Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Is It Just Me or ...  (Read 17775 times)
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #20 on: November 02, 2008, 03:39:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: skid00skid00
Let's cut to the chase, here, and avoid some of the personal insults.

DPReview has been angry with Canon since the flap a few years ago in which other online sites released info before Canon wanted them to, while DPR didn't, and Canon didn't 'punish' the early-releasers.

DPR unfairly/incompetantly compares all cameras at 100% zoom, handicapping higher-resolution cameras.

DPR rates noise strangely, judging cameras which blur the hell out of detail as better cameras.

DPR rates 'resolution' in a way which doesn't match the res chart images they actually show in the review.

DPR seldom notes which lenses are used in reviews.  You and I know what this results in...

Seriously, if you want to read lots of forum posts, DPR is the place.
If you want competant reviews, Imaging Resources, hell, even Steve's Digicams, are far better.  See also Camera Labs and DC Resource.



These are the kind of political behind-the-scenes shenanigans that this entire review smacked of to me. It just seemed that the entire review was a deliberate lie and slanting of the truth, by purposely judging the camera with inappropriate lenses to its sensor ... and then they covered their aperture by putting a small caveat at the end saying, "High-end lenses required to get the most out of the camera."

This is deliberate lying to me, lying through omission. As the fellow Jay Brookstone noted in his post: they need to pick the right lenses. In fact, prior to any of the new Canons coming out, it has been speculated to no end here that many of these older lenses are going to fall by the wayside as being antiquated, precisely when newer and higher-powered sensors emerge. The flaws in these older lenses themselves, it has been repeatedly argued, will become obvious when put on newer and newer cameras. And that is what it seems like is happening to me.

To this, Phil Askey said, "but just how much trouble do you think the average 50D buyer should have to go to to get their 15 megapixels?," which to me reeks of intentional fraud and dishonesty. I would think an outfit whose sole purpose was to put-out worldwide reviews of products ought to get off its lazy ass and go though "whatever trouble" is necessary in order to provide the best and most accurate account of the truth. Like I said, I found Mr. Brookstone's simple post to be pretty much the bottom line here: and that is the 15.1 mpx 50D is going to reveal which Canon lenses need to be put to pasture and which lenses are good enough to spend your money on for the future.

I am sure many of you remember the debates of last year that the older lenses weren't going to be able to keep up with these newer sensors, and that an entire facelift in lenses is going to have to be forthcoming in order to make these higher-end cameras capable of being useful. And to me, that is pretty much what is going on here. Newer lenses like the 100mm f2.8 macro, 10-22mm, and the 70-200 f2.8 ISL were all very sharp on the 50D, according to Mr. Brookstone.

Anyway, thanks for your post and the links to those other sites. I also noticed that the Photozone testing on some of the older lenses revealed lousy results, but I will be interested to see their results on some of Canon's very best lenses, particularly their macros and fixed telephotos.

Jack
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #21 on: November 02, 2008, 03:50:13 PM »
ReplyReply

lol!
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 02, 2008, 03:53:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
The test results actually are quite revealing inasmuch as we can clearly see that Canon has overshot the megapixels they are cramming onto an APS-C sensor that is slightly smaller than DX format.  The 50D has become the case study in the diffraction limitations that limit useful gains in resolution and define how much a given format can deliver.
That's what DPReview's tests appear to show.

However, other testers don't seem to agree.

See e.g. akam.no's test, which also is based on using "standard settings" in ACR, and they both use the 50mm f/1.4.

For testing image quality in terms of noise and detail, it appears that DPReview's and akam.no's methods are disconcertingly similar, yet show completely different results.


By the by, I also think that you need to tone down your ad hominems, Tony.
Logged

Jan
Slough
Guest
« Reply #23 on: November 02, 2008, 04:46:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
"Am I missing something or are most of these "reviews" biased and therefore pretty much full of $#!^?"

While I don't put a lot of stock in DPR's reviews, I would not consider them biased.  If he doesn't like the tests then he shouldn't read them.  Ironically, Jack belongs at DPR where there are many who share his fanboyism and propensity to flame others; I'm pretty sure he will be just as vociferous towards anyone that dismisses the 50D or any other Canon DSLR regardless of how they arrived at that conclusion.  It's unfortunate that he brings that mentality here.

Oh come on, don't distort my views by quoting one small part of the original post followed by my comment on the entire post. That is cheap. Maybe you should return to the dpreview forums if you want to play like that?  
Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 02, 2008, 04:48:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jani
See e.g. akam.no's test, which also is based on using "standard settings" in ACR, and they both use the 50mm f/1.4.

For testing image quality in terms of noise and detail, it appears that DPReview's and akam.no's methods are disconcertingly similar, yet show completely different results.

