i used my friends, and honestly i dont think its worth the upgrade. it does get pretty muddy. at iso1600-3200. i mainly shoot at 1600 and my images seem contrastier and sharper than his. He actually got kinda pissed. Its nominal yes but still true. AF is not faster, feels heavier, if "I" were to spend the money i would buy a used 5d. but i already have two 40ds and a mkii. I love, love the screen though.
Ah. Well thats a shame. I will admit that actually everyone I know with a 50D didnt own a 40D previously
yeah, i bet from a 30d or 20d standpoint that change is huge! i mean the jump from 30d to 40d was significant mainly due to the AF. I mean the Af on the 40 is way ahead of teh 20 or 30.
The review's conclusion said that the high ISO and DR is not as good as the 40D's. Few people shit a brick and called for a re-test with a better lens, etc etc.
The screen and lens adjustment are nice features over the 40D but not worth the $500 price difference, imo. Especially after looking at the 40D/50D image comparison in that review.
I have no experience with dpreview or the 50D, but to eliminate any bias I never trust a single source for a product review. As an example, my company sells Ricoh office products. 90% of the reviews I can find on this model rate it with capabilities far beyond what it can really do and also place it in a category in which reality has it far out classed. We've had a number of very pissed customers due to them just jumping in on buying it instead of comparing it with what they need. Its sorta sad, but I'm betting the reviewers never even operated that model and likely only read some product material that always hypes up anything (still talking about the printer here.)
Canon is selling 40d and 50d together (I'm 99% sure about this), in which case 40D would be the next step up.
15mp sensor vs 10.1mp, High res screen vs. standard 3" screen, Micro lens adjustment in 50D but not 40D. Can't think of anything else off the top of my head.
Always a good idea to look at multiple sources but dpreview usually has the best and most comprehensive reviews on the net.
I was expecting the Digic 4 processor to be able to overcome the lack of pixel density when compared to the 40D Digic 3 and higher pixel density count. Too bad Canon got caught up in the megapixel BS. They would've been better off with a ~ 12 mp resolution instead of 15.
50d also has digic 4 while the 40d has digic 3. i must say i never really saw the point. a cheaper full frame would have filled the gap between 40d and 5d better IMO.