50D Owners Thread - Anything 50D related

Kryptix said:
What does the new firmware do? Is it worth it?
Click to expand...

Quite a lot it seems...


What has been changed in Version 1.0.6 of the firmware?

It includes the following improvements and fixes:

  1. Supports AF assist beam feature of the new flash, Speedlite 270 EX, which is scheduled to be released in April 2009In low light situations, the AF assist beam fires during autofocusing. Conditions that cause the AF assist beam to fire have been changed in Firmware Version 1.0.5 or later.If the firmware of the camera is version 1.0.3 or earlier, the AF assist beam may not fire even if the emitting conditions are met.
  2. Changes the error indications that are displayed on the cameraIn previous firmware, if an error is detected, Err 99 is displayed on the camera in most cases. Firmware Version 1.0.5 or later further specifies the error indications as follows.
    Indications on the Camera's LCD monitor (XX are numbers listed on the right.)
    No.​
    Error details​

    Err XX
    Shooting is not possible.
    Turn the power switch to <OFF> and <ON> again or re-install the battery.

    10​
    Malfunctions related to files have been detected.
    20​
    Malfunctions related to the mechanical have been detected.
    30​
    Malfunctions related to the shutter have been detected.
    40​
    Malfunctions related to the power source have been detected.
    50​
    Malfunctions related to the electric control have been detected.
    70​
    Malfunctions related to images have been detected.
    80​
    Malfunctions related to the electric control or images have been detected.​
    • If If malfunctions in the camera are detected, "Err XX" will be displayed. A two-digit number that corresponds to the malfunctions detected by the camera will be displayed in the "XX" section of the error number. Other than the error numbers listed above, there are other numbers such as "01". In that case, provide appropriate handling and servicing by following the details displayed on the LCD monitor of the camera.
    • If an error code appears frequently, the camera is malfunctioning; therefore, note down the error number and contact our service center.
  3. Addresses the vertical banding noise phenomenonIf the recording format is set to sRAW1, vertical banding noise may become visible depending on the camera settings, subject, and background.This phenomenon is addressed by this firmware.


Are the previous versions of firmware included in version 1.0.6?

Yes, the following improvements from the previous version are included:
Version 1.0.3 changes:

  1. Corrects a phenomenon in which an image becomes overexposed when C.Fn.II-3 Highlight tone priority is set to "1" together with other camera settings. (This correction has already been incorporated in the Version 1.0.2 and later firmware.
  2. Corrects a rare phenomenon in which "busy" blinks on the camera's display panel and the shutter cannot be released due to the timing of battery installation.
  3. Corrects a rare phenomenon in which "Err 99" appears on the camera's display panel and LCD monitor and the shutter cannot be released due to the timing of pressing the shutter button.
 
Sorry about the formatting, it's a cut and paste job.

The biggest issue was with the original 50D as shipped which I think was Version 1.0.2. The camera was prone to sporadic Err 99 messages. No big deal, as the usiual drill - batteries out and back in usually cleared it, but it was inconvenient. This latest upgrade includes all previous upgrades including the original one which addressed the Err99 problem, so definitely worth doing I'd have to say.

The 2nd 50D which we bought used, was on the original 1.0.2 Firmware and getting regular Err 99 messages, but this latest upgrade apears to have cured it as well as adding the later tweaks.
 
blue max said:
Hi CT,
Huge admirer of your work. The fox shot is outstanding for me.
Can I ask what setting you generally use please. In particular, focus mode/af points and whether you use focus on the *.
I only ask as I have always struggled with moving subjects. Any tips would be most appreciated. And I do realise it's not just down to settings!

Thank you.
Graham
Click to expand...

I appreciate your comments - thank you. I must apologize as I've only just seen your post.

I invariably shoot with Servo AF and a single centre AF point. It's rare for me not to use a tripod and gimbal head.

I don't put AF on the * button as I just can't get on with that arrangement, but it's unnecessary on the 50D as that nice Mr Canon has added an AF ON button to the left of the * button which performs that function anyway and still retains AF on the shutter button if you want to swap over at any time.

The goose is unusual (for us) in that it was shot with all AF points enabled and has done a good job against that busy background.
 
