When you say that you were getting better images from the 40D, are you only talking about a AF issue?
I am not a pixel peeper nor do I test this and that to check everything on my equipment - if it works, it works and it should work well. I used a 400 L and a 100-400 L on both the 40D and the 50D and I got more keepers with the 40D. I don\'t have the time to test one against the other so I have to go by my end results. I used the 50D, 400 L at ISO 400, AV, f8 and I had AF issues on some of my shots. I switched to the 40D - same setup and light and did not have the same focus issues. I am impressed with the new features of the 50 and I did notice the noise appeared less of a problem but I am not happy with the AF on the 50. One of the posters indicated that he had better results with his unit the next day he used it. Another person said to clean the contact points - which I did and I have not had time to see if that helped. Others have indicated the updated firmware will make a difference. I am trying to decide about shipping the brand new camera back to Canon or waiting to see if they get their collective \"act\" together and get the firmware posted on the website. At this point I am not happy but hell, like the other guy - it might improve tomorrow but I doubt It.
Steve W
i found my 40D to be tempermental one day the focus was not bad at all the next day terrible
my 20D seemed way more consistent in how it acted day to day or lighting type to lighting type (other than once it got pretty dim then it would start tailing off).
have to yet to figure out what is what, but im almost thinking the 40D and perhaps 50D too are very, very sensitive to lighting differences and can perform admirably to hideously depending.
anyway i can\'t say much about 50D yet, just those 2 days so far
next week i hope to shoot a couple night and one day soccer game and see what\'s up.
currently i am stunned by DPP showing relatively similar per image noise between the two at all ISOs while ACR shows a shocking 1 stop advantage at low ISO for the 40D and 1/2 stop advantage for the 40D at high ISO. why the discrepancy? who is bugged or cheating? Does acr maybe use their new algorithm only on the 50D and it sticks for noise performance (i noticed i could only use Adobe 4.6 on the 50D but a variety of choices for the 40D and i tired Adobe 4.4 and Adobe Standard Beta)? Did canon accidentally leave NR permanentaly on for the 50D? what\'s the deal?
the light collecting chart seems to show per image the 40D and 50D the same so unless the read noise is much worse with the 50D, and maybe it is, it seems ACR has some bug or the new system stinks.
considering gapless technology i\'m surprised the photon light efficiency collecting was listed the same as for the MkIII\'s and not better and also surprised that it didn\'t appear to deliver a solid 1/4 stop better noise than the 40D. anyway, assuming the DPP story is the real deal then it\'s nothing to worry about, didnt get the improvement but nothing lost either and you do gain resolution.
Oct 24, 2008 at 08:57 PM
Previous versions of skibum5's message #6309574 « Canon EOS 50D Master thread »
