Brit-007 wrote:
I really do not think that Adobe has got it with the reverse engineering of the files from the 50D. This is probably why Apple has not released an update yet to support the camera in Aperture. On the Aperture blogs, most people are referring to converting to DNG and then importing.
There was a user who decided to go the route of DPP, convert to jpg or tiff then import and the files were noticably better. Just a thought. I will need to process my files and see for myself. I was trying to avoid installing the Canon software but at the moment, I think this is the only way.
Remember, the processor is entirely different to any other. Remember back in the floppy day when Microsoft brought out Windows 95 on discks which could not initially be copied. They produced disks with data written on the sides of the troughs. I think it is a similar analogy.
taking a quick peek with a spcial really raw raw analysis program it very tentatively appeared as if ACR has issues with the 50D and DPP gives a truer picture of the noise when comparing 50D to 40D. but i'd need to look into it a lot more.
rd4tile wrote:
I'm seeing a lot of noise as low as ISO400 especially in blue sky where I never see any with my 1D3 at identical exposure levels. This body seems noise prone to any under exposure no matter how small in some situations.
This was one of my big complaints with the 50D - noise in blue skies. And, since I live in SoCal where the skies are blue for 10 months out of the year, I returned the camera. I've been holding out hope that Canon releases a firmware fix that would allow me, without much reservation, to buy another 50D. I miss the extra crop factor it had since I do almost all nature photography where reach is king.
As always YMMV on the noise, focusing problems, etc. on the 50D, and this is just my experience after owning one for about 10 days.
I think this endless debat over the amount of noise is crazy. Has anybody here ever used film? My 50D at any ISO is WAY better than film ever was. Also, the way noise looks in print verses on a screen is very different also. Just get out and use the equipement, if it doesn't suit your uses try something different, just stop whining about certain issues.
JohnBrose wrote:
I think this endless debat over the amount of noise is crazy. Has anybody here ever used film? My 50D at any ISO is WAY better than film ever was. Also, the way noise looks in print verses on a screen is very different also. Just get out and use the equipement, if it doesn't suit your uses try something different, just stop whining about certain issues.
I don't think of it as whining. It's more like collective product testing (social research maybe?). And not all of us can buy new models willy-nilly and resell them if they don't work. If you don't like the 50D noise threads you don't have to read them.
This is not a 50D noise thread, it is the 50D Master thread. They are plenty of other threads floating around about noise, which appears to be the subject brought up on every 50D thread.
Personally it is probably time for the Master thread to die.
DoJC wrote:
This was one of my big complaints with the 50D - noise in blue skies. And, since I live in SoCal where the skies are blue for 10 months out of the year, I returned the camera. I've been holding out hope that Canon releases a firmware fix that would allow me, without much reservation, to buy another 50D. I miss the extra crop factor it had since I do almost all nature photography where reach is king.
As always YMMV on the noise, focusing problems, etc. on the 50D, and this is just my experience after owning one for about 10 days....Show more →
Just out of curiosity, are you seeing noise at ISO 100 w/blue skies?
I performed yesterday another comparative short test between my 30D and 50D, using the same methodology as explained in a previous post, but with another lighting (no flash, window lighting). I checked focusing was correct for both (that means on the target and compared to a background and a foreground). Same RAW DPP processing and Elements 6.0 cropping (to get the same physical size for the target and a same output format for the screen).
Well, 50D is sharper, there are more details, and less noise also than the 30D.
The 50D is a great body.
If noise is a priority we need to save up for a MK IIIDs. We need to remember what class this body is in. It seems folks are hammering it as if it were a MK III priced body.
Coming from a 40D I am very happy. No regrets.
My favorite critical posts are from the ones who have never shot a 50D.
I had a chance to try out the 50d yesterday and I must say that I am unimpressed. I had the 40d for a week before and it was great, but the 50d's raw output needs work. Every file would end up with green and pink splotches.
