So i still have a canon 350d and i want to upgrade to a new body. I have been shooting a lot of sports lately and the rebel xt's 3 fps is just way too slow for me and while i have taken some decent pictures at iso1600 i would like something with better low light performance. I don't have a fast lens but the jump to one of the f2.8 lenses is just out of my price range at the moment.

My cousin is on a traveling youth baseball team and from what i have seen/heard the parents in these circles pay decent money for action shots. I want to start shooting his games and whatever other youth events around for the experience shooting good action shots as well as potentially selling some prints to parents, anything that could potentially contribute to equipment upgrades is worth trying imo.

Anyways, i am torn between the 40d and 50d. My main criteria is decently fast continuous speed and good low light performance. The amount of megapixels isn't really a big deal. I know the 50d has better live view and a nicer lcd but it's also more costly than the 40d and some say noisier since there are 50% more mp on the same size sensor.

Any of you guys have experience with either body and can offer any advice?

 

-----signature-----

As far as what I've read. I've come to understand that the 50d is a small upgrade from the 40d.


As for fast lenses, why not buy a canon 50mm f/1.8 ? outstanding performance for very cheap

 

-----signature-----

Oh i am definitely going to buy the 50 1.8 one of these days but i meant fast lens in the telephoto range. I have been using a sigma 70-300 that was like 200 bucks but on the long end its 5.6 so at night baseball games i had to jump up to iso 1600 to get a good shutter speed. afaik the sigma 70-200 2.8 is one of the cheapest and it's still like 800 bucks.

 

-----signature-----

True. Fast Zoom lenses are expensive.

You should look into if you can make do with a 200mm lens. A fast 200mm shouldn't be too expensive


As for high ISO, you should see ALOT better results if you upgrade your camera. (and I think 50d is quite a bit better in that respect then the 40d)


Tests for both cameras (I've linked the ISO tests):


http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page17.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/page18.asp

 

-----signature-----

Yeah i think the improved low light will be a huge upgrade on either body. I think my deciding factor is just whatever good deal i can find first i will take. I think i can probably get a 40d body for 500ish while the 50ds seem to be going for 7-800.

 

-----signature-----

Ended up getting a 40d from craigslist for 540 bucks, only bummer is it didn't come with the bundled software but hopefully i can download it somewhere. Now i just need to scrounge up enough for some f2.8 lenses and i'm set.

 

-----signature-----

I bought the cheap 50 f/1.8 today and took it out for about an hour, from the reviews i expected it to be made out of cardboard but it was a little more durable than i thought. Now i just need something to replace the wide end of the kit lens. Couple samples that i liked.





more on my flickr etc.

 

-----signature-----

Very nice and congrats


I think you'll be very happy with that combo (even though it's not Nikon )

 

-----signature-----

sorry for coming to the party late, I just found out VN has a photography board. I have the 50D and absolutely love it. Although it has the stock 28-135mm lens. That will be changing soon, since my wife is really into portrait shots...

 

-----signature-----