Canon 50D problem?

[CT]

s - i use photoshop everyday (3d artist) so am used to brushing/painting things with the mouse,

cheers

drew

I'm more than a bit jealous - that sounds fascinating.

 

[buckas]

Juiced 2, COD:WAW, PGR3, NFSU to name a few titles worked on

drew

 

[Nifkin]

Might I suggest reading the manual as it has a lot of informative stuff in it.

Why, yes, that's the first thing I did upon receiving my 50D, did you read yours? Unfortunately, like the user manual for the 450D that I read before that, and any other OEM guide for that matter, although it contains the rudimentaries regarding all the camera's functions, it certainly doesn't provide a great deal of explanation as to their real-world usage and the situations they are best suited for; hence the reason for the big industry in aftermarket camera guides/tutorials for specific models, which, as these have to be purchased separately, I haven't got around to doing yet.

Thanks for your response CT; exactly the quick reply I wanted to hear; am off to the British Museum with my camera after work (they let you take non-flash pics in there), so wanted to test out the NR, ALO & HTP settings in both jpeg and RAW, and see what results I get.

Thanks everybody else; I've found a lot of useful stuff on this forum

 

[CT]

Juiced 2, COD:WAW, PGR3, NFSU to name a few titles worked on

drew

Fantastic! I was born too soon - it was me dads fault.

 

[Byker28i]

I never understand this 40d is much better than the 50D at noise comments. I've had both and the 50D is brilliant. I've frequently shot at ISO1600 in sport so I can get the shutter speed.

Take this shot. (mind you, the pouring rain might be hiding the noise, but there's no real sign of it).

 

[Peter10d]

In this weeks Amateur Photographer magazine, under the review of the 7d, they refer to the 50d being dogged with problems relating to noise. I found this statement rather surprising, as Canon (including their own EOS magazine), refered on release of the 50d, as having no microlense gaps in the 50d, suggesting a much reduced level of noise. So who is telling porkies - is the 50d '' dogged with noise '' or not ?

 

[middlearthimages]

Not sure i believe this. (not suggesting your talking rubbish, but whoever said that)

Ive just got a 50d as a second body, and the iso performance is worlds ahead than the 40d (my other body)

I have used my 50d for about 1 week (albeit ive been borrowing one for a few months) and i can say there is a massive difference. Otherwise i wouldnt have bothered and bought a 2nd 40d and saved £200.

Maybe im just seeing things, But i would swear this is the case.

However there is still certainly room for improvement over the 50d.

The magazine could have been Digital Camera Mag but I dont remember as it was a long time ago. This is a link I found earlier comparing the 40d over the 50d.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS50D/page18.asp
Now I dont have either but I want 1 of them.



http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS50D/page18.asp

 

[Nifkin]

The magazine could have been Digital Camera Mag but I dont remember as it was a long time ago. This is a link I found earlier comparing the 40d over the 50d.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS50D/page18.asp
Now I dont have either but I want 1 of them.

The page that you link to talks about 50D noise and the C-function noise reduction settings in relation to jpeg shooting only; I think the gist of this thread is that noise is far more manageable when shooting RAW with the 50D and the NR switched off.

 

[middlearthimages]

The page that you link to talks about 50D noise and the C-function noise reduction settings in relation to jpeg shooting only; I think the gist of this thread is that noise is far more manageable when shooting RAW with the 50D and the NR switched off.

This paragraph related to Raw,


RAW noise
Finally let's take a look a the raw output of the EOS50D next to the ten megapixel 40D. Removing any in-camera noise reduction and processing the images using Adobe Camera Raw (without NR) gives us the nearest thing to a 'level playing field' for assessing the relative noise levels of the two cameras' sensors. Despite the fact that the 50D is the newer camera it shows visibly more chroma and luminance noise than the 40D. Considering the 50D's much more tightly packed sensor (4.5 MP/cm² vs 3.1 MP/cm² on the 40D) this comes hardly as a surprise. It would have been unreasonable to expect Canon's engineers to overcome the laws of physics.


