fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3 … 34

36 … 65 66 end

Archive 2008 · Canon EOS 50D Master thread

Yamil R. Sued
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.35 #1 · Canon EOS 50D Master thread

Jim Victory wrote:
Corndog is right! If you believe the crap you read on DPR or that website then you will make an uninformed decision about the 50D. Most of the morons on DPR would rather bitch about something they know very little about, like photography, while convincing themselves that their an expert.

Most of the shots used as evidenced in that website were poorly exposed and even the best high ISO noise cameras will show noise when not exposed properly.

Absolutely worthless as far as credible information.

Jim

Jim,

I must agree that the stupidity found at DPR is out of control.

IMHO, I want more folks to get their 50D's and properly test them before going half coked and start calling this model Krap!!

I must say that I'm a little skeptical on the High ISO until I see really good tests on it, I believe the 40D to be a superb camera and it would be a hard camera to top, but it can be done. But will you really get the extra 1-1/2 stops that Canon claims?? Remember the superior AF on the 1DMKIII?? These marketing departments sometimes make claims that the cameras can't fulfill, but I really hope they do, that way there will be tons of lower priced 40D's on the market

Keep posting samples, I'm really curious about this body.

Sep 28, 2008 at 01:10 AM

bluetsunami
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.35 #2 · Canon EOS 50D Master thread

DPreview is a horrible place

Sep 28, 2008 at 01:10 AM

therock
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.35 #3 · Canon EOS 50D Master thread

kkdd wrote:
Here's my take on the 50D.

Honestly, that's really pitiful. Rather it be accurate or not I hope you get over your pain real soon.

Sep 28, 2008 at 06:44 AM

kkdd
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.35 #4 · Canon EOS 50D Master thread

Hey those posts aren't mine. Sure, I had the same opinion as those posts, but those posts are made by others. So unless this is a global conspiracy, the 50D does seem to suck.
There are many samples posted in the linked posts not only from dpreview that show how bad the 50d is.

Sep 28, 2008 at 07:55 AM

kkdd
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.35 #5 · Canon EOS 50D Master thread

here is a swedish site (translated) with noise comparison. also check page 20.

Sep 28, 2008 at 08:04 AM

csd2020
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.35 #6 · Canon EOS 50D Master thread

kkdd wrote:
Here's my take on the 50D.

Sorry, I have to disagree. Having used the 50D for a day now, I'm finding that I very much like the extra pixels. To say nobody wants that is simply incorrect... I do! I find high ISO is a compromise with any camera and have yet to see ISO 3200 I consider useable. Your standards may vary. For birding, I want reach and no lens is long enough. The only other variable is pixel density. I too believed the D300 should be the perfect camera (for my purposes) when it came out, but it apparently imposes noise reduction you can't control as I've not been able to maintain the detail I prefer. I'm finding the 50D very good in that respect. As for noise, it's OK but not great. You can limit noise at the expense of detail if you choose (and it's your choice). Otherwise it's about on par with the 40D and D300.

Of course, more informed opinions need come from more experienced users.

Sep 28, 2008 at 08:11 AM

kkdd
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.35 #7 · Canon EOS 50D Master thread

csd2020: that's basically what people are saying. the 50d noise is comparable to 40d, and i've seen instances where it was worse, like the swedish link i posted above. but canon wants us to believe, and certainly chuck westfall said so, that the 50d noise is a stop to 1.5 stop better compared to the 40d. that's simply a lie.

Sep 28, 2008 at 08:15 AM

csd2020
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.35 #8 · Canon EOS 50D Master thread

A lie is an untruthful statement made with the intention to deceive. I can't speak for Chuck but I don't think he was trying to deceive.

If you take advantage of the in camera noise reduction capabilities of the 50D, you can indeed achieve a significant improvement in high ISO performance. That action will result in corresponding decrease in detail preserved. You can use it or not and you can vary the amount of NR to achieve desired results. I find ISO 1600 pretty good (on par with 40D and D300) with no NR. That's a significant achievement in my view given the increase in pixels (which I do like). You said in your blog that nobody cares about more megapixels. Just not true.

