How would you change Canon's EOS 50D?

If the Nikon D90's questionable 720p movie mode did nothing for you, or if you're a self-proclaimed Canon fanboy through and through, there's at least a sliver of a chance you bit on the EOS 50D. Now that you've had a solid month to flex that shutter finger and pore over the results, how are you liking things? Experiencing a huge dose of buyer's remorse? Absolutely elated with the low-light performance? Did you find enough extras to warrant the upgrade from a D40? We're just looking to hear how you really like / dislike Canon's latest mid-range DSLR, and more importantly, how you'd do things differently if given the keys to the company's R&D lab. Get to spoutin', won't you?

[psychojoe @ Nov 14th 2008 7:37PM]

first? I want to hear what you guys think. This or the D90? Picture quality only, movie mode is a gimmick.

[kyle @ Nov 14th 2008 7:46PM]

buy a canon D40 w. kit lens and then buy a mid-range zoom or 50mm prime. way more worth the money. D40 and D50 are pretty damn similar

[Billy Fiul @ Nov 14th 2008 7:53PM]

He said "canon D40" which is stupid. Nikon puts the "D" before the number, Canon puts it after the number. It's not complicated. I'm just tired of hearing people say "Nikon 3D" or "Canon D5"

[Jordan @ Nov 14th 2008 7:38PM]

You mean 40D, not D40 right?

[VeganTnT @ Nov 14th 2008 7:43PM]

He could mean the Nikon D40. The D90 is referenced saying that the movie mode wasn't enough to upgrade.

It works both ways D40 or 40D

[Jordan @ Nov 14th 2008 7:45PM]

I know, that's why I asked :)

[cmj2405 @ Nov 14th 2008 7:50PM]

Make it cheap enough for me to afford - then my dreams will come true.

[dajimmers @ Nov 14th 2008 8:32PM]

It's getting there- just watch the economy sink and the prices drop. Hopefully you'll still have a job so you can afford it by that point, though.

[Temple @ Nov 14th 2008 9:07PM]

The 50D is clearly to expensive compared to the competition. Especially being that the D90 is $999 and a D300 can be had for around $1500 these days. Even a Canon 40D can be had for $400 less then a 50D and DPreview's review showed that the 50D had worse ISO performance and noise then a 40D.

What I would change with Canon's prosumer line-up is the horrid Autofocus. I don't understand why Nikon can give professional level 51-point AF and metering in the D300 that is only around a hundred dollars more expensive then a 50D and Canon is stuck with the 9-point AF that is below the quality of even a D80/D90 even on its high-end 5D Mark II.

Worse part is that the spot-meter isn't linked to the autofocus point (unless its directly in the center). I mean, really, I would like to expose an image based off where I'm focusing (BTW Canon 5D owner).

[NutMac @ Nov 14th 2008 7:52PM]

1. Lower the pixel count. High ISO is noisier than D40 and images aren't as detailed at 100% crop.
2. More auto focus points.
3. Full frame! (I know I know, but I can dream)
4. HD movie mode since it seems to be the trend.
5. Built-in GPS location tagging (instead of requiring bulky attachment accessory).

[KoGa @ Nov 14th 2008 7:59PM]

"1. Lower the pixel count. High ISO is noisier than D40 and images aren't as detailed at 100% crop." that's exactly the 40D

Agree with the rest! However I find the number of focus points just enough.

[yida @ Nov 17th 2008 11:46AM]

Yes please to #1.

[test @ Nov 14th 2008 8:04PM]

Simple. I'd pull it off the shelves and recycle the parts.

