ebe5000 wrote:
Hello,
I just bought a new Canon 50D. I did some testing with real pictures. I don't have them
at full size. You can take a look at them at my flickr.
All with Canon 70-200/4L IS and Canon 16-35/2.8 II
Direct from Standard jpg by default and only resized for the web.
www.flickr.com/photos/eladi
There are 9 pictures at iso 100-400
enjoy
I got my hands on the 50D and the 18-200 IS Today (I was surprised, Because it wasn't due for release here till October 1). The new screen is nice! I like the new menu system too.
The new lens is ok, But it's not as good as the Nikon (Build quality, And focus speed) But not bad as a lightweight walkabout lens I guess.
Ok, 50D on the left (downscaled to 10MP), 40D on the right. But that doesn't matter anyway, because I see little difference in noise performance (if any at all). Certainly not a 1 or 1,5 stop difference.
Mr. Westfall...
BTW The shooter should have upscaled the 40D pic to 15MP for a fair comparison... I hear Brainiac already breathing down my neck But I don't see how this would make the 1 or 1,5 stop difference feasible too...
I'll take more pictures during the weekend, using other lenses as well.
I expect to test the Canon 400/5.6L and the AF in servo
Also, test the 35L, 85L and 135L to check if I can get better quality from the
sensor.
The pictures are direct jpg from the camera, using the default parameters,the
resized for the web at 900 pixels and apply a very slight Smart Unsharp at photoshop at 20-0.3, needed when you resize any picture.
I Have installed yesterday DPP an can now open the raw files. They look good at ISO 100-400, specially if you do some tweaking. Not yet tested high ISO though.
I have a Canon 5D for almost 3 years, so quality from 5D and L primes are my standards
I currently own a 10D and am considering a 50D. A large part of my motivation comes from the fact that Canon has made a good deal of advancement in long exposure situations, and I want to use the camera for astrophotography in addition to regular shooting. There are definite drawbacks to that approach, but if I am going to spend $1400+ on a camera, it's going to do daylight stuff too!
The ability to use live view to achieve critical focus means I don't have to resort to any arcane and cumbersome techniques to focus using a telescope. The ability to completely control the camera via USB and a laptop means I don't need special (expensive) cables or adapters to control timing and intervals. In short, the 50D greatly simplifies the task. The question now revolves around image quality.
My biggest concern, having looked at a lot of the sample images, is the noise level - even at the lower ISO's. Of course most of these are out of camera JPEGs, or RAWs processed using beta software... but it's still worrying. Part of me wishes Canon had done all the cool sensor enhancements but stuck with the 12MP res of the 450D (if that would serve to give cleaner images).
Ah well... we shall see once real reviews start rolling out. Waiting sucks, so I'm ranting :P
Concerning noise, I see a difference.
A very small one, but an improvement nevertheless.
However, I am more concerned about the softness from the 50D.
Or, to put more appropriately, the less detail it has when comparing to the 40d shot.
It's not just a matter of softness, but of less actual detail.
The word "leather" and "compact" are perfectly readable on the 40d picture, but hardly on the 50D's.
The word "was" is the same, perfectly clear and understandable on the 40d pic, but no so on the 50d's.
When I first looked at these pictures, I immediately assumed the 50D would be the one on the right. It has more detail. Which would be natural, since it has a 50% advantage in MP. Don't know how much that is specifically in actual resolution, but it surely should make a noticeable difference, for the better of course. Not the other way around.
This is disturbing.
The 50d should show more detail than the 40D. It's 15MP versus 10MP. It's a big difference!
Viewing at 100% could or should give the impression of it being softer because the image is "magnified", as Brainiac as stated many (countless by now) times, but that is not what I'm referring to.
It's the fact that it seems to display less actual detail.
Which should not be the case.
Otherwise we would all be shooting 1MP cameras, right?
This policy of making pixels smaller and smaller(50D has 4,7mq2) is turning against us,the owners;I own 2 perfect 30D bodies and I 'm not selling,maybe only for the 1DMK4 if will cost max.4000-4200$!!!! IT served me so.so well!!
It's obvious,the APS-C sensors just touched the max. performance that can be done.From now on if they want to put more MP,they must enlarge the area.Maybe the APS-H sensors will begin to"migrate" to the xxD serie(even a lot of you are saying "no" to the idea),now that the 1DMK4 will be a full-frame,and the xxxD serie will use the same "aps-c" sensors.
When I looked at these two samples, my first thought was the one on the left (50D) was focussed differently. As to noise, to my old eyes, it' looks more than just a slight difference although I cerainly can't quantify it.
To my eyes, using just the samples above, there's so little difference that the decision as to which might be better would have to be made on the basis of other features; or what Canon is manufacturing at the time of purchase. Comparing these photos is like picking the fly sh*t out of the pepper.
I agree that the 40D images look just a bit better, perhaps with more contrast. But I read the photographer's comments and could easily chalk up any differences to "resting his elbows on the counter while taking the shot." Indoor photographs using artificial store lighting, braced and not using a rigid tripod don't constitute a meaningful test anyway, just a snapshot. Literally. Useful as a quick reference maybe and fun, but not science.
But I don't see how this would make the 1 or 1,5 stop difference feasible too...