It turns out I'm already running 1.0.6 on both my 50D's. Result.
 
Did the firmware update when it came out so my little 50D gem is fully up to date. I love your photos CT they are great:clap:(y)

Denis

I Love my 50D:love::love::love:
 
so you dont need DPP to do the upgrade if you have a cf reader hmmmmm, might just wait till i get home and get my disk, I need DPP to set my name anyway lol
 
Does anyone else have horizontal banding at ISO 3200? I've noticed it with a few pictures now, its always when I'm shooting in dark conditions. I shoot raw and have the latest firmware (1.0.6)
 
CT said:
It's better than the 5DMK11 at what it does best, but you're comparing two very different cameras aimed at different users.
Click to expand...
Can you make a list in different areas about how it compares? :)
 
CSB said:
Does anyone else have horizontal banding at ISO 3200? I've noticed it with a few pictures now, its always when I'm shooting in dark conditions. I shoot raw and have the latest firmware (1.0.6)
Click to expand...

Yes I get that too but it's a slight 'noise' banding so I just put it down to the camera limitations at high iso
 
Kryptix said:
Can you make a list in different areas about how it compares? :)
Click to expand...

Well the detailed spec lists are out there for anyone who wants to do an in depth comparison of the two cameras, but it really comes down to the sensor size and pixel density for all practical purposes and that would be the criteria by which people should judge which is best for them, but the significant differences as I see them are...

50D

15 million pixels on a crop sensor was a mammoth step for Canon, almost equaling the pixel density on the full frame 1DSMK2. With a 50% increase in pixel density over the 40D, this makes the 50D a prayer answered for me for bird photography, and the 40D was and is an excellent camera, but the extra reach I get from the 50D and long lenses is very significant indeed. Anyone currently using a 20D or 30D, would see a doubling in pixel density as near as damn it.

It doesn't end there though. The increase in effective reach means that even moderate tele lenses are now more effective than previously. In practical terms if you have something like a 100-400L you might gain as much or possibly more actual reach by investing in a 50D body than in a 500mm f4L, and for a lot less outlay. I don't have the 30/40D body to do the tests on this unfortunately, but I'd dearly love to.

The 50D now outputs a massive 43mb Tiff file (from RAW) so needs very little interpolation to reach image library 50mb minimum file sizes for those who upload to image libraries.

5DMK11

The original 1DS cost around £6K body only. About 80% of the cost of that camera was actually producing the full frame sensor, which was produced in small quantities from a demanding process, with a high percentage of sensors which failed QC. Sensor production methods are getting better with higher returns, and the prices of these cameras is now coming down.

At 21 million pixels and aroiund £2K, the 5DMK11 has to be a bargain when you consider the above. Landscape, studio and wedding photographers are the people most likely to be attracted to the 5D MK11, particularly those who want to make really large prints.

I wish I had a full frame camera every time I use my 17-40L, 50mm or 85mm lenses. That's the other area where full frame excels- you get the full field of view from these lenses. For how often I use them though, it hardly justifies the expense for me.

The video capability isn't in the least attractive to me but has to be fantastic for making short high quality videos and I can see how it would appeal to many - wedding togs in particular.

The bottom line is they're two very differemnt cameras and each is better than the other in some areas. You just need to think very carefully about what your particular needs are before you invest, unless of course you're loaded, then it's easy - get both!
 
Last edited:
i'm deciding between the 50d + 5dmk2

tbh i'd like a 5d mk2 without the hd video guff, would be cheaper

tending to slide to the 50d option now.......as it means some money left for a big lens :D
 
Last edited:
I was debating strongly between a 50d and 1dmk2 and went for the latter in the end. despite being second hand, the 50d is nowhere near the build quality/handling of the pro spec body. I quite like the high fps and insane number of AF points as well. The only thing I miss is the large VGA display in the end.
 
I reckon the kitty cat is having a 50d and a 5dII, 50 for the reach and 5dII for the music that I shoot as there are times when I want better iso response than I get right now
 
CSB said:
Does anyone else have horizontal banding at ISO 3200? I've noticed it with a few pictures now, its always when I'm shooting in dark conditions. I shoot raw and have the latest firmware (1.0.6)
Click to expand...

