So the Australian price is approx $1880 USD. In the US the est price for the 50D is $1399 USD. The 40D is approx $979 USD. What a difference! Dont know how this works, but sounds like you should find someone to ship one down under.
Digital Rev is actually a HK based ebay seller (not a particularly good one, from what I can tell from their feedback, but a very large one). One issue may be that our dollar is dropping but prices have been set in foreign currency with the dollar expected to be higher. Have no idea if that kind of thing happens, though.
We always pay significantly more than buyers in the US for electronics. Australia is actually becoming a very expensive country to live in, in my opinion, and there seems to be much malaise in the population about this. There is no particularly good reason why things should cost so much more in Australia than in the US, is there? We are just as close to Japan as the US, our taxes are capped at 10% for electronics, we are close to large population centres in the rest of Asia, our dollar, while falling, is still near the strongest it's been for decades. I guess there must be a reason... Is it simply that they can ship and sell in larger volume to the US? Anyone?
I'm really not interested in buying a 50D (I will get the 5DII, As long as it's not going to be ridiculously expensive) But I came across that link. Oh, And you will have to add another 10% for GST once it enters the country, And also pay any customs charges. If that's the grey import price, I wonder how much Canon Australia's RRP Will be!
The 50D Is a good camera, But it's certainly not worth more then twice as much as a 40D!!
msalvetti wrote:
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.
Mark
There has been a few complaints about the AI Servo capability of the 40D (from Imaging Resource, Rob Galbraith etc).
My question is: how is off-center AF for static subjects in low light? Is it reliable? Personally, I don't care about AI Servo.
I already ordered one (and payed for it). I'm starting to regret my decision.
You must be kidding ah? You ordered one, without waiting for a decent test or being able to hold and test the camera yourself? Great! I could imagine doing that myself too because I trust Canon to deliver EOSfun. But you start having buyers remorse because of some forumposts? Man, man, Luis, straighten your back, have faith, don't worry, be happy! You did a courageous act and should not get the nerves now, or you will be judged like :stupid: Try to have EOSfun and share your banding tests with us asap!
I already ordered one (and payed for it). I'm starting to regret my decision.
I guess funny guy forgot about a return policy.
If I had the backup funds I would be right there with you just for the possibility to fine tune all my glass. If it's not as claimed the vendor would have it back.
I don't know if this has been discussed, but I struggle to believe the extra resolution of the 50D will give a substantial improvement in Image Quality, especially given the lenses that 95% of 50D users will attach to the camera.
Think about it, the 1ds3 has 21MP, and is known to push the limits of all but Canons latest and most expensive lenses (70-200f4 L IS for one). The full-frame sensor of the 1ds3 has a surface area more than 2 and a half times that of an APS-C sized sensor. That equates to the 40D pushing lens resolution even more than the 1ds3. Now we're increasing the resolution by 50% with no increase in chip surface area? And targeting it to advanced amateurs, who for the most part can't afford top-notch glass?
The advantage of increasing pixel density far beyond the capabilities of your lens can only -at best- give the same advantage as up-rezzing your files in PP with something like Fred Miranda's $25 software plugin. The extra resolution will essentially come from useless bits of blur sitting in between resolved variations in tones, no more.
I won't call this my 2c, because it's based on my confusion, and a dis-like of marketing crap aimed at the masses who like big numbers attached to big price-tags.
rosscova wrote:
I don't know if this has been discussed, but I struggle to believe the extra resolution of the 50D will give a substantial improvement in Image Quality, especially given the lenses that 95% of 50D users will attach to the camera.
Think about it, the 1ds3 has 21MP, and is known to push the limits of all but Canons latest and most expensive lenses (70-200f4 L IS for one). The full-frame sensor of the 1ds3 has a surface area more than 2 and a half times that of an APS-C sized sensor. That equates to the 40D pushing lens resolution even more than the 1ds3. Now we're increasing the resolution by 50% with no increase in chip surface area? And targeting it to advanced amateurs, who for the most part can't afford top-notch glass?
The advantage of increasing pixel density far beyond the capabilities of your lens can only -at best- give the same advantage as up-rezzing your files in PP with something like Fred Miranda's $25 software plugin. The extra resolution will essentially come from useless bits of blur sitting in between resolved variations in tones, no more.
I won't call this my 2c, because it's based on my confusion, and a dis-like of marketing crap aimed at the masses who like big numbers attached to big price-tags.
rosscova wrote:
I won't call this my 2c, because it's based on my confusion, and a dis-like of marketing crap aimed at the masses who like big numbers attached to big price-tags.
