Greg, I said equal subject coverage and equal (200%) magnification-10Mp vs 15 Mp. The point was that there was extra center of the (stopped down) lens detail to be found with the extra sensors of the 50D.
The 50D needs good lenses and focus needs to be accurate to really benefit from the increased MP. The micro focus adjust is quite useful, so go use it. Prints look quite good despite the relatively high noise level. But... I can tell you the IQ is not in the class of the 1Ds MK III or even the 1Ds MK II with a fine lens.
RalphJ wrote:
Actually, the 70-200/4 IS zoom lens is sharper than a number of primes. It's risky to overgeneralize.
Another internet myth. I have a sharp 70-200 f4L IS and my 50mm 1.4 is so much sharper than it that it's laughable. Oh and my 50mm comes nowhere near my 85mm 1.8. Same story with my 24-70L, the primes are just so much better, it's the reason I've switched to primes for everything important these days.
Beni wrote:
Another internet myth. I have a sharp 70-200 f4L IS and my 50mm 1.4 is so much sharper than it that it's laughable. Oh and my 50mm comes nowhere near my 85mm 1.8. Same story with my 24-70L, the primes are just so much better, it's the reason I've switched to primes for everything important these days.
I don't know about your lenses... but my 70-200 f/4 IS @ 135mm is at least as sharp as my 135L at comparing apertures. My 24-70L @ 35mm is pretty comparable to my 35L from f/5.6 and smaller
wow- this is as much fun as watching 3 color blind people argue about what color the stop light is :lol:
People, there is all this computing power sitting right in front of you.
NOT ONE PERSON has run a Ronchi test on these camera / lens combos?
(http://www.edmundoptics.com/onlinecatalog/displayproduct.cfm?productID=2343)
Then run a line profile test on them? Geeze!
Until someone gives me hard data I am not going to beleive "looking @ 150% crops of scaled image" to determine a "25%" increase.
You know how hard it is for a human to determine 25%?
If I had a 50D Ill get a ronchi from my work, run a test with the 35L, 24-70 and 70-200 and put them through a line profile test and tell you numerically how many lines they each resolve.
You know all this bickering is so similar - theres a new 5 MP Sony chip on a 2/3" (8.5x7.1mm) sensor. (Equiv of a 27MP 1.6X sensor)
Its supposed to be out resolving all the machine vision lenses in the industry. But the larger canon and nikon lenses are being used one it without problems.
It has 3.4 micron pixels. Thats 144 line pair / mm, the 50D is only 106lp/mm
I dont think our lowly 106 lp/mm will be out resolving any L lenses if they work on this 5mp camera with 145LP requirements
Daan B wrote:
I don't know about your lenses... but my 70-200 f/4 IS @ 135mm is at least as sharp as my 135L at comparing apertures. My 24-70L @ 35mm is pretty comparable to my 35L from f/5.6 and smaller
If your 70-200 is as sharp as your 135L at f4 then that lens is over hyped! My 50mm beat the pants off it for sharpness and contrast at f4. Neither is this comparison nonsense, this simple test was what drove me in a decision to sell it and buy a Gitzo 2542L (finally!) and a 100mm f2 and just rent a 70-200 for the few occasions that I need it as a zoom.
I've all but stopped using zooms for anything but action these days, I've owned 3 copies of the 24-70L and none have come close to that little 50mm at f5.6 (certainly not at f2.8) nevermind the 85mm which matches the zoom at f4 when the prime is wide open (f1.8) for resolution and sharpness, CA is a different story! .
crops are a stupid way of confirming sensor sharpness. Too many variables to account for. It's not the lens that it is outresolving, it's your displays.
These new Canon sensors in high pixel count make awesome large prints like nothing seen before in DSLR's.
Beni wrote:
If your 70-200 is as sharp as your 135L at f4 then that lens is over hyped! My 50mm beat the pants off the 70-200 for sharpness and contrast at f4. I've all but stopped using zooms for anything but action these days.
Here's the 70-200/4 zoom wide open compared to the 50mm prime stopped down to f4 (mouse over for the latter):
As the EXIF also says that the focal length is 70mm I take it that the lens is a Sigma 70/2.8 as the Canon 50/2.5 Macro is, well, a 50mm!
As you can't use the Sigma on a 5D - I know it fits but..............you can't compare directly so the test is not a fair test as I understand it.
I've spoken to a couple of Pros using the 20+ megapixel 1D MKIII and they say there's no lose of quality or depreciation in resolving power. Now, granted when Canon and Nikon begin to make 60 Megapixel cameras (which I heard might start as soon as late 2010 *rumor?*) then Canon L and Nikkor lenses will probably need to be reinvented and will cost as much as Hasselblad and Leica glass.
But you never know, what if they find a way to make the sensor capture larger images using the current glass? No one can predict 3 to 4 years ahead so we'll just wait and see. As far as 21.1 megapixels I have full confidence in my L glass and prime lenses. EF-S and cheaper EF lenses...no so confident.
But look at the sample from canon of the young girl. That was taken with today's lenses, and the picture is perfectly sharp.
minhnestrone wrote:
I've spoken to a couple of Pros using the 20+ megapixel 1D MKIII and they say there's no lose of quality or depreciation in resolving power.
You must mean the 1Ds MK III, not 1D MK III. My 50D clearly has better detail in the center 38% than my 1Ds MK III. However, the 1Ds MK III has quite good imaging characterisctics, both overall and pixel for pixel.
minhnestrone wrote:
You never know, what if they find a way to make the sensor capture larger images using the current glass? No one can predict 3 to 4 years ahead so we'll just wait and see.
I think it's fairly safe to say that it would be pointless to make a sensor for the current glass that is larger than the image circle cast by the current glass.
minhnestrone wrote:
I've spoken to a couple of Pros using the 20+ megapixel 1D MKIII and they say there's no lose of quality or depreciation in resolving power.
I use the 1Ds3 myself (and earn money with it)... I say it depends on the lens used and on the desired output. My 24-70L was fine on my 5D. It is fine on my 1Ds3 as well, IF I equalize the images to 12MP or print below 30x45cm. When I view 24-70L + 1Ds3 images at 100% on my monitor or print beyond 30x45cm I see a degradation of IQ wide open and at the corners across the entire zoom range more clearly.
Besides that, the 50D is even more challenging on lenses, because it has a higher pixel density. When you compare the 40D/50D house images (RAW) from imaging-resource in ACR you will see that the 24-105L has troubles keeping up with the 50D but shines on the 40D. There are other reports from users that the 24-105L + 50D combo produces soft images. Of course this can be related to focus issues as well or bad samples of either the cam or the lens... or to the RAW conversion of ACR 4.6 beta (no official 50D support yet)
harindra wrote:
I found the same problem and I swapped my 50d for a 40d which is much sharper . What a waste
Yeah, I know... I also found the noise levels to be much higher in the 50D RAW files (as opposed to 40D RAW files) when converting them with ACR 4.6 beta... Maybe Adobe will find a cure for this, but I was very disappointed to see that. The 50D was basically ususable for me at ISO 1600. But even at ISO 800 there was considerable noise, whereas the 40D still looks good at ISO 1600...
I still need to see OOC shots from the 50D at ISO 800-12K first. Thats one of the main reasons I want the camera, but if the noise isnt any better than a pushed 40D, why bother..
(micro AF adjustment is cool but not $1400 cool)
.