I don't read German, but I see no appreciable increase in resolution between the D300 and 50D in the charts or sample images presented there.
Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #25 on: November 02, 2008, 04:54:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DarkPenguin
The vicious hordes that inhabit dpreview will discount real world tests as 'unscientific' and not 'objective' and they will not discount real world tests as 'unscientific' and not 'objective'.  The hordes cover all sides.

In other words, they argue whatever one says. Fair point. That is the purpose of dpreview it would seem.

And this thread does seem to be very dpreview like, with lots of personal abuse. IMO Canon should have concentrated on improving the output at 10-12 MP along with the other improvements. And that 100% viewfinder on the D300 is appealing. I'm getting sick of not being able to get an accurate composition.
Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #26 on: November 02, 2008, 04:56:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slough
Oh come on, don't distort my views by quoting one small part of the original post followed by my comment on the entire post. That is cheap. Maybe you should return to the dpreview forums if you want to play like that?  

You are arguing that I should discount or even ignore Jack's title and summation, and that somewhere in the middle of his rant is his true intention.  Your post dealt with two things that are not really in Jack's OP -- evaluating lenses and cameras on intangibles versus numbers -- I took issue with the part of your post defending Jack to argue that he is wrong about a bias in DPR's tests against one camera or the other, it's that simple and it's not unfair.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2008, 05:00:44 PM by Tony Beach » Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #27 on: November 02, 2008, 05:15:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
You are arguing that I should discount or even ignore Jack's title and summation, and that somewhere in the middle of his rant is his true intention.  Your post dealt with two things that are not really in Jack's OP -- evaluating lenses and cameras on intangibles versus numbers -- I took issue with the part of your post defending Jack to argue that he is wrong about a bias in DPR's tests against one camera or the other, it's that simple and it's not unfair.

Whatever. I'll not engage in fights. Bye.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #28 on: November 02, 2008, 05:40:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slough
And this thread does seem to be very dpreview like, with lots of personal abuse.



People always say that about DPReview, but it seems like most of the abuse can be found over here. While yappy poodles like Tony growl on their porches, and whilst Dark Penguins "lol" over here, I have to click over to DP Review to find any meaningful posts about this subject. For instance, here is a very interesting post by the same individual, JB, in response to Phil's (the reviewer's) defensiveness:



"Sorry to hit a nerve, Phil. I was not trying to be critical of your review. In my casual examination I was surprised that the primes, with the exception of the 100mm, were outperformed by the zooms in my inventory. It became clear just how important lens performance is to any 50D test. Sometimes test methods have to evolve to meet the performance bounds of new technology, and as you have pointed out, the pixel density of the 50D is into new territory for a DSLR. No surprise many lenses can't deal with it.

"And it became equally clear that it is possible to design and build lenses that CAN deal with 15 Mpix/APS-C. Maybe the manufacturers just need to step up to the challenge and do it consistently, if they are going to build bodies with this pixel density. What a thought.

"Regarding lens resolution... I have had issues with lens performance on digital bodies going back to the 6.3 Mpix Canon D60. Edge performance has always been an issue. But now, center performance is a broad issue as well. Many lenses have become low-pass filters with respect to 50D sensor resolution. So the sensor is effectively oversampling a frequency (resolution) limited input. And oversampling improves system performance, though incrementally. In the 50D case, this improvement will likely be a small dynamic range/noise improvement that can be realized by integrating over adjacent pixels when reducing the image size to the equivalent of a smaller sensor. Nobody will really care.

"But on the few lenses that can exploit the 50D sensor, everyone will benefit. For example... This week, I shot a corporate event with, well over 120 persons in the group shot. The venue was changed at the last moment, the company vastly underestimated the persons to be in the shot, and I had to shoot from a ladder, with the group lined up only 4 deep on a broad but narrow walk, surrounded by wet grass. I could not even curve the group around me to maintain focal distance. My only option was to shoot with the Canon 10-22, at f8/22mm (I did use AC strobes). The result was a narrow band of people occupying 25% of the image height and nearly 100% of its width, throwing away 75% of the image (sensor resolution). The print will be 30 inches wide and will hang in the lobby of corp. HQ for one year, where I have learned that every person likes to critically examine themselves. I was very worried. But the 50D and 10-22 really delivered a good image. Maybe only 15-20% or so better than the 40D in resolution, but I needed that 15-20%. As I stated in my earlier post, my copy of the 10-22 seems well matched to the 50D sensor, has little chromatic aberration and easily correctable field distortion.

"Regarding the average user - what IS the average user. I see L lenses popping up in snap shooters hands daily. Maybe this only happens in Southern California, but I doubt it. So the challenge today is to use proven lenses for resolution critical shoots, and maybe reduce image size with other lenses on non-critical shoots. And I have that choice with the 50D, which is good."



