I'm sure that this has already been asked and answered several times by now, but skimming through all of the pages of this post I still did not see this question asked and answered anywhere.
Does anyone know if the BG-E2N will work with the 50D. I do realize that the 50D has a different battery, but that does not necessarily preclude compatiblity.
David Israel wrote:
I'm sure that this has already been asked and answered several times by now, but skimming through all of the pages of this post I still did not see this question asked and answered anywhere.
Does anyone know if the BG-E2N will work with the 50D. I do realize that the 50D has a different battery, but that does not necessarily preclude compatiblity.
Anyone know the definitive answer?
Thanks.
Nope.. the 50D still uses the BP511A and will work with the BG-E2 and BG-E2N.
Rubber Soul wrote:
Some people in the UK already have the camera. The EOS 50D and EF-S 18-200 IS are showing up on retail.
At DP Review, a forum member posted a link to this ISO 3200 Full Size Sample. Shot in RAW, processed in Lightroom at default settings (ie minor sharpening & Chroma NR).
Notice the banding in the darkest area.
But overall, it looks good. Cleans up easily in post processing easily, and IMHO good enough for print.
Indeed severe banding... But all the details are there at ISO 3200 (eye lashes, hair). A worst case scenario also considering the lighting.
Rubber Soul wrote:
Some people in the UK already have the camera. The EOS 50D and EF-S 18-200 IS are showing up on retail.
At DP Review, a forum member posted a link to this ISO 3200 Full Size Sample. Shot in RAW, processed in Lightroom at default settings (ie minor sharpening & Chroma NR).
Notice the banding in the darkest area.
But overall, it looks good. Cleans up easily in post processing easily, and IMHO good enough for print.
BTW, did you see the other ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 samples from the same guy (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vidarnm/)? It has been a while since I used crop cams (so quite possibly I may have unrealistic expectations), but I wouldn't consider ISO 1600 usable for anything other than snap-shots in these lighting conditions. I would avoid ISO 3200 all together. Maybe ISO 1600 is more usable when under daylight (for fast shutterspeeds). There is a great deal of luminance noise. And besides the banding, there seems to be a great deal of color noise (large pink/green spots) mainly in the shadows. And maybe he has already removed some color noise in PP?
To any 40D owners... Would you say that the 50D has better noise performance?
Most of the high ISO shots are underexposed and therefore are going to show noise more. I would like to see some properly exposed shots at high ISO level.
Some of the high ISO samples circulating that were exposed properly look very good.
Jim Victory wrote:
Most of the high ISO shots are underexposed and therefore are going to show noise more. I would like to see some properly exposed shots at high ISO level.
Some of the high ISO samples circulating that were exposed properly look very good.
Jim
Agreed. For example the ISO1600 shot of the boats in the harbor is close to half a stop underexposed. I would like to see some correct exposed high ISO images too. Do you happen to have a link to some of these?
yido wrote:
I hear it's for sale now in Taiwan and in Australia. Does anyone have one here?
A shop in Adelaide, Australia had them displayed today. I didn't have time to check one out and won't do so until I see a 5D MkII on the shelf for fear of an impulse buy.
Yeah, I already saw those... Unfortunately these are in-camera JPEG's from a pre-production model. The other samples are RAW processed (I think by LR) JPEG's from a production model. But thanks anyway
Not really. He's not a professional. Why should I consider the opinions of some random guy on flickr? He's an amateur who's getting the occasional shot out of focus. Big deal.
Rubber Soul wrote:
At DP Review, a forum member posted a link to this ISO 3200 Full Size Sample. Shot in RAW, processed in Lightroom at default settings (ie minor sharpening & Chroma NR).
Notice the banding in the darkest area.
But overall, it looks good. Cleans up easily in post processing easily, and IMHO good enough for print.
That looks horrible. I've never had one look that bad with either of my 40Ds. I have a 50D on order. If it doesn't make the grade it will be heading back to the camera store for a refund.
decoy.no wrote:
Not really. He's not a professional. Why should I consider the opinions of some random guy on flickr? He's an amateur who's getting the occasional shot out of focus. Big deal.
Maybe, maybe not. I guess only time will tell... At least he has had both cams in his hands and shot with them. Besides that, the 50D's AF is similair to the 40D's AF. If he experiences similair AF behaviour between them, that doesn't strike me as something odd. YMMV
MDteX wrote:
That looks horrible. I've never had one look that bad with either of my 40Ds. I have a 50D on order. If it doesn't make the grade it will be heading back to the camera store for a refund.
MDteX wrote:
No. I shoot JPEG much to the dismay of many here. It works for me and I tend to get it right in the camera.
NR is turned off in the camera too. I need the speed for sports and NR slows the camera down.
Yeah, I know what you are talking about... I shoot JPEG's with my 1Ds3 too (although not all of the time).
But regarding the 50D noise levels on the linked samples... These are LR conversions (default values). They will always show more (luminance) noise than in-camera processed JPEG's (even if the in-camera NR is turned off). So maybe it isn't a fair comparison. But have you compared the online 50D JPEG's (JEPG straight from the cam without a RAW conversion) to your 40D JPEG's?
