Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon 50D review out  (Read 22830 times)
Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #20 on: October 31, 2008, 07:07:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps next we'll see the MTF race as well as the dynamic range race? There's always an aspect of camera design you can put a number against and race on it.
Logged

www.nattress.com - Plugins for Final Cut Pro and Color
www.red.com - Digital Cinema Cameras
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #21 on: October 31, 2008, 07:17:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: The View
Also: those close crops often hide how a sensor represents light quality. How colors are represented.
If you think that's a problem, then you can download the full image and judge for yourself.

The only image they don't provide the full version of, is the one they base their noise measurements off of (the GretagMacbeth color checker chart, but there you can compare the various colour settings, and with a different camera, too).
Logged

Jan
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 607


« Reply #22 on: October 31, 2008, 09:06:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: GLuijk
I have a question here: if we assume the Canon 50D with a 4.5 MP/cm pixel density has reached the limits of the Mpx race as DP tests seem to demonstrate, how are there people around (including Ken Rockwell) managing to take nice pictures even at 100% crops with their Canon G10 and 34 MP/cm pixel density?

If I see a limit for Mpx not to go to 20Mpx or above, is more related to the practical usefulness and the storage and processing power requirements of such huge resolutions, than to physical limits.


I think there are a number of points here.
Ist off, is that we are already at fairly high levels of resolution anyway, the increases we get nowadays are far less dramatic than years before. For example going from a 3/4 mp camera to 10mp odd, was a fairly decent jump. However, at 10mp levels, a few extra here and there, are pretty much insignificant. At 15mp, frankly you are going to have to have a big increase to be of any use at all.

2nd point, limitations of lenses, which is of course tougher on smaller sensors..there will be a point that adding more equals nothing extra. You could argue that lenses can be improved, well to a point they can, but it is still a valid issue.

I think now we are at 24mp for a FF DSLR, really, do we need any more than this??? Take it to 30mp and it is not really worth bothering with. The game is up really...big numbers are not enough. I suspect over time the industry may move to FF, as APS-C is clearly running out of pixels for them to slap on there. I just hope they think of more interesting areas to explore. But cost is a factor, expect FF to reach affordable levels in the next few years..maybe APS will be reserved for lower end bodies only, who can say.

The G10 looks decent enough, but I doubt these 15mp are noticeable over the previous model's 12mp odd, and I would imagine it is not very good over ISO 400.

I think digital will really come into it's own, when we get rid of bayer sensors (I don't think they are up to the job colour/tonal wise), and when dynamic range is really much better than today. Maybe your average joe buys cameras on megapixels alone, I cannot say that I do.


Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8202



WWW
« Reply #23 on: October 31, 2008, 09:18:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Graeme Nattress
Perhaps next we'll see the MTF race as well as the dynamic range race? There's always an aspect of camera design you can put a number against and race on it.

For around 10 years, all the Japanese car manufacturers agreed not to release any model with more the 280 hp. They focused on enhancing the torque and improving fuel efficiency of high power enginers.

My view is that camera manufacturers should agree on an explicit resolution cease fire, say at 25 MP for FF, 15MP for APS (12 would have been better but Canon wouldn't want to back down) and 8MP for compacts, and work on enhancing the other variables.

As long as the MP race goes on, photographers will not get the tool they could be getting because the designs will keep being too heaviliy biased towards more MP.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: October 31, 2008, 09:19:13 AM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #24 on: October 31, 2008, 09:47:37 AM »
ReplyReply

I'd think you'd want more megapixels.  Get enough to fully capture the lens diffraction.
Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #25 on: October 31, 2008, 12:10:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: The View
Main points: no real detail advantage over the 10MP 40D, but 50% larger files.

It seems to me that the issue of extra noise becomes moot if there is no extra detail, and if there is no extra detail then there is no value in larger file sizes.  Judge for yourself from the crops below:



One is from the 50D (100%), one is from the 40D and another is from the D300 (both resized to match the 50D).  Can you pick which one is which?
Logged
Guillermo Luijk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1291



WWW
« Reply #26 on: October 31, 2008, 02:53:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach

Can you pick which one is which?
I would bet left to right: 40D, 50D and D300!

