View Full Version : 50D vs D90
Nickcanada
08-29-2008, 09:38 AM
It's hard to be objective because I'm so invested in Canon but I would pick the 50D over the D90.
If I was new to DSLRs, I think I would pick the D90. If you look at the specs the 50D beats the D90 but not by a huge margin then you look at the movie mode and price the D90 looks like the obvious choice for 90% of people looking for a DSLR in that price range.
cdifoto
08-29-2008, 10:18 AM
I haven't really looked at either one, mostly because I'm not in the market for anything. Based on that, I'd say as long as they aren't worse than previous models, either one should be fine. We reached a critical mass several years ago. It's a matter of refinement now - and none of those refinements make or break photography.
DonSchap
08-29-2008, 10:20 AM
Looks like it's .... ROAD TRIP, time, there, Don!
C'mon ... "CHANGE is a calling", they tell me. LOL
Nickcanada
08-29-2008, 11:18 AM
Here are the basics as I see them.
50D
15 MP
6.3 FPS
ISO 100-3200 and expanded up to 12800
VGA screen
9 focus points.
$1450 Candian
D90
12.9 MP
4.5 FPS
first DSLR with video
ISO 200-3200 expanded to 100 and 6400
11 focus points
$1120 Canadian
If I were starting over I would probably be purchasing a D90. But, like CDI said everything in the past few years is just refinement, my current equipment does just fine. None of the new features will make or break a shot.
Nickcanada
08-29-2008, 11:35 AM
If I were starting over I would probably be purchasing a D90. But, like CDI said everything in the past few years is just refinement, my current equipment does just fine. None of the new features will make or break a shot.
Agreed, I could use the extra ISO though.
Notice threads like this never go anywhere here and every other photography forum has ten threads just like this that seem to go on forever?! don't get me wrong, I think it's a good thing.
alan328
08-29-2008, 11:57 AM
If I were starting over I would probably be purchasing a D90. But, like CDI said everything in the past few years is just refinement, my current equipment does just fine. None of the new features will make or break a shot.
Totally agree!
Especially after seeing their sample photos.....
Nikon D90 samples (http://dcuser.net/nikon/nikon-d90-announcement.html)
Canon EOS 50D samples (http://dcuser.net/canon/canon-eos-50d-announcement.html)
Although I am a long time Canon user, I have to say, D90 is a better choice.... :o
erichlund
08-29-2008, 03:48 PM
I don't mean to be contentious, but have the Canon semi-pro cameras fallen on such hard times that they must be compared to Nikon's top amateur models now. The 50D does have the mag body and it fits in the Canon lineup where a semi-pro should be. Should't we be comparing it to the D300, what "should" be it's direct competitor.
Here's the real problem with these comparisons. The makers don't cooperate and fill each slot exactly the same way. So the 50D sits between the D90 and the D300. The 40D is only 6 months old, but it's more directly competitive with the new D90 in terms of resolution.
Personally, I don't think it makes any difference. They're all good, capable machines. Get what suits your style and budget.
Oh, and make sure you can mount your current lenses or you will have to go to the bother of selling them.
James DeRuvo DHQ
09-02-2008, 11:21 AM
I think we need to move out of "body think" and start thinking of a camera as a system. Lenses are where it's truly at and where the money should be spent. And outside of exponential upgrades where dramatic new features are introduced, is it really worth it to buy a body for a few more megapixels that won't really be seen unless you enlarge above 11x14?
Unless you're the type who needs to have the latest first, I think it's worth it to either spend your money on better lenses or wait at least until after CES/PIMA for the inevitable price drops.
Bodies will come and go. But the lenses, that's where the money should be.
fionndruinne
09-02-2008, 01:26 PM
Yeah, I second the opinion that the 50D is more comparable to the D300 than the D90, and the 40D is a much closer comparison.
... I mean, if you've noticed that those two Canon models just fall short against their corresponding Nikons, and you can't stand that fact, then maybe you can compare the 50D to the D90, just to bolster yourself in whatever way you can...
(relax guys, you've still got the 1Ds Mk. III)
Geoff Chandler
09-02-2008, 03:11 PM
It's the age old debate repeating itself over and over.
James DeRuvo's point about lenses is important to consider.
Or
If you are like me and just want something pretty decent, &
better than P&S etc - go with whatever feels and suits you.
Despite lenses being the thing - the bodies are also important for me
as I am quite sensitive to different feel and handling - also layout.
Which would I buy if I were starting from scratch?
Can't say 100% unless I go into the shop and handle both of them..
I don't like them too heavy - so I prefered the D80 over the 30D at the time
(only a small weight difference compared to others) also I prefered
the D80 over the D200 because of size and weight - I was imagining I
might get a little Olympus - but they felt less secure in my hands.
Most of these new cameras are really good and it will be a matter of which lenses you can get for them and how they feel and operate in your hands.
fionndruinne
09-02-2008, 11:36 PM
Talking systems, if you're into flash photography (I'm not), Nikon has the edge. Glasswise, I'd say the two giants are pretty darn close. Nikon has just been on a roll lately in the new bodies they're offering. That's clear to see. Any more ragging on Canon I might do is just because I like raising hackles now and then.
downtrodden
09-02-2008, 11:38 PM
I can't wait to see what the 5d's replacement brings.
