Agreed. On SLRs generally the focal plane would be farther away as the circle of coverage increases and the mirror size incerases.

EBH

minhnestrone wrote:
I've spoken to a couple of Pros using the 20+ megapixel 1D MKIII and they say there's no lose of quality or depreciation in resolving power.

I use the 1Ds3 myself (and earn money with it)... I say it depends on the lens used and on the desired output. My 24-70L was fine on my 5D. It is fine on my 1Ds3 as well, IF I equalize the images to 12MP or print below 30x45cm. When I view 24-70L + 1Ds3 images at 100% on my monitor or print beyond 30x45cm I see a degradation of IQ wide open and at the corners across the entire zoom range more clearly.

Besides that, the 50D is even more challenging on lenses, because it has a higher pixel density. When you compare the 40D/50D house images (RAW) from imaging-resource in ACR you will see that the 24-105L has troubles keeping up with the 50D but shines on the 40D. There are other reports from users that the 24-105L + 50D combo produces soft images. Of course this can be related to focus issues as well or bad samples of either the cam or the lens... or to the RAW conversion of ACR 4.6 beta (no official 50D support yet)

I found the same problem and I swapped my 50d for a 40d which is much sharper . What a waste

harindra wrote:
I found the same problem and I swapped my 50d for a 40d which is much sharper . What a waste

Yeah, I know... I also found the noise levels to be much higher in the 50D RAW files (as opposed to 40D RAW files) when converting them with ACR 4.6 beta... Maybe Adobe will find a cure for this, but I was very disappointed to see that. The 50D was basically ususable for me at ISO 1600. But even at ISO 800 there was considerable noise, whereas the 40D still looks good at ISO 1600...

I still need to see OOC shots from the 50D at ISO 800-12K first. Thats one of the main reasons I want the camera, but if the noise isnt any better than a pushed 40D, why bother..
(micro AF adjustment is cool but not $1400 cool)