Hmm? If I read correctly he says the 50D ISO 6400 is near same as the ISO 3200 on the 40D. If so then the gain would be in shutter speed and I would take it. If it's on the up and up.
therock wrote:
Hmm? If I read correctly he says the 50D ISO 6400 is near same as the ISO 3200 on the 40D. If so then the gain would be in shutter speed and I would take it. If it's on the up and up.
No - what he says is that 3200 ISO on the 50d is like 1600 ISO on the 40d but this is not in reference to noise. I think he made a mistake in language. What I think he is trying to say is that ISO 3200 on the 50d appears to be the same as just a +1 bump in software, ie DPP. So, it's the same as the 40d even though Canon is showing the ISO range as having extended with the 50d. I could be wrong, but that seems to make the most sense from the context.
What he is saying in reference to noise is that it's a wash - noise levels are the same between the 50d and 40d. I don't know if he is saying that this is at the pixel level or not.
Mscott821 wrote:
My 'back of the napkin' math tells me that at the pixel density that the 50D sports, a comparable density on a 1DS would result in a 42.4MP camera...
So, in a way the 50D is Canons highest res camera (for now)...
...er, no: the G9 would be a 239 megapixel camera if the sensor was full-frame.
This is a good point. It's also quite reasonable to think that Canon is gun-shy about saying any camera has improved AF after the 1D Mark III disaster.
allnak wrote:
No - what he says is that 3200 ISO on the 50d is like 1600 ISO on the 40d but this is not in reference to noise. I think he made a mistake in language. What I think he is trying to say is that ISO 3200 on the 50d appears to be the same as just a +1 bump in software, ie DPP. So, it's the same as the 40d even though Canon is showing the ISO range as having extended with the 50d. I could be wrong, but that seems to make the most sense from the context.
What he is saying in reference to noise is that it's a wash - noise levels are the same between the 50d and 40d. I don't know if he is saying that this is at the pixel level or not....Show more →
i think he said at the pixel level, but reducing would only get you like 1/4-1/3 stop better than a 40D.
there are doubts as to what exactly he did to begin with though
yeah i wasn't quite sure what he was saying about the ISO3200 bit.
But that's exactly what is expected. Dang... I don't have the link... but some guy on this forum has already indicated, even before the release of the 50D, that the camera will have the SAME pixel noise as the 40D. For pixelpeepers, this may not sound exciting, but from an image point of view, it's quite significant as the noise level on the image level improves. The 450D has the same read noise as the 40D at ISO 1600, but due to its smaller pixels, the 450D actually has lower image noise.
Oh, I won't trust what the marketing chap, Chuck Westfall, says.
Personally, until Canon has addressed their AF issues with new AF designs (or even revisiting older but surer designs), I can't see myself getting a new Canon camera in the foreseeable future.
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 thing is, the DIGIC 4 processor may not be faster.
A 2x increase of data throughput can achieved by:
a) making the ‘data bus’/processor 2x faster, or
b) simply adding 2x more data channels
We don’t know what Canon did to imrove throughput.
If it's b), the AF would be identical to the one on the 40D.
The thing is, the DIGIC 4 processor may not be faster.
A 2x increase of data throughput can achieved by:
a) making the ‘data bus’/processor 2x faster, or
b) simply adding 2x more data channels
We don’t know what Canon did to imrove throughput.
If it's b), the AF would be identical to the one on the 40D.
But how does AF speed relate to sensitivity? If my 40D AF in low light (such as a hockey rink where I'm shooting at ISO3200, f/2.8, 1/400) was anywhere close to what it is in bright light, I would have no complaints. But it's not. At my daughter's hockey game yesterday, I got about 20 keepers out of 150 frames (admittedly, that's much worse than usual). If that's what I'm going to get out of a 50D, it's probably not worth the upgrade for me.
To those that think pre-focusing is a substitute, they haven't tried shooting stick and ball sports. Motorsports (where I get great AF results unless I'm panning at a low shutter speed) are easy in comparison. MF? Sure, but not in a 1.6 crop viewfinder. Things looked a lot sharper through my viewfinder yesterday than they turned out to be. If a DSLR AF can't outperform MF, then a lot of the benefits of digital are lost.
I know, I should be using a 1-Series. But there's nothing wrong with wishing the AF of the xxD bodies were better.
wouldnt be an obvious conclusion that the 50d has a new digic chip that its iso..would be better? or we can wait 2 weeks for some real world photos..
wierd charts prove nothing period its like stereo equiptment testing I test with my ears...photos should be tested with ones eyes....
