msalvetti wrote:
I know, I should be using a 1-Series. But there's nothing wrong with wishing the AF of the xxD bodies were better.
+1.
However, I wouldn't expect the AF to be different.
Despite the new sensor and processor, the 50D is essentially a mid-cycle update/face-lift.
Not enough time to do other changes, IMO.
thw2 wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Yeah, I remember that post. I think it was by Geoff Costello?
At this point, like you, the noise level per pixel doesn't bother me one way or the other. Unlike you, I haven't had too much trouble with the 40d's autofocus. I shoot everything from portraits to fast paced dance events at low light levels and my 40d has been a big improvement over the 20d in speed and accuracy so no complaints from me there. What does bother me is the banding at ISO 3200 and DR. My friend, who also shoots low light events, has a D300 and he tells me doesn't get banding at ISO 3200...at all. Now, I don't know if that's true or not because I don't see all of his RAW files but I believe him. Noise is not even an issue for me at high ISOs - what else would be expected?? What kills high ISO images is when banding creeps in because it is a B#TCH to post-process.
Like allnak, I also went from a 20D to the 40D and the AF is fantastic and consistent in my case.
Reliability is my bane because I have two 40D's being replaced by Canon that failed to AF correctly at all. When they worked it was amazing. AI Servo impressed me every time I used it.
Amazing how a single consumer (me) can have two 40D bodies and they both fail in the same way and Canon not blink an eye or ask if I dropped them or what.
I also read a post where a consumer was told by Canon some bad boards not letting proper voltage to the AI Servo system got out of the factory.
I'll have a 50D. I'll see for myself. I reserve the right to exersize the return policy for sure.
Have any of the "hands-on" previews mentioned anything about the feel of the body? (I haven't seen any that have, but I also haven't looked at too many.) I have a 30D and when I held a 40D, my first feeling was that it felt cheaper (more plasticy, I think) than the 30D, though not nearly as bad as something like the XTi.
The 50D weighs a tad less than the 40Dbut more than the 30D.
If you handled the camera without a battery or a light weight lens like the 20D cheap-o kit 18-55 you would feel less heft.
All of them are pretty close in construction with metal frames and engineering plastic.
allnak wrote:
Yeah, I remember that post. I think it was by Geoff Costello?
Yup, that's right.
allnak wrote:
I shoot everything from portraits to fast paced dance events at low light levels and my 40d has been a big improvement over the 20d in speed and accuracy so no complaints from me there.
My question is how do the off-center AF points behave under low light levels. I have no issues if I stick to the center AF point in the XTi/20D/30D/XSi.
As long as the pixel noise is kept under control, like the 50D, there is absolutely nothing to fear in having extra pixels unless you're a pixelpeeper or a brainwashed Noink user (who once convinced themselves full frame and high ISO performance are UNimportant... that is, until the D3/D700 were released).
My question is how do the off-center AF points behave under low light levels. I have no issues if I stick to the center AF point in the XTi/20D/30D/XSi.
On my 20d, I never used the off-center AF points because they were inaccurate even in situations which I didn't consider challenging.
On my 40d, I use the off-center AF points and they have been accurate for me - in low light situations too.
I have my cameras and lenses sent to Canon to have them callibrated (all lenses and bodies once a year).
As long as the pixel noise is kept under control, like the 50D, there is absolutely nothing to fear in having extra pixels unless you're a pixelpeeper or a brainwashed Noink user (who once convinced themselves full frame and high ISO performance are UNimportant... that is, until the D3/D700 were released).
Just depends on what your output is. Some people don't need 15 megapixels and would rather see priority placed on DR.
allnak wrote:
Just depends on what your output is. Some people don't need 15 megapixels and would rather see priority placed on DR.
I totally agree. Just how many pixels does the average person really need? Most of us here are amateurs, so how many posters size and larger images are being printed by these folks? The DR is more important to me then the amount of pixels for sure.
I also agree with your 40D and AF points post listed above.
allnak wrote:
On my 40d, I use the off-center AF points and they have been accurate for me - in low light situations too.....
Ditto on this. I use the off-center AF points regularly with my 40D. Much more accurate than the off-center AF points of my 5D, which are basically useless, IMO.
I got to handle one yesterday at a wedding photography seminar. It looks like a very credible competition for the D300. I don't see anybody switching brands to get one, but it has a more "PRO" feeling than its Canon predecesors in that niche. I think it's gonna be a big winner among existing Canon users.
Do you think Canon will ever go to a 1.5x or 1.4x crop sensor on its xxD models? That'd be good news for wide-angle enthusiasts. A 17mm would be a 25.5 mm on a 1.5x crop and a 23.8mm on a 1.4x crop and that'd be awesome.
Edited by saaketham on Sep 11, 2008 at 11:37 PM GMT
saaketham wrote:
Do you think Canon will ever go to a 1.5x or 1.4x crop sensor on its xxD models? That's be good news for wide-angle enthusiasts. A 17mm would be a 25.5 mm on a 1.5x crop and a 23.8mm on a 1.4x crop and that'd be awesome.
If the EF-S lenses can cover a 1.5x sensor then it would not be a problen to do it.
saaketham wrote:
Do you think Canon will ever go to a 1.5x or 1.4x crop sensor on its xxD models? That'd be good news for wide-angle enthusiasts. A 17mm would be a 25.5 mm on a 1.5x crop and a 23.8mm on a 1.4x crop and that'd be awesome.
Edited by saaketham on Sep 11, 2008 at 11:37 PM GMT
Not sure why they would bother, esp if they had to retool anything. The 10-22 EF-S lens already covers 16-35 which is very wide. And the lens is very sharp, L-like in quality IMHO.
sbeme wrote:
Not sure why they would bother, esp if they had to retool anything. The 10-22 EF-S lens already covers 16-35 which is very wide. And the lens is very sharp, L-like in quality IMHO.
test out the 10-22! Or Sigma's entry into the UWA range.
There is an old thread here on 10-22 images if you search. More stuff of course on dpreview.com
