Canon EOS 50D: Not worth it. Save your money.

Canon has recently announced their new DSLR body, the EOS 50D (official site). From the information that has become available up till now, I can already conclude that it’s not going to be a very popular camera. In fact, I won’t be surprised if it sells less copies than the EOS 40D.

Why?

Well, for starters, this is a very half-assed (technical term) attempt by Canon to try to compete with the Nikon D300. If I look at the specifications of the 50D, I can’t help but think that some Canon engineers sat down one afternoon, took the 40D, slapped in a new sensor, put in a new processor, tweaked the firmware to enable some features (which they deliberately disabled for the 40D, like autofocus microadjust), put in the higher resolution LCD which they meant to release with the 40D, but didn’t to save a couple of bucks, called it a day, packed and went to a Karaoke bar to have some fun.

Compared to the 40D, the 50D is not worth the extra money Canon wants to charge us. It is essentially just a 40D with minor worthless upgrades. It is not worth the upgrade for 40D users, and it is no match for the Nikon D300.

A while ago, I wrote the following:

And after the release of the Nikon D3/300 and recently D700, I have it on good authority that the entire DSLR division at Canon was taken to their equivalent of DEFCON 1. Various Canon managers and engineers were hand delivered messages by actual ninja’s, threatening with “serious consequences” if things don’t get better in the near future. So I have to say, I’m very interested to see what Canon releases later this year.

Canon’s prosumer DSLR bodies have been on an 18 month refresh cycle. The 50D has been introduced only about 12 months after the 40D, so about 6 months too early. The reason for this is easy to guess. Canon couldn’t just leave the 40D on the market while it is taking a serious beating from the Nikon D300, and now even the Nikon D90. They probably thought that releasing a refreshed 40D, the 50D, would be better compared to doing nothing. And from their perspective, this could be true on various levels, but even the 50D is no match for the Nikon D300, and not even for the Nikon D90, which can only be viewed as a tragedy for Canon. The only people who are now likely to consider the 50D are people who are in the market for a significant upgrade (so no 40D users) and those who are looking to buy their first DSLR. And in both cases, Nikon has the better alternatives (D300 and D90).

I predict that the price of the 50D is going to drop very fast after its availability in October especially when Nikon will lower the price of the D300 soon. I also predict that Canon will release the real successor for the 40D, the EOS 60D in the second half of 2009 finally containing some significant technological improvements. As a result of the DEFCON 1 declaration at Canon’s DSLR division, the refresh cycle for the 1D series camera’s has also been shortened from 3 years, and new 1D models are going to appear in 2009 instead of 2010 and likely very early in 2009.

It is hilarious that Canon left the outdated 9 point autofocus system of the 40D in the 50D and still mentions how great they think it is. Here’s what Canon wants you to believe:

Configured in a diamond-shaped array for superior vertical and horizontal coverage, nine cross-type autofocus (AF) points — eight with f/5.6 sensitivity and one in the center with f/2.8 sensitivity — provide highly precise focus even when shooting fast moving subjects.

Ofcourse, we know better now. This is the same autofocus system the 40D has, and it’s been proven to be crap especially for shooting fast moving subjects. What is even more hilarious, is that they even include a picture in the samples on the official website, that is very soft, likely due to the subject not being completely in focus. Talk about precise focus.

With regards to the 15 megapixel sensor, Canon still doesn’t seem to understand what photographers want now. Nobody wants a high resolution sensor that can’t deliver clean images at low ISO values, and especially higher values. Nikon demonstrated that they understood this when they released cameras with only 12 megapixel sensors that are capable of delivering great image quality at higher ISO values. But not Canon. Instead of releasing an improved 10 megapixel sensor with a much improved high ISO performance, they went ahead and released a 15 megapixel sensor with no visible improvement with regards to noise, compared to the 40D. It might even be worse than the 40D. If you look at this sample image in this gallery, the noise in the out of focus areas seems comparable to the 40D at ISO 400. So apart from the higher pixelcount, there’s no gain in image quality. It’s just more pixels containing crap. A useless upgrade.

Canon finally included contrast detect auto focus in their Live View implementation on the 50D as well, something that should have been present from the beginning in the 40D. The Live View implementation in the 40D was essentially useless, and I got the feeling that Canon just wanted to include it for marketing at the time. It’s just like Nikon including HD video recording capability in the recently introduced D90 camera, when they don’t also include the ability to autofocus while recording HD movie. Can you imagine that? Seriously, just stop and think about it. So here you have a D90, you can record high resolution HD video on it, but you are stuck having to focus manually while recording. Answer this: What is the use of recording HD quality video, when you will get soft focused video most of the time due to having to focus manually while recording?? So now you have HD video, but it’s reduced to 320×240 sized video because you can’t focus manually that fast. Thanks, Nikon, but no thanks. I keep wondering what the deal is with these companies, releasing half-assed implementations of functionality in products. Why can’t they take the time and release functionality that is complete? We don’t actually need a new camera every year you know? Take the time and work on a good product, for fuck’s sake! Even my cheap cellphone can autofocus while recording video at crappy resolutions.

Anyway, Canon’s one and only hope this year remains with the successor to the EOS 5D which will be announced this month, and which, according to various sources, is going to be equipped with a 21 megapixel sensor. It remains to be seen what the quality of images taken with this sensor is going to be and if it will be an improvement over the 5D. If this body doesn’t have some advanced features like full weather sealing and a pro autofocus system, it’s not going to do very well compared to the Nikon D700. Especially if it’s going to deliver 21 megapixels of noise. In addition, Nikon might one-up them again, like they did by releasing the D90 after the 50D, and lower the price for the D700 and D3 when they introduce the D3x.