So the 50d is better over the 40d?



john

 

[tdodd]

When you present images at equivalent enlargement factors you should find that the noise is not so very different from one 1.6X crop body to the next. The problem with cameras with high pixel densities is that people are tempted to look at the pixels instead of the pictures and end up disappointed when they see noisey pixels.

Here are shots from my 1D3, 40D and 50D at 3200 ISO. These were shot with the same 85mm lens at the same distance from the subject. I have cropped each image to show an equivalent amount of the scene and then resized to create images of equal size, thus levelling the playing field. You will note the perspective alters for the 1D3 image because the built in grip raised the camera an inch or two when mounted on the tripod. When the enlargement factor is equal between the three there is not a striking difference in noise.

1st : 1D3 cropped and resized to 47%
2nd : 50D cropped and resized to 31%
3rd : 40D cropped and resized to 38%

The "problems" occur when people try to review and compare everything at 100%, which ends up being a substantially greater enlargement of the 50D file, which exposes the noise far more easily. Remember, a 50D file viewed at 100% is like looking at the image blown up to 36x24 (on my monitor) or even larger. Do the same things with a 1D3 or 40D and the resulting virtual image will only be ~30x20 (on my monitor), which is still pretty huge for analysing from ~12" away.

All this ties in very much with my comments on the 50D+400/L thread. More pixels is not an automatic licence to crop more and enlarge more. You may well be fine at lower ISOs, but not when you start pushing the envelope.

 

[squizza]

When you present images at equivalent enlargement factors you should find that the noise is not so very different from one 1.6X crop body to the next. The problem with cameras with high pixel densities is that people are tempted to look at the pixels instead of the pictures and end up disappointed when they see noisey pixels.

The "problems" occur when people try to review and compare everything at 100%, which ends up being a substantially greater enlargement of the 50D file, which exposes the noise far more easily. Remember, a 50D file viewed at 100% is like looking at the image blown up to 36x24 (on my monitor) or even larger. Do the same things with a 1D3 or 40D and the resulting virtual image will only be ~30x20 (on my monitor), which is still pretty huge for analysing from ~12" away.

Wow, I didn't know that it would be that big an image. I'm obviously being too fussy

Thankyou for explaining that!

 

[tdodd]

You can work out the image size for your own monitor quite easily. Firstly, work out how many pixels per inch (ppi) your monitor displays at. In my case I'm using a 17" laptop screen with 1920x1200 pixels. The visible display area is 14.5" across. By dividing the width in pixels by the width in inches I get my ppi figure of 1920/14.5 = 132 ppi.

Uncropped images from a 50D are 4752x3168 pixels. On my 132 ppi monitor the whole image would be displayed as (4752/132)x(3168/132) = 36"x24".

Now, different monitors obviously have different physical sizes and different pixel counts and so they have different ppi values. If you had a 22" monitor with the same pixel count as mine your ppi would reduce to approx 102 ppi. That same 50D file, viewed at 100%, would be (4752/102)x(3168/102) = 47"x31", which is pretty much 4' across.

If you had a TV screen large enough to display a picture at that physical size it would be the equivalent of viewing on a 64" TV. Would you watch a 64" TV from 12" away, or even 18"?

If I now produce 100% crops from those three files, here is how they look....

1st = 1D3, 2nd = 50D, 3rd = 40D.

Note how much larger the 50D image is and how much smaller the 1D3 image is. When you compare/study files at 100% the high pixel density camera will (almost) always be at a disadvantage because it will reveal more noise and more softness, because it has undergone a greater physical enlargement. With a quick bit of pixel maths we can see that, when both files are viewed at 100%, a 50D file appears to be magnified (enlarged) by a factor of 4752/3888 = 1.22X, or 22% bigger compared to the 40D file. The maths for the 1D3 is more complex, because the sensor is a different size, but viewed at 100% the 50D image is ~50% larger than the image from the 1D3.

