I AM SO SICK
of reading about how disappointed everyone is in these new cameras, honestly whats it going to take to make you happy!
We have reached a point of dimminishing returns when it comes to the technology advances the current generation of cameras we use are capable of such good results that when a new camera comes out the leaps forward appear to be minor steps...
Seth Tower wrote:
This is a pitiful review. Checkout these sample photos. ISO 12800 looks incredible!
They're not exactly going to show you crap....
By the way those are shot in pretty good light, so I would be surprised if they show a great deal of noise any how.
So if the 50D has the same noise performance as the 40D at pixel view, the same sized print, say a 12x18, will be cleaner as the extra 5MP means less rezzing up. So as far as popular print sizes, 50D should show less noise.
I use my 40D a lot at ISO 800-1600 and the resulting 8x12 prints are excellent although you can see a little "graininess" in sky and shadows if you use a loupe or put your nose on the print. With less rezzing that same print should be really smooth. Nothing to be disappointed with here. Nobody is stupid enough to view all their images at 100%!
Gochugogi wrote:
So if the 50D has the same noise performance as the 40D at pixel view, the same sized print, say a 12x18, will be cleaner as the extra 5MP means less rezzing up. So as far as popular print sizes, 50D should show less noise.
I use my 40D a lot at ISO 800-1600 and the resulting 8x12 prints are excellent although you can see a little "graininess" in sky and shadows if you use a loupe or put your nose on the print. With less rezzing that same print should be really smooth. Nothing to be disappointed with here. Nobody is stupid enough to view all their images at 100%!...Show more →
I agree...I'm very satisfied with the 40D but believe I would be much more at ease with my higher ISO larger prints from the 50D.
Juza is one of the best photographers in the world (IMO)...And he said that he wasn't supposed to post samples with the 5DMkII or the 50D because of the terms to the agreement from Canon to try out the cameras. If Juza says that the noise is about equal to the 40D he is most likely right. I honestly do not see how that would be a disappointment considering that you can used ISO 1600 and get a quality print that is 150% the size of a 40D ISO 1600 print.
Matt Kerby wrote:
Yikes, that's too bad, this guy seems to be a fairly non biased guy.
He is - and he takes some fine pictures.
But something about how he converts RAW files stinks.
He made much the same comment comparing the (then new) 40D with the 30D - "clearly" the 40D was a noisier camera than the 30D in his opinion.
Yet in the experience of many of us who own both cameras (I've had my 40D for a year now, and 30Ds for a year before that - and I still have them) the 40D is without question better at high ISO than the 30D.
Not massively better, but significantly better nonetheless. It ain't just the amount of noise but the nature of it: 40D noise contains less chroma, and is finer grained, so it affects an image to an observably lesser degree, all other things being equal.
So while I love some of Juza's work, I have absolutely no faith whatsoever in his opinion of the noise performance of the 50D compared with the 40D - my belief is that he's using the wrong RAW converter...
JackCnd wrote:
Juza Nature Photography has published comments on the 50D they have.
The reviewer explicitly said that after ACR RAW conversion, the EOS 50D is comparable to EOS 40D at the pixel level --- even though the total pixels improved from 10 MP to 15 MP.
If this is true, then it is an incredible achievement for Canon. At the image level, the camera would have attained more resolution and less noise. If that's not an impressive achievement, I don't know what is.
Robert Loblaw wrote:
The reviewer explicitly said that after ACR RAW conversion
And that's my point: I get far, far better RAW conversions of 40D files in Capture One than I do in ACR/LR - I mean night-and-day better in terms of noise.
Even Raw Therapee - which is free - produces cleaner files.
If this is true, then it is an incredible achievement for Canon. At the image level, the camera would have attained more resolution and less noise. If that's not an impressive achievement, I don't know what is.
I park my 40D on ISO 800 all day long (and anymore, my 30D too).
If the 50D's ISO-800 is equal to, or better, then I think it's obviously a step up.
Ultimately, if you make the high ISO performance better, then you can use faster shutter speeds in lower light.