The way I see things Slough, the abuse is going on over here, while the thoughtful, meaningful posts on the actual subject matter are in fact going on over there. This not a slam on you, just my honest observation as someone seeking answers to my questions.

Jack




.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8874


« Reply #29 on: November 02, 2008, 08:55:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Don't know what all the fuss is about. The incremental pixel count increase in the 50D is in line with previous upgrades in the APS-C cropped format that Canon have given us. The only exception was the very first upgrade from the 3mp D30 to the 6mp D60, which was a 100% increase. The 10D to the 20D was a 33% increase; the 20D to the 40D a 25% increase; the 40D to the 450D a 20% increase and the 450D to the 50D a 25% increase.

I don't recall getting excited about any resolution increase when I upgraded from the D60 to the 20D. It seemed fairly irrelevant to me. The exciting feature of the 20D was its remarkably low noise at high ISO. ISO 1600 on the 20D was at least as good as ISO 400 on the D60.

I've always been of the view that anything less than a 50% increase in pixel count was irrelevant. The doubling in pixel count from the 3mp of the D30 to the 6mp of the D60 caused Michael to comment in his review that the D60 would be good for A3+ size prints whereas the D30 only good for A3, by the same critical viewing standards.

The 50D represents a 50% increase in pixel count over the 40D, so one might conclude that such an increase gets into the category of being significant. However, when the increase is from such a high base, it becomes less relevant. An increase from 3mp to 4.5mp, or an increase from 6mp to 9mp would be worthwhile... just. But an increase from 10mp to 15mp is hardly worthwhile. The best I can say is that it's better than no increase at all, provided there are no downsides such as increased noise.

For me, the 50D should have been my upgrade from the 20D. But someone in Bangkok made me an irresistable offer when I was out shopping for the EF-S 17-55/2.8, and my resolve weakened and i bought the 40D. I knew already I could expect no increase in resolution or reduction in noise that would be significant. The fast frame rates and the LiveView feature were the main drawcard for me, just as with the 50D the main drawcard was the 'autofocus micro adjustment' and the high resolution LiveView screen which facilitates amazingly accurate manual focussing. The additional pixel count I consider as a small bonus.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2008, 08:58:24 PM by Ray » Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #30 on: November 02, 2008, 10:31:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Jay Turberville has done some nice imatest stuff with the DPR 50D resolution tests.
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 03, 2008, 03:03:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
I don't read German, but I see no appreciable increase in resolution between the D300 and 50D in the charts or sample images presented there.
You would need to read Scandiwegian to understand the text.

What's completely different between DPReview and akam.no, is the results for the 40D compared with the 50D.

From the D300 to the 50D, you can see that while there isn't an increase in per-pixel detail, the enlargement of the 50D is greater, which again implies a greater amount of detail, which in itself is noticeable enough. This is also visible in the charts, so perhaps you should study them again?

Also, you can see how e.g. the noise compares to the 5D, which is quite impressive, and again a bit contrary to what DPReview writes.
Logged

Jan
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 03, 2008, 03:54:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jani
You would need to read Scandiwegian to understand the text.

What's completely different between DPReview and akam.no, is the results for the 40D compared with the 50D.

From the D300 to the 50D, you can see that while there isn't an increase in per-pixel detail, the enlargement of the 50D is greater, which again implies a greater amount of detail, which in itself is noticeable enough. This is also visible in the charts, so perhaps you should study them again?

Also, you can see how e.g. the noise compares to the 5D, which is quite impressive, and again a bit contrary to what DPReview writes.

I do not know how these files were handled as regards noise reduction.  Anyway, I personally have not been concerned about noise on the 50D, and regardless of how it performs it could have performed better with fewer megapixels.

As to resolved detail:



I wouldn't get too excited one way or the other; they're pretty damn near equal.  There are more important things to consider when buying into a camera system.
Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #33 on: November 03, 2008, 05:10:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner
The way I see things Slough, the abuse is going on over here, while the thoughtful, meaningful posts on the actual subject matter are in fact going on over there. This not a slam on you, just my honest observation as someone seeking answers to my questions.

You might be right, as I stopped bothering with dpreview some while back due to the level of abuse. The signal to noise ratio was rather poor. Actually this forum is usually more civil. Heated debate yes, abuse, no. This thread is not typical.

Incidentally I don't think dpreview reviews are full of shit as you suggest in your original title. But they are very much for pixel peepers and spec. junkies. There is a tendency to not see the wood for the trees.

Leif
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3348



WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 03, 2008, 09:52:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: redfisher
Ive read this forum for a while...but never posted.

Im always surprised that such an ass-hat like johnkoerner can have such a strong opinion on technical matters. I mean,last I checked, doesn't he just shoot bugs with a dinky camera?

He seems like a bitching troll with no actual worthwhile knowledge to add to any discussion.

I thought it was funny when someone said he looked like a rapist...lol..HE DOES!
What a delightful way to introduce yourself to the forum!    
Looking forward to more of your charm and wit. Don't forget to post some of your fine work too.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7855



WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 03, 2008, 10:59:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Not sure why we still need to get excited about these DSLRs comparisons. It should be clear by now that 12-15 MP is pretty much the real world resolution limit for APS sensors just like 20-25MP is the limit for FF sensors.

The game is over folks, there really isn't any significant reason to upgrade or even consider upgrading if you already own a DSLR with a similar resolution.

That's the main message of the DPreview review, we are entering the era of draws, also called area of sharply decreasing returns.

This is great news IMHO, think about the money we will be saving in the coming years with our renewed ability to take photogaphs without being afraid that the next guy will over-spec us with more MPs...  

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #36 on: November 03, 2008, 11:12:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
This is great news IMHO, think about the money we will be saving in the coming years with our renewed ability to take photogaphs without being afraid that the next guy will over-spec us with more MPs...

Now we can worry about being outdone by someone with a higher DR DSLR.  Seriously though, if you are pixel peeping the differences between a 12 and a 15 megapixel camera, and you think that's going to really make a difference in your photography -- well you've missed the boat completely because time spent shooting and processing will do much more to further the quality of your photographs.
Logged
NashvilleMike
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 175


« Reply #37 on: November 03, 2008, 11:44:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
Now we can worry about being outdone by someone with a higher DR DSLR.  Seriously though, if you are pixel peeping the differences between a 12 and a 15 megapixel camera, and you think that's going to really make a difference in your photography -- well you've missed the boat completely because time spent shooting and processing will do much more to further the quality of your photographs.

True words for sure - this post and Bernards above it are about the only thing worth extracting from my drive-by of this thread.

Dpreview reviews are just one of many things one may look at when determining a camera. As I stated in another post, there's no single divine perfect review or reviewer out there, and for the life of me I don't get why people get so worked up about whether camera x or camera y has .001 more this or that on a review on dpreview, or for that matter, any other single site. Two years from now we won't care whether the 50D or 40D or D300 or Sony whatever is the best reviewed camera in its class because they'll have been long forgotten by those on the body-of-the-month train anyhow.

-m
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #38 on: November 04, 2008, 12:34:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: redfisher
Ive read this forum for a while...but never posted.
Im always surprised that such an ass-hat like johnkoerner can have such a strong opinion on technical matters. I mean,last I checked, doesn't he just shoot bugs with a dinky camera?
He seems like a bitching troll with no actual worthwhile knowledge to add to any discussion.
I thought it was funny when someone said he looked like a rapist...lol..HE DOES!


Lemme guess who this is ... Mr. Leonard with a new handle  

I see your own contributions remain unchanged since Michael banned you. It's not my fault the extendable reach of your camera is the shortest in its class, but I still see your feelings remain hurt over the issue  




Quote from: Tony Beach
Now we can worry about being outdone by someone with a higher DR DSLR.  Seriously though, if you are pixel peeping the differences between a 12 and a 15 megapixel camera, and you think that's going to really make a difference in your photography -- well you've missed the boat completely because time spent shooting and processing will do much more to further the quality of your photographs.

That's a pretty good point Tony, but I still think you're missing one too.

If a person is about to make his first investment into equipment, and if he reads a review like that one, he might make a different choice. The review was very flawed and was in stark contrast to the other reviews (if not every other review). In asking the questions I did, and in raising the cain that I did, I actually shook from the bush the exact information I wanted. I was provided links that proved my point, really, and that while the 50D looks "worse" than the 40D on some lenses ... it in fact produces better results on others ... and it just so happens that 2 of the lenses it produces superior results with (the 100 macro and the 100-400 telephoto) are the very two lenses I am interested in buying.

So while the point you make is very valid, it doesn't change the point of my thread, and that is the DP Review analysis of this camera was poorly-done. And there are several thousand posts over on DP Review with other people who agree.

But still, if it is getting to the point we are splitting hairs, then all of these cameras are pretty much capable of satisfying anyone.
Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #39 on: November 04, 2008, 02:15:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: redfisher
Wow...your sarcasm is so sharp and biting. Funny how you equate my 'charm and wit' to that of creative output.
So who's the dick HUH ,SMILEY SMILEY

 

Clearly you are someone whose soul purpose is to post abuse and you have no intention to engage in polite debate.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad