Canon 50D formal review is up

[ziggy53]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/

P.S. I just noted that Scott Quier posted the link in a previous thread, but I think this can have its own thread.

Thanks Scott

[Moogle Pepper]

It seems that if one compares the 40D and the 50D only on the merits of ISO, the 40D, according to the review is better.

... I think I might be leaning more towards the 40D (I'll have to see more samples from the 50D to drive the final nail...), as a backup after I get the new 5D. :D

[sherijohnson]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/

P.S. I just noted that Scott Quier posted the link in a previous thread, but I think this can have its own thread.

Thanks Scott

Thank you, I have been waiting to see the conclusions on this one.

[ChrisJ]

More megapixels + same size sensor = more noise.

I personally was hoping they would only go to 12 MP (since I knew they were going to increase it in the name of marketing).

Still, it's a big step up from my 20D. And I've been happy so far. I tend not to shoot high ISO anyway.

[pyry]

With top of the line lenses, the 50D is a solid daylight and studio camera. For low-light work it's the 40D every time, I'd say.

I was actually surprised at how noisy it really is - and how much NR is going on.

[NeilL]

Thanks ziggy (and Scott)...

This review confirms the suspicion that I expressed when the specs first became available, that is that the 40D with good lenses and technique would not be beaten by the 50D.

So my feeling is that Canon has produced two disappointing cameras in the 50D and 5DII. Neither improve on their predecessors or advance the technology to any significant degree. It seems that Canon is not in a position R&D-wise right now to produce a product that does.

I am not saying that Canon is behind any competitor in the quality of image which can be produced with these cameras, but I hope that soon Canon will show us some meaningful developments in AF and dynamic range.

Neil

[swintonphoto]

I am just glad that DPR (despite their love for Canon) finally recommend an end to the MP race. These sensors are moving beyond the capacity of the lenses. Let's hope this MP nonsense ends now...

[jeff lapoint]

I am just glad that DPR (despite their love for Canon) finally recommend an end to the MP race. .

I agree, but what dpr are you on:dunno I feel like they have been Canon bashing for sometime:scratch

-j

[Ric Grupe]

I feel like they have been Canon bashing for sometime:scratch-j

Yep. Phil got his feelings hurt some time ago and is finally coming around.

My take is that he felt snubbed by Canon because some other sites were given a new dslr to evaluate and he was not.

[ziggy53]

One thing to note about the Canon 50D vs previous models and random high-ISO noise:

The 50D appears to be using a different noise reduction (NR) algorithm than previous models. The new NR appears to have more effect in the shadow regions than previous models; i.e. the NR is more selectively biased to reduce shadow noise than highlight noise.

It may be that the tests used by DPReview don't account for the difference in the NR bias. That might explain why humans seem to see more effect than the tests might show. Humans are more sensitive to noticing random noise in the shadow regions, so the new algorithm may be more visually effective than the old algorithm yet the noise tests may not indicate the visual effectiveness.

Hopefully, there will be some revelations about the new NR that will explain how it works.

[Nikolai]

Let me throw a curve ball here.

By today I have been using 50D for a tad longer than a month. It is a MUCH better performer than 40D (which I used for more than a year and still have) in many aspects, INCLUDING lowlight/high ISO. With 40D ISO3200 (i.e. H) was pretty much useless. With 50D you need to measurbate to see the noise. :deal

FWIW, if anybody wants to exchange his "unworthy" 50D for a very good condition 40D, I'll gladly do the trade :wink

[NeilL]

Let me throw a curve ball here.

By today I have been using 50D for a tad longer than a month. It is a MUCH better performer than 40D (which I used for more than a year and still have) in many aspects, INCLUDING lowlight/high ISO. With 40D ISO3200 (i.e. H) was pretty much useless. With 50D you need to measurbate to see the noise. :deal

FWIW, if anybody wants to exchange his "unworthy" 50D for a very good condition 40D, I'll gladly do the trade :wink

Your technique has improved leaps and bounds over that same period of having the 40D - 50D :deal

If in-camera NR (software) is what makes the difference between the 40D and the 50D, why buy a whole new body just to get that, when you could have your choice of out-of-camera NR software and all the control you could want? :scratch

I can get usable results with the 40D at high ISO and NoiseNinja.

'New' noise reduction on 15MP of 'old' technology - there has to be a tradeoff - what is it? :huh

[pyry]

Let me throw a curve ball here.