Plainly put, if the ISO 3200 on the 50D looks like the 1600 on my 40D, that gives you 1 full stop advantage, which is the difference between 1/30 of a second, and 1/60 of a second shutter speed. Or 1/60-1/120. I don't know about you, but hand held, without IS, I don't like to dip below 1/80.
If you have the option, to use cleaner HIGH ISO's, that means you can use faster shutter speeds...helping reduce the need for IS.
keithreeder wrote:
He is - and he takes some fine pictures.
But something about how he converts RAW files stinks.
He made much the same comment comparing the (then new) 40D with the 30D - "clearly" the 40D was a noisier camera than the 30D in his opinion.
Yet in the experience of many of us who own both cameras (I've had my 40D for a year now, and 30Ds for a year before that - and I still have them) the 40D is without question better at high ISO than the 30D.
Not massively better, but significantly better nonetheless. It ain't just the amount of noise but the nature of it: 40D noise contains less chroma, and is finer grained, so it affects an image to an observably lesser degree, all other things being equal.
So while I love some of Juza's work, I have absolutely no faith whatsoever in his opinion of the noise performance of the 50D compared with the 40D - my belief is that he's using the wrong RAW converter...
Agreed. I don't have any Noise Ninja or anything like that. What I do have is DPP, which for my 30D's ISO 800 shots, it works. The stuff out of my 40D, ISO800 I can print without noise reduction.
Yep, it makes a lot of sense that DPP will outperform ACR, in the same way that many Nikon shooters insist that only Capture NX will do true justice to NEFs.
Indeed, if DPP had decent Highlight Recovery I'd use it a lot more myself.
In any event, ACR (and LR, which uses the same RAW engine) doesn't just seem to manage existing noise less well than Cap One and Raw Therapee, but it's almost as if it emphasises the noise that's there.
So this isn't just about how well NR works in these applications (I switch NR off completely in Raw Therapee and use far lower than default settings in Cap One), but that ACR seems to actively contribute noise at the conversion stage.
Do all those who attacked Juza for his preview of the 50D and his evaluation of the noise feel a bit silly now? Will any of you be honest enough to admit you were wrong and he was right.
SteB wrote:
Do all those who attacked Juza for his preview of the 50D and his evaluation of the noise feel a bit silly now? Will any of you be honest enough to admit you were wrong and he was right.
Dunno what you're on about - plenty of people here are using the 50D in the Real World and are getting clean images at high ISO.
Just because Juza and DPR say it's a noisy camera doesn't make it so, any more than them saying it about the 40D makes the 40D a noisy camera (DPR said the 40D was noisier than the D300, which has been proven conclusively and scientifically not to be the case).
So I guess the answer to your question is "not likely - why should they?"
keithreeder:
Just because Juza and DPR say it's a noisy camera doesn't make it so, any more than them saying it about the 40D makes the 40D a noisy camera (DPR said the 40D was noisier than the D300, which has been proven conclusively and scientifically not to be the case).
I do not think that it has been proven scientifically. Quite the opposite - have a look at this article:
First of all let us clear something up. To state that Juza claimed the 50D was a noisy camera is simply untrue and is using the Straw Man Logical Fallacy - that is to misquote someone, and then argue against that misrepresentation as if it was actually what they said. All Juza actually said was that he could not see the 1-1.5 stops advantage in noise and it was similar to the 40D. I use a 40D and think its pretty good for an APS-C sensor as regards noise. I also think that despite some of the hysteria the 50D looks a very good camera with good image quality and I may even eventually get one myself. Of course you can get clean images at high ISOs with the 50D, because you could with the 40D. Nevertheless, it is quite clear now that any apparent advantage in lower high ISO noise is simply achieved through NR via the Digic IV Processor on JPEGs, and it is not a sensor based advantage. As far as I am aware the Clark Vision measure only measures noise and it does not take into account loss of detail due to NR. So coming back to my original point Juza was personally attacked with abusive comments for simply giving a preview that has subsequently been borne out with more in depth reviews - is that fair or rational?
Sorry but I saw images that were up to 6400asa and I was impressed. I am not expecting to print large prints but this is the highest it will shoot without problems.
As always, if you want a really clean image then expose correctly and shoot at 100asa.
