It's probably the "smear the heck out of that noise" mode
You can see that because the image is very soft. Still looks better than Nikon camera's though
joeisayo wrote:
The noise at 1600 looks slightly better than the 5D which is amazing considering this comes from a cropped sensor. I would imaging the upcoming 5D and 1-Series replacements will have incredible high asa capabilities.
They might be clean images but that Subaru image has little to zero detail. I'd expect more from a 600L and 1/8000th sec. Looks pretty lame.
dmldl123 wrote:
if this is really a Canon page then why do all the other links for the cameras that DO exist not work
On advanced web sites, like Canon's, page indexing (they often use relative page indexing) is complicated. When the pages were copied, the person who copied them had to hand create all of the 50D links that are now available. It is a lot of work and there is no reason to build out the existing parts of the Canon site ... just the 50D pages and images were required. The original creator did a nice job ... I noticed that the link to the landscape photo was entered incorrectly and found the image on the hosted site and provided a new link.
This is my last post trying to explain the links to the original Canon site material. If people do not understand what is going on at this point, then my advice is just relax and wait the short period of time until the official Canon announcement.
I don't think we will know the price until it is introduced. But, historically at introduction I think the 30D was $1,499. The 40D was $1,299. Prices are coming down and I don't see anything on the new 50D that would in any way modify that trend. I would expect something in the $1,199 to $1,299 range. Looking back on the past year, I would rather they introduced the camera at a lower price and held the line on that price better ... say $1,099. I'm not all that happy that I paid $1,299 for my 40D ... only to see the price drop to where it has been. In terms of price, the real question is how fast will the discounting start on the camera.
One interesting wrinkle on the pricing discussion is what kits will be offered and for what prices. Even though we don't know anything about the new 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens, that might make an interesting kit.
You take a photo of a car coming towards you at very high speeds. It is traveling on dirt road, and dust and sand are being thrown up everywhere as it speeds down the road.
thw2 wrote:
You take a photo of a car coming towards you at very high speeds. It is traveling on dirt road, and dust and sand are being thrown up everywhere as it speeds down the road.
You expect to see superb sharp images. Huh?
of course i would ..
taking using a latest spec camera with a big budget supertele photo lens
as a sample image to temp you to upgrade your gear .....
nah just post a blurred one and say it focuses at least as well as a mk3
When the 5D first came out, people were comparing a sample shot of an eagle taken with the 5D against a similar shot taken with the Nikon D200. People were busily commenting on how soft and NOISY the 5D was.
They then looked at another sample 5D shot of the countryside. And went on to suspect the 5D has POOR dynamic range.
Few months later, all these fears and suspicions were proven to be unfounded.
thw2 wrote:
You take a photo of a car coming towards you at very high speeds. It is traveling on dirt road, and dust and sand are being thrown up everywhere as it speeds down the road.
ChrisDM wrote:
I hate it when flaws become visible at 100%. Reminds me why I never do it... But if you must pixel peep, remember that 100% viewing of 15mp shows more detail than 10mp at 100%. It's better in practical terms to just choose a camera with the resolution necessary to make the size prints you need. For example, I have an IPF6100 that makes 24x36" native prints, so 15mp is important to me. But if you don't print big, then no need to worry about max resolution, diffraction etc...
Chris M
www.imagineimagery.com
Once you get into the diffraction zone then you are resolving as much or less than the lesser megapixel camera so the final image will have no more detail than an uprezzed 40D file! In that case paying more for megapixels you don't use just because it gives you a bigger file size is a false economy. This article by Professor Ruben Osana http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml explains this in depth and goes as far as saying that with the 1Ds mkIII once you hit the diffraction zone you are halving the megapixels with every stop past the diffraction sweet spot. I know with my 5D at f22 I'm resolving only 2/3 of the detail at f16 and I've been to scared to try comparing it to f11!
Personally, I'll believe this when the Canon press-release RSS feed mentions it.
If it's true, good for the buyers in the market for their first prosumer SLR or someone looking for a backup body. I'll cling on to my 40D until it falls apart. Love that camera and nothing on this spec list makes me consider "upgrading" til the 50D.
But if those specs were from the 5D mk II... Full frame 15mp with working autofocus? My kidney (and probably my kid as well) would be on Ebay in 20 seconds flat to raise the dough for it.