By today I have been using 50D for a tad longer than a month. It is a MUCH better performer than 40D (which I used for more than a year and still have) in many aspects, INCLUDING lowlight/high ISO. With 40D ISO3200 (i.e. H) was pretty much useless. With 50D you need to measurbate to see the noise. :deal

FWIW, if anybody wants to exchange his "unworthy" 50D for a very good condition 40D, I'll gladly do the trade :wink

Have you noticed any loss of detail at higher sensitivities? Looking at the DPR test shots there could be noticeable blurring at 1600 or 3200 iso and upwards.

What settings do you have for the noise reduction?

[Nikolai]

Your technique has improved leaps and bounds over that same period of having the 40D - 50D :deal

If in-camera NR (software) is what makes the difference between the 40D and the 50D, why buy a whole new body just to get that, when you could have your choice of out-of-camera NR software and all the control you could want? :scratch

I can get usable results with the 40D at high ISO and NoiseNinja.

'New' noise reduction on 15MP of 'old' technology - there has to be a tradeoff - what is it? :huh
Neil,
40D is a very usable camera, no questions about it.
But so was 30D, and then 20D before it. I even remember salivating over 10D. And, as it's been said many, many times, "it's not the camera, it's the photogrpaher".
For me, 50D offers enough new features to justify an update. Improved low light sensitivity, very usable LiveView and increased resolution (I know, laughed at by many) are just a few of them. Are they necessary for A particular great picture? Of course not! Do they increase your chance of getting it? Hell, yeah!

[Nikolai]

Have you noticed any loss of detail at higher sensitivities? Looking at the DPR test shots there could be noticeable blurring at 1600 or 3200 iso and upwards.

What settings do you have for the noise reduction?

As I said earlier, I'm not a big fan of measurbating. 100% crops are not how I roll. My clients are not going to use the magnifying glass to go over every inch of 30x40 poster print, and in case they do, I have enough software tools to make them happy (obviously, for a greatly increased price;-).

I also NEVER consider the process finished by the time I release the shutter. For me it's only a beginning of a long journey. And if I may be so bold to say it, it's not enough to get a lady to go out on a date with you. You really have to work some dark room magic to make her happy:-)

Noise reduction:
- auto on long time exposures
- strong on high iso
- I also use brand new 50D highlight optimization feature (standard or strong, depending on what I shoot)

[Swartzy]

Let me throw a curve ball here.

By today I have been using 50D for a tad longer than a month. It is a MUCH better performer than 40D (which I used for more than a year and still have) in many aspects, INCLUDING lowlight/high ISO. With 40D ISO3200 (i.e. H) was pretty much useless. With 50D you need to measurbate to see the noise. :deal

FWIW, if anybody wants to exchange his "unworthy" 50D for a very good condition 40D, I'll gladly do the trade :wink

I can only assume you're shooting in Jpeg. Otherwise all that camera NR suppression is useless. I am not impressed with the overall 15mpx on the same sensor size as I've shot and compared closely as well. I have some files here sent from a buddy (shot in full res. RAW) at ISO 100 and was not overly impressed (partially because of all the hype created hightenend awareness).

Again, I say the 40D is still a better value and will serve one very well for 1/2 the price these days. Also, now that the 5D MKII is coming out..everyone will start downtalking the 5D as well. Isn't it amazing how many world class pros have been using "lesser" quality cameras (just a few short years ago) and producing incredible work. Heck, Monte Zucker was using a 10D for cryin out loud.

Often times I think we get caught up in all the pixel peeping and hypo-ramma of the latest and greatest. IMHO, it's more important to learn how to shoot than getting the latest gear.

BTW...I have some "not so useless" 3200 ISO images from the 40D....shot in RAW.

[Nikolai]

I can only assume you're shooting in Jpeg.
Shooting jpegs? Moi? :huh David, you gotta be kidding.. :rofl Not since I switched from 828 to 20D in 2005...
Again, I'm keeping my 50D, and that's an ultimate vote... :deal

[kdog]

I can only assume you're shooting in Jpeg. Otherwise all that camera NR suppression is useless.
You sure about that, Swartzy? :scratch Why is it then if you have long-exposure noise reduction turned on while shooting RAW, it still spends an equal amount of time doing noise reduction as it did on the original exposure. That is, if you expose for 5 minutes, the camera spends an extra 5 minutes after the shutter is closed in NR. Surely it's not throwing all hard work away. :dunno We were constantly admonished by Marc Meunch at the shootout while shooting star trails to use our noise reduction, and he didn't say to shoot JPG. They came out pretty clean too.

