gfiksel wrote:
Are you kidding? Perfectly balanced, real life colors. Very good resolution. And look at the ISO6400 shot!!! There are always people that prefer crayon over-saturated Nikon images, of course. That's why there is the Saturation slider
exactly right. We can easily create custom settings to increase saturation, etc out of the camera. The images on Canon's are for the most part always a bit flatter and les dynamic than the images out of the heavily processed Nikon.
It's quite dramatic. I looked at images my gf took with her D80 and some of them almost looked like HDR to me...lol..
The galleries on dpreview are interesting I suppose but meaningless (at least to me) at this point.
gfiksel wrote:
Are you kidding? Perfectly balanced, real life colors. Very good resolution. And look at the ISO6400 shot!!! There are always people that prefer crayon over-saturated Nikon images, of course. That's why there is the Saturation slider
No, sickly looking colors that hopefully can be improved with RAW. The ISO 6400 is the most sickly-looking of the bunch-- almost no color is left, and there is obvious banding. Of course, some people prefer sickly banded images to correctly saturated images with good white balance.
I want to know more about and perhaps see the AF fine tuning demonstrated as in a series of example shots.
Someone said it will not fix front or back focusing.
So if it's not front or rear focusing what is it doing?
I want to think the amount of movment the USM is told to make is being added to or subtracted from what the focus point is telling it to fire at?
controlit wrote:
The galleries on dpreview are interesting I suppose but meaningless (at least to me) at this point.
I would agree that they are mostly meaningless. IMO the biggest worry a potential 50D owner should have at this point is resolution. Until we see RAW samples shot with a sharper lens, we won't know very much.
That someone is wrong. It most definitely fixes front and back focusing. But, the front and back focusing must be occurring within the adjustment range of the software feature.
Personally I think the 50D samples are not good at all which I really think is due to the 18-200 Lens. The images are super soft and lack contrast. I think they should of done the sample gallery with a 24-70L or 17-55f2.8 IS honestly.
I also think they should done some more real world high ISO shots. Its too difficult to tell really from that shot of the fruit and the one of the leaf to give a good judgement on.
Frankly the galleries are a disservice to both cameras. With all of the interest in the new hardware just how hard would it have been to take a quality set of 20 pics side by side with both as opposed to what was done. In addition since Canon is annoucing a new sensor which is suppose to yield excellent high ISO shots, how about 10 or so of those. I cannot and I doubt anyone can accurately judge anything from these pictures.
DPreview has never been known as a website ran by good photographers. I usually never look at their "galleries". Not only they post bad pictures, but they also fail to illustrate the camera features/capabilities.
In the other hand, I like their reviews for the technical parts.
izanaki wrote:
Personally I think the 50D samples are not good at all which I really think is due to the 18-200 Lens. The images are super soft and lack contrast. I think they should of done the sample gallery with a 24-70L or 17-55f2.8 IS honestly.
I also think they should done some more real world high ISO shots. Its too difficult to tell really from that shot of the fruit and the one of the leaf to give a good judgement on.
We'll have to wait for the final review
Not 1 of the 25 samples were shot with the 18-200. lenes used are clearly listed at the top of every shot and in the Exif below
they are: 24-105 L, 70-300 is , 50 1.4 and 100 macro
My apology. I made the bad assumption of it being done with the 18-200 as I just noticed the hands on preview was done with that lens. The shots are not very good though. DPreview needs better pictures or better photographers
I just think we need to wait for some better images and reviews to make the final judgment, that's all.
Cheers
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
Not 1 of the 25 samples were shot with the 18-200. lenes used are clearly listed at the top of every shot and in the Exif below
they are: 24-105 L, 70-300 is , 50 1.4 and 100 macro
gfiksel wrote:
Are you kidding? Perfectly balanced, real life colors. Very good resolution. And look at the ISO6400 shot!!! There are always people that prefer crayon over-saturated Nikon images, of course. That's why there is the Saturation slider
For what Canon could do in 2007 with the 1d3 chip and sensor, I would say the ISO 6400 shot is horrible.... especially if it's to go to 12800. Hopefully that's not what the 50d's ISO performance is like when it comes out. Though the subject is not the same, the color and noise pattern on the D90 looks decent as well (exactly the D300's performance). The differences maybe due to the lower resolution, or stronger use of NR.
I wonder what NR settings were used on the 50d for that shot.
The 50D samples on dpreview look to me like Canon have pushed the pixel density so far that the images are starting to look more like those from a digital compact rather than a digital SLR, with a lot of noise reduction applied to the image even at low ISO.
I have never had a camera with high pixel density - still shooting 10D. Please tell me, all this 100% crop softness even with the 100mm macro lens... Is it bad photographer, or the resolution of even the sharpest lenses fails at 15MP on crop cameras?
In any case, I think that the collection of samples is plain bad. Whether it means that the camera is not good is still a question.
Wow. I think some are being hyper critical about the sample images on DPR. I think they look fine and frankly I think the DR looks very nice in some of those images with shade and sun. I also think the 6400 shot is quite good. Seems like everyone expects perfection. This IS 6400 afterall. It's going to have problems. It needs to be put in context.
