One other thing I noticed with the short time I had with the 50D, Was the shots I took at ISO 12800, I noticed banding in the images. Anyone else see the same thing when shooting at ISO 12800 (H2)?
Thanks for the link. I installed it a few minutes ago. I will try it out tomorrow and I sincerly hope it makes a positive difference!
I called my local camera dealer and they have a new order in for 50Ds that will arrive next week. If the firmware doesn't help I will be trying a new 50D. My hats off to all of the folks who put up with the BS with the Mrk IIIs - I hope all are getting good results.
Steve W
Daan B wrote:
Imaging-Resource has been working on their 50D review. Here is the page containing some NR tests (JPEG). They didn't equalize the files (go get them Brainiac ) but in their conclusion they basically say that the 50D loses more details at higher ISO's than the 40D and that the D90 has a cleaner NR. The D300 is on par with the D90 in their opinion.
i watched closely at those pictures as well. Some things are worth noting:
It seems that they are using a 50mm Lens combined with a 1.4x extender to perform their tests ... not an ideal setup me thinks.
Comparing the D90 with the 50D pictures: the exposure-time of the Canon is shorter then the ones of the Nikon so the test may be a unfair to the Canon.
There seem to be a lot of hotpixels that stand out of the normal noise-floor.
I have download the raws from that test and played around a little. The high-isos converted with ACR look extremely different from the DPP-conversion.
It all doesnt help the 50D because the Nikon looks better noisewise ...
EOS20 wrote:
One other thing I noticed with the short time I had with the 50D, Was the shots I took at ISO 12800, I noticed banding in the images. Anyone else see the same thing when shooting at ISO 12800 (H2)?
I believe I even read that in the manual.... H2 is a feature for "must get the shot"...Banding at extreme ISOs seem to be a common thing. I believe some manufacturers intentionally keep their max ISO lower to prevent this... I am actually happy that they left this ISO available regardless of banding....not that I'll use it much at all, but it's a nice to have.
4.6 ... it shows a significant noise-floor mainly in the red-channel but surpresses the croma-noise in the darker aeras better than dpp. But overall i like the dpp-result more.
Richie S wrote:
That's not the best review ever is it?
No They say the sensor does not bring much more resolution then the 10mp 40D
It appears that Canon has reached the limit of what is sensible, in terms of megapixels on an APS-C sensor. At a pixel density of 4.5 MP/cm² (40D: 3.1 MP/cm², 1Ds MkIII: 2.4 MP/cm²) the lens becomes the limiting factor. Even the sharpest primes at optimal apertures cannot (at least away from the center of the frame) satisfy the 15.1 megapixel sensors hunger for resolution. Considering the disadvantages that come with higher pixel densities such as diffraction issues, increased sensitivity towards camera shake, reduced dynamic range, reduced high ISO performance and the need to store, move and process larger amounts of data, one could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that at this point the megapixel race should probably stop. One consequence of this is that the 50% increase in pixel count over the 40D results in only a marginal amount of extra detail.
At Photozone they measure 8% more resolution than the 12mp 450D : 2686 vs 2481
Photozone also has started to re-test Canon lenses on the 50D. Up till now three consumer zooms are tested. It will be interesting to see how some L lenses will hold up on the 50D.
1. Weaker high-ISO noise performance than the 40D, and Nikon D300. Better than the Pentax K20D.
2. Lower dynamic range than all its competitors including the 40D, Pentax K20D, Nikon D300, and Sony A700. It's also worth mentioning that RAW files have very little headroom on the highlight end --less than the competitors. That's not entirely unexpected though, given the dynamic range results.
3. Barely more resolution than the Nikon D300 and less than the Sony A700, both 12 MP bodies.
Overall, it looks like 100% coverage micro lenses didn't perform any miracles. A sensor that was more conservative with respect to photosite density would have probably produced a more competitive camera.
There are other advantages beyond image quality to consider it over a 40D though, so it may be worth the step up for some (although the current price seems to be asking a lot).
EOS20 wrote:
One other thing I noticed with the short time I had with the 50D, Was the shots I took at ISO 12800, I noticed banding in the images. Anyone else see the same thing when shooting at ISO 12800 (H2)?
Forgive me for playing the devil's advocate, but how is this banding any different on the 50D from any other Canon DSLR which runs on 7.2v batteries? (that seems to be the pattern, the 5D Mk I included). Are you seeing it in AI Focus/AI Servo modes in particular (it can happn on the 5D in One Shot mode too but gets accentuated in the AI AF modes).
The DPR review is a joke in my opinion. They have sunk to new lows. Clearly in the tests I have done the detail is right there in the raw image if you use DPP. NONE of the 3 party products IMO opinion at this moment can really handle a 50D image and show its full capabilities. I don't use the 50D for production work but the one we have has punched out some pretty impressive images with excellent detail. I use Canon and Nikon and love both but a wouldn't trust DPR to test anything above a PS. If Phil isn't doing it personally it sucks.
Please be aware, Phil Askey of dpreview.com has just fessed up to using ACR 4.6RC in parts of the review not ACR 4.6 final. Crazy stuff, what were they thinking, they would never review a beta camera, but they do a review with non-final software?
It's pretty well accepted that there were improvements between ACR 4.6RC and ACR 4.6 final for the 50D raw converter.
"However, it appears the 50D review was done using 4.6 RC, which had incomplete 50D support. Results would have likely have been much better had 4.6 final been used."
) but in their conclusion they basically say that the 50D loses more details at higher ISO's than the 40D and that the D90 has a cleaner NR. The D300 is on par with the D90 in their opinion.