Cheers,
-joel

[Swartzy]

Shooting jpegs? Moi? :huh David, you gotta be kidding.. :rofl Not since I switched from 828 to 20D in 2005...
Again, I'm keeping my 50D, and that's an ultimate vote... :deal

Well...I didn't think so Nik....so how is the NR setting set to "strong" being realized in RAW. The only way to utilize that is shooting in Jpeg. Also, highlight priority, highlight/shadow and other adjustments aren't applicable in RAW. RAW is RAW as you know, so I guess I'm missing something here. Shooting ISO 6400 in RAW looks like crap (excuse my French...LOL). I have lots of low light images wanting to see what it looked like....eeek...was scarry :huh and these were exposed "to the right". Here's one such example: Simply converted to JPeg from RAW....no noise reduction (other than default ACR 25 Chroma)

http://swartzy.smugmug.com/photos/407443474_FVcGm-XL.jpg

[Swartzy]

You sure about that, Swartzy? :scratch Why is it then if you have long-exposure noise reduction turned on while shooting RAW, it still spends an equal amount of time doing noise reduction as it did on the original exposure. That is, if you expose for 5 minutes, the camera spends an extra 5 minutes after the shutter is closed in NR. Surely it's not throwing all hard work away. :dunno We were constantly admonished by Marc Meunch at the shootout while shooting star trails to use our noise reduction, and he didn't say to shoot JPG. They came out pretty clean too.

Cheers,
-joel

Long exposure NR is different as what the camera essentially does is once the shot is taken (let's pretend) at say 30 seconds. The camera then duplicates that shot (that's why it takes so long) making a darker image, finding the hot pixels then eliminating them. A standard shot of say 1/125th of a second is not the same as long exposure reduction...dark frame subtraction using an equal exposure with the shutter closed.

The only way to use the camera's noise reduction capabilities is shooting in JPeg.....long exposure's separate.

[Nikolai]

Well...I didn't think so Nik....so how is the NR setting set to "strong" being realized in RAW. The only way to utilize that is shooting in Jpeg. Also, highlight priority, highlight/shadow and other adjustments aren't applicable in RAW. ...
Well, to begin with, I was asked what my setting were, so I honestly answered...:wink
Other than that - some of those adjustments are only available via DPP, some you have to do manually. Regardless, I deem my 50D more capable of low-light shooting than prior models...:dunno

[Swartzy]

Well, to begin with, I was asked what my setting were, so I honestly answered...:wink
Other than that - some of those adjustments are only available via DPP, some you have to do manually. Regardless, I deem my 50D more capable of low-light shooting than prior models...:dunno

Ok..fair enough...as long as we're talking the same language. I'm thrilled you are enjoying your new cam! It's a nice one and some great new features to boot. I simply wanted to clarify to readers that the NR that is so highly acclaimed is either using the software or shooting in Jpeg..each has it's own appllication. :thumb

[pyry]

As I said earlier, I'm not a big fan of measurbating. 100% crops are not how I roll. My clients are not going to use the magnifying glass to go over every inch of 30x40 poster print, and in case they do, I have enough software tools to make them happy (obviously, for a greatly increased price;-).

Let's say it stays sharp enough :D

I also NEVER consider the process finished by the time I release the shutter. For me it's only a beginning of a long journey. And if I may be so bold to say it, it's not enough to get a lady to go out on a date with you. You really have to work some dark room magic to make her happy:-)

Agreed, actually shooting a picture happens between prep and post. What comes out of the camera is, raw.

Noise reduction:
- auto on long time exposures
- strong on high iso
- I also use brand new 50D highlight optimization feature (standard or strong, depending on what I shoot)

Thanks for that :thumb
The camera should at least be worth a closer look then.

[NeilL]

Yep, Nik, we all need to love our gear, whether we are into long exposures, getting the most out of the highlights, or shooting at girls in the dark! :davidto

Your 50D is obviously getting you your jollies, and more power to you! :clap

Seeing is believing (not saying I don't believe you, mind :deal) so could you please post an example or few of low light, high ISO shots without NR from the 50D?

Would very much help me not to persist in my erroneous opinion.

Thanks.

Neil

[Nikolai]

Seeing is believing (not saying I don't believe you, mind :deal) so could you please post an example or few of low light, high ISO shots without NR from the 50D?
Would very much help me not to persist in my erroneous opinion.
Neil
Neil, I'll see what I can do (although I thought Scott already posted quite a few), but I really-really don't see the point. High ISO and in-camera NR go hand in hand, using one without another is not practical and not usually recommmended.
And BTW, all these (http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=954960&postcount=9) are 50D ISO3200, available light, with minimal postprocessing, shot in RAW (for which, according to Scott, NR doesn't mean much), and then quickly converted via CS4 Image processor (not DPP, with its intrinsic knowlege of 50D raw structure).