As people have said before DPP does make the photos look better than using ACR, but they are still unacceptable in terms of noise. Below are 100% crops with the 50d, using ACR and DPP and then the same photograph using a Nikon D90. Both camera had in camera noise reduction set to low and all settings were at default values in ACR and DPP. EXIF data is intact.
Matt P wrote:
I had a chance to try out the 50d yesterday and I must say that I am unimpressed. I had the 40d for a week before and it was great, but the 50d's raw output needs work. Every file would end up with green and pink splotches.
As people have said before DPP does make the photos look better than using ACR, but they are still unacceptable in terms of noise. Below are 100% crops with the 50d, using ACR and DPP and then the same photograph using a Nikon D90. Both camera had in camera noise reduction set to low and all settings were at default values in ACR and DPP. EXIF data is intact.
I worked on them as well, and no matter what I did I could not retain detail when noise was removed down to the D90's level. Ive worked with RAWs for 4 years, and even my original Rebel XT looks better at 800iso than the 50d.
Matt P wrote:
I had a chance to try out the 50d yesterday and I must say that I am unimpressed. I had the 40d for a week before and it was great, but the 50d's raw output needs work. Every file would end up with green and pink splotches.
Yeah, I call them purple/magenta or green blotches... They are what bugs me about 50D high ISO performance as well. Noise specks I could live with... they are easily corrected with NR software. But these blotches aren't going away that easily. I guess you have to correct for colors (using layers) instead of noise to make them go away. DPP will give a better conversion than ACR/LR. But I have seen the blotches also in JPEG's straight out of the cam and in DPP conversions as well (albeit to a lesser degree than with ACR/LR conversions).
Be cautious of judgement based on early iterations of raw conversion programs.
I have a 5D purchased soon after introduction, and noticed the blotchy noise in shadow areas with ACR, and to a slightly lesser degree with the program supplied by Canon with the camera.
Skip forward a few versions of ACR and DPP, major improvement in both of the converters.
Daan B wrote:
Yeah, I call them purple/magenta or green blotches... They are what bugs me about 50D high ISO performance as well. Noise specks I could live with... they are easily corrected with NR software. But these blotches aren't going away that easily. I guess you have to correct for colors (using layers) instead of noise to make them go away. DPP will give a better conversion than ACR/LR. But I have seen the blotches also in JPEG's straight out of the cam and in DPP conversions as well (albeit to a lesser degree than with ACR/LR conversions).
Daan B wrote:
Yeah, I call them purple/magenta or green blotches... They are what bugs me about 50D high ISO performance as well. Noise specks I could live with... they are easily corrected with NR software. But these blotches aren't going away that easily. I guess you have to correct for colors (using layers) instead of noise to make them go away. DPP will give a better conversion than ACR/LR. But I have seen the blotches also in JPEG's straight out of the cam and in DPP conversions as well (albeit to a lesser degree than with ACR/LR conversions).
yeah, it's one area, that even after resizing down to 20D or 40D image size and even using DPP or jpg is still not as good as the old cam in terms of noise performance. And it tends to pop up even at very low ISO at times too.
Matt P wrote:
I had a chance to try out the 50d yesterday and I must say that I am unimpressed. I had the 40d for a week before and it was great, but the 50d's raw output needs work. Every file would end up with green and pink splotches.
As people have said before DPP does make the photos look better than using ACR, but they are still unacceptable in terms of noise. Below are 100% crops with the 50d, using ACR and DPP and then the same photograph using a Nikon D90. Both camera had in camera noise reduction set to low and all settings were at default values in ACR and DPP. EXIF data is intact.
I just got flickr, so i dont know how to do a thumbnailed preview like photobucket....
I have much more where that came from, I just dont have much time right now. ...Show more →
Seems like the 50D image is not exposed the same as the D90 file. I noticed that on the D90 file you have "Exposure Bias: 0/6 EV and different shutter speeds" Not sure that makes a difference here with noise, but typically a brighter (less underexposed) image will show less noise.
Again, not saying you're not right...But it seems that the exposures are not the same.
Also, I see less detail in the D90 shot...but that would be a trade off if all things were equal I suppose.