This is the reason the 50D gets a bad press regarding noise. It does not produce noisier photographs. It only produces noisier pixels. Because there are so many more pixels it all evens out when you add them together and view them as a whole instead of individually.

The best way to minimise noise is to use the lowest ISO you can get away with, while avoiding shake/blur, shoot raw and expose to the right. Then you will maximise your signal to noise ratio - i.e. noise will be less obvious. Once you have a good raw capture you can then choose how to tackle the problem of noise, if there is one, at your leisure, rather than relying on some preset NR processing applied by the camera.

On a camera like the 50D do not use intermediate ISO values, unless you shoot to JPEG. If you shoot raw then stick to 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200. The ISOs in between those are not "real" ISOs and are not achieved through hardware/analogue signal amplification. They are achieved through digital software multiplication of the raw data values from the ISOs either above or below. e.g. by using 500 ISO the camera will actually capture the image at 400 ISO internally (thus underexposing by 1/3 stop) and then multiply each and every pixel value by 5/4 to simulate an exposure at 500 ISO. This is something you could do equally easily in your raw processing software but reducing the risk of blowing highlights in camera.

Also, do not use HTP unless you really feel you must (I never use it). Also do not use Auto Lighting Optimizer, if you want to be in control of how your files look, instead of the camera. ALO has often been found to be the cause of disappointing results with respect to noise. Turn it off and peace, harmony and happiness return.

 

[mrgubby]

On a camera like the 50D do not use intermediate ISO values, unless you shoot to JPEG. If you shoot raw then stick to 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200. The ISOs in between those are not "real" ISOs and are not achieved through hardware/analogue signal amplification. They are achieved through digital software multiplication of the raw data values from the ISOs either above or below.

I didn't know that


I spent years designing high speed Digital capture systems & always hated when the software people would abuse my 'pure' hardware derived data

 

[tdodd]

Yep. There is a discussion of the issue here - http://www.prophotohome.com/forum/canon-1-series-digital-slr-eos-5d/68049-real-iso-fake.html. I just Googled this and I haven't read through it all, but I have many times seen this information presented, together with raw data analysis to illustrate the point. Seemingly only the 1 series bodies implement hardware ISO gain throughout the full range. In other bodies, even the 5D2, intermediate ISOs are created by underexposing and multiplying raw data values by 5/4 or by overexposing and dividing the resulting raw data values by 5/4. For this reason, supposedly, 160 ISO can look cleaner than 125 ISO, because 160 ISO is overexposed and pulled, thus reducing noise, while 125 ISO is underexposed and then pushed, thus increasing noise. Personally I have not performed tests to prove or deny these claims, but I believe in the work performed by those who have.

It gets worse with fake ISOs like 50 ISO on the 5D and 5D2. The sensor cannot do 50 ISO. What happens is that the camera shoots at 100 ISO, which is the lowest it can go, and then does software division of the data by 2 to reduce the output data by 1 stop. This is highly likely to create clipped highlights since you are basically overexposing by 1 stop and then having the camera fake the output to lower the output, but by that time the sensels have already been taken to saturation (and beyond) at the sensor.

Of course, this sort of stuff perhaps only matters to those who endeavour to create the highest quality image (data) captures they can. For many people, having things off by +/- 1/3 stop may not be a huge deal, but if you shoot in poor light and potentially need to crop, every extra 1/3 stop improvement in data capture can really help. Since shooting raw is all about capturing data rather than finalising the completed image within the camera, these little things should matter to raw shooters. It's not so easy to shoot accurately to the right when your camera is mucking about with your raw data.

As for the accuracy of in camera histograms, that is a whole new can of worms.

