tanglefoot47 wrote:
I have seen this time and time again right after all these photo's pop up after it is announced and people get turned off then the camera hits the market and everyone raves about it. I almost didn't buy my 40D I think it was because of these bad samples that are posted
I normally research purchases pretty well and am normally not swayed by one opinion/web site. I have to admit that the DPreview 50D images could have turned me off of the 50D if I had been buying a new camera a couple days ago...
I cannot believe they released the 50D with the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM in a kit just like the 40D kit I bought for only $100 more than my 40D kit. Damn, I should have waited 10 months.
skibum5 wrote:
these look way better!
a crappy lens and yet much sharper than the DPR samples.
no longer worried about color and sharpness, at least at lower ISO.
still unsure about noise performance (and oclor at supe rhigh ISO), but hopefully fine.
Not picking on you, just using your post as an example. I don't understand the fascination with sample images. Do people actually think Canon is going to introduce a camera that has worse IQ than it's predecessor? This isn't an AF system we are talking about, it's IQ, the fundamental part of every camera. I think the safest thing you can count on is that IQ will be the same or better than the 40D. Certainly not worse. This never even crossed my mind. I wouldn't hesitate buying the new 50D without seeing a single sample image. I KNOW it's going to have great IQ. I also have no doubt noise performance and DR will be as good or better than the 40D. I don't need sample images to convince me of this.
ghozer wrote:
I KNOW it's going to have great IQ. I also have no doubt noise performance and DR will be as good or better than the 40D. I don't need sample images to convince me of this.
That's crazy. Why would you assume that about any product?
photoLoKo wrote:
That's crazy. Why would you assume that about any product?
No. I would confirm with that. Any new camera has not to measure with other competitors actual stuff only but in special with its earlier in house products, too. So IQ will be better in any cases then it was with 40D. Nobody would buy a 50D if IQ is lower "but there is an MP increasment of 50%". The 1D AF disaster was an accident. But this might depend from usage and users behaviors and wrong imagination in development.
IQ does not. Its fixed to the sensor and image processing. If that sensor does not fit or overcome D40s IQ, Canon might have build it into a new 500D or might have created a new "inbetween" consumer cam. There are product ranges that have to be delivered. The xxD series is prosumer. One can not produce a new No. 1 product in that range that went a step back in the most important function a camera has.
Let's not foget the Nikon 90D. This camera, video apart, should be in the 40D class, or better, else it will fail. So if 50D is not significantly better than 40D, it must fail Vs 90D which will be 25% cheaper, offers video, and has better walk-around kit zooms. But I have no doubt that, if Canon went to the trouble of a new generation of sensor, plus a new processor, IQ will be just fine. Still, I will borrow the cam for a couple of hours before signing the cheque. Just in case...
Not my opinion. D90 is a competitor for inbetween 450D/40D. Its a D300 in a D1000/D450 body adding some features (e.g. video). 50D is by far far far ahead over it, D300 and D40.
I would not mind if concerning IQ it overran all existing Nikon stuff, even semipro and pro cameras, too.
There is a pre review on a 50D on dpreviews. Well I am sold except for one thing. With the higher pixel density will we see an improvement in resolution. I like to make 13 X 19 prints and sometimes use my (crop zoom) feature because I can not afford a $7000 lens. Compared to my current XTi there are 50% more pixels but the limit of resolution is the lens not the camera so the image will appear the same sharpness on either camera with any given lens. Have I missed something here? Is the lens focus micro adjustment of any use? To me it matters if the eye or the point of focus is not sharp. I like to abstracts with the lens wide open and one sharp feature. If that feature is not tack sharp the photo does not work. Of all of the sharpening filters and programs I have used nothing beats the image being sharp in the first place! Yes I am one of those people that checks each lens against a flat high contrast target when I buy the lens. If it does not pass, back to the shop for adjustment. Then I have what I paid for. I can only afford to buy one lens a year so I do not spend much time on testing.
I have been looking at dpreview and found by their standard it takes about 1.7 to 2 pixels to equal 1 line per mm of sharpness on the imager. This works out to a 5D canon being able to resolve about 61 lines per mm. The D50 will resolve about 100 lines per mm. That is only achieved by a few lenses at their best f stop. My XTi resolves 90 l/mm. Maybe wait for the 5D mark II. A full frame camera should provide a resolution that better matches the lenses I have.
If you are printing a 13x9 with both cameras there will be no practical difference. Viewing both images at 100% the 50D will show more lens flaws, but scaling that to a 13x9 would be say a 20% crop whereas the 40D would might be a 25% crop. I didn't actually do the math, but the point is that the original pixels are combined at different ratios, and viewed at the same PRINT size the flaws should not be any more apparent.
Many here talk about how clean the 50D high ISO photos are. But I usually shoot photos between ISO 100 and 400 and the available examples of the 50D in this ISO range are worse than those of the 40D. They all look soft. I have tried to add some USM but they do not sharpen up very well.
I'm still waiting for some really convincing 50D photos. I hope, we will get some very soon, because in general I like the spec of this camera (although 10-12MP would have been enough for me).
Martin Schmidt wrote:
Many here talk about how clean the 50D high ISO photos are. But I usually shoot photos between ISO 100 and 400 and the available examples of the 50D in this ISO range are worse than those of the 40D. They all look soft. I have tried to add some USM but they do not sharpen up very well.
I'm still waiting for some really convincing 50D photos. I hope, we will get some very soon, because in general I like the spec of this camera (although 10-12MP would have been enough for me).
Many of those shots (particularly the flowers) were shot with the 70-300 at 300mm, and it is a 15MP camera. Any shots at 100% are going to be soft, but given the resolution the 50D at 100% is going to be soft.
Unless you are planning to print 20x30 and larger, then 100% crops are a waste of time. Look at the shots at 25% and 50% - those are plenty sharp and would be a much more realistic print size.
When I look at the photos of my old D60 at 100%, they look sharp (after RAW converting). Somehow I expect the same from the 50D. Otherwise I do not really see the advantage. Is there an advantage if a 40D at 100% is the same as a 50D at 50%? (Only IQ at low ISO, we do not need to talk about all other advantages of newer cameras)