Yep, i do.

Seems most noticable when at 100%, but as a smaller picture, it's not too bad.

Does bother me a touch why it's like that though.
 
Just a wee question for anyone who has upgraded from a 40D to a 50D. (both cameras I am considering upgrading to)

How do you rate the improvement in ISO handling, I had heard that it wasn't all that significant because of the increased pixel density of the 50D sort of canceled out the better ISO handling but have also read a review that said it was far better. I'd really just like some opinions from folk here who have shot with both instead of the rather clinical comparison that you get from most review sites. (y)

Tommy.
 
I have a 30D, 40D, 50D and 1D3. Speaking as a raw shooter, rather than JPEG, at the pixel level the 50D is noisier than the 40D. When you view a whole image, rather than pointlessly comparing pixels, you find little to choose between them. The 50D gives a bit more detail, if your lens and technique is good enough to avoid softness/blur. If you don't need ultimate detail, perhaps when shooting weddings or sport, the 40D is probably the better choice. You'll have smaller files that take less storage and are quicker to process. If, however, you need to squeeze every last drop of detail from your subject - perhaps the feather detail on a small bird at a distance, then the 50D is probably the better bet.

I have some albums of comparable images shot with my 40D, 50D and 1D3 at different ISOs and different levels of crop. Feel free to take a look. The first three were shot raw and processed to JPEG in DPP with default NR settings. The fourth was processed in Lightroom with no edits - everything at standard defaults. For my money the 50D does win on detail. As far as noise goes, other than the 100% crops, there seems not to be much difference between the 40D and 50D....

http://picasaweb.google.com/EezyTiger/ResolutionTestFullFrames
http://picasaweb.google.com/EezyTiger/ResolutionTestCropToSubject
http://picasaweb.google.com/EezyTiger/ResolutionTest100Crops
http://picasaweb.google.com/EezyTiger/ResolutionTestLR23CropToSubject

In my opinion the albums that make the most useful comparisons are the second and fourth, which compare equivalent crops from each camera - real world crops if you like. The other albums are there purely for completeness.

Of course, the 50D does have other tricks up its sleeve such as AF microadjustment, even higher max ISO settings, high resolution display, more AF options in Live View, marginally tweaked AF, additional control/refinement/enhancements for JPEG shooting. Both the 40D and 50D are great cameras. The 50D does offer more for your money but whether the "more" it offers is an advantage to you and your shooting is for you to decide.
 
Last edited:
Gotta agree with everything Tim(i think? :D) says there, although i don't have a 1D3 to compare.

I got my 50D for a keen price and the micro-adjustment and higher ISO capabilities make the changeover price worthwhile. Certainly noticed the difference is file size though....ouch! Have just upgraded to LR2 and bought a 1TB external HD to cope with the 50D lol.

I used to use the 40D up to around 400 ISO as i felt it got too noisey for my liking, but to be fair i never tried different settings much. The 50D with a couple changes and i'll use 1600 or maybe even 3200 without much of a thought.
 
Tim cheers for your post and for the links. If things go as I hope I'll be getting some decent glass (Canon 400mm 5.6 L) to go along with my new body when I buy it and as the main subject will be birds with a long lens I think you have just about sold me on the 50D. Many thanks for the info. (y)


Tommy.
 
david1701 said:
for birding CT rates the 50d and he does wonderful pictures so I bow to his superior wisdom
Click to expand...

LOL. Well I dunno about the superior wisdom bit, but I mostly agree with Tim's results and kudos to him for doing the tests - far better than all the speculation and relying on spurious reports.

If you can fill the frame with your subject all the time, then none of this really matters, but when it comes to cropping and small birds, that's where you'll see the advantage of the 50D, particularly if the bird is at any distance as the cropped image retains more pixels.
 
Is it only me that thinks the 50D is better than the 40D at higher ISO then? Having owned both and looking at comparison shots (I only shoot raw) than I'm convinced the 50D is one step better, i.e. 3200 on the 50D is about the same as 1600 on the 40D
 
Byker28i said:
Is it only me that thinks the 50D is better than the 40D at higher ISO then? Having owned both and looking at comparison shots (I only shoot raw) than I'm convinced the 50D is one step better, i.e. 3200 on the 50D is about the same as 1600 on the 40D
Click to expand...

