Canon 50D

[YesDear]

Well Bob, I guess you are just going to have to sell that canon stuff and get NIKONS!!!!! LOL

 

[boBQuincy]

Well Bob, I guess you are just going to have to sell that canon stuff and get NIKONS!!!!! LOL

Hatfields & McCoys, Capulets & Montagues... those are nothing compared to Canonites vs Nikonians! Come to think of it, both of those names sound like cheesy "Star Trek" aliens. "Captain Kirk, the Nikonians are hailing us on channel 5, something about a pixel war..."

 

[Groucho]

Actually more like 3 MP too far. Based on a review on DPreview.com Canon's 50D gains noise but little detail over their 40D. It seems as if the sweet spot for APS-C is 10-12 MP, anything more leads to noise and today's lenses can't provide enough resolution to take advantage of more pixels on that size sensor. Dynamic range also suffered from what the 40D offered.

Canon was in a tough spot, their Rebel series was up to 12 MP and it was difficult to justify another $600 for a camera with less pixels (40D). In the race for pixels though it appears as if Canon went a bit too far.

I'm actually kind of surprised. The K20D definitely doesn't suffer from the problems they list. Even the notoriously Pentax-averse DPReview agrees; they knocked it for hot pixels (which is certainly not something noticed by actual users) and sample variability (which has to some extent) but overall the Samsung-developed sensor is very comparable to the best 12mp APS sensors and visibly offers higher detail. (In typical DPReview fashion, they did an ISO noise comparison by leaving NR on on the Canon, Nikon, and Sony, which having the Pentax set to off. Not very useful... the size of the face in the test shots also looks wrong, why is the K20D's 14.6mp face actually smaller than the Nikon and Sony 12mp face? It should be bigger, similar to the 15mp Canon.) There was a bit of technical discussion when it was released about reducing the amount of space between photosites (it has about the same size photosites as a 12mp APS sensor) and a few other new design features that escape me at the moment.

I know that Canon mentioned something about them coming up with a way to fit more photosites on, I figured that it was the same basic theory but apparently it didn't work quite as well. I am honestly quite surprised that they weren't able to keep the noise levels to at least 40D levels. The D300 seems to the benchmark for low ISO noise levels on APS sensors, I would think that Canon would feel that they had to match or beat that.

Anyway, I don't want to do a format war or anything, but the point is that Samsung proves that you most definitely can do, at least, 14.6 mp in an APS sensor with very solid noise performance. As for lenses, most good lenses will show more detail at these levels. Certainly my best zooms can and just about all my primes, new and old (as in, decades old), can still out-resolve the sensor.

Heck, 3-4 years ago, who would have believed that the D300 sensor was possible? 12 mp and better noise performance than most any other APS sensor? I'm not sure that we've seen the limit of technology yet.

 

[webshark3]

I wonder who will have the guts to introduce a new camera with LESS MP, but with substantially reduced noise and substantially improved dynamic range.

~Y

Sigma is introducing it's SD15 with the same sensor as the SD14. (4.7MP x 3 layers). Sigma's all about Dynamic Range. Problem is, their sensor manufacturer seems to have stalled (no new developments in the last 2 years).

 

[webshark3]

Fuji did, with the F30. I don't think it did very well :-(

regards,
/alan

I don't think that model was a downgrade in MP. I think all the Fuji's were 6MP around that time. (?)

And I know that not only did it do well, but it has a strong cult following. People are still looking for them, and consider it the "benchmark" of low-noise in a compact camera. Users are still begging that Fuji keep producing that chip, or failing that, let a 3rd party have it so people can still have the low-noise performance with good resolution.

 

[jann1033]

Actually more like 3 MP too far. Based on a review on DPreview.com Canon's 50D gains noise but little detail over their 40D. It seems as if the sweet spot for APS-C is 10-12 MP, anything more leads to noise and today's lenses can't provide enough resolution to take advantage of more pixels on that size sensor. Dynamic range also suffered from what the 40D offered.

Canon was in a tough spot, their Rebel series was up to 12 MP and it was difficult to justify another $600 for a camera with less pixels (40D). In the race for pixels though it appears as if Canon went a bit too far.

interesting bob but did you read the forum, esp the ? directed to those with 40 and 50ds...none of the actual users seemed to be in line with the "official " review ( personally i was kind of hoping they would all agree and make me happy to save some $$$ with the 40d ) http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=29881088

i did have to scratch my head though after his numerous page gripe, i mean review, when one of his last sentences he basically said "well not really, the iq is no worse than any one else's it's just not that much better than the 40d's" so what is the real deal there, it either is worse or is better, can't really have it both ways at least not in the same review
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page20.asp

groucho i don't know if you saw the photos on the second noise page with the nr off for the canon or not. it looked to me they used the default settings on all the comps and the default on the pentax must be off(?)

 

[Groucho]

interesting bob but did you read the forum, esp the ? directed to those with 40 and 50ds...none of the actual users seemed to be in line with the "official " review ( personally i was kind of hoping they would all agree and make me happy to save some $$$ with the 40d ) http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=29881088

What a shock, users unhappy with a DPReview review.

groucho i don't know if you saw the photos on the second noise page with the nr off for the canon or not. it looked to me they used the default settings on all the comps and the default on the pentax must be off(?)

Yes, the K20D defaults to off while the others default to at least some. It seems rather useless to do a high-ISO noise comparison between cameras with you leave one with no reduction and the others with it on! Yeesh.

 

[budmonster]

Nothing to serious yet, still getting to know the camera.

 

[My2Girls66]

I love the kitty one and the girls look so cute Always have to make the funny face for the camera.

 

[jann1033]

just wondering what lens you used ( my exif stuff isn't comingup)

 

[budmonster]

just wondering what lens you used ( my exif stuff isn't comingup)

It's the stock lense that came with the camera, 28-135 mm. I can't wait to get some more lenses.

 

[budmonster]

I love the kitty one and the girls look so cute Always have to make the funny face for the camera.

Thank you, that's my daughter on the left and her BFF, they were being silly, as always, ahhhh to be young again.

 

[allie5]

How are you finding it in low light? My main reason for upgrading my 30D is its less than brilliant noise issues - Im still torn between a 50D or jumping ship to Nikon and the D700.

 

[DVC Jen]

How are you finding it in low light? My main reason for upgrading my 30D is its less than brilliant noise issues - Im still torn between a 50D or jumping ship to Nikon and the D700.

Jump ship????

ya know the new 5DMK2 is awesome in low light. I totally agree with you about the 30D. Really nice camera if there is decent light - low light situations - ick.

 

[jann1033]

from what I've read the 40 and 50 are both better than the 30 in low light but the extra ISO of the 50 isn't really all that usable which made me think about the 40 d again, well that and that it's about 2/3 the price of the 50.

 

[WDWFWfan]

Hi all, I've been looking for a new DSLR for a few months now and I have narrowed my choices down to either a Canon 40D or a 50D. I need some help determining which camera will better suit my needs. First a little background.

I am transitioning from a film SLR to the DSLR world. I hate to confess, but there were a few years of digital point and shoot thrown into the mix, but now I am ready to make the investment for better equipment.

Personally, I am an amateur with average experience. I enjoy shooting landscapes, travel photography and photos of the family. Most of my landscapes are shot using a tripod and a cable release. Obviously, I also enjoy shooting at WDW and other venues where low lighting (without the benefit of a flash) can create some interesting challenges.

I have decided on Canon because I like there overall system better than the competition. Nikon currently has some appealing bodies with the D90 and the D300, but the D90 doesn't fit my hand and the D300 is a little out of my price range.

Nevertheless, I have read every review and commentary that I can find and I must admit, many have made me more confused than ever. So forgive me for asking this question for the 10,000th time. Some state that the image quality of the 50D is good, others state that it is not as good as the 40D and potentially much worse.

I am particularly concerned about noise. Many reviewers have stated that the 50D doesn't perform well in low-light situations and that perhaps the 40D is better there.

On the other hand, I am also concerned about image sharpness at larger print sizes (16x20 - 20x30); some reviewers state that the 50D will be the better performer there. The better lcd on the 50D is also a consideration as it would help me to check critical focus in field.

Finally, it seems that some say that the 50D is better if one uses good quality glass, but maybe not if using a kit lens.

