR vs. Nikon D90 DSLR 12.1
- Thread starter Boostin
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nikon and Canon don't really have directly competeing models, except the 1Ds III and the D3x, and even then there is a pretty big price difference.
IMO here is how the models "stack" in terms of price and performance between Nikon and Canon crop factor DSLRs, from low to high:
D40
D60
Rebel XS/ 1000D
Rebel XSi/ 450D
40D/ 50D
D90
D300
Above this it gets even more complicated. The 5DmkII isn't really comparable to the D700 because of the megapixel and speed difference, the 1D III isn't really comparable to the D3 because of the ISO performance difference, and the 1D is still a cropped sensor, and again, the D3 isn't comparable to the 1Ds III because of the megapixel difference.
Megapixels don't matter at all, especially the difference between 15 and 12 is, in practical terms, rather small. On the other hand, the image quality of the 50D is lower than that of the 40D in some respects (e. g. noise), simply because each individual pixel is smaller.
The OP makes the usual mistakes noobs do: they focus on the body instead of glass. They think crappy lens + 15 MP body is better than a decent lens and a 12 MP body, because 15 > 12.
My advice is: get a smaller body, e. g. a (used?) 40D or a 450D if he goes Canon or a D80 on the Nikon side. All cameras have large viewfinders (compared to smaller models) -- a features that is a lot more useful than 3 additional MP. Couple that to a decent lens, e. g. a Tokina 16-50 f/2.8, and a real flash and you're much better off.
The OP makes the usual mistakes noobs do: they focus on the body instead of glass. They think crappy lens + 15 MP body is better than a decent lens and a 12 MP body, because 15 > 12.
My advice is: get a smaller body, e. g. a (used?) 40D or a 450D if he goes Canon or a D80 on the Nikon side. All cameras have large viewfinders (compared to smaller models) -- a features that is a lot more useful than 3 additional MP. Couple that to a decent lens, e. g. a Tokina 16-50 f/2.8, and a real flash and you're much better off.
I love my 50d
If you check out the forums at http://www.dpreview.com you'll see that the claims of lower image quality for the 50d vs. 40d have largely been dispelled. Listen to people who use the cameras and not those who write reviews reflecting their disappointment that certain features are missing rather than really evaluating what is there in front of them.
The LCD screen on the 50d is AWESOME - it's the functionality that wins out over the 40d for me, regardless of IQ, but as I say the IQ from the 50d has been shown in most scenarios to be distinctly superior to that of the 40d.
Agree with the poster above 100% as well - don't spend all your cash on the body. You need to buy good glass to get the best from your camera.
Enjoy
If you check out the forums at http://www.dpreview.com you'll see that the claims of lower image quality for the 50d vs. 40d have largely been dispelled. Listen to people who use the cameras and not those who write reviews reflecting their disappointment that certain features are missing rather than really evaluating what is there in front of them.
The LCD screen on the 50d is AWESOME - it's the functionality that wins out over the 40d for me, regardless of IQ, but as I say the IQ from the 50d has been shown in most scenarios to be distinctly superior to that of the 40d.
Agree with the poster above 100% as well - don't spend all your cash on the body. You need to buy good glass to get the best from your camera.
Enjoy
You can measure that the IQ in some aspects is lower. You're right that in many cases, the difference is practically not relevant. In general, stuff like noise curves are not relevant for most applications these days -- especially if you compare cameras of the same generation.
The purpose of the post was rather to dispel the myth that larger = better.
You can't talk about camera (backs) alone without discussing what lenses you have or are looking to buy. All current DSLRs can produce professional results but the more 'prosumer' styled models don't double-up controls so much and thus have much more pleasant handling.
I'd rathern have an old 20D off eBay with an 85mm 1.2 than a D300 with a 18-70 kit lens by about 100 miles as the former will produce more magical images for the kind of pictures I most often take.