 

[tdodd]

Been browsing the web today and I came across a long essay discussing "Equivalence" and some of the issues to be considered when comparing camera systems, factoring in all sorts of interesting things related to sensor size, pixel density, pixel quality, lens performance, ISO, aperture, display dimensions and more. Some of it is pretty heavy going and I haven't read every word, but I thought this section might be helpful....

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#megapixels

EDIT : It might also be worth taking a look at this - http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#noise

 

[Chaz Photos]

In this weeks Amateur Photographer magazine, under the review of the 7d, they refer to the 50d being dogged with problems relating to noise. I found this statement rather surprising, as Canon (including their own EOS magazine), refered on release of the 50d, as having no microlense gaps in the 50d, suggesting a much reduced level of noise. So who is telling porkies - is the 50d '' dogged with noise '' or not ?

No its not

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

No its not

Personally i think its terrible........even at low ISO's in all all but perfect lighting conditions. since getting the 50D noise remediation is just a fact of life.

 

[toonamp]

I would be interested to know how much difference the lens has on noise.

I know that people using primes get much less noise than I do with my 100-400L

 

[tdodd]

Personally i think its terrible........even at low ISO's in all all but perfect lighting conditions. since getting the 50D noise remediation is just a fact of life.

I don't know your definition of "perfect lighting" but this was shot with my 50D at 3200 ISO, f/2.8, 1/100, with on camera flash. It was shot raw and processed in DPP with NR on defaults. The only adjustments I made were to white balance and sharpening. I then cropped the photo before resizing to 33% for display in this thread.

That's what you would call "terrible" noise performance, is it?

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

I don't know your definition of "perfect lighting" but this was shot with my 50D at 3200 ISO, f/2.8, 1/100, with on camera flash. It was shot raw and processed in DPP with NR on defaults. The only adjustments I made were to white balance and sharpening. I then cropped the photo before resizing to 33% for display in this thread.

That's what you would call "terrible" noise performance, is it?

Yes... All i can see in the dark areas is noise, all i can see in the hair is noise theres no detail just noise, right hand side of the face noise... Yes its high ISO but that picture would be no use to me...:shrug:

 

[tdodd]

I would be interested to know how much difference the lens has on noise.

I know that people using primes get much less noise than I do with my 100-400L

The 100-400 is a slow lens at only f/5.6 at the long end. If you stop down a little to improve sharpness then it becomes a very slow lens. Shooting with a 500/4 would buy you an extra stop of light, if you didn't need the DOF. As a prime, it would not really need stopping down either, so you could easily shoot at f/4. A 300/2.8 is two stops faster, and again, if not requiring the DOF that could mean shooting at 400 ISO instead of 1600 ISO, for example, and still keeping the same shutter speed. If you had stopped down the 100-400 to f/8 then that's a 3 stop difference, which might mean you could shoot at 200 ISO with the 300/2.8 vs 1600 ISO with the zoom. That's a difference you could not help but notice.

If you are comparing at the short end a similar argument applies. At 100mm and f/4.5 the zoom is over 2 stops slower than the 100mm f/2 prime. No contest.

Other than the available aperture influencing the ISO you can use, I do not see how the optics of a lens could increase or decrease noise. Noise is in the light itself (photon ramndomness) and the sensor and camera electronics. The lens won't itself add to the noise.

Here is a 100% crop from my 100-400 at 400mm and f/5.6. I've tweaked the sharpening but there are no other edits and noise reduction is at Lightroom defaults.

 

[Matt]

i found the camera to produce noise too, ive changed a lot of settings, but i found it to be very disappointing. Im hoping that the settings change has made a difference. I dont view at 100% but the noise was obvious.

 

[tdodd]

Yes... All i can see in the dark areas is noise, all i can see in the hair is noise theres no detail just noise, right hand side of the face noise... Yes its high ISO but that picture would be no use to me...:shrug:

I guess we have different expectations of what is reasonable. Which 1.6X crop camera would you choose over the 50D, for superior noise performance, measured at the image level, not the pixel level?

