Reviews for the 50D have been pretty grim. Apparently the picture quality of the 40D is much better.

that is not true

garycoleman said:Reviews for the 50D have been pretty grim. Apparently the picture quality of the 40D is much better.

?? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Have yet to see any neg review on the net. Do you mind posting a link to one?

azdemon said:Review1
Review2
Review3
Review4
Review5

Grim? Well, decide for yourself. But don't buy from those high prices retailers.

I've read through a lot of the reviews and if you've purchased a DSLR in the last 18months it's probably not worth it to 'upgrade' to the 50d, however the 50D has some nice features and upgrades over the previous models and at it's price point is not a bad choice. I don't know how it compares to Nikon and Sony at that price level, I haven't really investigated that part. I think a lot of the negative feedback has been because they released the 50d sooner then the have the xxd upgrades in the past so a lot of 40D owners are trying to justify their recent purchase and not upgrading to it. I purchased my 40D at a discounted price just prior to the announcement of the 50D and was tempted to sell it but, it's still a very nice camera. If I didn't own either, I would go ahead and pay extra to get the 50D but, IMO, it's not worth it to sell/rebuy 40D to 50D.

all depends on what you're upgrading from.

and yes, in terms of the 40D, the 50D is arguably a sidegrade.

lastly, this price isn't hot. it's standard.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page1.asp for full review.

garycoleman said:b0bzilla said:garycoleman said:Reviews for the 50D have been pretty grim. Apparently the picture quality of the 40D is much better.

?? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Have yet to see any neg review on the net. Do you mind posting a link to one?

yes i know what i am talking about. if you ever go on the POTN forums you will see a lot of people who are not impressed after upgrading to a 50D.

So...what? That means nothing. You have nothing to add really, and it shows. Azdemon linked several reviews that, while not exactly scientific, at least provide some credible info on the 50d. None of them come close to "pretty grim" but then I guess none of them use POTN as their authority, unlike you LOL.

chocoruacal said:garycoleman said:b0bzilla said:garycoleman said:Reviews for the 50D have been pretty grim. Apparently the picture quality of the 40D is much better.
?? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Have yet to see any neg review on the net. Do you mind posting a link to one?
yes i know what i am talking about. if you ever go on the POTN forums you will see a lot of people who are not impressed after upgrading to a 50D.
So...what? That means nothing. You have nothing to add really, and it shows. Azdemon linked several reviews that, while not exactly scientific, at least provide some credible info on the 50d. None of them come close to "pretty grim" but then I guess none of them use POTN as their authority, unlike you LOL.
He's right that relative to previous Canon x0D cameras, it's pretty grim. That line of Canon's cameras used to be recognized as best in class, absolutely untouchable by the competition. It's slipped recently, starting with the 40D (or perhaps more accurately, the competition has gotten much better). The 50D is frankly underwhelming in comparison to the competition. Unless you already have an investment in Canon glass, I would take a good hard look at Nikon's offerings and maybe even Olympus/Sony before pulling the trigger. I've been a Canon user since the mid-90s. But right now when people ask my advice for a good entry to mid-level SLR to buy, I mostly end up steering them towards the Nikons. (That's if they persist beyond my initial spiel of, "Worry about what lenses to get, not the body. You'll probably replace the body in a few years. The lenses will be with you for decades.")

Its biggest criticism seems to be poor low light performance. Increased noise in those situations than in previous models, as well as over-aggressive noise reduction causing loss of detail. I know this is just one aspect of the camera's performance, and it's nit-picky to harp on it. But IMHO one of the main reasons to go from a point and shoot to an SLR is that low light performance. If you're going to use a flash to light up the scene, the picture isn't going to look much different whether it's shot with an SLR or a point and shoot. And sacrificing that low light performance to go to 15 MP (equivalent to a 47"x 32" image on a 100 dpi monitor, an "improvement" over the 39" x 26" image of the 40D) seems like a dubious tradeoff. You'd need 9 HDTVs arranged in a 2.5x3 grid to be able to fully appreciate its resolution. It's overkill.

Hard to beat $1150 Buy it now on eBay and 25% off of that with CashBack live thru MicroSoft and Paypal...

So that is like $900 or so.....

garycoleman said:Reviews for the 50D have been pretty grim. Apparently the picture quality of the 40D is much better.

What you talkin 'bout, Willis???