Canon 50D - High ISO performance (noise)

[Scott_Quier]

I got this camera mostly for the claimed high ISO performance. I ordered it from NewEgg.com - considering all the reputable on-line dealers, they had the best price on it and they had it in stock. B&H, at the time, didn't have them in stock. Anyway, it finally arrived today and the second thing I did was to put together this quick & dirty high ISO performance test. There's is nothing scientific about this and the model was not very cooperative in that he would not, for any price, maintain the same pose - just can't get good help these days:wink

I've not yet seen any one do this and I thought some might be interested (I know of at least one person besides me that is interested) so I thought I would throw this together.

Processing consisted of a RAW capture, pumped through ACR 4.6 with all the noise reduction, sharpening, etc set to zero and then saved as a full res jpg (didn't even see PS).

Anyway, here are the top 4 ISO settings (1600, 3200, 6400, and 12,800). If you want to see it, you can click on the image for the EXIF information.

ISO: 1600 - quite useable
http://lovenlaughter.smugmug.com/photos/395539991_vVVzP-XL.jpg (http://lovenlaughter.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=395539991&ImageKey=vVVzP)

This 100% crop was taken from near the right side of the dog's muzzle.
http://lovenlaughter.smugmug.com/photos/395547067_WM4pd-X3.jpg

ISO: 3200 - no real issues here that something like Noise Ninja couldn't handle
http://lovenlaughter.smugmug.com/photos/395540392_zCQqW-XL.jpg (http://lovenlaughter.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=395540392&ImageKey=zCQqW)

Crop from, well I guess it's pretty obvious ...
http://lovenlaughter.smugmug.com/photos/395547072_Mboms-X3.jpg

ISO: 6400 - only if I really, really wanted the shot
http://lovenlaughter.smugmug.com/photos/395540281_n7hJe-XL.jpg (http://lovenlaughter.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=395540281&ImageKey=n7hJe)

From the dark spot on the dog's back
http://lovenlaughter.smugmug.com/photos/395547074_7KkAf-X3.jpg

ISO: 12800 - only if I really, really, really wanted the shot
http://lovenlaughter.smugmug.com/photos/395540449_YPR6w-XL.jpg (http://lovenlaughter.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=395540449&ImageKey=YPR6w)

Again, from the dark spot on the dog's back
http://lovenlaughter.smugmug.com/photos/395547110_9sBW4-X3.jpg

[darkdragon]

Thanks for putting this up!

1600 & 3200 look great (IMO) and definately would clean up nice in a NN or probably even ACR or LR.

The other two...well, at least people just starting out can get by without a f/1.4 lens :wink

[Tee Why]

I think the tests are showing that the claimed decrease in noise compared to the 40D may be due to heavier noise reduction when shooting in JPEG. I've heard that even when shooting in RAW with no NR, if you open the file in DPP, some noise reduction is automatically applied and you have to turn it off if you don't want noise reduction.

There have been some rumbling that the ACR 4.6/Beta isn't as good as DPP b/c there is no automatic NR applied and that the range of NR isn't as high as the 0-20 scale in DPP.

Here, take a look at some review and posts.
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_50D/
http://rolandlim.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/canon-eos-50d-review/
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1019&thread=29643846

[JohnC]

The 50D looks like a stellar performer. :thumb

[Nikolai]

I agree.
Essentially 50D made 3,200 totally useable and 6,400 and 12,800 possible (as Scott put it, "if you *really, really, really* want the shot).

I also found on a several occasions that extremely low-light (pre-dawn) conditions (human eye can't see *anything*) in a combination with high ISO values throw the camera's exposure calculations WAY off course, resulting in totally underexposed frames despite the fact the meter indicator being "zeroed in".

[Scott_Quier]

I agree.
Essentially 50D made 3,200 totally useable and 6,400 and 12,800 possible (as Scott put it, "if you *really, really, really* want the shot).

I also found on a several occasions that extremely low-light (pre-dawn) conditions (human eye can't see *anything*) in a combination with high ISO values throw the camera's exposure calculations WAY off course, resulting in totally underexposed frames despite the fact the meter indicator being "zeroed in".
Good to know should I ever want to make like a bat and work in the dark - not often but it does happen. It's a well known behavior for light meters to be hugely inaccurate in very dark and very light environs - those situations that are well outside the "normal" design limits of the instrument. That's when "rule of thumb" and intuition comes into play.

[Karrie McD]

I was waiting to see this! Thanks for taking the time to post!!!

Now, where am I gonna get $1500???? :D :D :D

[arpboy]

I would add one thing: the 100% crop may not be fair in one sense: the 50D has 50% more pixels than the 40D. So on the same print, the noise would be "smaller." That said, the noise is indeed an issue. I've had a 50D for about 2 weeks now. The 6400 really is usable IF - and ONLY IF - you take some time with noise reduction. I don't have NN yet, but some of the other approaches work OK. It's primarily chroma noise, and that's tunable in DPP.

With all that in mind, I still want L-series glass with 2.8 or better. Need to shoot some more gigs!

In a few days, I'll have up a wedding that I shot with the 50D and a 17-85 lens. It actually worked pretty well, and I minimized the use of the flash, since the church was reasonably well-lit.

[dlplumer]

Thanks Scott. I'm planning on buying this body very soon. :barb

Dan

[divamum]

Wow. I've held out for ages, but now I'm getting gear envy (and dog envy too - what a cutie!)