[gad get @ Nov 14th 2008 8:22PM]

Well, dpreview.com as much as tells us that the 50D simply has too many pixels for its own good. Because of the overly dense sensor, noise levels have increased over the previous generation 40D (um, methinks that shouldn't happen), and don't compare all too favorably to the Nikon D300 either. Usable dynamic range of course suffers as well, because actual shadow detail is drowned out by chroma and luminance noise. The only upside to the new sensor is a slight increase in resolving ability, but unless you always shoot at ISO 400 or lower that doesn't count for much, because as the ISO increases, the noise and the zealous noise reduction it necessitates quickly erase any gains made in that respect (and note that you can't take advantage of the increased real-world resolution anyway unless you have top-quality lenses). They (dpreview.com) also say that ISO 6400 should be strictly reserved for emergency use because of high noise and low detail (relatively, of course--I mean if you're used to P&S cams, you might not care). They then go on to declare the inclusion of an ISO 12800 setting, "quite frankly pointless". They did of course like the new VGA live view, but if the priority is on image quality, I fear a lot of people who make the upgrade from the 40D are going to be a bit disappointed.
Overall, they did give it their highest reward, "Highly Recommended", but only just. They cite the aforementioned concerns as reasons for their hesitance, along with the price, which at the time of the review's publication, was just $100 less than the D300 (which they of course had high praise for). They also pointed out that the 40D can be had for about $500 cheaper, and that the 50D may also need to keep an eye on the rear-view mirror for the D90.

[Ben @ Nov 15th 2008 12:00AM]

> Well, dpreview.com as much as tells us that the 50D simply has too many pixels for its own good.

dpreview is wrong. The 50D's sensel density has been demonstrated many times over to be 100% usable with good glass, used properly. dpreview made that comment in the context of using a 50mm lens at ƒ/9, which is diffraction limited. You can find literally tens of images in the dpreview forums of both test targets and real work subjects that demonstrate that the camera's sensel density is not a limiting factor. No one should *sensibly* expect to make use of a 15 mp APS-C sensor with low quality glass. You'll have to spend some money; but this is NOT a limitation of the camera. If you have cheap glass, it'll make the best use possible of it.

The compromise here is in noise and ISO; by using smaller sensels, they gave up noise resistance and overall photon well size -- but by using the microlens tech, they got back the ground lost, and the 50D performs like the 40D, but with 1.5x the pixels. They thought this was a sweet spot for consumers (and they've not been proven wrong, I might add.)

Like a lot of people, I'd have been happy with the same size sensor and lower noise, broader ISO; but I'm not *unhappy* with the 50D as is, either. Just don't count on the dpreview.com information, that review is flawed in many ways and they've been completely unable to defend the excuses they offer for the mistakes they made.

[a @ Nov 15th 2008 1:50AM]

I have this camera. I've put about 1000 shots on it already. Its really quite amazing, but does need good glass (the 18-200mm lens with the kit while convienent isn't quite up to the task).

I agree with the smudges on the screen, easy to wipe off but mine always seems smudged.

I wish live view focused faster in "contrast detection" live view.

The pop up flash isn't high enough for some larger lenses (24-104 and 100-400mm).

I hate that they changed the 3 buttons on the top from the 5D. I'm always pressing the wrong one to change the iso.

Grid lines for people like me who have trouble holding the camera straight.

The dynamic range could use some improvement (Not as good as my 5D). Noise is good for the resolution. Focusing is fast fast and accurate.

That being said, I'm happy with it.

[postmastersteve @ Nov 15th 2008 9:54AM]

@a if you want grid lines because you can't hold straight, pick up the Canon EF-D grid line focusing screen. I've found it to be just what the doctor ordered for my 40D, and it works in the 50D as well.

[Liam @ Nov 15th 2008 1:19PM]

To make a 15mp sensor worth having, you need ridiculous glass. APS-C cameras are prosumer by definition, so why would anyone buy L-series glass that can out-resolve this sensor? Besides, 12mp and 15mp is not a huge difference practically, if you want shots that can blow up onto a billboard, or still look good after drastic crops, well you're no better off. As someone pointed out, this is packaged with the 18-200mm lens. Not a wonderfully sharp lens, more a compromised holiday 'walkabout' lens. I would've preferred less pixels; the camera would've been faster (less processing to do) and better in low light. These would not be marketing gimmicks, they'd actually improve the usability of the camera.