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

I guess we have different expectations of what is reasonable. Which 1.6X crop camera would you choose over the 50D, for superior noise performance, measured at the image level, not the pixel level?

Before the 50D i had a Nikon D300 and my use of noiseware pro and noise ninja was significantly less than it is with the 50D.

 

[tdodd]

Before the 50D i had a Nikon D300 and my use of noiseware pro and noise ninja was significantly less than it is with the 50D.

Interesting. Do you have a raw file from your D300 at 3200 ISO you could share, ideally of a similar subject/lighting? I'd like to see how they compare.

EDIT : Scratch that. I'll go to Imaging Resource and check out the samples.

 

[david1701]

Yes... All i can see in the dark areas is noise, all i can see in the hair is noise theres no detail just noise, right hand side of the face noise... Yes its high ISO but that picture would be no use to me...:shrug:

iso 3200 ?

it rocks lol

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

Interesting. Do you have a raw file from your D300 at 3200 ISO you could share, ideally of a similar subject/lighting? I'd like to see how they compare.

Probably not as i don't shoot high iso's very often - my issues are at relatively low ISO's usually below 800....

 

[tdodd]

Probably not as i don't shoot high iso's very often - my issues are at relatively low ISO's usually below 800....

That's odd. I only have problems at low ISOs when having a tiny subject with fine details and having to crop to 100% to make a worthwhile composition. For regular subjects that pretty much fill the frame I have absolutely no problem with the 50D. Here is an image at 800 ISO, straight out of DPP with no edits except sharpening set from 0 to 3.

Full frame, 50% crop and 100% crop....

At this magnification you can see softness in the image since handholding at 1/125 with a 50mm lens (80mm equivalent) is not likely to yield pixel perfect results, and focus could be a little uncertain in these conditions. Nonetheless, I do not find noise to be a problem here whatsoever.

p.s. No comments required on the subject. This was a spoof stage performance of the X-Factor.

Here's another 50D 3200 ISO shot, again processed in DPP with default noise reduction. The only adjustments were WB and sharpening....

If you get your exposure right and do not crop (much) then 3200 ISO should not be a problem, unless you pixel peep. Of course, disable HTP and ALO.

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

I'll have a look at the weekend and try to dig out some examples - i notice it most in the background when shooting macro, the actual subject is fine and the detail with the mp-e / 50D is excellent - its just the noise in the Bokeh / background which i find distracting.

 

[Nifkin]

Personally i think its terrible........even at low ISO's in all all but perfect lighting conditions. since getting the 50D noise remediation is just a fact of life.

Dogmagnet I'm intrigued; having looked at your flickr page I can see that high ISO and noise performance is clearly something that would be a concern for you considering what makes up a lot of your subject matter. Therefore I'm wondering, with the opinion you have of the 50D, why you even bother persevering with it???

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

Dogmagnet I'm intrigued; having looked at your flickr page I can see that high ISO and noise performance is clearly something that would be a concern for you considering what makes up a lot of your subject matter. Therefore I'm wondering, with the opinion you have of the 50D, why you even bother persevering with it???

Lack of options really - I need to use a Canon body to be able to use the MPE-65, I'll probably have to go fully frame..... I'll see how i get on with my EOS-3 that should be here today - and apart from the noise the 50D is a very good camera the detail resolved by the 50D is stunning.

 

[Byker28i]

I would be interested to know how much difference the lens has on noise.

I know that people using primes get much less noise than I do with my 100-400L

Well the pic I posted in post 45 was with my 100-400 and apart from cropping it's straight out of the camera into lightroom and exported as a jpeg for web.
1/1600s f/5.6 at 350.0mm iso1600

 

[Photodiva]

Hi. I have a 50D and up to now, shooting in low light with high ISO I confess I've been disappointed, compared to my 20D. Then I read that by stuffing so many pixels on the same size chip, noise was an inevitable consequence. I got noise ninja. Then, having read some of this thread about the custom functions (which I confess I haven't explored fully on my 50D) I've now turned off some of the functions as i shoot raw. I've yet to test it out. Perhaps this weekend I'll get to see if there is any difference.

Noise, or grain, as it used to be in film, is not all bad. But often I've had to turn an image mono to make the best of it.

 

[squizza]

I suppose for £800 I expected something a bit better :shrug: I'm not expecting the noise levels of a 1d series camera, but 'upgrading' from the 40D I hoped it would have been better.

So....

What do I do? Do I keep a camera I personally am not 100% content with? What are the other options, baring in mind I shoot wildlife?

 

[seriousrikk]

I moved from a 40D to a 50D for two reasons

1. Less ISO noise for an image of the same dimensions
2. Ability to crop more without noise becoming an issue

The 50D provides me with a result on both of these reasons. Pixel per pixel (viewed at 100%) the noise is on a par or a slight improvement on my old 40D - but the increase in number of pixels means that for an image of the same dismensions (Either web or print) the noise is far less noticable.

 

[tdodd]

I suppose for £800 I expected something a bit better :shrug: I'm not expecting the noise levels of a 1d series camera, but 'upgrading' from the 40D I hoped it would have been better.

So....

What do I do? Do I keep a camera I personally am not 100% content with? What are the other options, baring in mind I shoot wildlife?

I doubt the camera is the problem. As I have tried to demonstrate, when images are displayed at equal levels of magnification there is virtually no difference in noise performance between a 1D3, a 40D or a 50D. If you use the same area of silicon to capture your image there will not be much to choose between cameras of a similar generation as far as noise is concerned. If you expect to use high ISO and crop more aggressively with the 50D then that is the root of your problem. It is not a fault of the camera and changing camera is unlikely to be the solution.

As I said on the 50D/400L thread, the cheapest way to improved IQ is to get closer to your subect and fill the frame more. Failing that, use a solid support (tripod) to steady the camera and allow you to use a slower shutter speed and reduce the ISO. Failing that, use a longer and faster lens to magnify your subject more and at the same time gather more light. I am, of course, assuming you have disabled the functions within the camera that harm IQ. I am also assuming that you are not underexposing your captures. Of course, shooting in good light is a bonus. When you are pushing the limits on several fronts you cannot expect the best quality to result.

Unfortunately, without seeing examples it is hard to know exactly which fronts you are pushing. If you want any more specific advice it would be helpful if you could upload a raw file or two that is typical of the problems you are facing. You can use rapidshare.de to upload large files and then share a download link here.

By the way, an £800 camera does not necessarily buy you any more IQ than a £400 camera. The extra money buys you better build, better AF, larger buffer, faster frame rate, better ergonomics, better viewfinder, more custom functions, but probably not better IQ. Indeed, the 500D is said to have better noise performance than the 50D, but I'd take the performance, handling and features of the 50D over the 500D any day of the week, and the 7D over either of them.

 

[squizza]

I doubt the camera is the problem. As I have tried to demonstrate, when images are displayed at equal levels of magnification there is virtually no difference in noise performance between a 1D3, a 40D or a 50D. If you use the same area of silicon to capture your image there will not be much to choose between cameras of a similar generation as far as noise is concerned. If you expect to use high ISO and crop more aggressively with the 50D then that is the root of your problem. It is not a fault of the camera and changing camera is unlikely to be the solution.

As I said on the 50D/400L thread, the cheapest way to improved IQ is to get closer to your subect and fill the frame more. Failing that, use a solid support (tripod) to steady the camera and allow you to use a slower shutter speed and reduce the ISO. Failing that, use a longer and faster lens to magnify your subject more and at the same time gather more light. I am, of course, assuming you have disabled the functions within the camera that harm IQ. I am also assuming that you are not underexposing your captures. Of course, shooting in good light is a bonus. When you are pushing the limits on several fronts you cannot expect the best quality to result.