It's entirely possible that for the same amount of detail and compared at equal sizes, the 50d may indeed be a stop better than the 40D.

Sep 28, 2008 at 09:12 AM

kkdd
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.35 #9 · Canon EOS 50D Master thread

No it's not, the evidence is there. Many are independently reporting that.

Sep 28, 2008 at 10:25 AM

Miles42
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.35 #10 · Canon EOS 50D Master thread

It is hard to believe there is any significant amout of feed back on a Camera that hasn't seen wide release yet?

Sep 28, 2008 at 10:34 AM

csd2020
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.35 #11 · Canon EOS 50D Master thread

kkdd wrote:
No it's not, the evidence is there. Many are independently reporting that.

Many (like you) don't even have the camera yet. I do.

I'll repeat. With the in camera noise reduction features of the 50D, you can easily achieve the 1-1/2 stop improvement in noise over the 40D. You will loose some detail in the process, but you can decide what's acceptable.

Please, stop trying to pass yourself off as an expert based on internet dribble from users with no experience with the camera. I was disappointed at first too but am gaining respect for the 50D with use.

Sep 28, 2008 at 10:59 AM

Yamil R. Sued
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.35 #12 · Canon EOS 50D Master thread

csd2020 wrote:
With the in camera noise reduction features of the 50D, you can easily achieve the 1-1/2 stop improvement in noise over the 40D. You will loose some detail in the process, but you can decide what's acceptable.

This statement can be taken two different ways.

It says that the 50D is better than the 40D....... But it isn't, it all depends on how much loss of detail you can handle, right??

This concept is foreign to me. I remember, back in the film days that outmost resolution is what you wanted from a camera, nowadays the High ISO performance is what determines a cameras worth, even at the loss of resolution.

I can't say anything because I haven't tested both the 40D and the 50D side by side, that is the only way to really tell!!

In my case, the only times I shoot at ISO 1600 or higher and at Night Football games and at Indoor Basketball games. And I'm not even doing much of that lately. Most of my work is done at the studio ad ISO 100-200, I can't go higher than that due to the fact that I have over 10,000 Watt/Second power from five Speedotron Packs and nine Speedotron Heads. The rest of my work is Sporting Events for my Corporate Clients, and the only time I go to ISO 640-800 is when it's pouring rain!! And yes, I shoot in the pouring rain!!

Why don't we wait until the 50D is out in force and real tests are performed by all before we go out and say for certain that Canon lied. But at the same time, if we find out that the 50D performance it's not up to par with what Canon said, let's be honest and say so, the only way to get the best from any company is to tell them when they don't perform to their own claims and to our expectations.

Y

Sep 28, 2008 at 11:30 AM

jkurkjia
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.35 #13 · Canon EOS 50D Master thread

csd2020 wrote:
With the in camera noise reduction features of the 50D, you can easily achieve the 1-1/2 stop improvement in noise over the 40D. You will loose some detail in the process, but you can decide what's acceptable.

Um, with that logic any P&S can beat the 40D from the standpoint of noise ... just crank up the "sacrifice detail" setting.

Look, choosing to lose detail is not acceptable when comparing noise performance between two cameras. The $64,000 question is "without compromising detail" is the noise performance of the 50D 1.5 stops better (Canon's claim for the new sensor) than that of the 40D."

How can we answer that question? Using the same RAW converter (but one that ignores camera settings) set to its default settings develop the two pictures. One camera's output has more pixels than the other ... so, choose the arithmetic average of the two sizes and interpolate one up and the other down to that average (this is equivalent to printing both shots out at a common and very large print size) ... if you wish, apply the "same" USM settings to both files (as if you were going to print the files) ... then answer the question $64,000 question. The alleged noise improvement (i.e. 1.5 stops), IF TRUE is significant and will be easily seen. Note, it's important that both files undergo an interpolation process to avoid giving one camera an advantage over the other (i.e. don't resize the smaller file "up" to the size of the larger life and similarly, don't resize the larger file "down" to the size of the smaller file).