[NeilL]

Neil, I'll see what I can do (although I thought Scott already posted quite a few), but I really-really don't see the point. High ISO and in-camera NR go hand in hand, using one without another is not practical and not usually recommmended.
And BTW, all these (http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=954960&postcount=9) are 50D ISO3200, available light, with minimal postprocessing, shot in RAW (for which, according to Scott, NR doesn't mean much), and then quickly converted via CS4 Image processor (not DPP, with its intrinsic knowlege of 50D raw structure).

Yep, Nik, granted.

Wasn't sure if Scott's samples were as low light as you meant.

Thanks for the link - I'll take a squiz.

[NeilL]

all these (http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=954960&postcount=9) are 50D ISO3200, available light, with minimal postprocessing, shot in RAW (for which, according to Scott, NR doesn't mean much), and then quickly converted via CS4 Image processor (not DPP, with its intrinsic knowlege of 50D raw structure).

Certainly usable, and not lacking some nice points! Well done! :clap

A 40D vs 50D shoot out of the same set would have been instructive.

[Scott_Quier]

Yep, Nik, granted.

Wasn't sure if Scott's samples were as low light as you meant.

Thanks for the link - I'll take a squiz.
I'm not going to do the math for you, but you are quite welcome to convert these EXIF data to EV values:

EXIF:

12,800 (http://lovenlaughter.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=395540449&ImageKey=YPR6w)
6,400 (http://lovenlaughter.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=395540281&ImageKey=n7hJe)
3,200 (http://lovenlaughter.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=395540392&ImageKey=zCQqW)
1,600 (http://lovenlaughter.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=395539991&ImageKey=vVVzP)

[swintonphoto]

Just another thought:
I have been an and will continue to be an avid Olympus user. For years people have picked my cameras apart and said they fall short of canikon, some reviews have been very favorable, some not as favorable yet, I have produced some amazing results from these cameras, and have always posited that they are fantastic tools.
My point is this: Just because someone points out a small flaw or two in a camera in a review doesn't mean we need to panic. The 50D is an amazing camera with amazing abilities. Just as I have gotten fabulous results from cameras some don't smile as much upon (Olympus DSLRS) - I am confident any user will be happy with the 50D and it will produce fantastic images. I am happy for anyone who has one :D.

[LiquidAir]

Phil (quite correctly) says that 15MP is at the hairy edge of what optics are capable of delivering on an APS-C frame. I have to wonder if his resolution tests were diffraction limited at f/8 and that it would have looked a little better with a wider aperture. One way or an other, its clear you have to be extremely careful to get full value from its resolution.

As for noise, Phil always does per pixel noise which is easy to measure and see. However, for real world photography what usually matters is the overall sensitivity of the sensor. So, when comparing the 40D and 50D, while they have essentially the same per pixel noise, the 50D has a stop (1.4 times) more pixels which means 50D sensor has stop more low light sensitivity. So, while high ISO shots from the 40D might look maginally better at 100% crop, when scaled (or printed) to the same size the shots from the 50D will look significantly better.

I have a few take home messages from the review:
1. The take home message (for me at least) is that the 50D is noticably better low light camera than the 40D but you pay a price in card/disk space to get it.

2. Barring a major technological breakthrough, the IQ of the APS-C crop format has hit its limit. If you want better IQ than the latest APS-C, it'll have to be full frame (or MF).

[Nikolai]

...So, when comparing the 40D and 50D, while they have essentially the same per pixel noise, the 50D has a stop (1.4 times) more pixels which means 50D sensor has stop more low light sensitivity. So, while high ISO shots from the 40D might look maginally better at 100% crop, when scaled (or printed) to the same size the shots from the 50D will look significantly better.

I have a few take home messages from the review:
1. The take home message (for me at least) is that the 50D is noticably better low light camera than the 40D but you pay a price in card/disk space to get it.

2. Barring a major technological breakthrough, the IQ of the APS-C crop format has hit its limit. If you want better IQ than the latest APS-C, it'll have to be full frame (or MF).
:agree Very succinctly put! :deal :thumb

[NeilL]

while high ISO shots from the 40D might look maginally better at 100% crop, when scaled (or printed) to the same size the shots from the 50D will look significantly better.

Don't quite follow you on this point. Seems to be a contradiction. But might only be the way you are using terms?

Also, it seems to be generally said that noise visible on a monitor will not necessarily be visible when printed (?).

[BigAl]

So, when comparing the 40D and 50D, while they have essentially the same per pixel noise, the 50D has a stop (1.4 times) more pixels which means 50D sensor has stop more low light sensitivity.

:scratch

I can't figure this one out...

