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.

sherijohnson

ziggy53 wrote:

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

swintonphoto wrote:

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 I feel like they have been Canon bashing for sometime

-j

Ric Grupe

jeff lapoint wrote:

I feel like they have been Canon bashing for sometime-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.

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

NeilL

Nikolai wrote:

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.

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

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

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?

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?

pyry

Nikolai wrote:

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.

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

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

NeilL wrote:

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

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?

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?

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

pyry wrote:

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

Nikolai wrote:

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.

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

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

Swartzy wrote:

I can only assume you're shooting in Jpeg.

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

kdog

Swartzy wrote:

I can only assume you're shooting in Jpeg. Otherwise all that camera NR suppression is useless.

You sure about that, Swartzy? 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. 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

Nikolai wrote:

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

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...). I have lots of low light images wanting to see what it looked like....eeek...was scarry 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)

Swartzy

kdog wrote:

You sure about that, Swartzy? 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. 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

Swartzy wrote:

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...
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...

Swartzy

Nikolai wrote:

Well, to begin with, I was asked what my setting were, so I honestly answered...
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...

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.

pyry

Nikolai wrote:

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

Nikolai wrote:

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.

Nikolai wrote:

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
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!

Seeing is believing (not saying I don't believe you, mind ) 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

NeilL wrote:

Seeing is believing (not saying I don't believe you, mind ) 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 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

Nikolai wrote:

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 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

Nikolai wrote:

all these 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!

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

Scott_Quier

You can do the math ...

NeilL wrote:

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
6,400
3,200
1,600

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 .

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

LiquidAir wrote:

...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).

Very succinctly put!