Rob001 wrote:
digitalbug30d - When's the thing gonna be available? Does anybody know? I want to buy one, but need something right away - don't want to buy a 40D when what I want is the 40D.
The original Canon announcement said October, but there have been reports on dpreview.com that they are going to be available very soon. You might call around ... and ask some retailers. If you want to buy one of the first ... perhaps this next week. One store felt they were going to get their first yesterday (Friday).
I'm still waiting to see the update to the 5D and to get some performance reports on both the 50D and 5DmkII before making a decision. Until software support catches up, I don't need either.
pro photo supply Portland Or
50D Body only $1,399.99
50D Kit with EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM $1,599.99
50D Specialty Kit with EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS $2,099.99
philber wrote:
It is a pre-production camera. Forming opinions on that basis could lead to surprises.
I know it is a pre-production model... That's why I said: if it keeps looking like this (meaning after the official release)... Having said that, I hope I will be pleasantly surprised
It makes me wonder though why canon allows publication of such (pre-production) crap. All the images are way too soft. Maybe it was the lens used or the very agressive in-camera noise reduction... And besides that, the high ISO noise (ISO 3200 and up) looks really ugly...
I know it is a pre-production model... That's why I said: if it keeps looking like this (meaning after the official release)... Having said that, I hope I will be pleasantly surprised
Believe me, the production model is not going to be a lot different. There's only a few parameters in noise reduction that could have been changed between pre-production and production models. The basic signal to noise ratio is in the sensor and the sample shots shared here are a good illustration of what this wonderful "mini 1DIII" is capable of. And Daan you'll probably be better off with your 1DsmkIII anyway isn't it?
Anyway, what level of EOSfun are you guys expecting from a 1400 priced camera? To my eyes that 3200 shots are simply amazing! Remember this is base ISO setting. The so called "12.800" is in fact H2, an amplified 3200 shot. This is meant to get the picture anyhow in situations where you hardly can see with the naked eye! BTW what would be your alternative anyway? A Nikon D300? Ever seen 12.800 shots from that camera? And... were they much better? Nope. In film era a 12.800 ISO developed film was like colour corn flakes breakfast. Nowadays it seems people expect 12.800 noise free images (so that you could push to 102.400 ISO or what?).
Really the 50D is an amazing instrument already from specs. And the first samples just create the expectation that is not just a matter of interesting specs, but also image quality wise. IMO this 50D is going to be a new all time high of EOSfun per $
I thought the 50D would make a nice back-up cam... It still might. However, if it is very agressive noise reduction that removes noise and keeps files relatively clean (in comparison to a 40D or 450D) but destroys all details, I think I will pass on the 50D. But in all fairness, I think I can only make a final judgement after I have shot with it (and used a better lens) and have evaluated the files myself. But I don't get excited from those pre-production samples... Not even from the ISO100 samples... No EOSfun there for me
Frankly, I don't see how to make an informed puchasing decision based on anything other than handling a camera myself. I need to "feel" it, I need to correlate a shot I take to the actual scene, I need to know exactly what settings and what PP. A simple example is this: with my 40D, either my 35L or my 50, both f:1.4, can show significantly more light in an evening scene than what my eye picks up. Unless I am there to witness it, how can I gauge how good the low-light performance actually was?
That being said, this is a purely personal statement, if others are happy any other way, let them have EOSfun. Which is exactly what I had yesterday in the park on a perfect late afternoon with my outdated 40D and 300 f:4
Daan B wrote:
... It makes me wonder though why canon allows publication of such (pre-production) crap. All the images are way too soft. Maybe it was the lens used or the very agressive in-camera noise reduction... And besides that, the high ISO noise (ISO 3200 and up) looks really ugly...
Sorry Daan. I do not confirm.
1. Looking for the Focuspoints, the image samples look sharp to me.
2. At 132 dots each Millimeter the sensor resolution imo overcomes most Lenses capacity.
3. blew up any lower res pic to that format and compare.
4. In equal printsize the images are as sharp or appear even more sharp than any other cameras pics I would guess.
5. The high ISO noise at 3200 is excellent. at 100% it is as good or even better (based on the additional 3MP) than D3/D700 does.
6. The upper ones (12800 so two more stops calculated) are great, too. They looked much better, than (sensor based) ISO 800 picturs of DSLRs from 2002.
I do not know what you want to see. If I would not wait for the expected further stop enhancement with the new 5D2, this camera would be my choice.
Ralph Conway wrote:
Sorry Daan. I do not confirm.
1. Looking for the Focuspoints, the image samples look sharp to me.
Even at the point of focus this still looks way too soft to me. Could be the lens, very low in-camera sharpness, AA filter or agressive in-camera NR. Like I said earlier, I want to see how this cam behaves when shooting with a more resolving lens. I also would like to see a RAW file before I make my final judgement.
2. At 132 dots each Millimeter the sensor resolution imo overcomes most Lenses capacity.
If true, it isn't smart from Canon to use the 28-105 for these samples. Not a bad lens at all for its intended purpose, but not the lens that will challenge a 15MP sensor (appearantly -?-).
3. blew up any lower res pic to that format and compare.
Why? I use a 21MP body as my primary camera.
4. In equal printsize the images are as sharp or appear even more sharp than any other cameras pics I would guess.
See my comments made by point 1 and 2.
5. The high ISO noise at 3200 is excellent. at 100% it is as good or even better (based on the additional 3MP) than D3/D700 does.
It looks like there is some very agressive in-camera NR going on plain surfaces with an attempt to maintain as much detail as possible. In itself not a bad thing and probably usable too. But it looks ugly/digital to me. And have you seen the large purple/pink noise spots (I don't remember the technical term right now) all over both ISO3200 images?
6. The upper ones (12800 so two more stops calculated) are great, too. They looked much better, than (sensor based) ISO 800 picturs of DSLRs from 2002.
Not relevant IMO... Do you still shoot with DSLR's from 2002? I don't.
I do not know what you want to see. If I would not wait for the expected further stop enhancement with the new 5D2, this camera would be my choice.
Like I said before, the jury is still out on this one. First I want to shoot some RAW files with the 50D and a more resolving lens (that I actually use). In the end the samples are from a pre-production 50D with a 28-105 mounted. We also don't know how these JPEG's were processed (what parameters were used). But I know one thing for sure, these sample pics don't make my heart beating any faster. YMMV
When's the thing gonna be available? Does anybody know? I want to buy one, but need something right away - don't want to buy a 40D when what I want is the 40D. 
is capable of. And Daan you'll probably be better off with your 1DsmkIII anyway isn't it? 
To my eyes that 3200 shots are simply amazing! Remember this is base ISO setting. The so called "12.800" is in fact H2, an amplified 3200 shot. This is meant to get the picture anyhow in situations where you hardly can see with the naked eye! BTW what would be your alternative anyway? A Nikon D300? Ever seen 12.800 shots from that camera? And... were they much better? Nope. In film era a 12.800 ISO developed film was like colour corn flakes breakfast. Nowadays it seems people expect 12.800 noise free images (so that you could push to 102.400 ISO or what?).
)