In my opinion it does take a lot of getting used to because it is not quite a pick up and shoot camera as all the others. You actually have to read and read to find out what all the functions do or maybe I am just getting too old for this.
The one thing I noticed on the review which nobody has questioned is that they claim they used the Beta 4.6 and that now there was a proper release, the files could change dramatically. The review should still be taken as a pinch of salt. They are comparing apples to oranges.
Chez writes, "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."
I've owned a 40D for over a year and used the hell outta it. Great camera albeit negged and dissed endlessly prior to the 50D release. Now I didn't sell my 40D but bought a 50D over a month ago. Personally I would have rather Canon kept the same MP and improved dynamic range, high ISO noise and tossed in the new LCD. However hardly nobody would buy such a camera and it would be the a marketing failure for Canon. With that said, I appreciate the 50D's extra MP so I can crop and print a little larger, but would have preferred IQ improvements over MPs. However the 50D is a nice midrange camera albeit with a few warts.
lexvo wrote:
Sorry, the DPR test may be flawed, but so is your reasoning
If the lens resolution is 70lp/mm, then the total system resolution can never exceed that value.
In your example, the total resolution of the 50D would be:
1/70 + 1/105 = about 1/42 also a total resolution of: 42 lp/mm
the total resolution of the 40D would be:
1/70 + 1/86 = about 39 lp/mm
That's pretty close or not
The point is that a sensor with more pixels, always will give a higher total resolution, regardless of the lens used. Thus: one can still use the same lens to compare different sensors.
Oh, and one more thing: IIRC, you cannot just derive the sensor resolution from the number of horizontal pixels.
therock wrote:
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 owned a 50D and due to error 99 (fixed?) and terrible chrominance noise at ISO 1600 and above sent it back.
n0b0 wrote:
What wrong with Glock? It's the standard issue pistol for the police here in Sydney Australia.
I also owed two Glocks, model 21 and 36 and sold them both, Glocks have mushy triggers. I shoot more accurately with a crisp 1911 style .45 trigger like a Les Baer has.
Whether the tool is a Canon DSLR or a Glock, if the tool doesn't function like I expect it to function I will keep looking until I find one that does.
tutumon wrote:
So does this camera take pictures?
best post yet...DPR at the most isnt the end all be all of camera info and testing...
and to worry about sharpness frankly is getting old real fast just like the AF issue
I tested 50D/1DMK111/40D all with the same lens,s 24-105 f4 L and 70-200F4L the image quality and amount of visible fine detail in all cases was marginally better in the 50D, that is a real world test.
Following the context of the post I have been debating replacing my 20D with a 50D. After reading the review and several other post I think I will either go to the 40D at a much better price or forgo the Crop Camera and opt for either the 5D or 5DII. It may be prudent to just buy the 40D for now.
brimo wrote:
I tested 50D/1DMK111/40D all with the same lens,s 24-105 f4 L and 70-200F4L the image quality and amount of visible fine detail in all cases was marginally better in the 50D, that is a real world test.
That's in line with my findings- marginal at best, probably not enough to justify buying the 50d solely for the IQ improvement. But the screen, it is oh so nice.
the comment that says like "50Ds sensor sensor outresolves Canon primes" is this true? can someone please explain the theory behind this... [ sorry I'm trying to understand this ]
Let's say a 50d's sensor is indeed outresolves lenses--- what will the image image be? will it be soft or sharp? do you need better lenses beyond Canon's L series?
if this is true.... I guess DPR's review wich someone claims they use a Canon 50mm f/1.4... from what I know this is not the sharpest 50mm.
or maybe this outresolving thing is just plain nonsense...
bushwacker wrote:
the comment that says like "50Ds sensor sensor outresolves Canon primes" is this true? can someone please explain the theory behind this... [ sorry I'm trying to understand this ]
I'll give you an example with scanning a printed photo to illustrate the theory:
Suppose that you print an 8"x10" photo at resolution 300ppi (pixels per inch) and then you decide to scan it.
