So i go through a lot photography forums and there is a dislike of Canon 50D. Some even say the high ISO performance of the 40D is better than 50D. So what is true? Why is it that the latest in the double digit D models is getting the crap while 40D is being the 'preferred' option?
If this was search only, it would be a library, not a forum. If we were only allowed to chat about things that have never been covered, there'd be about 30 active threads.
Jim Victory wrote:
Normally I wouldn't say this but please do a search because this has really been beaten to death.
hasanahmad wrote:
So i go through a lot photography forums and there is a dislike of Canon 50D. Some even say the high ISO performance of the 40D is better than 50D. So what is true? Why is it that the latest in the double digit D models is getting the crap while 40D is being the 'preferred' option?
My personal take on this is that you see a lot of "couch testers" that are fairly vocal discussing spec sheets mixed with a lot of half-truths and hypothetical scenarios instead of discussing real world results based on a solid foundation of skill and technical knowledge.
In addition, for some people last year's model is just the better value proposition.
I find my 50D to be a very good camera, and the ISO3200 performance is pretty good at normal print/viewing sizes. At the pixel level the noise seems the same (40d/50d), but in print/view sizesz thos noise pixels have a smaller effect.
Honestly, the 50D would be a great camera if it had AF assist points like its xD cousins. My guess is that the 7d will correct this, but who knows. As it is, I am probably going to sell my 1dm2 and keep the 50d to pair with my 5d classic.
I think a lot of the hate is because the 50D and 5DII basically have become seen as "throw megapixels at the great unwashed and maybe they won't notice that Nikon are actually giving photographers stuff like weather sealing and pro AF for the same price" cameras.
Not saying that said opinion is justified or true, just an observation, Nikon has moved the 'non-pro' sector game on massively in the last 18 months, Canon has been caught napping, and there's a lot of frustration that the D300 and D700 are totally unanswered. If canonrumors.com is to be believed, a lot of that frustration is about to be relieved.
I dare say that the 5DII is more of an "imaging device" than a camera. For those people to whom things like weather sealing, pro AF and continuous shooting speed aren't of great concern, the 5DII is actually rather excellent (and believe me, there are a lot of fields that fit that description).
I have a friend who used to shoot a MF Mamiya, and sometimes large format, yet he bought a 5DII the moment it was available. For those switching from MF to digital, the 5DII actually has an "amazing" 4fps shooting speed, AF that actually works, and any sort of weather sealing. It all depends on the point of view.
molson wrote:
By comically hysterical people who haven't actually tried using the cameras themselves...
+ 1,Truer words have never been spoken. There would be more than substantial evidence in this forum and others that in the hands of a good photographer, one who takes time to learn the camera, it delivers outstanding results and detail files second to no other crop body. But you cannot say that because some people will want to start a "I know better" fire fight, oh crap!
Insightful comments so far... at least about human nature!
WRT your question, the (very) short answer is that the a 50D RAW capture has more noise than the 40D at the pixel level. However, this is mitigated by two things:
1) Enhanced noise reduction in Canon's Digic IV procesing chain (including in DPP). This means that files out of the camera or DPP will show a bit less noise than 40D files at similar ISOs (though they may appear slightly softened and less saturated by NR)
2) Increased resolution, which reduces apparent noise at reproduction size vs. a lower resolution camera
My own personal experience is that I can make pretty clean images with the 50D up to ISO 800 using Neat Image in post. ISO 1600 is quite usable if you can accept some noise / lack of fine detail at 100%. In certain light (very warm incandescent light, such as indoor household lighting at night), noise is substantially increased, and there is also some color inaccuracy. See this link for some analysis on the 500D sensor that, based on my experience, I think is applicable to the 50D as well:
Does this mean the 50D deserves all the "hate". Probably not. But Canon is clearly pushing the boundaries of current technology to reach this pixel count, with a few rough spots showing around the edges.
I suspect they are hearing the message that image quality at higher ISO speeds still matters even in the APS-C range...
