A lot of it is subjective or not scientifically proven. So let's look at the facts.
1. Most images taken with either camera by the vast majority of owners will be rubbish.
2. Of that rubbish the vast majority will never be printed bigger than a postcard. Most will be downsized to the web or cropped so youcan see the "highly disturbing noise" at 100%.
3. The minor differences between the cameras aint going to turn a great image into absolute crap. (or vice versa)
4. The more time we spend looking at this stuff the less "real" images we take.
5. Great photographers won't care. They will just go out and make great photographs with each camera, anyway. And we'll just be too busy being in awe of those great images to worry about looking for the noise.
Well i'm from Italy and it's a common knowledge among photographers that:
Juza = Good photographer = AWFUL TESTER
According to its site 40d it's noisier than the 30d which in its turn has the same noise as the XT. Now he says the 50d has the same noise as the 40D...thus the conclusion one gets from all his reviews is that the 50d is noisier than the XT and the 30d at this point) yeah good luck shooting over Iso 400 on the XT
One thing he's missing is that the newer cameras can maintain a lot more fine details at high noise (were the older 1s failed).
His reviews can be summed up in 1 phrase: "My guts tell me that this camera bla bla bla...."
He's really a great photog. though..hats off!
I'm not sure why people react so passionately to an ever-so-slightly negative review of a Camera.
No-one says the 50D is a bad Camera - just that in many respects it doesn't offer much of and improvement over the 40D.
Personally, at the moment, i think it's a little overpriced compared to the rest of the market - and I think Canon should have put an new AF system in it. I think the problem comes when you launch this great new camera based almost entirely around a new sensor, then it doesn't quite deliver. If they'd packed a lot of other features in then we wouldn't care quite so much.
But having said that I do think I will get one at some point, if I don't get a 5D II.
This is always the same to start off with anyway. People rush to criticise, then things settle down and we decide it's a good camera after all.
Nello Milanese wrote:
yeah good luck shooting over Iso 400 on the XT
The XT actually delivers very clean high ISO shots like the 20D/30D. The XTi is a let-down. But the XS/XSi are both better than the 40D/50D respectively in terms of pixel sharpness/high ISO.
Juza is a world class photographer but once again I am disappointed that he would use ACR 4.6 when it is really quite well known that the software cannot handle 50D raw files well at all. Really disappointing but it is what it is.
Nello Milanese wrote:
yeah good luck shooting over Iso 400 on the XT
The XT actually delivers very clean high ISO shots like the 20D/30D.The XTi is a let-down. But the XS/XSi are both better than the 40D/50D respectively in terms of pixel sharpness/high ISO.
thw2 wrote:
The XT actually delivers very clean high ISO shots like the 20D/30D.The XTi is a let-down. But the XS/XSi are both better than the 40D/50D respectively in terms of pixel sharpness/high ISO.
Yes I agree that the XT delivers clean high ISO...BUT and that's a big BUT if you ever shoot the same bird w the XT at ISO 400 and then ISO 800 (like I did for 2 years) you'd be in for a major surprise!! the finer details get destroyed at ISO 800 on the XT...where they're still there on the 40D ! while the bg noise might look the same the newer cameras hold a lot of detail even at ISO 1600 or more.
mfurman wrote:
I do not think that it has been proven scientifically. Quite the opposite - have a look at this article:
Eh?
One of us is looking at that page upside down, because it shows that the 40D has:
higher full well capacity
higher SNR
lower read noise
higher unity gain much higher low light sensitivity factor
than the D300.
In addition, it's placed better on table 2, the Digital Camera Sensor Performance Data table, and - in table 3b - higher 14-bit camera camera gain.
All of which go towards proving what I said.
More to the point, Gabor (the author of the brilliant Rawnalyse software) has comprehensively tested the two cameras specifically for noise performance (he's obsessed!) and the 40D comes out on top - not by much, but the difference is there.
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 →
but the noise is not the same at per pixel, 50D truly appears to be worse per pixel.
using DPP I can it close to even after downsizing, using ACR it still looks worse even after downsizing, especially in terms of chroma blobs.
IMO, the cams don't look that great above ISO800.
i don't see the 50D delivering any sort of high ISO gain, I think you need to downsize it to look halfway decent, so it's just wasted large files or use sRAW for the high ISO shooter, but at least you get your 5-7MP more than the 20D/40D at ISO100-200 which is not a bad thing at all.
maybe my opions will change once i get more time to look, but i tend to doubt it
Richie S wrote:
The market has changed a lot since then though Jim. We at four or five years? - that's an eternity in consumer electronics.
Yes but we are also getting more for the same amount of money. The 1Ds, 1DsMKII and 1DsMKIII were all introduced at $8K. Nothing has changed there. The 1D, 1DMKII, and 1DMKIII were all introduced at the same amount too so why is it unreasonable to expect the 50D to go for about the same amount as the 20D, 30D, and 40D did? You can actually get it for $1250 shipped to your door. What other camera in its category is cheaper?
I'm sure I going to called a grumpy old man - I am.
The technocracy of digital photography seems destined to destroy the art and technique that once controlled the integrity of the profession and craft. What you call noise I call grain and it was, and remains, a significant factor in the complex aspects of compostion, texture, and interpretation of our exposures.
I don't know Juza but am certain his views are important. I knew Alfred Eisenstadt, Gordon Parks, and Ansel Adams. Give some thought to checking out a library book showing their work and who knows, maybe you'll see some noise that makes their work worth looking at.
keithreeder:
More to the point, Gabor (the author of the brilliant Rawnalyse software) has comprehensively tested the two cameras specifically for noise performance (he's obsessed!) and the 40D comes out on top - not by much, but the difference is there.
I apologize, I misread your post and meant to say that 40D is not better than 20/30D (according to the article).
Could you please give me a link to Gabor's article?
Spyglass wrote:
I'm sure I going to called a grumpy old man - I am.
The technocracy of digital photography seems destined to destroy the art and technique that once controlled the integrity of the profession and craft. What you call noise I call grain and it was, and remains, a significant factor in the complex aspects of compostion, texture, and interpretation of our exposures.
I don't know Juza but am certain his views are important. I knew Alfred Eisenstadt, Gordon Parks, and Ansel Adams. Give some thought to checking out a library book showing their work and who knows, maybe you'll see some noise that makes their work worth looking at....Show more →
