allnak wrote:
Here's his high ISO shots on Flickr. You can download the large size and check them. I can see pattern noise in the 3200 ISO pics and definitely in the 6400 ISO pics. I hope they get this worked out before release date.
Who knows. The images posted at Flickr were done with a pre-production model. I'm seeing NR in all the shots so even these are not the best shots to evaluate the IQ of the 50d. If those were from a production model, then I'd be a little hesitant given the banding and blotchiness from NR that I'm seeing even at ISO 3200. Then again, the only real way to judge the IQ would be from RAWs. They'll come when they come.
orangefirefish wrote:
Man... it has the same AF system as the 40d. I'm contemplating cancelling my order.
I don't understand why this is so bad? I thought my 30D AF was good and now I have the 40D actually on my second one and I thought the AF on this camera is very good. I have many more keepers than I did on the 30 or even the 20. For me the AF is just fine but if it was better I wouldn't kick it out of bed
I'm disappointed the AF is supposedly the same too. But I'm willing to wait for some real-life tests.
I use high ISO mostly shooting youth sports. I can tell as the lighting gets worse, so the the AF. Especially shooting through glass at a hockey rink, as I often do. Having a useable ISO6400 isn't going to help me that much if my AI Servo keeper rate is really low.
For me yes, I like the extra MP good for cropping, the idea of a great LCD is another great reason for us older people who have a vision problem. I also love the new menu look and if it's anything like the other upgrades I have made from my first Canon DSLR the AF have improved.
allnak wrote:
Who knows. The images posted at Flickr were done with a pre-production model. I'm seeing NR in all the shots so even these are not the best shots to evaluate the IQ of the 50d. If those were from a production model, then I'd be a little hesitant given the banding and blotchiness from NR that I'm seeing even at ISO 3200. Then again, the only real way to judge the IQ would be from RAWs. They'll come when they come.
100% pixel peeping is also a problem. A high res camera may look worse at 100%, but actually be better than a lower res camera. Little noise is better than big noise. There's also the resolution contribution to sharpness.
tanglefoot47 wrote:
I don't understand why this is so bad? I thought my 30D AF was good and now I have the 40D actually on my second one and I thought the AF on this camera is very good. I have many more keepers than I did on the 30 or even the 20. For me the AF is just fine but if it was better I wouldn't kick it out of bed
My experience with it is much like Rob Galbraith's; soft images even though the camera registers AF lock, and a much lower keeper rate than the center point of the 5D (and neither have nothin' on the 1 series, D300 or D3).
This is, of course, compounded by the difficulty of judging good focus on the 40s LCD.
It really needs a revamp. An adequate LCD is a start, but that is really just playing catchup.
You're missing my point. I'm not talking about noise per say. I don't mind noise. What I mind is banding. And as I said before, it doesn't really matter anyway at this point. No one will be able to really draw conclusions about any of this until we are able to see RAWs from a production unit (not pre-production). I do understand what you're saying about resolution and perceived IQ - in my case, my output is prints, not what I see at 100% on the monitor.
dcmiller wrote:
100% pixel peeping is also a problem. A high res camera may look worse at 100%, but actually be better than a lower res camera. Little noise is better than big noise. There's also the resolution contribution to sharpness.
I am very disapointed by the banding.
That is severe banding...
The pics also seem somewhat soft.
Of course, the pics available are jpgs, and we don't know what was the in-camera setting for sharpness. Maybe it was default (probably 0).
But still I was hoping for rather sharp shots, since the 50d was suposed to come with a weaker AA filter.
I already ordered one (and payed for it).
I'm starting to regret my decision.
Maybe I'm wrong and the production models will be better, but I seriously doubt it...
Dan Martin wrote:
Because Canon said it was the same...
Where did Canon say that? The 50D has these three differences that the 40D does not, and I would think that all three would improve AF performance.
Its inside where you'll find the Canon 50D's major changes. First is the new 15.1-megapixel APS-C CMOS sensor, a significant upgrade from the 40D's 10-megapixel sensor. Major changes to the design of the microlens array as well as to the sensor itself have actually reduced sensor noise despite the increase in resolution. The change has allowed Canon to offer a wider range of ISO settings than the company has ever offered, ranging from ISO 100 to 3,200, plus two higher settings: H1 is equivalent to ISO 6,400 and H2 takes the camera to 12,800.
Canon's new DIGIC 4 processor is a part of the equation, moving the extra data at a faster pace than its predecessor, and keeping the camera to a high 6.3 frames per second while maintaining that 14-bit data for RAW images (this is a slight speed drop from the 40D's 6.5 fps).
Interestingly, the Canon 50D now includes the ability to detect the light source (including the color temperature and whether or not the light is pulsing), and then take these into account and microscopically shift the focus as necessary. ...Show more →
Imagemaster wrote:
Where did Canon say that? The 50D has these three differences that the 40D does not, and I would think that all three would improve AF performance.
It was said here:
Autofocus The 50D's autofocus system carries over mostly unaltered from the 40D: it remains comprised of nine AF points, all of which act as cross-type with f/5.6 or faster lenses (the centre AF point operates with higher precision than the other points with f/2.8 or faster lenses).
While Canon is emphasizing this time around the AF system's ability to detect scene colour temperature and light flicker, and include that as part of the 50D's autotofocus calculation, that capability was also present in the 40D, says Canon USA's Westfall. Canon's briefing notes on the camera make no mention, says Westfall, of autofocus sensor or algorithm changes in the 50D, relative to the 40D.
The autofocus calculations may well be the same, but where those calculations are performed is different. In the 50D: DIGIC 4. In the 40D: DIGIC III. Because DIGIC 4 is a faster processor, this could lead to a more responsive AF system, though this doesn't necessarily translate into greater AF accuracy.
The only change to autofocus that's visible to the user is found in the camera's Custom Functions: AF Microadjustment, for compensating for focus calibration error in the camera body or combination of body and attached lens, has been added to the 50D, with the same menu screen layout and options as the Mark III models. ...Show more →