Of course if you want to quantify the alleged noise improvement you will have to have to take a lot of test shots using both cameras at various ISO settings but for a quick evaluation, what I suggested above will be overkill. Why is a quick yea/nay possible? Because "none" of the limited number of "first impression/comparisons" have shown much of a difference in high ISO noise, let alone a significant difference, between the 50D and 40D ... i.e., you will quickly know the truth after a few minutes of side-by-side comparison.

Right this minute there are not enough RAW converters set up for the 50D and very few cameras in the hands of users. I suspect it will be a few weeks before there is consensus regarding the $64,000 noise question.

There is no doubt in my mind that the 50D will be, is, whatever, a superb camera. After all, the older brother 40D is superb and Canon has always improved with each upgrade; so, it's logical to assume the 50D will be darn good PERIOD. That aside, the question remains regarding whether or not Canon has misrepresented the 1.5 stops improvement in the 50D's high ISO noise performance ... based on what we have seen so far, probably ... but, we will know more in a few weeks.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

Sep 28, 2008 at 12:55 PM

gml1
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.35 #14 · Canon EOS 50D Master thread

Don�t forget that Nikon and Sony were the first to start the trend with the fake ISO numbers.

Kudos to Canon that 50D's fake ISO-6400 looks actually better than D300's fake ISO-6400

.

Also, kudos to Canon that the noise on 50D is certainly not worse than on the 40D, despite the 50% more megapixels.
And even though cramming 15mp on its sensor was a bad idea, IMO, the 50D is still a nice package.

So, nothing to be pissed about.
Canon is responding to competitive pressure the way they can.
Let�s not forget that in the 5DII they are putting the sensor of their $8000 flagship camera - and an improved version of this sensor, that is, for $2700.

Sep 28, 2008 at 01:03 PM

Yamil R. Sued
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.35 #15 · Canon EOS 50D Master thread

gml1 wrote:
Don�t forget that Nikon and Sony were the first to start the trend with the fake ISO numbers.

Kudos to Canon that 50D's fake ISO-6400 looks actually better than D300's fake ISO-6400

.

I'm not saying that you are wrong, but have YOU tested both under the same Situation and Lighting and similar lenses?? BTW, I will, as soon as Joe K above gets his 50D!!

gml1 wrote:
Also, kudos to Canon that the noise on 50D is certainly not worse than on the 40D, despite the 50% more megapixels.
And even though cramming 15mp on its sensor was a bad idea, IMO, the 50D is still a nice package.

So, nothing to be pissed about.
Canon is responding to competitive pressure the way they can.
Let�s not forget that in the 5DII they are putting the sensor of their $8000 flagship camera - an improved version of this sensor, actually, and selling the 5DII for $2700.

Have YOU tested the 50D to make that assertion??

I want to get this information from those that have the camera on hand and have throughly tested it, not form those that have read reports on DPR!!!

Sep 28, 2008 at 01:07 PM

gml1
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.35 #16 · Canon EOS 50D Master thread

Yamil R. Sued wrote:
Have YOU tested the 50D to make that assertion??

No, I haven't. But empirical evidence is mounting every day.
Here is one example: a guy from DPreview is claiming that the 50D is as good as the 5D - and then he posts these ISO-800 shots (converted from RAW).
Just take a look at the shadow noise (and be honest with yourself

):

50D:
http://www.pbase.com/motopram/image/103689648/original

5D:
http://www.pbase.com/motopram/image/103690527/original

Sep 28, 2008 at 01:22 PM

Gary Petersen
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.35 #17 · Canon EOS 50D Master thread

gml1 wrote:
No, I haven't. But empirical evidence is mounting every day.
Here is one example: a guy from DPreview is claiming that the 50D is as good as the 5D - and then he posts these ISO-800 shots (converted from RAW).
Just take a look at the shadow noise (and be honest with yourself

):

50D:
http://www.pbase.com/motopram/image/103689648/original

5D:
http://www.pbase.com/motopram/image/103690527/original

Looks good to me. I didn't print them but doubt you'd see any noise in print.

