The rumours and reports of accidentally published official web pages have finally been ratified with the announcement of the latest Canon digital SLR; the EOS 50D. Just a year younger than its sibling, the 40D, the new mid-range camera once again brings Canon up to speed with the latest Nikon releases with features such including:
- 15.1 MP (APS-C) CMOS sensor
- DIGIC 4 processor
- ISO range up to 12800
- 3.0″ 920,000 dot VGA LCD with Live View
- Face detection technology [on a semi-pro model?!]
- AF adjustment
I’ll leave the feature debate for others and simply say that I won’t be replacing my 40D with the new 50D. Why? The feature set isn’t so different from that of the 40D and the next major feature step for me would be to a full frame sensor body. Even then, I don’t see such a purchase anywhere on my horizon. For the time being, my 40D serves me well. Besides, £1,200 would be better spent on a nice, shiny new 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM lens instead.
Read a preview of the 50D at DPReview and place your pre-order at Warehouse Express.
Also in the news is the release of the Canon EF-S 18-200mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS zoom lens; a lens that’s sure to be popular as a walkabout lens.
2 Comments
The 70-200 f/2.8 is a cracking lens but I would save yourself an extra £450 and go for the non-IS one myself. I much prefer a tripod and longer exposure than IS (I am often disappointed with IS performance). IS has it’s place when you don’t want to carry a tripod – but it will never match the quality of a steady camera. The 70-200 is also an amazing sports lens, and I see little use for IS in this field either – it’s often the case that you want to capture the motion in the scene your taking anyway.
If it was £100-200 more, then might be worth it – but for nearly £450 (7dayshop.com non-IS £785, IS £1229), I’d put the money elsewhere. Maybe a 1.4x extender at £209, Canon 100mm macro at £339, Canon 10-22 at £480 (or Sigma 10-20 at £329).
Just my thoughts!!!
Well, I’ve got a 70-200 f/4L IS (my current gear is listed on my About page) and to be honest, I don’t use it a great deal. I reckon that I’d probably use that focal length range more on a full-frame body like the 5D MKII (drool) however, when I do use it the IS is handy.
It does seem a heck of lot more for the IS on the f/2.8, but if I got the non-IS version I’d always have that niggling doubt in the back of my mind telling me that the grass would have been more saturated on the IS side.
For the time being, upgrading my longer lenses isn’t a top priority as I’m shooting mostly <= 50mm. I think I’d go full frame before I did that.