:scratch

[ziggy53]

... So, when comparing the 40D and 50D, while they have essentially the same per pixel noise, the 50D has a stop (1.4 times) more pixels which means 50D sensor has stop more low light sensitivity. So, while high ISO shots from the 40D might look maginally better at 100% crop, when scaled (or printed) to the same size the shots from the 50D will look significantly better.

...

Unfortunately, Phil did not write the review. Lars Rehm and Richard Butler wrote the review for DPReview.

Instead of saying that the 50D has the same per pixel noise, they said (according to the following link):

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page18.asp

"Despite the fact that the 50D is the newer camera it shows visibly more chroma and luminance noise than the 40D. Considering the 50D's much more tightly packed sensor (4.5 MP/cm² vs 3.1 MP/cm² on the 40D) this comes hardly as a surprise. It would have been unreasonable to expect Canon's engineers to overcome the laws of physics."

It is still my contention that the 50D handles noise in a different way than the linear method employed by the 40D. If indeed the 50D uses a more selective algorithm that targets shadow areas to apply a higher level of NR than highlight areas, that could explain the visible "appearance" of less noise on the 50D images. That could also explain the test results measuring more noise, since the test measures all noise where the human brain is more sensitive to shadow noise.

Otherwise you are right that "binning" pixels will generally reduce the visible effects of noise and that binning will occur during most printing operations until close to a 1:1 print ratio and above. The extra pixels of the 50D should be a benefit for most printing situations over the 40D.

I also agree that it would appear that we have reached the practical diffraction limits for photosite density at the current technology APS-C sized imager with the density of the 50D imager (... and the Pentax K20D imager as well).

[NeilL]

It is still my contention that the 50D handles noise in a different way than the linear method employed by the 40D. If indeed the 50D uses a more selective algorithm that targets shadow areas to apply a higher level of NR than highlight areas, that could explain the visible "appearance" of less noise on the 50D images. That could also explain the test results measuring more noise, since the test measures all noise where the human brain is more sensitive to shadow noise.

Otherwise you are right that "binning" pixels will generally reduce the visible effects of noise and that binning will occur during most printing operations until close to a 1:1 print ratio and above. The extra pixels of the 50D should be a benefit for most printing situations over the 40D.

Once again I wonder at the wisdom of buying a new body for the new NR software it uses. And NR that you have only very crude control over at that. :scratch

As the quote below says (referring to pixel binning on the sensor-chip, but the principal is the same for printing?), there is a trade-off of binning in loss of resolution. So, camera applied NR + binning ( + conversion to jpeg) = loss of resolution, and more pixels = increase in resolution. Which wins out? Where do we get?

The primary benefit of pixel binning is to improve the signal-to-noise ratio in low light conditions at the expense of spatial resolution. Summation of many charge packets reduces the read noise level and produces an improvement in signal equal to the binning factor.
Contributing Authors
Mortimer Abramowitz - Olympus America, Inc., Two Corporate Center Drive., Melville, New York, 11747.
Michael W. Davidson - National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, 1800 East Paul Dirac Dr., The Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, 32310.

[wannabe1979]

Well, I must say after reading this review I started second guessing myself on my purchase of the 50D. I had ordered last week the 50D (had not arrived yet) just because it was the newest, latest, 15 MP, and I just had to have it. I know I reacted just how Canon wanted me to. I'm in marketing and sales myself and still fell for it. SO, I started reading this review very carefully and looked elsewhere for other opinions and they all came to the same conclusions. Btw, I'm upgrading from my Rebel Xti.

I actually cancelled my order on the 50D and went ahead on ordered the 40D and put the 550.00 difference towards a new lens. Thanks for all the discussion guys.

[Nikolai]

Once again I wonder at the wisdom of buying a new body for the new NR software it uses. And NR reduction that you have only very crude control over at that. :scratch
Neil,
forget the whole noise issue for a second, let's assume 50D is marginally the same as 40D in this department (although I do believe Ken is correct speaking of effective one stop improvement, and my own iso1600/iso3200 shots prove that to me more than any reviews in the world).

There are few other things that 50D sports off.

Highly improved LiveView, with its live focusing and live histogram alone would justify an upgrade for me. I wouldn't be able to get these shots without it
http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/407682120_Tsn7W-XL.jpg
http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/395879464_R4gV8-O.jpg

Much better screen, new and very useable highlight optimization mode..

And by the way, not all the shooting happens in lowlight AND at high ISO at the same time. So, for the 99% of time 50D owners can safely enjoy new 15mp resolution and don't even worry about those pesky effects that seem to draw so much of attention lately.. :wink

And, btw, it focuses MUCH better in twililight than 40D ever did :deal

[ivar]

http://swartzy.smugmug.com/photos/407443474_FVcGm-S.jpgJust seeing that image makes my back hurt.... I love the plane, but it's so small :rolleyes

I don't know about the low light situations, but I did see some shots in daylight (40d vs 50d) and the darker areas where about the same, noise-wise.