I'd rathern have an old 20D off eBay with an 85mm 1.2 than a D300 with a 18-70 kit lens by about 100 miles as the former will produce more magical images for the kind of pictures I most often take.
Ok, well i guess this info would help. The canon 50D comes with a 28-135mm Lens. The nikon D90 comes with a 18-105mm Lens. These are what i would be starting with in each of the cameras because that is what they come with. So based on that, and just that, which camera would be the one to choose? And i do realize there is about a $200 difference however i am saying if they were the same price, which one would be the overall better camera. and by better i mean easier to use, better quality, less noise, all that good stuff. Thanks again everyone.
Get the D90 without the kit lens, your wasting your money, get the D90 for $900 or whatever the price, then get the 18-55mm for a basic lens, and a 50mm F1.8 lens, those are 2 great starter lens.
Don't compare kit lenses.
Don't compare kit lenses.
28 mm on the wide end is unsuitable for cameras like the 50D.
I would again recommend that you look at cheaper bodies and better lenses.
well, i know the D700 is a mix between a 1D and a 5D, which is why so many Canon shooters like it so much. but after reading a bit on the D90, i think it'd sit between the 450D and 50D (forget about the 40D, it'll be discontinued sometime), while the D300 is above the 50D. the pricing, build, and performance of the D90 is still not on-par with the "advanced amateur" cameras.
That was my first reaction too, but if B&H's prices are any indication, it would appear that Canon is having a rough time selling the 50D. It is priced at ~$1200 body only while the D300 is at $1500. The D300 has held pretty steady at that price. The 50D was introduced at a similar price point, but has been dropping. Within the Canon product line, I would guess that the 5DMkII is competing from above while the 40D is competing from below and not leaving much on the table for the 50D.
The D700 is a Nikon body, and is the D3 imaging components in a D300 body with a unique viewfinder.
According to those who use both the 40D and 50D, there is no image difference because of noise, since noise can be corrected with software. Both cameras also incorporate NR, but I have never had the need to use noise reduction with my 40D. What I do instead is to select ISO speeds that produce less noise than the next, and if there is noise in any of my images, I reduce it with the noise filter in PSE6, or with Neat Image's.
Best ISO speeds 40D:
100
160 (skip 125)
320 (skip 250)
640 (skip 500)
1250 (skip 1000)
However, the highest ISO speed I have ever used on my 40D is 320. In my view, digital noise is overrated. If you look at night photography from a few years ago, before noise reduction was introduced to digital photography, you will notice that such this was not mentioned by photographers like we do today.
Both Canon and Nikon are having problems selling their cameras at the moment. The ones that are selling faster are entry level cameras such as the XS, XSi, XTi, and then the 40D over the 50D. A lot of D40 to D200 are also selling on the Nikon side, but for both companies their sales have come to a halt recently.
Do you have a link to prove Nikon body sales are at a halt? They might be slowing down, but price wise they have raised their prices due to the yen. Even then, Nikon reps say they doing doing pretty well.
The 50D, however, has seen its prices go down even though the D300 is older. The D300, like someone has said, has stayed pretty steady at $1,500-1,600 even though it is 1 1/2 years old. I talked to someone at B&H recently (bought a new lens) and they said D300 (which I have) sales are doing pretty well at their sale even with this poor economy.
I'm not saying you are a liar, but a link showing what you said would be appreciated.
Well so far Nikon nails it with their dSLR range especially the higher end ones, Canon higher ends is a bit sad, the 50D cant be consider as a worthy competitor to the D300 due to its lack of AF points and shutter speed (D300+battery grip), the 5D also cant be compared to the D700 due to the same reason and for 5D is worse due to its FPS is only a measly 3.9 fps.
Canon only needs to improve the AF system tremendously cause so far I think Canon is way way behind in AF focusing and improve FPS when battery grip is attached and take a design cue from Nikon please Canon? I'll prefer Nikon D300/D700 battery grip design which doesn't require to open the battery compartment to connect.