I guess that depends on which raw processor you use and how you deal with noise. Here are my "crop to subject" examples from the 50D @ 3200 ISO and the 40D @ 1600 ISO, both processed in Lightroom on default settings....

50D-3200
20090606_170929_1_LR.jpg


40D-1600
20090606_171252_2_LR.jpg


How you can think that the 50D @ 3200 ISO equals the 40D @ 1600 ISO, for noise, assuming identical processing, is beyond my comprehension. I'd be interested to see your own examples and to understand how you are processing the files.
 
I only shoot raw and I do not use any of these features. If I were to shoot to JPEG then I might well use some or all of them, depending on the shooting conditions.

In my opinion HTP is a very bad feature for raw shooters to use, especially if it is your preference to expose to the right. In simple terms your capture will be underexposed by one stop and the histogram you see will be telling you fibs. HTP can be useful for JPEG shooters since it protects the highlights, a little like performing highlight recovery from a raw file, but also keeps your shadows and mid-tones roughly where they should be. The price to pay is more noise in the darker regions. But since we know that blown highlights in a JPEG are seriously bad news this may be a tradeoff worth making. However, only enable HTP when the conditions warrant it.

ALO, NR, LPIC do not touch the raw image data at all and do not affect the captured data in any way. All they do is set a flag in the raw file that tells the raw software to make those adjustments to the image before it is displayed or converted. The underlying raw data values are identical whether you enable or disable them. The thing is, since these are just flags in the raw file, it requires raw software that understands them in order to make the flags useful. Lightroom and ACR won't have a clue what to do with them. DPP will. So unless you use DPP to process your raws the flagas serve no useful purpose. Unfortunately, as with HTP, the preview image you see in the camera, and the histogram that goes with it, are based on including the processing of these enhancements, if they are enabled. Thus the image and the histogram will not give a true impression of the raw data you captured.

Thus, if you shoot raw I say turn the enhancements off. If you use DPP to process then perhaps you can gain benefit from them, but ALO and HTP can lead to extra shadow noise so use them with care and consideration. If you use Lightroom, ACR, Bibble, Capture One, RawTherapee etc to process your raw files then turn them all off unless you like seeing a preview image and histogram that bears little relatoin to the raw file you captured.
 
Last edited:
Really interesting shots tdodd and certainly back up your statement.
I shoot in raw and use lightroom as well.
 
tdodd said:
I only shoot raw and I do not use any of these features. If I were to shoot to JPEG then I might well use some or all of them, depending on the shooting conditions.

In my opinion HTP is a very bad feature for raw shooters to use, especially if it is your preference to expose to the right. In simple terms your capture will be underexposed by one stop and the histogram you see will be telling you fibs. HTP can be useful for JPEG shooters since it protects the highlights, a little like performing highlight recovery from a raw file, but also keeps your shadows and mid-tones roughly where they should be. The price to pay is more noise in the darker regions. But since we know that blown highlights in a JPEG are seriously bad news this may be a tradeoff worth making. However, only enable HTP when the conditions warrant it.

ALO, NR, LPIC do not touch the raw image data at all and do not affect the captured data in any way. All they do is set a flag in the raw file that tells the raw software to make those adjustments to the image before it is displayed or converted. The underlying raw data values are identical whether you enable or disable them. The thing is, since these are just flags in the raw file, it requires raw software that understands them in order to make the flags useful. Lightroom and ACR won't have a clue what to do with them. DPP will. So unless you use DPP to process your raws the flagas serve no useful purpose. Unfortunately, as with HTP, the preview image you see in the camera, and the histogram that goes with it, are based on including the processing of these enhancements, if they are enabled. Thus the image and the histogram will not give a true impression of the raw data you captured.