Given that what started this photographic odyssey for me was taking theatrical pictures, I'm just slavering over the high ISOs in the 40 and 50d (on the XT, 1600 looks worse than the 6400 example you posted). And I am sooo not in a position to spend money on camera gear right now! Ah well... a girl can dream.... :)

[Scott_Quier]

It's appearing that some are missing my intended point in posting these images.

My intent: SOOC and with no PP, Canon has done a pretty good job of getting noise under control.

Does Canon still have room for improvement? OK, next stupid question; we all dream of being unable to tell the difference between ISO 100 and ISO 256000, don't we? Maybe in time but it's not there yet. This is a very good step in that direction!!

[arpboy]

It's appearing that some are missing my intended point in posting these images.

My intent: SOOC and with no PP, Canon has done a pretty good job of getting noise under control.

Does Canon still have room for improvement? OK, next stupid question; we all dream of being unable to tell the difference between ISO 100 and ISO 256000, don't we? Maybe in time but it's not there yet. This is a very good step in that direction!!

You're right. It IS a major improvement. For me, going from the XT to the 50D was a quantum leap. Canon has done a really good job.

[dlplumer]

Bought mine today :barb :barb :barb

[Nikolai]

Bought mine today :barb :barb :barbCongrats, and welcome to 50D club!:thumb :clap

[David Evertsen]

Bought mine today :barb :barb :barb

Saw a 40D on the sidelines last night, me with my XT. The viewer was insane... Dropped the hammer on a 50D an hour ago. Going to use remaining football and some dance rehearsals for practice for my real mission Dance Competition in February.. Wanted to make sure the competition was not my first use of it..
I am so looking forward to getting the shots I missed with my XT. I know the Dancers are too..


David

www.phabulousphotos.com

[ChrisJ]

After much deliberation... I'm expecting my 50D on Tuesday! :barb

Not that I get to take any pictures except of my kids right now... but it's a big step up from the 20D.

[Swartzy]

Thanks Scott for putting this up. I've been reading, watching, etc. and have shot a friend's 50D at high ISO (on purpose) to see it's ability in real life application. Our expectations are somewhat hightened on what to expect from a camera these days. There was a time, shooting ASA 800 film left you with more grain than you could shake a stick at. Now, even with the 40D, at ISO 1600 (properly exposed of course) is completely acceptable and will clean up nicely in post.

For those that now use the 50D, I've heard nothing but bad things about the 40D, which in MHO is ludicrous. Just one year ago, the 40D was touted as the "best" deal around and far superior to it's predecessors. The 40D is even a better value today as you can pick them up for almost half of what they were a year ago.

I too will purchase a 50D for a few other reasons than just the advancement in noise reduction....which will be a great thing. I just shot my grandson's baptism and could not use flash. The fastest glass I had (as was important to use a small zoom) was a f/2.8. Best shutter speed in those lighting conditions was 1/60th. IF the camera would have allowed ISO 6400, I may have gotten 1/125th with way less noise. Color noise is the worst and any black areas of an image (as seen in Scott's puppy) reveals it's ugly head.

Anyway...sorry for the rant...just sharing some thoughts. Here's a properly exposed ISO 3200 from the 40D:

http://swartzy.smugmug.com/photos/402981378_CwY39-XL.jpg

Sure wish I could compare it with the 50D :wink

[sherijohnson]

Thank you Scott for posting this.... you know I was one of the people that asked to see what it could do and BOOM you go and do it. nice!

[Andy]

ISO 3200, 1/25th sec, f/4

http://nancyrose.smugmug.com/photos/405655579_aC7ro-X3.jpg

[Swartzy]

That is very impressive Andy!

[bham]

Scott, I am getting red x's for your photos. Could you fix please so I could see the 50D example photos. Thanks.

[Scott_Quier]

Scott, I am getting red x's for your photos. Could you fix please so I could see the 50D example photos. Thanks.
I've just inspected the configuration of the supporting gallery - all seems good there.

Neither the gallery nor the post has changed since I first put it up and others do not seem to be having problems. But, there is always a chance. So...

I also cleared my browsers cache, made sure I was logged out of my SmugMug account, closed down my browser, restarted my browser and opened the post. The re-load of the thread took some time as all the photos needed to be retrieved from my smugmug account (they were no longer in the browser cache), but they all loaded.

May I respectfully suggest that the problem is, for some reason, on your end? Especially as no others have mentioned a problem seeing the photos?

If I'm wrong and others are having problems seeing the photos I posted, I would really like to know so I can track down the problem and kill it :D

Thanks

[dlplumer]

I've just inspected the configuration of the supporting gallery - all seems good there.

Neither the gallery nor the post has changed since I first put it up and others do not seem to be having problems. But, there is always a chance. So...

I also cleared my browsers cache, made sure I was logged out of my SmugMug account, closed down my browser, restarted my browser and opened the post. The re-load of the thread took some time as all the photos needed to be retrieved from my smugmug account (they were no longer in the browser cache), but they all loaded.

May I respectfully suggest that the problem is, for some reason, on your end? Especially as no others have mentioned a problem seeing the photos?

If I'm wrong and others are having problems seeing the photos I posted, I would really like to know so I can track down the problem and kill it :D

Thanks

It works for me

[Scott_Quier]

It works for me
Thanks for the confirmation. I feel better now.

Edit: Just ran across this DPReview of the 50D (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/) and thought folks might be interested...