hm... not very impressed.  Perhaps I should get Canon 17-40mm L lens or 24-105 L


here is the test:


ISO TEST:

canon eos 50D
canon 28-105mm @ 50mm (f5.6), low light test:



ISO100




ISO 200



ISO 400



ISO 400 filtered (neat image)



ISO 800



ISO 1600



ISO 3200



ISO 3200 filtered (neat image)




----------------------------------------

EOS 400D



ISO 100



ISO 200




ISO 400



ISO 800



ISO 1600




-----------------------------

EOS 50D vs EOS 400D
f8 105mm



ISO100



ISO 200



ISO 400



ISO 800



ISO 1600



ISO 3200

Curious... I like the photos taken with the older 400 more than the ones taken with the newer 50...  You may really want to try another lenses...

17-55 is probably the best lens for APS-C cameras, maybe you should consider buying that (if you don't plan on going FF anytime soon). I really think you should invest in glass, 15mp requires good glass. It sticks with you for life if you buy the right one and take care of it.

Did you shoot jpg or raw? Many people on dpreview report that they got much better results with RAW and DPP. They said that 50d doesn't do almost any noise reduction while many other cameras slightly remove noise even when NR is turned off. Did you use the same shutterspeed on both cameras? Again many people report that 50d sensor has a higher 1/3 to 1/5 higher sensitivity that 40d for example.

was shooting in RAW. same settings on 400d and 50d.

ps.

what 17-55 lens? I dont think canon has L lens in that range?

Quote from: Peter on October 07, 2008, 10:20
was shooting in RAW. same settings on 400d and 50d.

Which software to convert the raws?

camera raw 4.6beta (PS CS3)

I set from 0 ti 2 now:

on setting 2 (comparing to setting 0)

jpeg from camera:

ISO 100
Before

Now


ISO 400
Before

Now


ISO 1600
Before

Now

lightbox test:


EOS 50D,

ISO 100, f13, RAW





Good enough for goverment work hhhhh

Peter, from what I see in these photos it seems that 40D has better output. However, for the sake of testing, you have to pay attention to some things:

- same aperture
- same shutter speed
- same white balance
- use tripod and remote trigger
- no filters on lenses
- focus exactly in the same spot
- shoot raw and convert with ACR (which you just did)

I'm thinking that 50D can do better. Some photos seem a bit OOF, at least the indoor ones. ISO 400 looks the sharper of them all, and the details on the buttons vanish almost completely at iso 800. Something's not right.

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.

Regards,
Catalin.

I'm testing 50D as well, and while it's ergonomics and speed aren't even comparable to my old 300d, the iso noise isn't all that great.

I've read somewhere that ACR 4.6 beta shows a lot noise at high iso with 50D as compared to DPP. I didn't bother installing the DPP so I can't verify that, but I had to clean noise on ISO 200 images (shadow areas) or they wouldn't pass the inspection.

- same aperture - yes! I use same aperture
- same shutter speed - yes! I use same ss
- same white balance - not so important, but simmilar
- use tripod and remote trigger - did use tripod, but waiting for trigger to arrive, dont have it yet (indor blur)
- no filters on lenses - no filters
- focus exactly in the same spot - manual focus locked after achieving autofokus
- shoot raw and convert with ACR (which you just did) - yes


I still think this can be better with L lens.

Might be that huge pixel density on sensor is taking the toll?

What is YOUR opinion? Do you like better what 40D gets, or 50D? Is it worth the change? Why?

Would be also interesting if someone could have a hands-on opinion in high iso noise performance in a 50d - old 5d versus. I'm betting on older 5d at this moment.

Quote from: j2k on October 07, 2008, 11:49
I'm testing 50D as well, and while it's ergonomics and speed aren't even comparable to my old 300d, the iso noise isn't all that great.

I've read somewhere that ACR 4.6 beta shows a lot noise at high iso with 50D as compared to DPP. I didn't bother installing the DPP so I can't verify that, but I had to clean noise on ISO 200 images (shadow areas) or they wouldn't pass the inspection.

It seems that you're right: http://texturesmax.free.fr/acrvsacr.jpg

Quote from: Xalanx on October 07, 2008, 12:26
Might be that huge pixel density on sensor is taking the toll?

What is YOUR opinion? Do you like better what 40D gets, or 50D? Is it worth the change? Why?

I never had 40D. I had 400D (XTi).

I dont know. I like everything abour 50D except image quality! (which is most important).

If iStock and SS accept my images with 50D, than it is OK. I dont need anything better. If not, well, I might get my old 400D back in service.

It does look like they have tried to cram too many pixels on the sensor.  What does it look like if you upsize the 400D files to the 50D size?

I had a similar experience moving from the 300D to the 400D.  My 300D files had much better image quality and I ended up getting a 5D.  Will be interesting to see if the 5D Mark II has too many pixels.  I am not going to buy one until I see a few reviews.

I will borrow a Canon 60mm macro lens from a friend tomorow, so I will run a few more tests.

I send sample files (those peppers) to stock agencies, so far, on StockXpert accepted But I really want to see if SS and IS would accept them. If they do, than 50D is good enough.

How can you compare apples and oranges and say you don't like image quality.  The original photos for the 50D are absolute garbage.  The lighting is really unbalanced and you are looking in the shadows while the 400D is in a "better" lit area.  What kind of comparison is that?

Take the same thing, outside, inside, or whevever, and light it properly, then compare.  Then take the 50D file and make it exactly the same size as the XTI file mP wise otherwise its a useless comparison. 

what are you talking about? I did exactly the same images, with same settings with 400D and 50D.

why would I downsize 15MP to 10MP (as 400D!). I bought new camera to get larger images, with BETER quality, but, I just got larger images. Not better quality at all.


and yes, I picked the hardest conditions. But the same setings and same images for both cameras.

Ichiro, I can assure you that 50D wasn't built with 15 MP just to be able to downsize at 10 MP to get quality images. The expected result is better image quality than 400D or 40D at 15 MP. Also the settings were correct, the same for both cameras.

Peter - maybe tweaking the picture style would give better output. I have "in family" a 40D and until I moved the sharpness to maximum and saturation to 75% I wasn't pleased on the images. The default settings give soft images, at least for 40D.

My bad, I didn't notice that.  I feel kind of silly.

Aw whatever, I'm buying the new 5D and I'm not going to pixel peep.  Its getting to a point where its silly.

And I probably will downsize them to 16 MP because its the max size for iStock.  The 50D doesn't hit that so why not just downsize to the next lowest.  All the photos will be rejected for overfiltering because the reviewing had their eyes poked out and replaced with marbles, but thats another story. 

Xalanx, I shoot in RAW, so any change on camera image style (sharpness, noise reduction, or whatever) does not take any effect on RAW images, only on jpegs.

I just got acepted images on SS fron 50D (full 15MP, iso 100)


good.

Canon 60mm f2.8 macro vs Canon 28-105@60mm f3.5-4.5  

Canon eos 50D f6.3, RAW to jpeg (adobe camera raw 4.6beta)




ISO 100


ISO 200


ISO 400


ISO 800


ISO 1600