D90 or 50D for landscape
Discussion
My Dimmage A2 has finally died and I've now decided to upgrade to a DSLR. My interests are predominately landscape, both in low light conditions and daylight , so to speak.
Looking at my budget, I've narrowed down my choice to a D90 or 50D and picking one of the two is proving none too easy.
If anyone has hands on experience of either or both, I'd greatly appreciate your views.
For lenses, most likely I'd stay with the kit one for either and pick up a UWA as well. For the Cannon, due to cost it'll probably be the Sigma 10-20. If I go for the Nikon, I may be able to stretch to their 10 - 24 which looks like being a better bit of kit, not to say the Sigma isn't very well regarded though. The idea of a super zoom instead of the kit lens is appealing but probably out of my budget at this time, especially after I pick up cards, case, filters etc.
The problem I’m having is distilling the facts, for example some reviews make comment about poor low light noise on the 50D, others don’t. I’ve seen sample shots that show noise in this way, and others that don’t. As most of my photography won’t be at high ISO, so i’m not that interested in camera performance at 1600 iso and up etc.
I guess the questions I have are, irrespective of image size and pixel mining, which camera produces the best image? I’ll be printing anything decent I manage to take. If the 50D is poor in low light, is it bad enough to prevent me taking reasonably long exposures at night? I’d really like to be able combine night landscapes with the night sky. Also how does the A/F compare between the two, with Nikon’s 3d system and Canon’s 9 pointer. Alternatively, if anyone knows of a decent site showing landscape, both daylight and low light images for either camera, that would help greatly as well.
I’ve Played with the 90 and 50, both feel comfortable, the Nikon feels a little more natural but I’m not averse to re-learning how I use a camera. Also, I’ve discounted the 40D mainly due to the low resolution screen, as I do like to review images as I go and also the Sony’s, due to lack of an LCD display on top.
I know any resulting image has a lot to do with the lens used, for now I’ll be sticking with the above options although in the future, faster glass will be bought. This is a significant purchase for me and partly due to a trip to NZ next year. Anything more advanced, like a D300, is out of the question as my other half will be using the camera as well and is relatively new to photography.
Sorry for the rambling, it's been a long day.
Looking at my budget, I've narrowed down my choice to a D90 or 50D and picking one of the two is proving none too easy.
If anyone has hands on experience of either or both, I'd greatly appreciate your views.
For lenses, most likely I'd stay with the kit one for either and pick up a UWA as well. For the Cannon, due to cost it'll probably be the Sigma 10-20. If I go for the Nikon, I may be able to stretch to their 10 - 24 which looks like being a better bit of kit, not to say the Sigma isn't very well regarded though. The idea of a super zoom instead of the kit lens is appealing but probably out of my budget at this time, especially after I pick up cards, case, filters etc.
The problem I’m having is distilling the facts, for example some reviews make comment about poor low light noise on the 50D, others don’t. I’ve seen sample shots that show noise in this way, and others that don’t. As most of my photography won’t be at high ISO, so i’m not that interested in camera performance at 1600 iso and up etc.
I guess the questions I have are, irrespective of image size and pixel mining, which camera produces the best image? I’ll be printing anything decent I manage to take. If the 50D is poor in low light, is it bad enough to prevent me taking reasonably long exposures at night? I’d really like to be able combine night landscapes with the night sky. Also how does the A/F compare between the two, with Nikon’s 3d system and Canon’s 9 pointer. Alternatively, if anyone knows of a decent site showing landscape, both daylight and low light images for either camera, that would help greatly as well.
I’ve Played with the 90 and 50, both feel comfortable, the Nikon feels a little more natural but I’m not averse to re-learning how I use a camera. Also, I’ve discounted the 40D mainly due to the low resolution screen, as I do like to review images as I go and also the Sony’s, due to lack of an LCD display on top.
I know any resulting image has a lot to do with the lens used, for now I’ll be sticking with the above options although in the future, faster glass will be bought. This is a significant purchase for me and partly due to a trip to NZ next year. Anything more advanced, like a D300, is out of the question as my other half will be using the camera as well and is relatively new to photography.
Sorry for the rambling, it's been a long day.
Well, I've not used either of the cameras you're considering, but here are my thoughts anyway.
Image quality wise, I'd very much suspect that there is hardly any difference. Technique and the lens will have a far greater influence on the technical quality of the photos than the difference between the two cameras IMO. The 50D has a few million more pixels, which may be a slight advantage if you want to make large prints.
I think the comments about the 50D's noise are not because it's especially bad, rather that it is no better than it's predecessor, the 40D, thanks to it's higher pixel density. Again, I think the 50D and D90 probably have pretty similar performance. Also, as you alluded to, landscape photography doesn't usually need high sensitivity settings.
Autofocus ability, I don't know, but that's another area where the lens plays a big part. The 50D uses CF cards and can shoot slightly faster in continuous mode if either of those things matter to you.
They're pretty closely matched and image quality is probably one of the last things to split them, so if you prefer the way the Nikon feels to use, then I'd recommend that one. It's also a bit cheaper.
Image quality wise, I'd very much suspect that there is hardly any difference. Technique and the lens will have a far greater influence on the technical quality of the photos than the difference between the two cameras IMO. The 50D has a few million more pixels, which may be a slight advantage if you want to make large prints.