The printed photo has a fixed resolution of 7.2mp (8x300x10x300).
If you use a 300ppi scanner, you will recreate the printed photo 1:1 (that is, 100%).
But what happens if you decide to scan it at 600ppi resolution?
With 600ppi, each pixel from the original photo will be represented with 4 pixels in the scanned image.
That is, you are getting a 4x magnified (digitally) version of the original photo.
But this magnified version does not contain more detail than the 7.2mp original photo - even though it's 28.8mp in size.
Same with lenses.
Lens resolution is limited too, so once a sensor outresolves a lens, the image created by the sensor is simply a magnified version of the image projected by the lens.
The problem with the 15mpx on the 50D is actually not the sensor but the current Canon lens lineup.
If all Canon lenses (~60 of them) were sharp enough, there would be no problem with 15+ megapixels on 1.6x crop sensors (not counting the ISO/noise issues).
The thing is, out of the ~60 Canon lenses, maybe only 2-3 that do not cost $4,000+ can match the resolution of the 50D.
So, until Canon change their entire lens lineup, it is safe to say that the 50D outresolves most of Canon's lenses.
brimo wrote:
I tested 50D/1DMK111/40D all with the same lens,s 24-105 f4 L and 70-200F4L the image quality and amount of visible fine detail in all cases was marginally better in the 50D, that is a real world test.
So it should be, unless it's got a ridiculously strong AA filter. It's disappointing the 50D doesn't show larger difference, afterall the 450D shows more detail than the 40D no doubt in part due to it's weak AA filter.
I am having great success shooting high iso .jpgs with my 50d with saturation, sharpness zeroed and contrast at 1. The jpgs look a lot better than what I have been getting from lightroom.
makron wrote:
Dpreview used the canon 50/1.4 @ f8 (please correct me if i'm wrong)
According to my measurements, the 50f1.4 peaks around f5.6. According to photozone.de, the lens is sharpest in the center at f4 and in the corners at f5.6.
Also, mathematically, the diffraction kicks in at f7 with the 50D. Thus, I agree with you: the test is flawed, even in real-life sense. After all, if you want to maximize the sharpness, why not use the lens at its best?
Jonathan Knight wrote:
WHO CARES about pixel-density in lenses or whatever the hell you guys are talking about!?!?!
You may not care about that in the detail level as being discussed here. But you are probably interested in the conclusions (when we get them). That is, whether you'll get more detail with 50D than with uprezzed images taken with 40D.
George.ML wrote:
I'll give you an example with scanning a printed photo to illustrate the theory:
Suppose that you print an 8"x10" photo at resolution 300ppi (pixels per inch) and then you decide to scan it.
The printed photo has a fixed resolution of 7.2mp (8x300x10x300).
If you use a 300ppi scanner, you will recreate the printed photo 1:1 (that is, 100%).
But what happens if you decide to scan it at 600ppi resolution?
With 600ppi, each pixel from the original photo will be represented with 4 pixels in the scanned image.
That is, you are getting a 4x magnified (digitally) version of the original photo.
But this magnified version does not contain more detail than the 7.2mp original photo - even though it's 28.8mp in size.
Same with lenses.
Lens resolution is limited too, so once a sensor outresolves a lens, the image created by the sensor is simply a magnified version of the image projected by the lens.
The problem with the 15mpx on the 50D is actually not the sensor but the current Canon lens lineup.
If all Canon lenses (~60 of them) were sharp enough, there would be no problem with 15+ megapixels on 1.6x crop sensors (not counting the ISO/noise issues).
The thing is, out of the ~60 Canon lenses, maybe only 2-3 that do not cost $4,000+ can match the resolution of the 50D.
So, until Canon change their entire lens lineup, it is safe to say that the 50D outresolves most of Canon's lenses. ...Show more →
Will this thing be the same effect on MK bodies with higher megapixels?
