The ISO 6400 shot of the fruits shows what is possible with this camera and previously impossibe with 1.6X crop cameras. Really pushing the limits of low light, at 1/40 sec(very hand holdable) and ISO 6400 while keeping a good DOF at f9.
Any older body would have to compromise DOF for a fatser shutter speed at ISO 3200 and still not look as good.
mabidally wrote:
The ISO 6400 shot of the fruits shows what is possible with this camera and previously impossibe with 1.6X crop cameras. Really pushing the limits of low light, at 1/40 sec(very hand holdable) and ISO 6400 while keeping a good DOF at f9.
Any older body would have to compromise DOF for a fatser shutter speed at ISO 3200 and still not look as good.
I dunno. I expect you can push to ISO 6400 on many cameras if you want to put up with banding. Also, this particular ISO 6400 shot looks far from "good".
I'm trying to lay my hands on a few RAW files through an export house dealer in Japan, these are the guys who distribute to the South Asian region. Will certainly PM you if I get the files but will need the software to processand really need a good software like Adobe Camera Raw etc so until the new versions come through nothing much can be done. FWIW, I went through the same dilemma when the 40D was realeased.
As a 40D owner, there is nothing in the DPReview samples that would convince me to upgrade (and I had decided to upgrade based on the spec's UNTIL I saw these samples). For all of those saying the 50D sample images look good, go back and look at the 40D sample set on DPReview for a minute.
The original 50D 100% JPG files look soft to me, but maybe the sharpening settings are just low or maybe there is just more data at 100% then we are used to seeing. I worked with a few images in Photoshop and did a little more sharpening, but still could not come to a final conclusion. There appears to be a lot of detail in these 50D samples, so all may be well in the end. I am used to working with RAW files ... I'm going to keep an open mind and continue hoping the 50D is a big step forward.
But Phils shots are usually better. I bet there were done by someone else. Obviously these was no consideration given to the quality of the light. Either the light was extremely flat or overly contrasty. So a nuetral jpg setting would not be appropriate. Many of the shots are overexposed, some underexposed. Not by the histogram, but from what would look good given how the camera was set up.
All this is the polite way of saying that the camera operator was not a photographer. I'm pretty sure its was a computer guy shooting histograms.
meeus wrote:
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?
Just my guess here: I think the problem is just DPreview, that does not know how to do a test shot.
Canon posted some pictures with the 50D on a site they created specifically for that camera, and they looked good to me (but most of them were taken with expensive L lenses), including an ISO1600 sport shot (1/8000s). The address was posted earlier in this thread.
I remember when they released the 5D, the shots posted on the Canon gallery were rather bad though, so if even Canon did get decent pictures out of the 50D, we should expect the image quality to be good.
Of course, nothing beats the pictures that will be posted on FM by early adopters.
I would like to squeeze in a question on pricing.
Will the body only suggested (MSRP) price hold out of the chute or will any of the vendors compete?
How long will it take it to get real?
I have never been impressed with Phil's photographic ability and his choices of subjects to test equipment is always puzzling. The subjects used for the Nikon were much better than the Canon too. It gave an opportinity to see how the camera resolves.
In addition we don't know how they were processed or if in-camera whether the settings were the same. Additonally I reserve my evaluation of the 50d when I have one in my hand and can test it on good glass. The 24-105 is a good lens, at least my copy, but the other ones used are prosumer lenses whose limits maybe be taxed by the new 50D.
Jim
Edited by Jim Victory on Sep 01, 2008 at 02:13 PM GMT
my take on the DPR samples
1. the images to me look flat...even with the 24-105
2. wouldve liked to have seen night shots(city scapes) not fruit at ISO 6400
3. I truly think the 50d is better camera than this tester is a photographer
4. wouldve used a 24-70 instead and a 35L and the 18-200(new lens duh)
5.dont base your buying on DPR
really was it a 50D? the other pictures are out and about and these seem to be in his backyard...somethings fishy
One of Dpreview's testers made the comment in one of the threads concerning the samples. I think his name was Andy, so maybe these shots weren't done by Phil.
There are currently 2 threads on Dprefiew concerning the samples. the one I read in which Andy(?) was responding is this one:
That's painful, especially that "snappy" guy: "Detectable banding: sure. Noticeable banding: nope."
The fruit shot is typical of any of the Canon's I've owned when you push the shadows too far, or under expose and try to adjust in post. A quick curve in post and the banding is gone. Sure you don't see the bottom of the bowl anymore, but that's a welcome trade off to get a very usable iso6400 image.
a cityscape at ISO 6400 still wouldve been better..would you take a pic of fruit at 6400 when 200 would do...use the high ISOs as intended the "fruit test does nothing"
I don't know a lot about these things so maybe I'm revealing my naivete, but
Since the low-ISO images from most mid-range cameras look pretty much alike (and the IQ is largely lens-dependent anyway), why wouldn't at least half the sample photos check out one of the biggest claims of the new camera, improved performance at high ISOs?
I usually just ignore all of the ISO 100-400 samples posted at dpreview and cut to the chase: ISO 800 and up. Unfortunately, they didn't give us much chase to cut to, even though for the past week much of the 50D talk has centered around high ISO performance. Baffling to me. Guess we'll all have to wait....
If I'm out shooting night shots, I have my tripod with me, and there's no reason to shoot high iso. The fruit shot is probably closer to real world than you think. Walking around, no tripod, in a poorly lit area, you see something you want to shoot. The photographer stopped down to f/9, which is fine if you were going for good sharpness, and larger dof. The focal length was 88mm and 1/40 shutter, which is probably fine hand held with the 24-105, unless you're a smoker and you missed your coffee in the morning. I dunno, I think it might not be the ideal subject example, but definitely don't think it's a bad one. Anything dark works well, so night shots seem like a good way to test it, but I think the majority(51% or better) of people who shoot night scenes will not be using higher iso's.
corndog wrote:
If I'm out shooting night shots, I have my tripod with me, and there's no reason to shoot high iso. . . . I think the majority(51% or better) of people who shoot night scenes will not be using higher iso's.
OK. I guess I'm in the minority, as I shoot handheld after dark all the time (40D, 35/1.4, ISO3200) and I also do a lot of theater shooting where a tripod wouldn't help because of the moving subjects on stage.
I understand if others don't want or need 6400 ISO, but it is very appealing to me....
I'm not sure what has gotten some people upset regarding the 50d pictures. They look fine to me, but judging a camera from isolated jpegs is imossible to do.
Only if you can compare identical images, one taken by the 50d and one taken by a proven camera in the same situation, can you decide if the images are good or bad.
Many here should remember when the 5d came out the images Canon showed were, IMO, pretty bad. Most blamed it on the 17-40 f/4 lens, but it was nothing more than jpeg compression. Let's give the sensor a chance.
Whack away at the lack of features if you want, but let's wait to see more images before condemning the sensor.
myself wasnt faulting the camera..just a nitpicking his subject matter fruit at ISO 6400 prove very little..and if you go and look at the d300/d3 pics the subject matter is different meaning out and about with pics of building,people what normal people would use the camera for to me it seemed a lil biased and IMHO made the 50d look inferriior
you guys are just nitpicking, IMHO. The 6400 fruit shot looks fine at 25%, and it is ISO 6400 of a subject in complete shadow on an APS-C sensor after all.
As for the most usable shot of the bunch, take a look at the ISO 1600 shot of the brass plaque. At 100% with normal USM it looks very good without any additional NR.