I think the comments about the 50D's noise are not because it's especially bad, rather that it is no better than it's predecessor, the 40D, thanks to it's higher pixel density. Again, I think the 50D and D90 probably have pretty similar performance. Also, as you alluded to, landscape photography doesn't usually need high sensitivity settings.
Autofocus ability, I don't know, but that's another area where the lens plays a big part. The 50D uses CF cards and can shoot slightly faster in continuous mode if either of those things matter to you.
They're pretty closely matched and image quality is probably one of the last things to split them, so if you prefer the way the Nikon feels to use, then I'd recommend that one. It's also a bit cheaper.
50D has more resolution, D90 has more dynamic range.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
Compare the test scenes see what you think.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
Compare the test scenes see what you think.
Sloe said:
Anything more advanced, like a D300, is out of the question as my other half will be using the camera as well and is relatively new to photography.
A D300 can still be set to Program mode and shoot JPGs 
However on balance you may well do better going for the lesser option and spending the difference on glass, which will make more of a difference to the results.
High-ISO noise and long exposure noise are (I think) two different issues - remember also that it's all too easy to zoom into 100% and see 'noise', which in fact is invisible in a realistic sized print.
Not sure that AF performance is very important for landscapes.
The biggest factor will probably be the landscape you find and your compositional treatment of it
Sloe said:
Anything more advanced, like a D300, is out of the question as my other half will be using the camera as well and is relatively new to photography.
I also picked up on this... D300 in 'P' mode will get good results - no technical knowledge needed.If you can afford the 300 it's a lot better then the 90 and 50.
Landscape? Ultra-wide-angle? Low light?
I think you'd be better off with a second hand Canon 5D mk1 than either of those cameras (assuming budget won't stretch to a mk2). Partner it with a 17-40 'L' (or maybe a sigma 12-24 if you have the other focal lenths covered) and you'll be sorted.
Gary.
I think you'd be better off with a second hand Canon 5D mk1 than either of those cameras (assuming budget won't stretch to a mk2). Partner it with a 17-40 'L' (or maybe a sigma 12-24 if you have the other focal lenths covered) and you'll be sorted.
Gary.
Many thanks for your replies and advice, I've been on holiday recently so I've only picked this up again a couple of days ago.
I've looked at the D300 and whist the opinion is that it's a very accomplished piece of kit, it can be a bit tricky to get the best out of it (micro adjust exposure and focusing etc). I think for my abilities and my GF's, it's a layer of complexity too far this time round. We'd also have to go second hand to afford the lenses (I think) we're after.
As for a full frame, I'm not good enough to warrant it, not by a long long way. Also, I'll be lugging it into the hills fairly often but as taking photos isn't the reason I head for the mountains, my walking / camping kit takes priority so a full frame will be too big and too heavy I think.
Thanks for the image comparison link, we both prefer the Nikon's picture but only slightly and the 50D definately resolves more detail. Against the Nikon though, as I've now found is the lack of processing software that comes with the camera, as oposed to Canon's included suit. I've got a version of PS, although it's years old replacing it is another expense I'd like to avoid at this time. Added to all this is the greater range in lenses available from Canon.
I think I'm talking myself into the 50D corner, but one of my original questions still stands. Does anyone have experience of image quality / noise when using the canon in low light conditions at ISO's of 400/800 and below?
I've looked at the D300 and whist the opinion is that it's a very accomplished piece of kit, it can be a bit tricky to get the best out of it (micro adjust exposure and focusing etc). I think for my abilities and my GF's, it's a layer of complexity too far this time round. We'd also have to go second hand to afford the lenses (I think) we're after.
As for a full frame, I'm not good enough to warrant it, not by a long long way. Also, I'll be lugging it into the hills fairly often but as taking photos isn't the reason I head for the mountains, my walking / camping kit takes priority so a full frame will be too big and too heavy I think.
Thanks for the image comparison link, we both prefer the Nikon's picture but only slightly and the 50D definately resolves more detail. Against the Nikon though, as I've now found is the lack of processing software that comes with the camera, as oposed to Canon's included suit. I've got a version of PS, although it's years old replacing it is another expense I'd like to avoid at this time. Added to all this is the greater range in lenses available from Canon.
I think I'm talking myself into the 50D corner, but one of my original questions still stands. Does anyone have experience of image quality / noise when using the canon in low light conditions at ISO's of 400/800 and below?
Low noise is not the 50D's forte (chap I sit next to at work has one and we compare photos), although if you stay below ISO 800 you should be ok.
You don't need any extra skill to go full-frame and there's very little in it weight wise - 50D (730g), 5D mk1 (890g), 5D mk2 (810g).
Spend some time searching and you'll see that for landscape/portrait photography the 5D is held in much higher regard than the 50D. You also get a better choice of lenses...but from the sound of it you may have made up your mind already!
You don't need any extra skill to go full-frame and there's very little in it weight wise - 50D (730g), 5D mk1 (890g), 5D mk2 (810g).
Spend some time searching and you'll see that for landscape/portrait photography the 5D is held in much higher regard than the 50D. You also get a better choice of lenses...but from the sound of it you may have made up your mind already!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff