trenchmonkey wrote:
Whoa...ISO800 is pretty much my default with my 40D and BIF
No PP just a heavy crop, think I'll be stayin' pat.


+1

dmccombs wrote:
Yep, so we should discourage the 50D owners from posting images unless they are perfect sales examples for the 50D.

No, we should discourage them from posting crap images that look like they could have been taken with either a point&shoot or a 1DSMk3.

Garbage in = garbage out.

With smaller pixels, a CA of a certain size will show up as more pixels wide. In terms of % of the total image, CA size is only dependent on the lens.

Most things won't look good at 100%, especially with such high pixel densities. Overall the 50Ds IQ looks to be a slight improvement over the 40D.

The approx. 800x600 crops from a 15mp image are only a tiny part of the frame. I think the OP just needs to get a longer lens or a TC (or get closer since he's already using a 400mm) so he can get more "pixels per duck" as it were.

dmccombs wrote:
Yep, so we should discourage the 50D owners from posting images unless they are perfect sales examples for the 50D. Then, all the people here will whine that the 50D owners aren't posting images for us.

Constructive criticism would be more beneficial than the whining and insulting comments.
If you saw shots like that from my 70-200 f4L IS would you have bought it from me ...didn't think so.

Wouldn't be better to let them know what they could do to post images that would be more helpful to the forum? Or do you feel better when you get to insult someone?

trenchmonkey wrote:

If you saw shots like that from my 70-200 f4L IS would you have bought it from me ...didn't think so.

Perhaps not, but I wouldn't have been rude telling you the shots are crap.

The OP is trying to provide info for those that don't have a 50D. He shouldn't be rewarded with rudeness. If people have suggestions on how he can provide better shots, then couldn't they nicely make those suggestions?

Thanks Darrell, I think you understand what I was trying to accomplish here. Here's my perspective on the shots.

1. I was too far away from the birds to begin with.
2. I used an ISO that was probably too high for the lighting conditions.
3. I was on the wrong side of the bird w/ respect to lighting.
4. This is a full 100% crop (850 pixels wide out of 4752 pixels).
5. I could go on and on about the problems (as many of you have).

My point was that I was still able to capture an image with all those negatives. I guess I shouldn't have attempted to use DPP though to process it.

I was able to download the beta version of ACR 4.6 and process the RAW file from start to finish with CS3 and hopefully I got better results.

Same image from ACR - noise reduction on background only, slight selective sharpening on the hawk, slight adjustment of levels to improve contrast. Still not the best image and not one I would take to print, but for a 100% crop from a 15mp camera, I was impressed.

Hey, that's cool...we KNOW you can shoot! Lookin' forward to some "serious" posts when you get her dialed in.
Nice greenie!

I knew you could do it ;-) Thats a great shot. I'm still not enamoured with the ACR conversion from the 50D however that is a tiny portion of the frame so I can understand this! Having said that, it is nice to see something from the new camera so thank you :-)

My apologies to the OP, I did not realize the first picture was a 100% crop of a 15mpix APS-C camera !

I do a heck of a lot of cropping at 100% and I think you just tried too hard to make something out of a bad shot under bad conditions. It hurts sometimes, but after spending much of my time on poor images, the delete button becomes the final act of the PP process

Looking forward to seeing some great 50D images.

Gil

Whoa, tough crowd!

pafoote wrote:
And one last image to defend my pride a bit. Not taken with the 50D but posted just to show that I can take a good picture and can process a RAW file.