Anyway it's not only the sensor that is enough to capture a certain degree of detail. A bad lens or focusing on a perfect sensor would ruin the image. To increase resolution is a necessary condition to achieve more detail than a given balanced system, not a sufficient condition (or whatever you call it in English).

And in any case the difference in resolution of the 50D with respect to the 40D is moderate, not huge, so no huge improvement can be expected.

« Last Edit: October 31, 2008, 02:54:05 PM by GLuijk » Logged

Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #27 on: October 31, 2008, 03:13:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: GLuijk
I would bet left to right: 40D, 50D and D300!

You got one out of the three.  Anyone else care to venture a guess?

Quote
Anyway it's not only the sensor that is enough to capture a certain degree of detail. A bad lens or focusing on a perfect sensor would ruin the image. To increase resolution is a necessary condition to achieve more detail than a given balanced system, not a sufficient condition (or whatever you call it in English).

I believe the problem is the AA filter Canon is using.  Notice that at DPR there is no moire detected at any level in the 50D resolution numbers.  Their reason was obvious, by applying a stronger AA filter they could reduce noise.

Quote
And in any case the difference in resolution of the 50D with respect to the 40D is moderate, not huge, so no huge improvement can be expected.

It is bordering on insignificant, certainly less than it should be considering the differences I can readily detect between a 10 MP D200 and a 12 MP D300.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2008, 03:53:06 PM by Tony Beach » Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8202



WWW
« Reply #28 on: October 31, 2008, 04:12:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DarkPenguin
I'd think you'd want more megapixels.  Get enough to fully capture the lens diffraction.

If that didn't come at the price of something else becoming worse, yes sure.

As far as I am concerned give me more DR and less noise at 25 MP. That will impact my photography a lot more positively than an additional 5 or 10% of detail.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #29 on: October 31, 2008, 05:49:24 PM »
ReplyReply

I have been considering buying the 50D as an upgrade for my 30D (perpetually a tweener, I am), so I have been following this closely.  As a matter of fact, I was unfortunate enough to jump into the DPReview forum scrum.  I had a couple of observations:

The results comparing resolution crops between DPP, ACR, Zoom Browser and jpg were a big part of the problem.  The moire effect on the original ACR version was very bad.  I happened to still have a browser window open to the old image after they updated the images, so I saved copies.  Here they are:

Original ACR 4.6 RC Version


Updated ACR 4.6 Version


This would have set off alarm bells with me when I saw it.  They claimed that they updated all the RAW images in the review, but I am skeptical.

DPReview also observed that the Dynamic range performance was worse than the 40D.  They based this on a magenta shift in the highlights although the 50D's actual range was wider than the 40D's.  I am very curious if that same magenta shift in highlights would be observed in conversion using DPP.  I would really like it if they released their RAW images.  That would seem to put this all to rest.

As for resolution at 15MP,  I am a bit disappointed.  I agree that it probably would have been better to stick with 12MP.  It does appear that the 50D gets a bit more detail in some circumstances.  I spent some time reviewing their test shots and found that focus was a bit off in places, so the resolution improvement could be seen more clearly in parts of the image that they didn't enlarge.  Most notable difference was visible in the text that runs vertically on the side of the middle bottle on their standard test image.

Arghh...but I am getting into the peeping.  The 50D seems to have marginally the same image quality performance as the 40D with some areas that are a gnats @ss better and others that are the same amount worse, all with the extra gift of larger file sizes (CF card manufacturers and hard drive manufacturers will rejoice).  But, the usability features included in the 50D are pretty nice upgrades, particularly the screen and ability to magnify on the screen to check focus.  

As for the disappointment over the lack of improvement in image quality (high ISO, resolution, dynamic range) I suspect that we haven't heard the end of improvements to RAW file handling for this camera.  

What I think what we have is a decent 12MP camera stretched out onto a 15MP sensor.  I will need to do my own at-home tests to decide how large I can print with this camera.  I may not be able to apply my simple algorithm where I take the pixel dimensions and divide by 240 to decide my maximum image size.  

Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #30 on: October 31, 2008, 06:04:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Can you take it into the shower with you and let me know if the weather sealing is improved?
Logged
ZoltanZZZ
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #31 on: October 31, 2008, 06:31:48 PM »
ReplyReply

A couple issues if most people use ACR why are there so many other RAW software converters out there?  ACR is written by a company whose bread and butter is doing post processing if they converted RAW files that required very little or no post processing they would be in a world of hurt.  I prefer a company that doses nothing but RAW processing and if it is done correctly very little or no post processing is required.  I do very little post processing and in many instances there is no improvement in doing it, that is good RAW conversion.  I believe the major issue with the 50D besides the testing procedures used is software related and it will be resolved.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8906


« Reply #32 on: October 31, 2008, 08:15:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Daniel Browning
By showing the difference between the capability of the camera and the limitations of the software. It's one thing to say "the camera stinks" and another to say "the camera is good, but Adobe's raw processor does a poor job on this one."

To determine that ACR does a poor job with 50D RAW files would involve an additional set of procedures and a new ball game. Dpreview is in the business of reviewing cameras, not RAW converters.

I own both the 40D and 50D and could find no significant difference between conversions of 50D raw images in DPP and ACR 4.6 beta, with NR and sharpening turned off completely in both converters. There were very subtle differences to be observed at the extreme pixel-peeping level, but in my opinion so small as to be totally irrelevant in the context of all the processing adjustments one makes before an image is ready for display or printing.

The resolution difference between the 40D and 50D are smaller than I expected. Having done a few tests using an Australian $50 bill as a target, I get the impression that the increase in resolution is comparable in magnitude to the decrease in resolution as one stops down one stop from a lens' sharpest aperture to an aperture where the lens begins to be affected by diffraction.

For example, with a good prime lens like the Canon 50/1.4, the 40D at F5.6 is about the same as the 50D at F8. The 40D at F8 is about the same as the 50D at F11 and the 40D at F11 is about the same as the 50D at F16, in terms of total detail captured at the plane of focus.

What this means for me, is that I would have less hesitation using F16 with the 50D when I want maximum DoF, because I know that at the plane of focus I will get results on a par with the 40D at F11, but away from the plane of focus I will get a significantly sharper image than the 40D can produce at F11.

However, the reasons I bought a 50D were not centred around the possibility of significantly higher resolution. I was having trouble getting accurate autofocussing with my 40D so I was attracted to the 'autofocus micro adjustments' feature of the 50D as well as its higher LCD screen resolution. My decision was also affected by the plunging value of the commodity-based Aussie dollar. It's going to make future imports more expensive and I would expect future shipments of the 50D to be more expensive.

Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #33 on: October 31, 2008, 08:33:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
Having done a few tests using an Australian $50 bill as a target
...
My decision was also affected by the plunging value of the commodity-based Aussie dollar

Next time make your tests with Yen. Anyway, if the value plunged, then you would not mind uploading some raw files from the tests, would you? (Pls different ISOs). I will reprogram Rawnalyze for the new exchange rate.

Seriously, I have too few raw files for my tests; I don't even know the saturation levels with certain ISOs.

Thanks
Logged

Gabor
Guillermo Luijk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1291



WWW
« Reply #34 on: October 31, 2008, 08:35:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
You got one out of the three.
great, then I got the best possible result right after getting three out of the three  
« Last Edit: October 31, 2008, 08:35:20 PM by GLuijk » Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8906


« Reply #35 on: October 31, 2008, 08:40:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ZoltanZZZ
A couple issues if most people use ACR why are there so many other RAW software converters out there?

First of all, I would say that most people don't shoot in RAW mode in any case. If one shoots in RAW mode and therefore has a use for a RAW converter, it's a sign that one is particularly concerned about subtleties of image quality, obtaining maximum detail in highlights and shadows etc and, in my opinion, quite likely that one will be a Photoshop user.

Of course, without extensive market research it's impossible to say whether greater than 50% of all people who shoot in RAW mode use ACR or Lightroom. Some people will use, or at least try out, a number of different converters and find that a particular converter produces more satifying result with certain types of scenes than ACR. I used to prefer RSP myself, for a while until it was bought out by Adobe. However, I found that ACR always did a better reconstruction job of blown highlights.