So what should I do? If I use good glass (17-55 2.8IS, 70-200 f4 IS, etc.) would the 50D be a better choice for my usage? Or should I stick with the 40D?

 

[jann1033]

can't say for you but here is how i view it...since i have neither camera it's strictly from hearsay.
either has enough pixels for most prints i want to make although i think it is closer to 20 mp to get a real pro photo quality print at 16x or larger so neither would really do a great job with that( i've printed out 16x with my 8mp rebel xt but wouldn't do it for sale,11x14 is fine at 8 mp for sale imo). i don't really see the need for ginormous prints, but that is me. if you are going to sell them, you are talking about big $$ and my stuff isn't good enough to expect that ( yet, maybe never). by then i won't be using a 40 or 50d

the 50d and 40d have close to the same usable iso levels from what i have read.one review, forget where, said they were close to identical at the same iso but from what i have read the upper 2 on the 50d are probably for desperation shots only and not something it seems most would want to use on a daily basis. i probably would never use them and really can't i pretty much duplicate that with a good low light lens and tripod and be happier than a crazily noisy shot?

from what i have read the 40 would take the edge in sharpness and speed ( by a thin thin margin) especially since some of my lenses are older( ie 70-200 f4) and i don't want to have to spend an extra $10,000 getting all new L lenses

on the 50d, the stuff like face detection etc isn't a big deal to me
the better lcd is a big deal but not enough to spend another $400 or so. so of the bells and whistles like the high tone priority would be really nice but i guess i could actually improve my technique and get the same results rather than letting the camera do it for me.

so i probably will go back to plan a and hopefully get a 40d and then maybe maybe maybe get something like a mark whatever it would be next time

 

[WDWFWfan]

can't say for you but here is how i view it...since i have neither camera it's strictly from hearsay.
either has enough pixels for most prints i want to make although i think it is closer to 20 mp to get a real pro photo quality print at 16x or larger so neither would really do a great job with that( i've printed out 16x with my 8mp rebel xt but wouldn't do it for sale,11x14 is fine at 8 mp for sale imo). i don't really see the need for ginormous prints, but that is me. if you are going to sell them, you are talking about big $$ and my stuff isn't good enough to expect that ( yet, maybe never). by then i won't be using a 40 or 50d

the 50d and 40d have close to the same usable iso levels from what i have read.one review, forget where, said they were close to identical at the same iso but from what i have read the upper 2 on the 50d are probably for desperation shots only and not something it seems most would want to use on a daily basis. i probably would never use them and really can't i pretty much duplicate that with a good low light lens and tripod and be happier than a crazily noisy shot?

from what i have read the 40 would take the edge in sharpness and speed ( by a thin thin margin) especially since some of my lenses are older( ie 70-200 f4) and i don't want to have to spend an extra $10,000 getting all new L lenses

on the 50d, the stuff like face detection etc isn't a big deal to me
the better lcd is a big deal but not enough to spend another $400 or so. so of the bells and whistles like the high tone priority would be really nice but i guess i could actually improve my technique and get the same results rather than letting the camera do it for me.

so i probably will go back to plan a and hopefully get a 40d and then maybe maybe maybe get something like a mark whatever it would be next time

Thanks for the reply, I agree there is a price difference between the two cameras and that must always be a consideration. However, having said that, the difference is not as great as it used to be. Right now, the cost difference is down to $269. That makes the LCD and the micro-adjust a little more compelling, if the noise issue isn't a deal breaker.

 

[jfinke]

I made the same comparison a couple of months ago.

It basically came down to if the new LCD and microadjust were worth the price increase? I found the 40D on ebay, new from a canon reseller for $750. With the MS Live deal that was going on, that came down to $550. That pretty much sold me on the 40D. The other two features were not worth the increase in cost. At the 50D price point, I could probably find a nice used 5D.

 

[WDWFWfan]

I made the same comparison a couple of months ago.

It basically came down to if the new LCD and microadjust were worth the price increase? I found the 40D on ebay, new from a canon reseller for $750. With the MS Live deal that was going on, that came down to $550. That pretty much sold me on the 40D. The other two features were not worth the increase in cost. At the 50D price point, I could probably find a nice used 5D.

Okay, explain the "MS Live deal" to me and how it saved you $200.