Thus, if you shoot raw I say turn the enhancements off. If you use DPP to process then perhaps you can gain benefit from them, but ALO and HTP can lead to extra shadow noise so use them with care and consideration. If you use Lightroom, ACR, Bibble, Capture One, RawTherapee etc to process your raw files then turn them all off unless you like seeing a preview image and histogram that bears little relatoin to the raw file you captured.
Click to expand...

Fantastic fella, thanks for the excellent, detailed answer. :)

I only shoot RAW and use LR mostly, so atm having ALO and HTP turned off is best...and you say NR should be completely off too?

I've only taken a couple dozen pictures so far, but every time i view the pics on the lappy, the detail from higher ISO's blows me away. I love this camera. :D (Bearing in mind i didn't change settings in the 40D.)
 
If you have NR set to Strong then your buffer will decrease, just as it did in the 40D with high ISO NR enabled, even when shooting at 100 ISO. The other NR settings will not cause that problem, so leave NR set to Standard or Low if you like, but since it doesn't affect the raw data it doesn't really matter. As far as I'm concerned I'd prefer to have the camera doing something useful, like devoting its processing resources to predictive AF, rather than wasting its time pointlessly processing noise out of a JPEG preview image.

With my "purist" hat on, if I don't have a use for the feature I will disable it. NR falls into that category for me.
 
Tim,

it appears these aren't 100% crops, ( by which I mean 800 pixel crops from the full file viewed at 1:1) in which case the 50D subject size would be appreciably bigger in the 50D version? That's assuming you've maintained the same camera to subject distance for each shot which I take it you would have done.
 
CT said:
Tim,

it appears these aren't 100% crops, ( by which I mean 800 pixel crops from the full file viewed at 1:1) in which case the 50D subject size would be appreciably bigger in the 50D version? That's assuming you've maintained the same camera to subject distance for each shot which I take it you would have done.
Click to expand...

They aren't supposed to be 100% crops. They are supposed to be crops to create the same composition regardless of camera, sensor size, pixel density etc.. i.e. they represent crops in the real world where you are trying to obtain an appealing image/composition when your lens is not long enough. i.e. they are "crops to subject". They were all shot from the same tripod position with the same lens and focal length and under lighting that remained almost constant throughout the tests, varying by only 1/3 stop on one of the 18 images.

e.g. suppose you have a 400mm lens and a small bird at a distance of 10m in the bushes. To make a worthwhile picture you will need to crop. My test shots were designed to determine which camera would give me the best balance of detail, noise and anything else. Therefore it makes sense that all crops are made to give me an equivalent composition, not to meet some constraint related to sensor size or pixel density. As you have pointed out, 100% crops would give different images. That's not a comparison that interests me. I especially wanted to know whether there was some ISO crossover point at which the noise from the 50D negated the extra detail to such an extent that the 40D became the better choice and whether the 1D3 was at any time better than one or either of them, in this scenario.

In all I shot 18 images, 6 from each camera at 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200 ISO, and processed the raw files into four albums. For completeness here are links to everything....

Processed in DPP....
- Full frame images resized to 800x533;
- Crops to subject/composition - the important comparison;
- 100% crops, for pixel peepers.

Processed in Lightroom....
- Crops to subject/composition - the important comparison;

For my money, in this scenario the 50D emerges the winner due to extra detail and manageable noise. I made no effort to process out noise in these - everything was on standard defaults. I have Neat Image but did not use it. To my eyes the 1D3 takes last place. The noise may be good but the detail cannot compete since the pixel density is far behind the 50D and even the 40D. Now, I did use my 85/1.8 for these, stopped down to f/5.6, so the optics should not have been a constraint. It is possible that on a weaker lens such as a zoom, the 50D would have lost its advantage. It is also possible that in more demanding shooting, such as BIF or sport, the tiniest amount of subject blur or camera shake or misfocus may also have negated the 50D's advantage in terms of detail captured, but it's rather hard to engineer tests of such things in a consistent and repeatable fashion between cameras.

The thing about the 50D is that while there may be situations in which its advantages are diminished, there is no reason to suppose that its overall IQ will fall (much) below that of the 40D. At the end of the day they both have the same sized sensor and basically both capture the same total amount of light. When you compare noise at pixel level, with 100% crops, instead of at image level then why would you expect anything other than more noise from smaller pixels. It's not a comparison worth making.