Boy I hope i'm not disappointed.
Glasswise, I'd say the two giants are pretty darn close.
nikons primes, which optically are close, are nowhere near canon in terms of overall performance. ie: no afs. this is the 21st century, screw drive primes dont cut it no more.
their top end zooms like the 14-24 and 24-70 are better performers BUT guess what...no 70-200/4 IS, (which imo is the best overall lens on earth), and no 17-40/4. that absolutely sucks ass.
fionndruinne
09-03-2008, 12:13 PM
Well, Canon has more options in that range, I agree, but there's a limit to what real people can afford to want. :) I agree about those screw drive primes though. High time for Nikon to update their classics. But still, I think either brand could satisfy just about anyone with their lens options.
High time for Nikon to update their classics.
yes...it is. :)
http://nikonrumors.com/2008/09/01/3-lenses-confirmed-for-photokina.aspx
aparmley
09-05-2008, 12:56 PM
Here are the basics as I see them.
50D
15 MP - doesnt matter
6.3 FPS - doesn't matter
ISO 100-3200 and expanded up to 12800 - depending on how clean 12800 could be useful for some.
VGA screen - not sure I follow the significance of this.
9 focus points. - still don't understand why we don't see more.
$1450 Candian
D90
12.9 MP - doesn't matter
4.5 FPS - doesn't matter
first DSLR with video - huge! Big DSLR sensor + DOF control + VR support unbelievably huge.
ISO 200-3200 expanded to 100 and 6400 - depending on how clean 6400 is could be useful for some
11 focus points - not much improvement, D300 has 51, we can't squeeze another 10 or so on the D90?
$1120 Canadian
Thats how I feel. I'm not taking a swing at you Nick. Just calling them how I see 'em. With each generation of midrange DSLR we're seeing improved ISO performance, this is good. I don't think ISO performance is enough anymore to sway people. Based on the performance of Nikon and Canon's high ISO these days, its a cats game. FPS - not sure why this is such a big selling point. Focus points to a degree are important but if your like me, they are never placed where you want them, the 51 on D300 are even so close that I scratch my head sometimes - its almost the same aread covered by the D90s 11 points but with an extra 40 of them crammed in there. MPs are not important to me, as long as I have 8 I think I'm happy. Maybe in 5 years I'll chuckle at that statement but my point really is that 15 vs 12.9, too close to matter.
Thats how I feel.
The D90 - as long as there is no long term effects of taking a lot of video - stands to be a huge deal for Nikon. Canon putting video in the DSLRs actually cuts into their camcorder line. It gets tricky for Canon. They'll follow suit I'm sure, but they'll need to completely rethink there digital camcorders (IMHO). I am far from a creative person and I'm just salavating at the thought of all the creative possibilities that this one DSLR can bring to the table. I'm thinking very serious about pissing the wife off by buying one - and I'm not even in the market for a new body - I am in the market for a camcorder and was looking at spending about 800-1000 bucks on one. Now, I won't have to spend that money on another item to lug around, better low light recording quality, and total creative control over DOF and focus and I'll have a killer built in DSLR that works with all my lenses. shawinggggg!
faisal
09-06-2008, 07:20 AM
I'm thinking very serious about pissing the wife off by buying one - and I'm not even in the market for a new body - I am in the market for a camcorder and was looking at spending about 800-1000 bucks on one. Now, I won't have to spend that money on another item to lug around, better low light recording quality, and total creative control over DOF and focus and I'll have a killer built in DSLR that works with all my lenses. shawinggggg!
A D90 is not even close to replacing a camcorder. 5mins of recording is nothing to be honest. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with having a video mode. But unless they remove that 5mins cap on recording time it doesn't matter to me. All in all I'll be completely neutral between the two bodies if I didn't have a Canon.
erichlund
09-06-2008, 10:49 AM
Really? I wonder how many people really record more than 5 minutes at a time with their camcorders. I suppose if you are recording your kids in the play, but then really, a camcorder is what that sort of thing is designed for. But, for catching a video moment? I just can't see that it's that big a deal.
aparmley
09-06-2008, 05:59 PM
Really? I wonder how many people really record more than 5 minutes at a time with their camcorders. I suppose if you are recording your kids in the play, but then really, a camcorder is what that sort of thing is designed for. But, for catching a video moment? I just can't see that it's that big a deal.
I completely agree with you erichlund. I'm not one of those people that are going to hit record and walk away, I'm going to shoot a minute clip, maybe 2 tops and then even edit that down most likely. 5 minutes is plenty. I wasn't going to buy a camcorder to just hit record and leave it on for 20-30 minutes. I'm not going to record a charile rose type of interview from one static angle for 30+ minutes with it and if I did want to record some type of event that lasts longer than 5 minutes I wouldn't bore my audience to death with just one angle for 5 minutes or longer. :eek:
on average my videos are 1-2minutes long. i cant remember ever seeing anything over 4minutes.
faisal
09-06-2008, 10:48 PM
There have been several instances for me where my videos have been longer than 5 minutes(birthday parties, friends outing, niece videos etc)...so for me a camcorder cannot be replaced YET!!!
