Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 18, 2009, 6:17 PM   #1
Member
 
MrEdinarea51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Cloverdale B.C. Canada
Posts: 47
Default T1i vs 50D

I have a couple of questions for you Canon Guru's re: the differences between these two Camera's, specificly the New T1i and the 50D. Besides the obvious size difference and the fact that the T1i has the High Def. Video feature these two Cameras seem to be extemely simular. That being said, why do I need to spend the extra money for the 50D. When I could instead put that money into better Glass, isn't the body basicly just the carrier and the Glass the most important part?

I have heard that the 50D has high noise, does the T1i suffer from the same malaise or is it technologicaly more advanced being a couple of years newer?

I was all but sold on the 50D now I'm second guessing myself.
MrEdinarea51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 18, 2009, 7:17 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 188
Default

They are similar image quality wise, they basically use the same sensor and engine. The 50D has more Pro features.

They are an similar to the relationship between the slightly more expensive pair form Nikon D90 and Nikon D5000.

My understanding is in lower light, higher ISO conditions above ISO 400, the Nikons lower 12 megapixel Resolution APC sensor is generating somewhat less noice then 15 meg Canon sensors.

I am considering (only window shopping at the moment) I have a Rebel XT these Cameras as well.
anthlover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2009, 8:59 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Dickson, Tennessee
Posts: 461
Default

The 50D has very similar image quality, but as was said above, many more features and settings. If you are just looking for a camera for vacations and playing around, the T1i should be fine. If you plan to do a lot of hiking and serious outdoor activities the superior weather sealing and extra beef on the 50D is a major plus.
Also the 50D is only a couple of months older than the T1i. December of 08 vs April 09.
shadokachr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 19, 2009, 7:16 AM   #4
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

There is not what appears to be real weather sealing on the 50D. I have a 1D mkIII which is sealed but then that only helps if the lenses are as well.

As for the 50D over the 500D/T1i, I like the handling of the xxD cameras over the xxxD ones but having said that the 500D is the 4th Canon dSLR in my bag and yes it is small and not as fast to change settings as the others I have but it does do a good job.

As for the noise on the 50D which some people says performs worse than the 40D, it is higher per pixel however when you downsize to the same resolution as the 40D then it basically goes away. At lower ISO settings then you are going to benefit from the extra pixels anyway.

The image quality between the 50D and 500D are on paper basically identical looking at the lab reports, so it come down to handling, control, build quality, weight and budget for the glass on the front. Better glass is going to be the key way to get good results from any camera so that is the place to invest.

As for the video features, yes they are a nice to have and good fun but will be better if Canon decides to add manual control as they have done with the 5D mkII.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 19, 2009, 8:57 AM   #5
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
There is not what appears to be real weather sealing on the 50D...which is sealed but then that only helps if the lenses are as well.
There are two VERY important things here.
1) The 'sealing' on the consumer cameras on the market is NOT the same level as on the pro bodies. You are best advised NOT to count on it - it's an insurance policy. If you're going to be out shooting in the rain you should have rain cover(s) for your camera gear.

2) The lens has to be sealed too. Kit lenses are NOT sealed. In fact, very few lenses are. None of the non-L lenses are sealed and not all L lenses are sealed. I dont know how many, if any, 3rd party lenses are sealed. The chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. This is why, IMO, 'weather sealing' on consumer DSLRs is a marketing gimmick. Which is also why in point 1 they don't do as good a job of it.

So, bottom line - don't put much stock in the weather sealing claims of entry level DSLRs. In truth, even pros that use the pro bodies with good sealing and sealed lenses use rain gear on their cameras.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 19, 2009, 5:43 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Dickson, Tennessee
Posts: 461
Default

Good point John. I can tell you from my personal experience. I had an XSi and it had no sealing what so ever. The slightest rain or high humidity and it would shut down. The engineering specs and reports on the 40 and 50D's have at least some sealing. I used to work in my Fathers camera repair shop way back when a bead of silicon grease was considered a seal.
So far my 50D has had no problems with a bit of light rain, but I do break out the rain coat when it gets heavy.
shadokachr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2009, 9:35 AM   #7
Member
 
MrEdinarea51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Cloverdale B.C. Canada
Posts: 47
Default

Hey Guys, I'm kinda getting a feeling that the differences are miinimal at best. However, Two Hundred dollars is the approximate difference between these two cameras and this isn't a huge difference when you consider the overall costs involved.

As for waterproofness I'm old scool, water and electronics don't mix. Therefore I don't care how waterproof it is, it will not be exposed to rain or snow, period!!

I can tell you, the package that I was looking at the (Canon EOS 50D with Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and Canon 70-300mm IS USM) is at the upper end of my abilities finacialy.

I want to shoot CFL Pro Football in a fairly well lit indoor Stadium (B.C.Place) here in Vancouver B.C. as well as a murriad of other kinds of photography. That being said I was toying with the numbers to see if there would be enough wiggle room to get the T1i with the 17-85 & the Canon EF100-400mm 4.6-5.6L IS USM rather than the aforementioned 50D package. This however would be at the very extreme end of the affordability scale and I don't know if the 100-400 could be able to be used as a bit of a walk about lens either.

Am I insane for thinkinking this could be a viable route or should I get the 50D package and wait till next season for the 100-400L.
MrEdinarea51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2009, 9:43 AM   #8
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Here's a controversial article on the subject (how well some cameras hold up in wet conditions). But, you really don't have a large enough sampling to draw much in the way of conclusions (hence, the controversial part):

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...9-worked.shtml
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2009, 10:19 AM   #9
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrEdinarea51 View Post

I want to shoot CFL Pro Football in a fairly well lit indoor Stadium (B.C.Place) here in Vancouver B.C. as well as a murriad of other kinds of photography. .
The reality is, you're going to have a tough time shooting football indoors. I'm also assuming you're shooting from the stands which makes it even tougher. While the stadium looks bright to you, it isn't that bright to your camera. A lens like the 100-400 won't give you fast enough shutter speeds to shoot football indoors. You need an f2.8 lens and you'd need every bit of the 400mm the 100-400 provides as well. A 400mm 2.8 lens sells for $7000 USD and is a beast of a lens - not likely going to be allowed to shoot from the stands with it. An inexpensive Sigma 70-200 2.8 lens ($800) simply won't be long enough - 200mm is good for about 25 yards of reach for quality sports shots. All in all, there simply is no solution on the market that is going to allow you to get decent shots from the stands indoors.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2009, 10:24 PM   #10
Member
 
MrEdinarea51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Cloverdale B.C. Canada
Posts: 47
Default

Yes John, I do know that it isn't quite even the light of a overcast day. That being said I have shot at a few games before with pretty good results with a shorter lens' however. I do occasionally get to shoot from the sidelines but I do have to wait for the action to come to me as I rove the sideline.

I am very currious about the ability to use the 100-400 as a walk about. I haven't used a 400mm lens since my Old trusty Pentax Spotmatic II and it was by no means a walk about, without image stablization or higher ISO speeds I would sometimes push 400 ASA film too 1600ASA. and the results were oft times very grainy. That was then this is now, technology has changed Photography imeasurably since I was shooting seriously and therefore I need help from my peers to bring me up to speed.
MrEdinarea51 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:58 AM.