As for Nikon, maybe place a build-in focusing motor for D60 and add some more commonly used buttons.
Canon only needs to improve the AF system tremendously cause so far I think Canon is way way behind in AF focusing and improve FPS when battery grip is attached and take a design cue from Nikon please Canon? I'll prefer Nikon D300/D700 battery grip design which doesn't require to open the battery compartment to connect.
As for Nikon, maybe place a build-in focusing motor for D60 and add some more commonly used buttons.
50mm is an awkward focal length on DX cameras, if anything I would recommend the new 35/1.8, the 50/1.8D was only ever recommended for DX as it was so cheap and there was no other prime that compared at the price.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 18-105VR lens, sure it doesn't have a metal mount and also doesn't have VRII but to most people that means jack all and would be more than adequate for the original poster to get started with. Personally I would find the 18-55 quite limiting as I often need to go longer than that and find 18-105VR to be a decent walk around lens, sure it isn't as versatile as my gf's 18-200VR but when I want to go long I can just slap on the 70-300VR.
There seems to be this long standing stigma against kit lenses even despite kit lesnes such as the 18-105VR getting good reviews, sure it is no 16-85VR but it isn't meant to be.
Perhaps not "a halt," but both Canon and Nikon have not done well marketwise on the first quarter of 2009. Look at both companies profit reports for 2009.
I think it's safe to say that sales of most all consumer luxury goods are slow right now, yes.
After doing a bit more research on the 50D, I was in error about it. It's not aimed quite so squarely at the sports/action shooter as the D300 is, nor does it appear to be as robustly constructed. Also, the original list price was $1300, so the current price of $1200 is in line with that. It's basically an enhanced 40D. I'm a little surprised that Canon sells both bodies as they seemed to be aimed at the same group of buyers.
Right now the 40D gives you "more bang for the buck," but the 50D offers a few things the 40D doesn't including camera/lens micro adjusting, movie clips (whatever it's called), more pixels, and a few other things. Both are similarly constructed, and include magnesium bodies with some weather resistance. The differences between the 50D and 40D are shown here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/
I know, I looked at that as part of my research. I don't see why Canon is keeping the 40D in production. The two bodies are essentially in the same price bracket, with the 50D updated to be more competitive with the latest features found in the market. I find these models being sold simultaneously to be confusing. Nikon is very clear about which body is the entry point into their system at the enthusiast level - it's the D90.
FWIW, the D80 and D200 are out of production and soon to be gone from inventory, so I do not consider them when trying to understand Nikon's product direction.
Eh. It took a few months for the 20D to fade away when the 30D was released, and it was only a few months ago (prior to the 50D release) that the 30D was still a current model, sitting next to the 40D on the Canon website.
Except the 40D is not discontinued and the 50D was announced 7 months ago. If I were Canon, I'd see if I could put the AF system from the 1D into the 50D and try to compete with the D300 on more equal footing. I just don't know what target they're trying to hit with these cameras.
It's not confusing at all. Those who don't want or need 15MP over 12MP, video clips, etc., can save cash by buying a 40D. Canon upgrades the X and 10-series cameras within 18 months.
the 40D will go away sooner or later...the same thing happened with previous models.
this isn't complete information. ISO 125 is just ISO 100 pushed 1/3 of a stop (more noise). ISO 160 is ISO 200 pulled back (less noise). in both cases, there is a decrease in dynamic range. you can do the same thing yourself in post-processing, so there's absolutely no reason to use the intermediate ISOs...unless you shoot in Jpeg, i suppose.
AlaskaMoose said:
this isn't complete information. ISO 125 is just ISO 100 pushed 1/3 of a stop (more noise). ISO 160 is ISO 200 pulled back (less noise). in both cases, there is a decrease in dynamic range. you can do the same thing yourself in post-processing, so there's absolutely no reason to use the intermediate ISOs...unless you shoot in Jpeg, i suppose.