[crazyfishmolester @ Nov 14th 2008 8:25PM]

hint
\/ (down)

[j @ Nov 14th 2008 8:26PM]

Add video, of course. I would almost wonder if they could do it w/ just a firmware upgrade?

[Ken A @ Nov 14th 2008 8:28PM]

I would want fewer pixels (no more than 10MP), lower noise at high ISO, and wider dynamic range.

[sixtyonenorth @ Nov 14th 2008 10:09PM]

You are basically looking for a 40D then, the 50D's predecessor. It has lower noise, lower MP's, and similar if not wider D-Range. And, its' a great camera. One thing people are missing about the 50D however, is it's ability for the user to micro-shift the sensor forward or backward, link that setting to each of your lenses, and in theory get sharper images. This "should" reduce complaints of front or back focusing.

[dajimmers @ Nov 14th 2008 8:42PM]

I haven't picked mine up yet, but will be by (or on) Christmas. I've tried it out a bit at Best Buy so far, though, and it's obviously a decent upgrade from my several-year-old XT. I don't really understand all the talk about upgrading from the 40D- since when do photographers get a new body every year? I think it makes sense for XT (xxxd) generation and 10D, 20D, 30D owners to upgrade, but 40D owners can wait for the next gen. And people with less money or who need better glass can get the still very good 40D for pretty cheap now.

What I wish it had (mostly stated by others above):
1) 12MP sensor rather than 15MP, hopefully resulting in a resolution increase as well as noise improvement over 40D
2) HD video: Not for replacing a real video camera, but for using lenses that video cameras don't have for interesting results. I have a macro lens and a decent telephoto that could make videos not possible with consumer videocams, and I'm betting low-light with a good wide-aperture lens would be better as well.
3) Faster Live View autofocus
4) Built-in GPS geotagging

[Kenjis9965 @ Nov 15th 2008 2:28AM]

Its not the 40D owners, the bigger point on the Canon shooter forums i frequent is that the 50D is not enough of an upgrade from a 40D which is $500 less new, and even less when picked up used [Sub-$700!!]

You can, with a little looking and patience, pick up a 5D for less than a 50D, which has even BETTER low light performance and is full frame

The point isnt that the 50D is so much a bad camera is that its immediate predecessor was just too damn good!

Is the resolution good? Yes, if you have the optics to back it up! But the high-iso noise performance is NOT better, you are a fool to think that, its very very good when you take into account all factors, but the 40D just hit a much better "sweet spot"

Personally, I'm saving my pennies and either nabbing a 5D at rock bottom prices or a 40D

I'm a 30D shooter, and my high-ISO performance isnt half bad sometimes [I've gotten some stuff at ISO1600 that was damn good with a little NR in ACR] and to be honest my only complaints with it are the viewfinder [Too small, no gridlines] and the AF system [Poor, as someone stated above, it really needs a good 11 or 15 point AF system Canon! Come on, you're the company that gave us the 45-point AF in the EOS-3!!!]

[Ian @ Nov 14th 2008 8:43PM]

I would have added a 12 MP sensor rather than the silly 15 MP sensor.

The Nikon D90 is both cheaper, and takes better photos than the Canon 50D. The Canon 40D was a decent camera, but the 50D isn't a worthy replacement for it. Heck, some people argue that the 40D wasn't a worthy replacement to the 30D, which was an outstanding camera. Canon just seems to upgrade without adding anything to it, really. They just want to say that they upgraded.

I think the 450D is a better deal for what you're getting, and that includes the better image quality.

[Kenjis9965 @ Nov 15th 2008 2:35AM]

>>>I would have added a 12 MP sensor rather than the silly 15 MP sensor.