Unfortunately, without seeing examples it is hard to know exactly which fronts you are pushing. If you want any more specific advice it would be helpful if you could upload a raw file or two that is typical of the problems you are facing. You can use rapidshare.de to upload large files and then share a download link here.

By the way, an £800 camera does not necessarily buy you any more IQ than a £400 camera. The extra money buys you better build, better AF, larger buffer, faster frame rate, better ergonomics, better viewfinder, more custom functions, but probably not better IQ. Indeed, the 500D is said to have better noise performance than the 50D, but I'd take the performance and features of the 50D over the 500D any day of the week, and the 7D over either of them.

Points well made, thankyou

 

[tdodd]

Points well made, thankyou

If it helps, I get frustrated with these things too, but in my heart I know the equipment is not to blame.

Digital photography has made it so easy to pixel peep and to expect outrageous levels of performance that cannot be met. If you were shooting with film, would you contemplate shooting at more than 400 ISO? If you were shooting with film (35mm) would you dream of cropping out a tiny fragment of the negative, equal to maybe 5% of the entire frame, and then sending that off to print? I suspect not. The fact that we can do these things with digital does not mean we should expect equal quality when we do.

Remember, when you shoot with a crop camera you are already using a sensor that has only 40% of the area of full frame. If you crop that down to 1/4 of the frame you are very quickly down to only 10% of the area of a full frame image. It would not be easy to match full frame quality with an image that starts out life as such a tiny, fragile fragment. If you crop tighter, to 1/9th of the frame you are left with a sensor area about equivalent to a point and shoot.

Sensor sizes compared ====> http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cameras/2008/sensor-formats/sensor-size.jpg

Apart from the IQ issues that point and shoots have, can you imagine using a 400mm lens (~2400mm equivalent) on a point and shoot? It would not be easy to handle, that's for sure.

Feed the 50D good light and decent support and you can get cropability like this.....

100% crop....

This was shot with the 100-400 at 400mm, plus a 1.4X teleconverter, making 560mm in all. The EXIF is included but the teleconverter was taped so it does not show up. Aperture was f/10 including the teleconverter. 400 ISO and 1/400. I suspect a prime lens would yield sharper results, but I have to make do with this level of performance.

If you include the crop factor of the sensor into the mix this is equivalent to using a ~900mm lens, with respect to Angle Of View. If you then factor in the further crop in software, equivalent to a further 6X, then that crop is equal to shooting with a 5400mm lens, as far as Angle Of View is concerned. That's why solid support is quite important.

Here's a handheld shot with my 100-400 and my 7D at 400mm, f/5.6, 1/2500. Good sunlight was critical to keeping the ISO low and the shutter speed up, even with the aid of IS. This has been cropped top and bottom but represents the full width of the frame....

Here is a 100% crop, with a pass through NeatImage....

Of course, the NR is obvious, but I would not expect to use this file at 100%. I'm just showing the image at its worst. I think the 50D would have turned in a similar result, if just slightly smaller at 100%. For display on my 40" 1080p HDTV, which is my usual viewing medium, either camera would be equally good for the purpose, with a file cropped to perhaps 50%, or left just as a top/bottom crop to fit the 16:9 aspect ratio.



50D at 1600 ISO with a slight crop and no NR except Lightroom default chroma NR. If you mostly fill the frame then 1600 ISO is no problem....

After a pass through NeatImage (does it need it?)....

So, if you shoot an image with low noise (well exposed and with low ISO) and also sharp then you can crop signifiantly, but if you have a noisier image or don't nail focus or don't freeze shake/blur then you must accept that lower IQ means less room to crop.

 

[bomberman]

Mr Dodd, your words are ones to live by. Fascinating reading in this thread which has lead me to read more and widen my understanding of noise, exposure, histograms, f stops, pixels, sensors and crop factors. Many thanks.

 

[theonemule]

What lens did you use? I've been pleased even with the 50D's onboard noise reduction.