[Jim K]

Just seeing that image makes my back hurt.... I love the plane, but it's so small :rolleyes

Know what you mean. I sat in one once, got out and then went right to a 172 for all my training.

[Swartzy]

Just seeing that image makes my back hurt.... I love the plane, but it's so small :rolleyes

I don't know about the low light situations, but I did see some shots in daylight (40d vs 50d) and the darker areas where about the same, noise-wise.

Heheh....it was a tad tricky getting in and out, especially with a camera. Regarding the showdowed areas/banding, I think we sometimes expect too much out of high ISO. Sometimes we can nail it, clean it and the images are good to go....sometimes not.

Some of the features of the 50D look way cool....especially calibrating each lens. Also, I'm sure the highlight/shadow retention is better. I haven't seen the new DPP software yet for the 50D but only can assume one could implement some of those features in post if shooting RAW. The 40D is a great camera, the 50D may be a bit better and even more so on some things. I'd be interested to see the focus speed differences and accuracy in AI Servo.

One thing for sure, for those that have an earlier version (xt, 10, 20, 30) will be blown away at the advancements. I certainly was with the 40D. The focus was much better all around in each mode.

[ivar]

Know what you mean. I sat in one once, got out and then went right to a 172 for all my training.I have 500+ hours in the 150&152 :huh I'm sure in a few years, I'll make a chiropractor very happy :lol3

One thing for sure, for those that have an earlier version (xt, 10, 20, 30) will be blown away at the advancements.That's the part I'm wondering about. I have a 30d, but is it really worth upgrading for me? The camera functions fine, I'm not 'missing' anything right now. I'm sure it will be better at some points, but is it worth it for me? If I'm going to spend that much money on something I don't need, I might as well go for the 5dmkII, I think.

[Nikolai]

The camera functions fine, I'm not 'missing' anything right now.
Ivar, if you're not missing anything then I say why bother?

I might as well go for the 5dmkII, I think.
Then again, if 30D works just fine, why considering that path either? :dunno

[ivar]

Ivar, if you're not missing anything then I say why bother?Well, I guess what I'm saying is that after reading the review I am not feeling like upgrading. I was actually expecting (hoping?) to feel like upgrading after a decent review, but I'm just not seeing 'the light' :dunno


Then again, if 30D works just fine, why considering that path either? :dunnoThe 5-series is a different tool, in my eyes, and something that I think would go better with my style of shooting.

[Nikolai]

Well, I guess what I'm saying is that after reading the review I am not feeling like upgrading. I was actually expecting (hoping?) to feel like upgrading after a decent review, but I'm just not seeing 'the light' :dunno

I hear you. "Gut feeling" is very important, that's what I ultimately go by. And, as I said, if you don't feel like upgrading I don't think you should.
:deal
For me I decided it was worth it, so I went on with it, and thus far no regrets...:wink

[wesleyt]

I read the DPReview of the 50D today and afterward I pulled the trigger on one from B&H. Though I love my 30D, it frustrates me in a number of ways: no live view for tabletop macro, only one cross-type focus point, no auto-dust prevention; I believe the 50D will alleviate if not resolve those frustrations.

I also pulled the trigger on a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. I borrowed a Tamron 11-18 f/4.5-5.6 on the Keeble- and Tamron-sponsored trip to Alcatraz a couple weeks ago; I fell in love with its wideness, but its slowness frustrated me. The reviews of the Tokina on many sites totally intrigued me.

I can't wait to see what that wonderful 50D sensor will capture when paired with that super-sharp new lens, and my all my other beautiful lenses as well.

I'm used to dealing with an occasionally noisy but wonderful sensor; my favorite camera right now is my G9, which is quite noisy above ISO 400. Noise is manageable when you know how to avoid or deal with it.

I think Nik is right: the 50D is getting a bad rap, and the DPReview seems a bit heavy-handed, if not unfair. I expect the 50D to prove itself to me when its in my hands. I honestly can't to get started with it.

[NeilL]

Neil,
forget the whole noise issue for a second, let's assume 50D is marginally the same as 40D in this department (although I do believe Ken is correct speaking of effective one stop improvement, and my own iso1600/iso3200 shots prove that to me more than any reviews in the world).

There are few other things that 50D sports off.

