Canon t1i vs Canon 50d

[jhawkor]

I am in the market for my first dslr and I have narrowed it down between the 50d and the t1i. I will mostly be shooting shots of my reef tank, basketball games, and just nature in general. My question is how much better is the 50d over the t1i? I don't really care about video so that doesn't matter. I have read the sticky on how to choose a dslr and it helped me narrow these 2 down I just need to know if the 50d is $200 better than the t1i.

 

[Recty]

I'd pay $200 alone just for the ergonomics of the 50D. I dont like the way the Rebel series feels in my hands...

Have you gone to a store and held either of them yet?

 

[IPT]

I'd pay $200 alone just for the ergonomics of the 50D. I dont like the way the Rebel series feels in my hands...

Have you gone to a store and held either of them yet?

Ditto

 

[jhawkor]

I'd pay $200 alone just for the ergonomics of the 50D. I dont like the way the Rebel series feels in my hands...

Have you gone to a store and held either of them yet?

I have a friend who owns a 50d. He is going to let me try it out.

 

[Reef Bass]

50D. I own one and I'm very pleased with it. Sure, I'd like a 5D II, but that's twice as much.

I also think the 50D feels a whole lot better in my hand than the Rebel series.

 

[wetWolger]

I paid the extra $200 for the 50D....i know ergonomics may sound silly, but for me it is the difference from adjusting the speed/aperture fast enough to capture the shot, vs missing the shot (i can't adjust both through the same wheel, it just does not work with my mind). The build construction of the 50D is much better too, so if your hard on equipment, or just want that extra insurance, that alone can be worth the $200. In addition the extra 3FPS you get with the 60D compared to the T1i will help lots with action shots in basketball games and the such. If none of those features sound interesting to you, then the rebel might be a good choice, but based on your description of use, i imagine those are what would benefit you best.

 

[jhawkor]

Thanks for the responses guys. I think I'll go ahead and spend a couple extra hundred bucks and go with the 50d. How is the kit lens that comes with the 50d?

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

For indoor basketball games the kit lens isn't very good at all IMO. If its an outdoor basketball game in the bright sun the kit lens should preform fine. I would recommend picking up an 85mm f/1.8 for the Bball.

 

[jhawkor]

For indoor basketball games the kit lens isn't very good at all IMO. If its an outdoor basketball game in the bright sun the kit lens should preform fine. I would recommend picking up an 85mm f/1.8 for the Bball.

Alright, I have actually been considering that lens.

 

[wetWolger]

I purchased the kit lens with my camera. I got it to replace a crappy sigma 18-55mm 3.5f....The kit lens was worlds better than my old sigma, but it still left some to be desired.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great lens, and can produce very sharp images. But it is not very sharp at all when it is wide open (and wide open is only 3.5). I find I really have to step it down to 6.3 at least to get any clarity I am happy with.

I don't know anything about the 85 1.8, but I agree with the above comment that the kit lens wont be good for indoor photography. With that said I am very happy I got the kit lens, most my photos are on a tripod anyways, so I can step it down, or use another lens.

My next lens purchase will ether be a sigma 150mm macro or canon 100mm 2.8 USM macro (the canon 100mm might be a good lens for b-ball if your not dying to have such a fast lens, and could give good use for tank photography too, sigma makes a 90mm that is a bit cheaper and might be worth a look too).

Hope that helps, and I am not just rambling

 

[jhawkor]

I purchased the kit lens with my camera. I got it to replace a crappy sigma 18-55mm 3.5f....The kit lens was worlds better than my old sigma, but it still left some to be desired.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great lens, and can produce very sharp images. But it is not very sharp at all when it is wide open (and wide open is only 3.5). I find I really have to step it down to 6.3 at least to get any clarity I am happy with.

I don't know anything about the 85 1.8, but I agree with the above comment that the kit lens wont be good for indoor photography. With that said I am very happy I got the kit lens, most my photos are on a tripod anyways, so I can step it down, or use another lens.

My next lens purchase will ether be a sigma 150mm macro or canon 100mm 2.8 USM macro (the canon 100mm might be a good lens for b-ball if your not dying to have such a fast lens, and could give good use for tank photography too, sigma makes a 90mm that is a bit cheaper and might be worth a look too).

Hope that helps, and I am not just rambling

Helped a bunch thanks. So a macro lens can be used for more things than just macro work? What makes the Canon 100mm macro lens better at macro work than a regular 100mm? Sorry if it's a stupid question I'm new to this.

 

[Recty]

The macro lens can focus incredibly close to the end of the lens, something like 6 inches... so you get the subject very large in your viewfinder.

A regular 100mm lens might only let you focus within 2-3 feet of the end of the lens, thereby not magnifying it as much.

 

[jhawkor]

The macro lens can focus incredibly close to the end of the lens, something like 6 inches... so you get the subject very large in your viewfinder.

A regular 100mm lens might only let you focus within 2-3 feet of the end of the lens, thereby not magnifying it as much.

Gotcha, thanks.