Sep 28, 2008 at 01:40 PM

philber
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.35 #18 · Canon EOS 50D Master thread

I own a 40D and was debating whether to upgrade to 50D or 5D2. I am not really interested in "extreme" shots, such as very low light. My priority is not on the "exception" shot, but on the majority of "normal" shots, and IQ is much more important to me than other parametres, such as VF, AF, fps, etc...
With that in mind, my dealer lent me a 50D and a 5D for a couple of hours, and I duplicated the same "normal" shots with the same lenses on the 3 bodies, and also with a 24-105 zoom so that I could compensate for the crop factor, and also with my 50 f:1.4 on the crops compared with my 85 f1.8 mounted on the 5D.
This was a fairly tedious process, and after a couple of hours of changing lenses all the time, making notes, zooming with my feet, etc.. I was glad to call it a day and move on.

Results from my limited experiment are clear. 50D has better IQ than 40D. On a shot of a bush of flowers and leaves, 40D looks 2-dimensional compared to the 50D which looks more 3-D. Better micro-contrast, small shading transitions, better detail in almost washed out zones and over-dark zones.
Is the improvement enough to warrant my upgrading? Maybe. It is clearly visible once I knew where to look, but it is not overwhelming. Subjectively, it is the same order of magnitude as between a good lens and an "L" lens (both primes).

The question became moot when I compared the shots to 5D. 5D IMHO delivers significantly better IQ for "normal" shots than 50D. Sensor size seems to matter more than pixel count.
On 5D shots, not only was sharpenss up, but focus as well, colour shadings were nicer. Again subjectively, the improvement from 50D to 5D seems to be more than the improvement from 40D to 50D.
I blind tested the shots, printed from RAW with neutral seetings, to A4, with my dealer, who found exactly the same hierachy as I, so it wasn't pure luck.
So my upgrade will be either to 5D or 5D2, as and when it becomes avaialable.

Sep 28, 2008 at 02:04 PM

csd2020
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.35 #19 · Canon EOS 50D Master thread

jkurkjia wrote:
Um, with that logic any P&S can beat the 40D from the standpoint of noise ... just crank up the "sacrifice detail" setting.

Don't disagree with you Joe but you miss the point. Any P&S will not come close. The 50D achieves sufficiently more detail that you can sacrifice some to gain ISO performance (just like the D300 does). Normalize both the same size and detail characteristics and I think you may find an improvement in noise over the 40D. I don't know about 1-1/2 stops, people do tend to throw that term around loosely. One stop would be huge.

I am finding more detail in the 50D files and I'm quite pleased with that. It's better than I expected. That was not the case until I started converting raws in ACR. DPP seems to apply some NR no matter the settings at the expense of detail. At this point, it's hard to say what is more responsible for that detail. It may be the increase in resolution or just the micro-adjust capability optimizing my lenses, which once again, makes apples to apples comparisons almost impossible since that feature is not present on the 40D.

Sep 28, 2008 at 02:09 PM

gml1
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.35 #20 · Canon EOS 50D Master thread

Gary Petersen wrote:
Looks good to me. I didn't print them but doubt you'd see any noise in print.

The 5D has basically no noise, whereas the 50D has visible noise. Overall, 1+ stop difference.
Other than that, looks good indeed.

Sep 28, 2008 at 02:34 PM

1 2 3 … 34 35 36 … 65 66 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 34 35 36 … 65 66 end