i like the results from the 50D, there's no question they are very good at 15MP

I have no question in my mind that Shutterstock will accept.  Even iStock, although those idiots will probably reject for 'overfiltering' or mysterious 'artifacts' for no solid reason at all

Not bad results. However, I'm 87% convinced now to move to FF when upgrading. My trusty old 350d gave me photos at ISO 800 and even 1600 accepted on stock and selling. To my eye, in real-world situation like your images, it's almost the same as 50d. I just made 2 samples now at iso 800, but I don't want to pollute your thread with them.
I think I'll be taking some time to shoot at high iso, which I haven't done for a while now. No flash, just available light. Yes, high iso shots are so nice and natural...

LE: of course, if you resize to let's say 10 MP, the result will be much better.

Quote from: Xalanx on October 07, 2008, 11:44

17-40? Well yea it's a good lens. Not stunning results but it's good. Try the 18-55 with IS, you'll be amazed at how sharp this lens can be. Much sharper than 17-40. My whole portfolio's wide angle shots is done with this lens.

I think you need to have your 17-40 sent to Canon for a fix. Either that or you have never shot with that lens.

Quote from: ljupco on October 08, 2008, 23:41

Quote from: Xalanx on October 07, 2008, 11:44

17-40? Well yea it's a good lens. Not stunning results but it's good. Try the 18-55 with IS, you'll be amazed at how sharp this lens can be. Much sharper than 17-40. My whole portfolio's wide angle shots is done with this lens.

I think you need to have your 17-40 sent to Canon for a fix. Either that or you have never shot with that lens.

I shot with 17-40 several times, aye? With two samples of this lens in fact, since I don't own one - I think for APSC is not worthy the amount of money. It's not as sharp as 18-55 IS or the Tamron 17-50.
In fact I have some photos in my port taken with 17-40. Very nice colors, very good contrast, but I'm addicted to sharpness, sorry.
For people having APSC I would recommend the Tamron 17-50mm 'cuz it has f/2.8 and it's tack sharp.

The MTF figures that you can find on photozone.de are quite a good representation of the real life for these lenses.

Quote from: Peter on October 07, 2008, 10:20
what 17-55 lens? I dont think canon has L lens in that range?

Sorry to answer so late, I only saw the question now when I went trough the topic again. The lens I was referring to is canon 17-55 2.8. It's not L but the IQ of the lens can easily be compared to L series. Only the build of the lens is not as good.

PS: Btw how do you like the camera now that you've had it a couple of days?
PS2: Adobe released Camera raw v4.6:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0810/08101301adobe_camera_raw_version4_6.asp

Hi. Tnx fot the link.

Today I love my camera! Somehow image quality is very good in real time tests on the field, and with a little touch of noise ninja plugin in PS, it is marvelous! I just love it!

Well done Peter, I'm glad for you! If you're happy with it, that's what it counts.

Quote from: Peter on October 14, 2008, 07:12Today I love my camera! Somehow image quality is very good in real time tests on the field, and with a little touch of noise ninja plugin in PS, it is marvelous! I just love it!

That's great news, I'm glad you enjoy it. I might also buy it, not sure yet

Quote from: Peter on October 14, 2008, 07:12
Hi. Tnx fot the link.

Today I love my camera! Somehow image quality is very good in real time tests on the field, and with a little touch of noise ninja plugin in PS, it is marvelous! I just love it!

Is the image quality difference big enough to justify the upgrade costs from 400D?

Image quality perhaps not. But overall satisfaction definitely YES.

Dpreview confirms your words:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/

I guess 15mp is just too much for a crop with current technology.

13MP would be optimum.