Highly improved LiveView, with its live focusing and live histogram alone would justify an upgrade for me. I wouldn't be able to get these shots without it
http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/407682120_Tsn7W-XL.jpg
http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/395879464_R4gV8-O.jpg

Much better screen, new and very useable highlight optimization mode..

And by the way, not all the shooting happens in lowlight AND at high ISO at the same time. So, for the 99% of time 50D owners can safely enjoy new 15mp resolution and don't even worry about those pesky effects that seem to draw so much of attention lately.. :wink

And, btw, it focuses MUCH better in twililight than 40D ever did :deal

I'm enough of a geek to get aroused just holding the box of a new gadget:wink

So, I'm drooling reading your descriptions of the 50D, which doesn't help my stern perusal of its 'limitations'! :D (I also drooled over these shots of yours :clap )

How to satisfy my 'need for the newest'? I'm not enthusiastic about the 5DII, and the 60D might have that elephant - video - in its luggage, which I dread. The 50D doesn't tempt me enough to part from my 40D:dunno

What do you think of the camera manufacturers attempting to build 'photographers' skills' into cameras? What I mean is, with knowledge and experience photographers develop all kinds of skills which allow them to get keeper shots quickly and successfully without elaborate help from the camera. For example, a photographer I know can manually while looking through the viewfinder quickly set all the parameters to grab an opportunity as it presents.

Seems to me there is a trend to try to build those kinds of skills into hardware, when they really need, in the end, to be painstakingly developed by the person on the end of it.

That's a suspicion I have about some of the latest camera features (and you know I'm no Luddite).

I'd rather R&D go into improving the tool (ISO, dynamic range, focusing, stabilisation ...) rather than into trying to make the tool the photographer as well.

[Nikolai]

I'm enough of a geek to get aroused just holding the box of a new gadget:wink

So, I'm drooling reading your descriptions of the 50D, which doesn't help my stern perusal of its 'limitations'! :D (I also drooled over these shots of yours :clap )

How to satisfy my 'need for the newest'? I'm not enthusiastic about the 5DII, and the 60D might have that elephant - video - in its luggage, which I dread. The 50D doesn't tempt me enough to part from my 40D:dunno

What do you think of the camera manufacturers attempting to build 'photographers' skills' into cameras? What I mean is, with knowledge and experience photographers develop all kinds of skills which allow them to get keeper shots quickly and successfully without elaborate help from the camera. For example, a photographer I know can manually while looking through the viewfinder quickly set all the parameters to grab an opportunity as it presents.

Seems to me there is a trend to try to build those kinds of skills into hardware, when they really need, in the end, to be painstakingly developed by the person on the end of it.

That's a suspicion I have about some of the latest camera features (and you know I'm no Luddite).

I'd rather R&D go into improving the tool (ISO, dynamic range, focusing, stabilisation ...) rather than into trying to make the tool the photographer as well.

Neil, they are trying... However, different people have different needs and given it's all hardware yet it's hard to come by with a device that would satisfy all. However, I see more smart software in the future, and hopefully one day they put a real OS into these things (afterall, even cellphones have one nowadays) - THEN the real fun begins...:wink :deal :rofl

[NeilL]

Neil, they are trying... However, different people have different needs and given it's all hardware yet it's hard to come by with a device that would satisfy all. However, I see more smart software in the future, and hopefully one day they put a real OS into these things (afterall, even cellphones have one nowadays) - THEN the real fun begins...:wink :deal :rofl

Oh well, the heck! Bring it all on!! :barb :cry :bow

[BigAl]

(although I do believe Ken is correct speaking of effective one stop improvement, and my own iso1600/iso3200 shots prove that to me more than any reviews in the world).

So, when comparing the 40D and 50D, while they have essentially the same per pixel noise, the 50D has a stop (1.4 times) more pixels which means 50D sensor has stop more low light sensitivity.

I've thought about this long and hard, and it's not true. To gain 1 stop, means the AREA that the light falls on has to DOUBLE. The area occupied by the pixels remains essentially the same, regardless of the number of pixels. I'll post the math once I figure out a convenient way to do it.

[Nikolai]

I've thought about this long and hard, and it's not true. To gain 1 stop, means the AREA that the light falls on has to DOUBLE. The area occupied by the pixels remains essentially the same, regardless of the number of pixels. I'll post the math once I figure out a convenient way to do it.
With the new microlens design they saved on unused space. Check out the specs.

[LiquidAir]

I've thought about this long and hard, and it's not true. To gain 1 stop, means the AREA that the light falls on has to DOUBLE. The area occupied by the pixels remains essentially the same, regardless of the number of pixels. I'll post the math once I figure out a convenient way to do it.

