Please share your thoughts on this: 1000D to 2nd-hand 50D

Hello everyone. I'm pretty much drooling over this 2nd-hand 50D offer. I'm not sure if it's a good buy.


I'm a hobbyist and I currently have the kit lens and the nifty-fifty only and the 580EX II.


Since this offer was slammed into my face -- a rarely used 2nd-hand 50D for about USD 890.00 including a battery grip and wired shutter-release..


I know the full potential of this body will be harnessed with good glass but I don't have the cash shell out yet but I was thinking of getting this deal by selling my 1000D kit.


Your thoughts will be very much appreciated.


Thank you always for your help and input.


- Angelo

Looks like a decent deal if the body is in good shape. Not awesome, but decent. When the 60D was announced, Henry's in Canada put their 50Ds on clearance for $799.99 body only. Add in another $100 tax, and you're at a price similar to this used one. I'm not sure what the 50D prices are in the US. Assuming you can find a similar US price for a new camera, you're basically getting a free grip and shutter release cable.


As for whether it's worth it for you, only you can answer. How much can you sell your XS for? You'll need new memory cards, and potentially new spare batteries, factor those into the cost.


Now, is the cost worth it to get a more solid body, faster frame rate, slightly better high-ISO, spot metering, AF microadjust, the extra info LCD panel, the joystick (I have no idea what it's for TBH), and potentially a few more bells and whistles? Up to you.

Thanks David for your input.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

Looks like a decent deal if the body is in good shape. Not awesome, but decent. When the 60D was announced, Henry's in Canada put their 50Ds on clearance for $799.99 body only. Add in another $100 tax, and you're at a price similar to this used one. I'm not sure what the 50D prices are in the US. Assuming you can find a similar US price for a new camera, you're basically getting a free grip and shutter release cable.

---

<div>I agree that it's a decent deal. The body's really in a good shape looks really not very much used as the owner has a 5dmkII.</div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

As for whether it's worth it for you, only you can answer. How much can you sell your XS for? You'll need new memory cards, and potentially new spare batteries, factor those into the cost.

---

Probably I can only sell my XS kit for only half of the 50d body or lower.. I have taken into consideration that the 50d have different set of memory cards and battery and I am looking for other means to fill-in the gap. [:D]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

<div>Now, is the cost worth it to get a more solid body, faster frame rate, slightly better high-ISO, spot metering, AF microadjust, the extra info LCD panel, the joystick (I have no idea what it's for TBH), and potentially a few more bells and whistles? Up to you.</div>

---

I think the higher ISO will be very helpful and the AF microadjust and faster frame rate will be sweet! The only thing I am hesitant about is that as of the moment I'll not be able to maximize it's full potential as I have only the basic glass. [:(] But I'm thinking, I can't borrow some lens if the need arises.

Personally, I would go for at least one lens upgrade before getting a body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

Personally, I would go for at least one lens upgrade before getting a body.

---

Honestly I would like to go this way too but it will take me another year to get a lens upgrade unless I'm able to get lucky and hit the jackpot! But if this happens.. there'll be no nice problem.. [:D]

I'd think about another lens as well, but with the 50d and 50mm, you can do alot with it for just a hobbiest. That's my 90% combo as well, the price isnt to bad if the camera, grip, batteries are in decent shape. But its more important for glass than body. Glass will always do better than a nice body vs crappy glass. Just double check what you output most of the time. You'll be set.

Thanks Steven for your input. I'm now thinking of passing up on the offer. I guess you guys are right on this point:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steven23

... Glass will always do better than a nice body vs crappy glass. ...

---

[:D]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrGreenBug

it will take me another year to get a lens upgrade unless I'm able to get lucky and hit the jackpot!

---

Well, $890USD will buy a lot of lenses. If it were me, I'd get these:



<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />

• $100 Nikon 55mm f/2.8 Macro from KEH (with $5 e-bay adapter)
• 
  <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />
  $200 Sigma 18-50 f/2.8-4.5 new from B&amp;H
• $200 Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 APO-M new from B&amp;H
• $400 Sigma 10-20 used

<div>That would cover a really wide range of subjects and have a much larger effect than upgrading your body. You can always sell them later when you get money for really nice lenses.</div>

Hi Daniel! You've got a point here. Indeed, that's a lot of decent glass you've listed there. Now, I am really passing up on the deal.. I guess this one is the deal breaker here.


Thank you everyone for all your help and input. Certainly, sometimes the "WANT" is just toooo much to handle and clouds the minds and the "NEED" gets overlooked.


Thanks for shedding light into my little dilemma.


You guys are always the best!!!