The Nikon D90 is both cheaper, and takes better photos than the Canon 50D. The Canon 40D was a decent camera, but the 50D isn't a worthy replacement for it. Heck, some people argue that the 40D wasn't a worthy replacement to the 30D, which was an outstanding camera. Canon just seems to upgrade without adding anything to it, really. They just want to say that they upgraded.

I think the 450D is a better deal for what you're getting, and that includes the better image quality.

[Familyguyrokz @ Nov 14th 2008 8:45PM]

Install OS X

[Wayne @ Nov 14th 2008 8:48PM]

ISO performance closer to the performance of the 5D, even if it means less Megapixels.

Movie mode simply because you're not going to be able to release a camera without it.

[kr4k3n @ Nov 14th 2008 9:06PM]

i'm glad i held on to my 40d since it's quality is better than the 50d..
i just wish it had the ability to trigger speedlites internally.. just like those darn nikons..

[xploit @ Nov 14th 2008 9:42PM]

Agreed but what about pocket wizards :) always going to be better than internal :) who wants TTL :P manual all the way. just wish that pocketwizards could control the output levels. then we would be gold! :D

xploit3d.com

[lostmotel @ Nov 15th 2008 6:09PM]

@xploit:

You have to admit though being able to buy the bottom end flash and then doing wireless out of the box is pretty nice, rather than having to buy even more accessories.

[gint12b @ Nov 14th 2008 9:20PM]

24P, 24P, 24P, 24P, 24P, 24P, 24P, 24P, 24P, 24P, 24P, 24P, 24P, 24P, 24P, 24P, 24P, 24P, 24P, 24P, 24P, 24P, 24P, 24P, 24P, 24P, 24P, 24P, 24P, 24P, 24P, 24P....

[HyperHacker @ Nov 14th 2008 9:48PM]

$100 bill dispenser.

[sM42 @ Nov 14th 2008 10:13PM]

Move the on/off switch and the row of buttons from below the lcd screen. I had a 40D (which is the same body design) and the damn thing would turn itself on and the buttons - including delete!- would accidentally get pressed when it hit my belt. Other than that, not much.

[Exninja @ Nov 14th 2008 11:39PM]

Ummmm shorten the shoulder strap?

[JERRY @ Nov 14th 2008 10:43PM]

I love the feature of the swing out LCD of the SX10 IS. Add it to the 50D, then I would buy one.

[crazyfishmolester @ Nov 14th 2008 10:50PM]

touch screen!


ps. thanks for the passwords everybody make crazy comments!

[ImTherious @ Nov 14th 2008 11:02PM]

Pros:
- incredibly fast at start up
- 6.3 FPS is very handy (esp. with kids!)
- fast at shooting, esp. with AF-ON/AI Servo and the shutter release set to exposure metering only
- solidly built and great feel
- IQ is fantastic with L or prime lenses
- LCD is superb and very snappy
- Custom menus and C1 and C2 are great
- Mirror Lock Up
- having a dial and joystick is great (set exposure balance and choose an AF point at the same time!)
- RAW, sRAW1 and sRAW2 as options

Cons:
- Nikon style auto-ISO ranges. 50D uses a range between 100-1600 for auto, and is lousy if you want to set a maximum (less noisy) ISO
- C1 and C2 should save settings every time they are set (they are lost if you power down and don't save them)

Minor Quibbles:
- "Quick Dial" mode should be the same as "On" mode, unless someone can tell me why they are split
- View finder could do with some grid lines (but option exists to buy ones with grids)
- USB port should be on the bottom of the ports rather than have to flip up all
- Strap shouldn't have the tacky 50D emblazoned on it
- Bezel should be all black, rather than a tacky chrome

[Ethan @ Nov 14th 2008 11:34PM]

The camera intentionally does not save C1 or C2 settings. These modes are meant to be a reliable setting no matter how you change them, so the camera forces you to explicitly tell it to remember a setting. If you want the camera to do 1/8000th at 1600 ISO on C1 to capture some super-fast event, you'd be unhappy if you turned on the camera and accidentally began shooting with the wrong settings.

[sam @ Nov 15th 2008 6:22PM]

(I have a 40D. Overall, it's fine. Not considering 50D. As far as I can tell from reading the detailed review, though, the camera is pretty much identical so these comments remain valid...)

Yes, the camera intentionally doesn't save C1/C2 settings but this still causes one of the significant usability problems I have with it. The problem is with auto-power off. You're walking about, it gets a bit gloomy, you set ISO to 400, take a few pictures. 2 minutes later you take another few pictures and then swear, realising the camera has reset it back to 200 again...

I don't think it should 'save' settings but it should remember them through auto-power-off. If you 'really' power off, it should switch back to the defaults, or if you turn the mode dial. (I guess I could increase the auto power-off time but doesn't that use more battery?)

My changes to the 40D - and sadly, afaik none of these are in the 50D - would be:

1) Get rid of the mode dial altogether and work out a better solution. (Ditch the auto settings or move them to menu options - nobody buys a camera this expensive for auto mode, and if they do, then that's fine, make it factory-default in the menus. Manual or auto (Av, etc) exposure can be selected some other way, I dunno, work it out.)

For custom settings, a better solution would probably be to have three buttons C1... C3. The camera always remembers whatever it was last set to. Pressing C1..3 always immediately restores those default settings. Best of both worlds.

2) Like somebody else said, get rid of the two different on switch settings - there's the 'on' setting, and the 'on but half the main controls don't work' setting. we do not need that setting. make it a custom function if there is somebody on the planet who does need it.

3) Give us a picture review mode that, alongside the image, instantly shows the area around the focus point at 1:1 so we can check sharpness. (Did 50D add this? I don't think so).

4) Make exposure metering better and provide an option for people like me who don't want to blow highlights except in the most impossible situations (sun in picture, etc).

5) when in RAW mode, the overexposure indication should be based on the RAW data not the JPEG preview

6) why is exposure compensation limited to +/- 2? I don't want to have to switch to manual mode just for that. Let it be infinite or +/- 5 or something.

7) why does exposure compensation only work after it's started doing exposure readings? you should be able to adjust this with the dial at any time (of course if you could, maybe there would actually be a reason for that lock functionality).

and of course like everyone

8) better low-noise performance, instead of higher pixel count

the one thing I know 50D added that i do want is the ability to customise lens focus. Not sure I need it, but it seems like a good plan :)

smaller, lighter would be nice too... wireless flash connection and that nikon tilt sensor as standard... inbuilt GPS... totally customisable firmware... DNG standard raw files... and a cherry on top.

[Technogeekchris @ Nov 14th 2008 11:07PM]

Hey.. any comments on SONY DSLR?? All of you are nikon and canon. Any comments..

[Scott @ Nov 14th 2008 11:47PM]

Perhaps there's a reason nobody's commenting on Sony? If you want the best available, stick with Canon or Nikon

[Jorg @ Nov 15th 2008 8:47AM]

I gladly put up my a900 or a700 against any offerings that Canon or Nikon has on the market.
You can't beat the Sony and Zeiss combination.

[Blackmaxx @ Nov 14th 2008 11:32PM]

I have been playing with mine for a month; and would change 3 things.
1.Slightly lower resolution for lower noise and less diffraction softness with slower lenses.
2. Auto ISO

[Ben @ Nov 14th 2008 11:53PM]

Here's how I'd change the 50D:

1) Ability to accumulate frames in live-view so we can compose and focus darker scenes. For example, cut update rate in half and add each pair of frames - 2x as bright. Cut by 3, 3x as bright. etc. Or to put it another way, if the sensor can see it in 2 seconds, then we should be able to see it on the LCD in 2 seconds, as well.

