|
kenshin Registered: Jan 31, 2005 Total Posts: 605 Country: United States |
So I received a 50D + 18-200 kit lens last week and based on the sample shots I've been taking (posted some in my prior 18-200 shots thread), I haven't been impressed with the sharpness I've been getting from the camera. But I thought that was just a problem with the lens. However, after mounting my 35 f/1.4, I'm still getting shots that just do not seem sharp to me. Shots that I'm getting seem to be fuzzier than I'm used to coming from the 5D. So I took a quick comparison shot with the 35 on my 5D and 50D and this is what I'm seeing. These are 100% crops. Focus on the DANT lettering of the word antioxidant. ![]() ![]() Both photos were taken with the same aperture, ISO and shutter speed (1/125s, f/1.4, ISO400) and I tried to frame the shot similarly to make up for the crop factor. Besides being grainier, the 50D shot to me just looks softer overall. I do not believe it's a focusing issue as I tested focusing and it was fine on both bodies. So am I just expecting too much from the 50D, or am I missing something or is there just something wrong with this particular body? |
|
Seth Tower Registered: Oct 10, 2006 Total Posts: 3751 Country: United States |
It would be more representative if you took these shots stopped down a bit instead of wide open. You can see the obvious DOF difference between a FF and 1.6x camera, thus it's difficult to tell which is sharper (or softer). |
|
Alistair Watson Registered: Mar 21, 2005 Total Posts: 5846 Country: United Kingdom |
I would also be looking to see if the camera/lens is front/back focussing, either way I woild try again on a subject in better lighting. |
|
kenshin Registered: Jan 31, 2005 Total Posts: 605 Country: United States |
I already tested for front/back focus and didn't find a problem with it. With the sample shots above I shot them at an angle so if there were front/back focus, you'd be able to see it since either the letters behind the DANT would be more in focus or more of the MANGO word on top would be in focus. As for lighting, I guess I could put on a flash but I shoot a lot in low light w/o flash so if I have to look at results like the 50D constantly I don't think I can take it. |
|
garyvot Registered: Apr 02, 2003 Total Posts: 1413 Country: United States |
Well, the 5D is pretty tough competition for any camera WRT image quality. I had the same impression last year when I tried the 40D (I ended up returning it). I had to sharpen the 40D images more aggressively to achieve the same apparent sharpness, and this exacerbated the coarser structure of the 40D files. Even the Nikon D3 and D700 suffer (slightly) by comparison with the 5D at lower ISOs. |
|
Alex Nail Registered: Aug 02, 2006 Total Posts: 2502 Country: United Kingdom |
This isnt a fair test. You are bound to be stretching the lens performance more with the pixel density of the 50D than the 5D. The only way to make a fair comparison between true sharpnesses would be to use a lens which you know outresolves the 50D and shoot at f8 or similar so that everything is as sharp as it could be. |
|
kenshin Registered: Jan 31, 2005 Total Posts: 605 Country: United States |
Hi Gary, yup I considered the more pixels thing with the 50D but downsizing the 50D sample to the same size as the 5D shot before taking the crop showed negligible difference unfortunately. Your description of your impression of the 40D definitely sounds similar to what I'm currently going through with the 50D. |
|
24Peter Registered: May 04, 2005 Total Posts: 679 Country: United States |
I think you're right: the 50D shots are not as sharp as one would hope. Did you turn on sharpening in-camera? I routinely use +4 sharpening on my 40D (I shoot only .jpegs) and get good results. Without that added sharpening in camera I was disappointed. |
|
kenshin Registered: Jan 31, 2005 Total Posts: 605 Country: United States |
Alex Nail wrote: |
|
kenshin Registered: Jan 31, 2005 Total Posts: 605 Country: United States |
24Peter wrote: |
|
saaketham Registered: May 18, 2004 Total Posts: 2503 Country: United States |
Photos of bottles, brick walls, cereal boxes, etc are not cause enough to get worried. Please wait till some real-world samples come in - with better lighting, better exposure, etc. |
|
AGeoJO Registered: Jul 08, 2003 Total Posts: 7632 Country: United States |
The word "Mango" on the 50D is sharper than that on the 5D, especially the G and the O. I know you checked the AF aspects on both cameras and you did not see any issues. However, on that particular shot, it looks like the 50D was front focusing ever so slightly. Your test is bordering on pixel peeping activities |
|
Alex Nail Registered: Aug 02, 2006 Total Posts: 2502 Country: United Kingdom |
kenshin wrote: |
|
wilrobking Registered: Oct 29, 2005 Total Posts: 726 Country: United States |
All the shots I've taken seem impressively sharp. ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
gml1 Registered: Aug 19, 2005 Total Posts: 414 Country: United States |
kenshin wrote: |
|
wilrobking Registered: Oct 29, 2005 Total Posts: 726 Country: United States |
I shot both the football game and the Disney on Ice shot wide open (f/2.8) I'm not seeing the softness you're referring to. |
|
Drew_Persson Registered: Oct 25, 2006 Total Posts: 973 Country: United States |
AGeoJO wrote: |
|
therock Registered: Jan 26, 2006 Total Posts: 1587 Country: United States |
gml1 wrote: |
|
lbaird Registered: Mar 05, 2004 Total Posts: 712 Country: United States |
Will, I see you have a 1DIII and are using the 50D for these shots. I am wanting to get something a little faster and better ISO for nature then my 1DsMKII to use on my 500 f/4. Do you have any input on the 50D Vs, 1DIII? It's half the price and I don't shoot much so spending the extra money for the 1DIII requires some thinking. |
|
Jim Victory Registered: Oct 09, 2003 Total Posts: 6553 Country: United States |
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the weaker AA filter of the 5D. Out of camera unprocessed shots have always been sharper with the 5D than any 1 series I have owned except maybe the 1D and 1Ds. I certainly don't see the problem with the 50D image and yes it does look like it is front focusing regardless of your test. |
|
wilrobking Registered: Oct 29, 2005 Total Posts: 726 Country: United States |
To be completely honest Larry the 50D does not compare to the 1D Mark III. The 1D Mark III focuses better and it still handles noise way better than the 50D. Having said that, the 50D is still quite impressive. I use it as a back up body and it's no slouch. Just look at the photos above of the football game and the Disney on Ice shot. I was really impressed with the Disney on Ice shot. She was in the air doing twists and I thought the 50D did a great job of getting her sharp. That shot was taken with a 70-200mmL f/2.8 IS. @ f/2.8, 1/640, ISO1250. If anyone states that images are soft coming out of the 50D shot wide open, either they got a bad lens or they don't know how to shoot. Sorry if that offends anyone but I took a lot of photos this weekend and my experience with the 50D exceeded my expectations. |
|
Daan B Registered: Aug 16, 2007 Total Posts: 5157 Country: Netherlands |
wilrobking wrote: |
|
wilrobking Registered: Oct 29, 2005 Total Posts: 726 Country: United States |
Daan B wrote: ![]() 100% crop ![]() |
|
joezasada Registered: Feb 25, 2005 Total Posts: 2494 Country: Canada |
remember that with higher megapixels out-of-focus images seem worse... |