Anyhow, just want to share a little something from my nifty-fifty and 1000D that I took earlier..


http://lh6.ggpht.com/_7nO3EBpvAsc/TI...0/IMG_0267.JPG


1000D + 50mm f/1.8 @ 50mm, f/2.8, 1/100sec, ISO 400

That's a great shot! Who says you can't do big-game photography with the 50mm? [:D]

[:D] Thanks Daniel!

Hi again! I

Have you considered the ef-s 17-55 lens? You lose a good bit of the focal length compared to the 24-105, but you will gain low light performance. I have the 50D (and the 17-55) and I love the camera. But there is almost always a better camera body to buy. So no matter what you have there will be something better out there and you will probably want it. As far as the lens goes, there isn't another lens that I would want for it's purpose over my 17-55. This is a different train of thought compared to the other posts here, but one worth mentioning I think. Also keep in mind that a 24mm lens isn't very wide for a 1.6 fovcf camera.


Good luck.


Braden

Thanks Braden for your thoughts. I

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnGelo Chiu

I've thought of the 17-55mm but I really don't go wide even on my kit lens as I try to avoid the distortion it has on the wide end. I limit myself in shooting at 24mm mark on the kit lens as much as possible.

---

Couple of things to consider in that regard. First, the 17-55mm has substantially less distortion at 17mm (2% barrel) than the 18-55mm kit lens at 18mm (3.2% barrel). It's still there, but not as bad. Second, since barrel distortion affects all zoom lenses at the wide end, you'll have barrel distortion on the 24-105mm, too. If you use the 24-105mm at 24mm, you'll be getting distortionwhich is not too different from the 17-55mm at 17mm, around1.8% barrel (and that's with the 'sweet spot' effect of using an EF lens on a 1.6x body - at 24mm on FF, distortion is over 4%). So, from the standpoint of distortion, you'd be better off with the 17-55mm, especially zoomed in a bit from the wide end, than with the 24-105mm, unless you're prepared to stay away from the wide end of that as well, and use it from ~35mm onwards (in other words, not wide angle at all).


Also, the 17-55mm delivers better resolution than the 24-105mm on a 1.6x body, and has less chromatic aberration; however, it does have more vignetting wide open than the 24-105mm (the sweet spot effect again).


Speaking of wide open, the 17-55mm is a full stop faster than the 24-105mm and that can make a big difference in some situations. The 24-105mm would be better than your kit lens, which drops to f/5.6 at the long end (where the 17-55mm would be 2 stops faster). As you say, since you use flash you may not need more light, but the wider aperture is also nice for portraits (more background blur). Also, using an f/2.8 lens activates the high-precision center AF point on cameras with that feature (your 1000D doesn't have it, but all the recent bodies do, including newer Rebel/xxxDs, the 50D and 60D, etc.).


Build quality of the 24-105mm is better than the 17-55mm, but optically I think the 17-55mm is a better choice, unless you need a zoom that runs more into the telephoto end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnGelo Chiu

I was thinking of upgrading to the 50D for the faster burst and speed. Also the ability to micro-adjust ... But since the 60D just came out.. I was wondering if getting a 50D is still any good

---

The 50D is still a fine camera, in some ways superior to the 60D (the 60D lacks AF microadjust, and has a slower frame rate). If you don't need/want video, I think the 50D is a good choice.


--John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

... So, from the standpoint of distortion, you'd be better off with the 17-55mm, especially zoomed in a bit from the wide end, than with the 24-105mm, unless you're prepared to stay away from the wide end of that as well, and use it from ~35mm onwards (in other words, not wide angle at all).

---

You've got a great point on that, John! I've overlooked that point where I'm shooting at 24mm at kit lens and assuming 24mm on a 24-105 is different on that. Now, I've really have to rethink on this purchase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Build quality of the 24-105mm is better than the 17-55mm, but optically I think the 17-55mm is a better choice, unless you need a zoom that runs more into the telephoto end.

---

I was considering the 24-105 because of it's extra reach for those times I want to go on candid mode where I have to be out of the view. The 24-105 and the 17-55 is almost the same price here. By the way, I wasn't considering the 17-55 before because I have the nifty-fifty and therefore my longing for extra reach.


Thank you John for the wonderful input. You've got me thinking again.


Angelo

Angelo,


for thatamount of moneyyou could buy the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non-OS, to replace your kitlens and add the Canon 70-200 F4L to it to aid the extra reach. You could keep the nifty-fifty for low-lights and portraits for instance. In my opinion this set is more valuable than just the 24-105 or just the Canon 17-55.


That way you would have great optical quality from 17-200mm. And also have a good low-light lens.


Obviously you would lose IS with this set. If IS is important to you, you might want to consider keeping the kitlens and the nifty-fifty and get the 70-200 F4L IS for the extra reach.


Just some ideas. Good luck man,


Jan