You're right, I got that wrong. When you average pixels, the noise decreases by the square root of the number of pixels you average. Its an apropos night to bring that up as that is the same principle which is used to determine the margin of error on polls: poll 100 people and the margin of error is 10%, poll 400 people and the margin of error is 5%.

Applying it to cameras, when you scale from 14MP to 10MP you are (on average) polling 1.4 pixels to generate each new pixel which reduces the noise by the square root of 1.4 or half a stop. To get a full stop improvement in a 10MP image you would (as you say) need to start with 20MP (e.g. 5DmII).

Slightly off topic for this thread, but note that the 5DII video mode is scaling down by a factor of 8 (20MP to 2.5MP) for 3 stops improvement in noise level. No wonder its low light video looks so good.

[Richard]

:scratch:scratch Call me thick, but I don't get this whole discussion about noise, stops and pixel density. I would think that you need to make an (erroneous) assumption that the number of noise pixels remains constant across the various sensors to draw these conclusions. But isn't the number of noise pixels an empirical question? What am I missing here?

[Nikolai]

:scratch:scratch Call me thick, but I don't get this whole discussion about noise, stops and pixel density. I would think that you need to make an (erroneous) assumption that the number of noise pixels remains constant across the various sensors to draw these conclusions. But isn't the number of noise pixels an empirical question? What am I missing here?
Richard, in short: you don't miss a thing :wink Neither do I. Pictures look better and I can do more. That sums it up for me.

[LiquidAir]

:scratch:scratch Call me thick, but I don't get this whole discussion about noise, stops and pixel density. I would think that you need to make an (erroneous) assumption that the number of noise pixels remains constant across the various sensors to draw these conclusions. But isn't the number of noise pixels an empirical question? What am I missing here?

The asumption I am making is that what you really care about is noise in your output rather than in your capture. In other words, it is noise in your print (or online JPEG) that matters rather than in your RAW file.

As an example, if I print an 8x10 at 360 dpi, I am sending a 10MP file to my printer no matter what the resolution of my camera. If I start with a 15MP RAW file then at some point during my process I am going to be scaling my image from 15MP to 10MP. Because scaling the image involves averaging multiple pixels, the file sent to my printer will have lower noise than my original capture. If you never print larger than 8x10, then the 50% more pixels in the 50D file will not give you a sharper print. However those extra pixels in your RAW file will serve to reduce your shadow noise in a way that will be visible in the final print.

My personal opinion is that comparing 100% crops between cameras of different resolution gives you no real information about image quality because what matters is what the file you send to your printer which has been scaled to the output resolution.

[NeilL]

comparing 100% crops between cameras of different resolution gives you no real information about image quality because what matters is what the file you send to your printer which has been scaled to the output resolution.

Yep, this reads better, and is TRUE! ...for printing. What about jpeg conversion?

[jdryan3]

However, I see more smart software in the future, and hopefully one day they put a real OS into these things (afterall, even cellphones have one nowadays) - THEN the real fun begins...:wink :deal :rofl

What? You want to trade ERR99 for a BSOD :huh

More seriously, when does the code already running on these turn into a real OS? You have histograms, Liveview, HD output, JPEG algorithms, all sorts of stuff. Is it some specific level of interlacing of these? You have a processor, I/O, the whole bit already (pun intended). Symbian and Palm in their early days were considered very lean OSs, and yet probably not as sophisticated as what we have on a DSLR today. Just wondering. :dunno

And it would be interesting to see what is under the hood of the new 5D MkII.

[pyry]

What? You want to trade ERR99 for a BSOD :huh

More seriously, when does the code already running on these turn into a real OS? You have histograms, Liveview, HD output, JPEG algorithms, all sorts of stuff. Is it some specific level of interlacing of these? You have a processor, I/O, the whole bit already (pun intended). Symbian and Palm in their early days were considered very lean OSs, and yet probably not as sophisticated as what we have on a DSLR today. Just wondering. :dunno

And it would be interesting to see what is under the hood of the new 5D MkII.

When they allow user access to the OS? Sort of what CHDK does for compacts.

Canon's dslr cameras have run a version of DOS, VxWorks and lately an in-house developed DryOS.

[Nikolai]

Canon's dslr cameras have run a version of DOS, VxWorks and lately an in-house developed DryOS.
According to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRYOS), it's only for camcorders and p&s. :scratch

[pyry]

According to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRYOS), it's only for camcorders and p&s. :scratch

And multifunction printers... (http://www.canon.com/technology/canon_tech/explanation/dryos.html)

I would wager a good beer that the 50D runs a version of DryOS.

40D has VxWorks, there's even a CHDK port (http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/40D) in the works for it.