Having said all that, from these results I actually feel the 40D would make a better wedding camera than the 50D but the 1D3 will far outclass both of them. Pick your kit wisely. They each have their own strengths.
 
Last edited:
tdodd said:
Having said all that, from these results I actually feel the 40D would make a better wedding camera than the 50D but the 1D3 will far outclass both of them. Pick your kit wisely. They each have their own strengths.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't argue with that for one moment, and I've always advocated careful consideration of which camera depending on intended use.

With regard to noise, I wouldn't worry for one moment about whether the 50D is better than the 40D or not. The 40D was always an excellent noise performer and if Canon have achieved a result identical to the 40D (or as near as makes no difference) with the 50D and 50% more pixels they've done a remarkably good job.

Your 100% crop series from the three camera is excellent and clearly shows the area where the 50D excels.... in reach. This is without doubt it's main advantage over the other two, and the one most important to me as a birder predominantly. You could argue a strong case for the 50D being a somewhat specialised camera as it's advantages largely disappear the more you can fill the frame with either of the other two bodies.
 
Here’s a tip I’ve found to be superb on my 50D.

Not wishing to teach you more experienced guys on the xxD series to suck eggs, but aimed at those, like myself, who’ve upgraded from the xxxD series.

Custom III-3, move the AF point selection to the multi-controller. Simply press the joystick in once to change to single centre point, move the controller round to select other single points, or press the top right button to revert back to auto focus-point selection, dead easy. Another reason to convince me the upgrade was a brilliant decision.

Pete
 
Pete Gl said:
Here’s a tip I’ve found to be superb on my 50D.

Not wishing to teach you more experienced guys on the xxD series to suck eggs, but aimed at those, like myself, who’ve upgraded from the xxxD series.

Custom III-3, move the AF point selection to the multi-controller. Simply press the joystick in once to change to single centre point, move the controller round to select other single points, or press the top right button to revert back to auto focus-point selection, dead easy. Another reason to convince me the upgrade was a brilliant decision.

Pete
Click to expand...

And a good tip it is too Pete - that's how I've got mine set up. (y)
 
Great thread, just got my 50D today to replace my 30D and have now set up it all up before I start doing anything :)

The AF point tip is awesome!
 
Last edited:
Here's one from a recent trip to the Yorkshire coast, Ravenscar. Taken with my 50 1.4 lens. Not a natural lanscape lens, I know, but I was curious to what I would get. Really pleased at the colours, not enhanced, only sharpened.

IMG_0883.jpg


Pete
 
50D or 500D. Which to buy? Lenses are 120-300 Sigma + 2x convertor and 18-125 sigma. current body is 350D. Bird pictures mainly so additional pixels are desirable. Lenses still not long enough.
 
malc1 said:
50D or 500D. Which to buy? Lenses are 120-300 Sigma + 2x convertor and 18-125 sigma. current body is 350D. Bird pictures mainly so additional pixels are desirable. Lenses still not long enough.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum. I have a 50D and use it for birding, along with my 1D3. I use the 100-400L zoom lens, sometimes with a Kenko 1.4X teleconverter.

From what I have read, the IQ of the 500D actually beats the 50D, having lower noise. Noise can be an issue when using the 50D, if you expect to crop very heavily, unless you can use very low ISOs. It will possibly be an issue as well with the 500D, but perhaps less of one. So long as you can shoot in good light or do not crop for viewing at magnifications larger than 50% you should be fine.

I don't know the specs of the 500D much at all, but I suspect the 50D will beat it hands down for AF performance, ergonomics, build, weatherproofing, viewfinder and frame rate, maybe some other things too. If you are planning on shooting BIF then I think you'll prefer the 50D. If you are shooting slow moving creatures then the 500D may suit you just as well, if not better.

You may find it interesting to read this thread and follow the links I provided there before making a decision - http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=147765

Here is a sample from my 50D and 100-400 shot today. First the full unedited image and then a 100% crop, also unedited....

20090803_174807_1389_LR.jpg


20090803_174807_1389_LR-2.jpg


You will find more examples from my 50D in the thread I linked to.

Good luck :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top