Antje wrote:
To put a positive twist on it: Now the camera is not the limiting factor anymore. I think that's quite cool, actually.
Antje
Way to go for the positive spin! I'm curious. Let me try to phrase my question in big chalky lines: Since the camera will out-resolve a very sharp lens by almost a factor of 2 will this lessen well known digital artifacts like fringing? Seems the more pixels you have covering the image the less ambiguity you'd have with the de-mosaicking process.
I think that many people are trying to make is that the 50D isn't that much of an improvement over the 40d, image quality wise. Most users have commented that the high ISO capability is more or less the same.
It may be difficult to accept this fact after dropping down cash for the newest and latest Canon model, but there is lots of truth in the user reviews and DPreview that we've been getting.
It's not that the 50D is garbage, or doesn't work, it's that the marginal improvement over the 40D may not be justified by the price difference, especially since 40Ds are going for such bargain prices now.
In my experience, I felt the same way after shooting with a 40D and a 50D- that the IQ is so similar, in fact I felt the pictures from the 40D came out more crisp and with more "punch." Of course, that is a matter of opinion, and also dependent on the in-camera JPG conversion, or your choice of RAW converter. But under the same circumstances, I found the performance of the 50D to be marginally better at best, than the 40D. I also concur with the other users, that the claimed high ISO improvement, was an overstatement.
Don't get me wrong, I really like the new screen and body material, but you can't help but admit that to get the actual benefit out of the 50D, which presses lenses to their optical limits, you have to get the best lenses. Otherwise, you would be better off with a 40D and the same glass. If you can't take advantage of the sensor with good glass, then you really aren't getting your money's worth.
The argument is which lenses actually limit the 50D's performance- but there is no question, that the 50D is a marginal improvement over the 40D if you have anything but the sharpest lenses.
crypt wrote:
My wife's 50D is doing just great regardless of anyones reviews. I now reach for her camera over my 5D about 1/2 the time. And I don't give a second thought to LP/mm or how well the 40D does for noise. It seems like people are in a gear bashing mood lately. I have to go to the nikon forums to hear someone appreciate canon gear.
freetime101 wrote:
If the 15mp of the 50D outresolves canons best lenses what do 1Ds and 5D mkII users do with their 21mp?
The FF 21MP pixel density is way below the resolving power of most Canon lenses. Nobody complained of lenses being outresolved with a 30D or 20D, so logically the same lenses, assuming their outer circle is similar to their inner 1.6x, shouldn't have a problem.
I can usually handle the uber-gear-heads that use their thousands of dollars worth of equipment once or twice a month, but this thread is absolutely ridiculous........
WHO CARES about pixel-density in lenses or whatever the hell you guys are talking about!?!?!
I have a 50D and the DPR review does not have me regretting it. I had a 20D and two 40D's and now a single 50D and am enjoying the 50D a great deal.
Lots of non-50D owners are knocking it.
It reminds me of when the Glock pistol came out. Plastic gun! 15.5 MP!
They dropped it from three stories, fired it under water, ran over it with a bus just begging for a reason to hate it. It failed to fail. I have two of them.
I find the 50D very nice. When I nail an image it's because I and the camera did it's part.
I can usually handle the uber-gear-heads that use their thousands of dollars worth of equipment once or twice a month, but this thread is absolutely ridiculous........
WHO CARES about pixel-density in lenses or whatever the hell you guys are talking about!?!?!
Most folks on a gear forum of course! [well, sorta you mixed up the terms but I know what you mean] If you want a photography forum there are several on this site.
therock wrote:
I have a 50D and the DPR review does not have me regretting it. I had a 20D and two 40D's and now a single 50D and am enjoying the 50D a great deal.
Lots of non-50D owners are knocking it.
It reminds me of when the Glock pistol came out. Plastic gun! 15.5 MP!
They dropped it from three stories, fired it under water, ran over it with a bus just begging for a reason to hate it. It failed to fail. I have two of them.
I find the 50D very nice. When I nail an image it's because I and the camera did it's part. ...Show more →
+1
I have a 30D, 40D and now the 50D. The IQ is similar to the 40D but I like the camera better. I never loved the 30D.....
orangefirefish wrote:
In my experience, I felt the same way after shooting with a 40D and a 50D- that the IQ is so similar, in fact I felt the pictures from the 40D came out more crisp and with more "punch." Of course, that is a matter of opinion, and also dependent on the in-camera JPG conversion, or your choice of RAW converter. But under the same circumstances, I found the performance of the 50D to be marginally better at best, than the 40D. I also concur with the other users, that the claimed high ISO improvement, was an overstatement.
I think what your seeing is the difference in magnification of the 15mp sensor over the 10mp sensor. I have compare the two and I can see a difference and especially so in large prints. Here is two example of what I'm talking about. You may not be able to see the difference on a small web shot but on my 24" Eizo it is quite evident. This shot was taken with a 50D, converted into Tiff using DPP, and then converted to JPG in PS,crop, with no other processing. The only difference in the two shots is one was reduced to the image size of a 40D (2596x3894).
What may not be apparent on the web, but is on my LCD, that the image reduced to the size of the 40D is more crisp looking and appears to have more detail until you print both at 13x19 and then the 50D shines through.
I also notice the noise was less in the file I reduced to the size of a 40D too.
Well the old "sensor out resolves lense" stuff is coming up again. Bunk, please it is not true. We have a bunch of people applying inverse up side down polish notation logic to a problem, ie, take a simple problem and reduce it to it's most baffling form. To the simpler question is the 50D worth the upgrade from a 40D and is it a jump in IQ. The answer is in my opinion a "that all depends". If you are printing 4x6 or 8x10 prints or just publishing web images the answer is probably not from an IQ standpoint. If you need higher ISO capability and willing to put the time into electronically developing your images, yes go for it. Print larger photos and the extra resolution and detail should pay some benefits, of that there should be no doubt provided you use the proper tool set to work on your images. For the normal photographer the difference in the two cameras in not so much in the image but rather in the physical hardware of the camera and the features that so many others have already mentioned. Other then those physical features the 50D is evolutionary to the 40D. It is the way Canon does things like it or not. They are both great cameras and the 40D is one hell of a bargain right now, more so than anything else out there except a lightly used 5D IMO. We bought a 50D to fool around with in the studio and we love it. Just bought my son a new 40D at a silly low price and he is knocking my socks off with his bird pics. All in the the eyes of the user and their need or want for specific features. They both can take a hell of photo.
Since the camera will out-resolve a very sharp lens by almost a factor of 2
Wrong. Read below. People are not understanding the charts in the Castleman link. The right chart is MTF. The OP mentioned resolution. That is the left chart. The left chart is the system resolution of the Canon lens plus Technical Pan film. It is NOT the resolution of the Canon lens alone!
System resolution R can be approximated by:
1/R = 1/S + 1/L where S is sensor and L is lens
If you put in 160 for sensor resolution, and 160 for lens resolution, the formula shows system resolution at exactly half, at 80 lp/mm. The system resolution is always lower than the weakest component.
I read elsewhere that Technical Pan film resolution is 160, using a certain developer. But the Castleman chart shows the system resolution at 88 lp/mm. Thus the Canon lens must be higher than 160. It is 195, as calculated by the formula.
This is a reasonable number for a prime lens at optimum aperture by a top manufacturer. Lens resolution is measured by examining a projected aerial image in a microscope.
Another point to make, is that print quality (and system quality) continues to improve, even if the body greatly out resolves the lens. Improvement does NOT slam to a halt, if the body out-resolves the lens.
BubbaJon wrote:
Way to go for the positive spin! I'm curious. Let me try to phrase my question in big chalky lines: Since the camera will out-resolve a very sharp lens by almost a factor of 2 will this lessen well known digital artifacts like fringing? Seems the more pixels you have covering the image the less ambiguity you'd have with the de-mosaicking process.
Fringing and CAs are not de-mosaicing issues. There are different causes for fringing, but most of them have to do with the lenses and with reflections of light and not with the sensor. CA's will actually be larger in terms of pixels while the same size in terms of % of picture size.
therock wrote:
I have a 50D and the DPR review does not have me regretting it. I had a 20D and two 40D's and now a single 50D and am enjoying the 50D a great deal.
Lots of non-50D owners are knocking it.
It reminds me of when the Glock pistol came out. Plastic gun! 15.5 MP!
They dropped it from three stories, fired it under water, ran over it with a bus just begging for a reason to hate it. It failed to fail. I have two of them.
I find the 50D very nice. When I nail an image it's because I and the camera did it's part. ...Show more →
+1
I have a 50D and a Glock 19 and have never failed to get the shot with either due to inadequacy of the equipment.
therock wrote:
I have a 50D and the DPR review does not have me regretting it. I had a 20D and two 40D's and now a single 50D and am enjoying the 50D a great deal.
Lots of non-50D owners are knocking it.
It reminds me of when the Glock pistol came out. Plastic gun! 15.5 MP!
They dropped it from three stories, fired it under water, ran over it with a bus just begging for a reason to hate it. It failed to fail. I have two of them.
I find the 50D very nice. When I nail an image it's because I and the camera did it's part. ...Show more →
Isn't the opposite true also. If I sold my 40D to purchase a 50D, I would also say the 50D is great. Not saying this is your case, but that is just the way we humans act.
for those of you who have never shot with a 1D, now you understand why the 1D, even up against all the high-megapixel competition, can still take wonderful photos... with a low pixel density even a mediocre lens works good! but once you get to these high densities / high pixel counts there is not a lot of glass out there (or photographers, for that matter!) that can get things sharp enough to matter...
Now I see why canon's put those lower-pixel RAW modes on... you don't really need the huge image files...
I still look at enlargements made with the 1D (20x30" and bigger) and they still look great, even next to shots with more pixels...
joezasada wrote:
for those of you who have never shot with a 1D, now you understand why the 1D, even up against all the high-megapixel competition, can still take wonderful photos... with a low pixel density even a mediocre lens works good! but once you get to these high densities / high pixel counts there is not a lot of glass out there (or photographers, for that matter!) that can get things sharp enough to matter...
Now I see why canon's put those lower-pixel RAW modes on... you don't really need the huge image files...
I still look at enlargements made with the 1D (20x30" and bigger) and they still look great, even next to shots with more pixels......Show more →
With all due respect your logic is flawed but you are absolutely correct about one thing, the 1D is a wonderful camera and capable of great images, as is the rest of the 1D series, the XXD series, including the 50D.