2) Control illumination time of sub-LCD

3) Control shutter delay time (not just 2 or 10 seconds.. let me set some values)

4) Longer timed exposures than 30 seconds - this is really a PITA.

5) Higher ISO - even higher. No, higher than that. Plus more! (you can use stacking to reduce noise... there's no downside to the camera pushing the ISO higher... if you don't like it, just don't use it.)

6) Make DOF preview an operating mode, not just an extra button to press.

7) Microfocus: Allow us to manually focus at 1/10th normal rate. Sometimes speed isn't your friend.

8) Disable screen turn-on for dust-off; complete waste of energy and LCD lifespan. Every time you power up that back-light, the lifespan drops, "on" is the max-stress event for the LCD.

9) Keep a reference image for noise reduction. Save us some time per shot.

10) In-camera stabilizaation; why? Because many lenses DON'T HAVE IT!

11) Focus bracketing -- a feature that would save a million lost photos

12) Be nice to flip the IR filter out of the way...

13) Infrared remote for shutter trigger

14) Let us disable that bloody yellow LED! It scares my fish.

15) tilt sensor / artificial horizon like Nikon's - that's so sweet

16) GPS built-in

17) wifi built-in

18) Lower, slower, quieter ISO. 50. 25! 12.5!!!!

19) black mode knob (I hate that silver thing)

20) More buttons - direct selection of ISO, AF points, EV, drive, WB, exposure metering

21) deeper zoom on review and live view - give me more than 1:1 pixel

22) "Shoot when stable" motion detect to augment delayed shooting. When camera is still, fire immediately.

23) external power jack so we could use it in cold environments w/remote power w/o battery dying

24) Move the bloody LCD so it doesn't noseprint every time I use the optical viewfinder

25) Let me setup photographer name, etc, in camera with PASSWORD for theft protection and copyright. Use flash memory. Forget your password? Tough.

26) Enter notes for each image (wouldn't mind a standard KB jack, either, but any way is better than none)

27) More AF points at and near the center of the frame.

28) An option to buy the camera with a less dense sensor: Same camera, 10 mp would be great, and in this case, lower noise, higher ISOs.

[Plothole @ Nov 15th 2008 3:55AM]

18. Such low ISO settings might actually dip below the sensor's base sensitivity (which is considerable higher on APS sensors than compact ones). It could still be done, but at the cost of dynamic range.

23. You can technically do that. It just requires a cumbersome battery slot adapter.

[Josh Bradshaw @ Nov 15th 2008 9:11AM]

Just lower the noise and make it full frame!
(I agree with the more AF points though!)

[Joey Conta @ Nov 19th 2008 5:09AM]

You can disable the yellow Bloody LED.

[sodoff @ Nov 15th 2008 12:01AM]

All you people hoping for a drastic price drop can forget it. The american economy is wallowing in their own shit and the japanese yen has appreciated.

[Alain @ Nov 15th 2008 12:22AM]

I've been shooting with mine for a month, and for the most part I love it. Perhaps the only thing I would change or improve on is the high noise when shooting at high ISO. If it can somehow be fixed in firmware, great. Otherwise I just wish all camera manufacturers would just stop with the megapixel race. 12MP is plenty, just give us razor sharp images with no noise.

I didn't go with the kit lens, I went and bought a 24-70mm f2.8L USM with my 50D, and I am blown away by the shots I can get in the 100-800 ISO range, the few images I've taken at 1250 ISO are ok, but it starts getting noisy at 1600. Like I said, if they can fix this in the firmware this would be the best bang for the buck camera.

I love the coating on the LCD on the back, it makes wiping nose smudges off a real cinch. If it were possible to somehow move the eye piece to a different position as to reduce nose smudges it would have made it perfect.

I recommend the camera as a buy. Go 40D if you can't afford the 50D but the feature benefits of the 50D are worth the few hundred more in my opinion. Nikon D90 is gimmicky, if you really want video buy a video camera not a DSLR for shooting poor video.