RAMcG
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.58 #4 · Canon EOS 50D Master thread | |
I traded up from a 20D to a 50D. These quotes from the DPR review really irk me the most:
"Switching to our benchmark RAW converter, Adobe Camera RAW equalizes image processing between the two cameras and allows us to get a much better idea of the level of detail actually captured. As you can see both cameras images look crisper and exhibit better detail but the 40D stills beats the newer model in terms of per pixel detail. Despite of a 22% increase in vertical and horizontal resolution the extra detail captured by the 50D is marginal."
"We're by no means saying the 50Ds image quality is bad but it's simply not significantly better than the ten megapixel 40D. In some areas such as dynamic range and high ISO performance it's actually worse and that simply makes you wonder if the EOS 50D could have been an (even) better camera if its sensor had a slightly more moderate resolution."
How on earth could Canon release a "new" camera that had worse per pixel sharpness, less dynamic range and worse high ISO performance? And why oh why did I not wait. I bought the first day it hit the shelves, and I never do that. When I was in the market for my first DSLR, I did a ton of research, I was prepared to buy the Minolta, and then DPR came out with its review, and that sold me.
After about four weeks of playing, the following is my bottom line so far on image quality. These are my comments on image quality alone. I'm not including other things like camera usability, user interface and ergonomics (in which the 50D kills the 20D).
At low ISOs, I see a vast improvement over my 20D. The focus speed and accuracy are both markedly improved, meaning a much higher keeper rate, allowing me to be even more discriminating about what is acceptable. The larger number of pixels means far more flexibility in cropping. That, combined with the better, more accurate focusing, really gives it a leg up as an outdoor sports camera. The metering and WB are markedly improved, meaning far less "playing" in post processing. The files just look more polished and "done" right out of the camera, if you know what I mean. In short, outdoors, in good light, the 50D is just in a different class than the 20D--it is clearly newer, more mature technology. I don't have the 40D and I've never shot with it so I can't judge the 50D vs the 40D.
That's the good. The bad is the high ISO shooting, though my comments are based on only one outing so far. I shot a hockey scrimmage last weekend. This was at my "home rink" so I know the lighting in there very well, having probably shot over 100 hockey games in there with my 20D. So, I dialed in the numbers I usually would -- ISO 1600, F2.8 and SS of 1/400 (probably a bit too fast on the shutter). That wasn't working. So, I dropped the shutter to 1/320, which would be the normal SS in that rink. That didn't work, either. So, I jacked up the ISO, first to 2000, then to 2500 and finally to 3200. (Boy, I sure do hope that they just changed the lighting in there somehow since last season.) On my wonderful screen, the shots looked nice and sharp and I was looking forward to getting them home and seeing them in full. Let's just say I'm disappointed. The shots are still in focus. But, it's just hard to tell as all the detail in the kids' faces are just pretty much gone, obscured by a noisy and sadly colorful fuzz. I know I've got to do some additional experimenting, but my early returns are very disappointing. I've got another hockey game tomorrow. I plan to bring both the 50D and 20D and shoot back to back--within moments of each other, just taking long enough to transfer the lens and CF card from camera to camera.
For my general photography needs (travel, family snaps, stock), this camera is better than the 20D, particularly in good light (though the per-pixel sharpness issues irk me). For outdoor sports, there is no contest, the 50D blows away the 20D--absolutely crushes it. For my third use of this camera (and my primary use of it from late October through mid March of each year), hockey, so far I'm not impressed at all. At this point, I can't say that it is any better than my 20D for useable images and in fact may well be worse. If tomorrow's head-to-head test between the 20D and the 50D doesn't got well, I'll be pissed.
Sorry for the rant, but I feel better, now.
|