Is the actual percentage of ACR users really important? Photoshop and accompanying programs like Bridge and ACR are leading industry standards. That's the essential point. It would get very complicated to run through the whole gamut of available converters on the market every time a new camera was tested.
Logged
ejmartin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 575


« Reply #36 on: October 31, 2008, 08:40:27 PM »
ReplyReply

From Eric Chan (madmanchan) in a post over at Naturescapes:

the early support of the 50D in Camera Raw 4.6 RC did not estimate the white point correctly; this led to suboptimal treatment of the highlights during highlight recovery in CR. There was also an issue involving the balance of green channels that led to very suboptimal resolution. Both addressed in the final version of CR 4.6, as well as CR 5.1.

Apparently DPR used the beta version of the camera profile for doing their tests  
Logged

emil
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001


« Reply #37 on: October 31, 2008, 08:58:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fike
DPReview also observed that the Dynamic range performance was worse than the 40D.  They based this on a magenta shift in the highlights although the 50D's actual range was wider than the 40D's.  I am very curious if that same magenta shift in highlights would be observed in conversion using DPP.  I would really like it if they released their RAW images.  That would seem to put this all to rest.

(...)

As for the disappointment over the lack of improvement in image quality (high ISO, resolution, dynamic range) I suspect that we haven't heard the end of improvements to RAW file handling for this camera.


It seems  to be one of the key flaws of dpreview that they set testing standards just as they feel like it.

Why use ACR as a standard? It makes no sense.

It's a fact that many Nikon and Canon photographers prefer Capture NX 2 and DPP to ACR.

Now, which RAW converter would a manufacturer try to optimize his camera for? For his own RAW converter or a third party product?

Hard guess.


For the 50D, many photographers will use DxO, DPP, C 1 Pro, Bibble, ACR, etc.  

Is it too much to ask to process the test images in all major RAW converters, decide in which it performs best, and then give us this best shot.

Of course, that's more work.

But how much work would it be to develop a camera, and see some cowboys ride it to death with poor riding skills on the test circuit?
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8906


« Reply #38 on: October 31, 2008, 09:28:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I suppose I should reconvert the following images now that it seems ACR 4.6 beta was so lousy with respect to the 50D.

The following shots (converted with 4.6 beta) show comparisons between the 40D at F11 and the 50D at F16, at 200% enlargement. The Canon 100-400 zoom was used, which is not as good as a prime I know, but in my experience all lenses ranging from moderately good to excellent tend to have very similar perfromance at apertures from F11 downward.

For the purpose of the comparison, the 40D image was interpolated with bicubic to the same size as the 50D image. The conversions have had no processing except default sharpening in ACR and negative EV adjustment with respect to ETTR. The 50D image does appear to have slightly more noise.

In order, from left to right; (1) the full scene with no interpolation of the 40D image; (2) 200% crops of the focus area. LiveView was used for manual focus. (3) the DoF benefits of using F16 with the 50D.

[attachment=9362:full_sce...parisons.jpg]  [attachment=9363:point_of...mparison.jpg]  [attachment=9364:F11_40D_..._F16_50D.jpg]


Edit: Just for the record, the 50D shot has more noise because I used ISO 400. The 40D shot is at ISO 100. I intended to equalize shutter speed, but made an error, thinking the 40D shots, taken first, were at ISO 200.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2008, 02:01:31 AM by Ray » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8906


« Reply #39 on: October 31, 2008, 09:59:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: The View
It seems  to be one of the key flaws of dpreview that they set testing standards just as they feel like it.

Why use ACR as a standard? It makes no sense.

It's a fact that many Nikon and Canon photographers prefer Capture NX 2 and DPP to ACR.

Some people might prefer one converter over another for a whole range of reasons that have little to do with fundamental image quality in respect of DR. It might simply be that one particular converter produces an effect which is easier to get, or another converter has better noise reduction algorithms, yet another converter produces a more accurate 'as shot' white balance. I used to prefer Raw Shooter Premium mainly because of its 'vibrancy' and 'detail enhancement' controls which ACR lacked at the time but now has.

One can argue till the cows come home about which converter is better, but such discussions are quite meaningless without comparison images.

If you want to make a point that a particular converter is better than ACR with respect to a particular model of camera, then please show some comparison images so we can all benefit. I'm sure all of us want to get the best out of our RAW images.

The last time I saw a comparison between a DPP conversion and an ACR conversion on this site (apart from my own comparison) the poster had clearly used a lot of noise reduction with the DPP software and very little or no noise reduction with ACR. Now clearly that's not a fair comparison.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad