Canon 5D mk II vs 50D at 1600 ISO

[gmorstad]

No responses on my question yet.  I did forget to add the only other factor which of course is price. 
Bob, I read your reviews and the image quality for print size seems clear with the 5D, however I am not sure about the 50D.

Thanks again.

[SidSP]

Hi gmorstad,
I have both the 50D and 5DMkII.  Tho' I am primarily an outdoor photographer, I have used both at ISO 1600.  However, I do not print to 16x20.  Thus our applications are somewhat different. 

For what they are worth, these are my observations:
(1)  One can make tolerable ISO=1600 photos with the 50D IF the image is properly exposed and one is willing to pp with some noise reduction software like Noise Ninja.
(2)  The intrinsic noise at ISO=1600 is substantially less with the 5DMkII.  If well exposed, noise is practically negligible and most easy to correct with noise reduction software.
(3)  If there are deep shadows in the image (e.g. underexposed in the shadows for whatever reason; perhaps extremely high dynamic range in the image), there is much, much, much (note the much 3 times) more headroom with the 5DMkII to pull the details out of the shadows.

I bought the 50D for shooting BIF and the 5DMkII for everything else.  Most BIFs are against the sky and are heavily backlit.  Thus, one tends to exposure compensate by 1-2 stops.  If I don't do that, I find I can make better final images of BIFs with the 5DMkII than the 50D because of that additional headroom for lifting details from the underside of the birds in pp.

I hope this helps...

[Bob Atkins]

I don't own either the 50D or the 5D MkII, but I have tested and shot with both. My general observations would agree with the previous poster. The 5D mkII will be better, but just how much better - and at what print size it would be obvious - is hard to say.

[cassandra_31]

My dad owns the 5D and i tried to used it before.It is really great and i must say it gives a best shot.I just don't know the price.