As I said earlier, if that 5 minutes cap is gone, I'd be surely interested but till then I'm not bothered though I don't want an option of shooting 640*480 for more than 5 mins, my P&S can do that...
they must be hell boring videos fais. :D
the 5 minute cap is completely irrelevant. what is probably relevant is lack of AF.
i dont think this is intended, (or even seen), as a replacement for a camcorder if you intend to take alot of video. some people want a bit of video and dont have an alternative. P&S ? sure if its broad daylight. try using it in low light, the video is complete crap. hell, even my HD Sony videocam is average in low light. saying a P&S can "do that" is the equivalent of a person scoffing at a dslr saying..."take pictures ? pffft i can do that with my little P&S."
downtrodden
09-07-2008, 01:51 AM
I think 5 mins should be more than adequate for the average person- but i just don't think a lot of people really realize it... i think people hear "5 minute recording cap" and think that's not a lot of time- not realizing most of their clips- the ones that could be labeled interesting anyway- are usually under 5 mins or should be edited down to under five minutes anyway...
Except a good fireworks display... that's a good 25 mins right there.
One question i do have- i haven't read anything on this- but will you still be able to easily take a photo during filming, or do you have to stop filming etc... How would that work?
cdifoto
09-07-2008, 02:47 AM
Well if my P&S doesn't have a recording time cap, I sure as hell wouldn't want one on my significantly costlier dSLR. Whether my videos are interesting to anyone and the quality of my P&S compared to a dSLR are irrelevant.
your significantly costlier dslr has zero recording time. i'll take the 5 minutes thanks. :)
downtrodden
09-07-2008, 03:20 AM
Do PnS not have caps anymore? I know it wasn't time cap but S3 1gb cap... S5... whatever GB cap it was... i don't remember. Can you tell I don't take long vids? I haven't looked at PnS for a while...
cdifoto
09-07-2008, 08:11 AM
your significantly costlier dslr has zero recording time. i'll take the 5 minutes thanks. :)
My significantly costlier dSLRs are also quite older and more than enough for me to create photos. I don't really need video on my dSLR in the first place, but if it's going to be a feature, limiting it to a short clip is lame.
Do PnS not have caps anymore? I know it wasn't time cap but S3 1gb cap... S5... whatever GB cap it was... i don't remember. Can you tell I don't take long vids? I haven't looked at PnS for a while...
Mine's limited to the size of the memory card as far as I've seen so far. If it does have a cap, I don't have a memory card big enough to show it. I don't know about others.
It's hard to be objective because I'm so invested in Canon but I would pick the 50D over the D90.
If I was new to DSLRs, I think I would pick the D90. If you look at the specs the 50D beats the D90 but not by a huge margin then you look at the movie mode and price the D90 looks like the obvious choice for 90% of people looking for a DSLR in that price range.
Quite honestly, unless any of the refinements were absolutely essential, I'd probably buy on price rather than on features. With the 30D knocking around for $700 in some places, why pay more just to get features that aren't that essential.
Unless you go from 8mp to 16mp or from 8mp to 20mp there's not much point in buying.
A D90 is not even close to replacing a camcorder. 5mins of recording is nothing to be honest. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with having a video mode. But unless they remove that 5mins cap on recording time it doesn't matter to me. All in all I'll be completely neutral between the two bodies if I didn't have a Canon.
My elderly Canon S1 IS will give me 8 minutes at VGA high-quality 30fps or up to an hour at CIF 15fps. That's pretty much all I use it for, these days - and holiday snaps.
I don't really need video on my dSLR in the first place, but if it's going to be a feature, limiting it to a short clip is lame.
there are lots of things we dont NEED in dslr's but are nice to have. get used to it, video is here to stay imo. i suspect most of the naysayers about video will jump on board once canon release a video capable dslr. by all accounts the 6d will have video and then we can all agree that video is a great idea. :)
cdifoto
09-07-2008, 03:07 PM
there are lots of things we dont NEED in dslr's but are nice to have. get used to it, video is here to stay imo. i suspect most of the naysayers about video will jump on board once canon release a video capable dslr. by all accounts the 6d will have video and then we can all agree that video is a great idea. :)
Read my entire statement, not just the first 8 words.
Read my entire statement, not just the first 8 words.
i would if i was really taking this discussion seriously. :eek::p
fionndruinne
09-07-2008, 03:47 PM
Give me the new Nikon technology in their most ergonomic DSLR of all, CMOS sensor and active D-Lighting... video is just icing, but at the D90's starting price point there's plenty of cake already.
FlashX83
09-07-2008, 03:56 PM
I suspect the 5 minute limit at 1280x720 is because of the 4gb file size limit of FAT32. Using MJPEG, that sounds about right to me for file size. If that's the case, it's probably a good bet that smaller sizes like 640x480 could record significantly longer.
I still keep an old Canon S2 IS around for recording short videos, but with no autofocus and MJPEG, the movie mode on the D90 wouldn't replace my S2.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.