And, finally, even if the new 5D is theoretically good, it could still be plagued by the bad quality control at Canon. Let’s see what happens.

Update: Check out the second part of this post here.



14 Responses to “Canon EOS 50D: Not worth it. Save your money.”

  1. Pingback: Karel Donk » Archive » Canon EOS 50D: Not worth it. Save your money. - Part II
  2. LOL

    Holy crap man,if nikon paid you write this dribble it would be ok,because at least your time woudnt be completely wasted in making an ass out of yourself,but yet,I know even nikon would barf in their own mouth reading the bullshit you write.

    “The 9 point AF is known to be crap”

    Use your brain IDIOT,you can find THOUSANDS of photos online done with that AF system(and inferior ones) that are amazing,tack sharp,of all sorts of moving subjects.

    It embarrases humanity to share the world with fuckin’ retards such as you.

    Reply
  3. Walt

    Lol !
    There is nothing on this page except a Nikon guy and some breeze.
    It means nothing at all but i laughed so thanx man.

    Reply
  4. Karel Donk

    Don’t forget to check my follow up on this post here: http://www.kareldonk.com/karel/2008/09/25/canon-eos-50d-not-worth-it-save-your-money-part-ii/

    See what others are saying.

    The 40D AF (and 50D AF as well since they are the same) is crap in AI Servo mode. Just search what Rob Galbraith has to say about it.

    Reply
  5. gpx4-is-an-idiot-gadget-collector

    This author seems to be afflicted with feature-itis, like most equipment collectors who view DSLRs the same way as cellphones, MP3 players & laptops. You didn’t even bother to itemize what & why the D300 & D90 are superior to the 50D, given the price delta between these 3 cameras. Perusing the specs sheet, the 50D improves on most of the 40D specs that were inferior to the D300, which is a significantly pricier camera. And you couldn’t even give a single reason why the D90 is superior to the 50D, disregarding the toy-like video feature on that camera. This blog would have been more credible if it contained more facts than childish diatribes.

    Reply
  6. Karel Donk

    The facts are there, also in the follow up. See for yourself what others are saying. Do your own research, form your own conclusion.

    Reply
  7. alex

    Hey dude, how much did nikon paid you for this post? or is it just to hava a “word” and cause some controversy, I’m a Nikon user but seeing this kind of posts maight change my perception of Canon… I saw other reviews other that yours and for the price the quality of this camera is astonishing….

    Reply
  8. Karel Donk

    Nikon didn’t pay me anything. Read my follow up here and see what others are saying:
    http://www.kareldonk.com/karel/2008/09/25/canon-eos-50d-not-worth-it-save-your-money-part-ii/

    Also read this review:
    http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_50D/index.shtml

    You will see that the 50D offers little improvement over the 40D, that noise is the same or worse, and that the Nikon D300 beats it in almost every aspect at only $200 more expensive at the time of writing this. And to think the D300 is already a year old!

    Especially read the verdict here:
    http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_50D/verdict.shtml

    But Canon’s bold claims of matching the noise levels of the earlier EOS 40D were confirmed in our High ISO tests. From 100 to 1600 ISO, the EOS 50D’s output really is very similar to that from the EOS 40D when viewed at 100% on a pixel level. At 3200 ISO, the 50D applies greater noise reduction, but tone it down a notch and again it looks similar to the 40D. Admittedly the 50D’s 6400 and 12800 ISO modes are a step too far,

    The addition of contrast-based autofocus in Live View was inevitable, but it’s relatively slow and best-used for static subjects and a tripod-based camera. This effectively renders the new face detection mode redundant, as while subjects are recognised instantly, it’s several seconds before the camera locks focus on them – by which time they’ll inevitably have moved.

    Some early adopters have also reported a higher than average occurrence of Error-99 lens communication issues with the 50D. We tested our 50D with a variety of lenses and only experienced the Error-99 with a well-worn press sample of the EF-S 17-85mm IS, and then only at certain focal lengths. When we switched to a newer private sample of this lens, we had no issues. This is something we will monitor though and report back with any updates.

    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.

    By sharing a number of core specs with the 40D though, the 50D remains behind certain key aspects of the D300. Nikon’s body boasts a viewfinder with 100% coverage to the 50D’s 95% and an AF system with a whopping 51-points to the 50D’s nine; Canon also continues to look old fashioned by forcing you to buy and fit an optional focusing screen to see a grid in the viewfinder, while Nikon offers on-demand LCD markings which can simply be switched on and off. The D300 additionally offers more professional features like 9-frame bracketing, a built-in intervalometer and a shutter block rated for 50% more shots (150k compared to 100k on the 50D).

    Reply
  9. Pingback: Karel Donk » Blog Archive » Canon EOS 50D: Not worth it. Save your money. - Part III
  10. Leroy

    I always wonder why Karel feels the need to use bold leters for special emphasis in making a point. Kinda makes me suspect that if he where sitting across the table from me he would also raise his voice too, Popping temple veins and all

    Reply
  11. Karel Donk

    Just to hilight the important bits for those who are skimming. :)

    Reply
  12. Pingback: Karel Donk » Blog Archive » Canon has lost it
  13. Pingback: Karel Donk’s Blog » Blog Archive » Canon EOS 7D: Looking Very Promising
  14. Nathan Griffin

    I’m the happy owner of a 40d and didn’t regret my purchase much when the new 50d came out. The bigger screen would be nice, but the pixel increase, and larger file sizes, doesn’t sound enticing to me.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>