canon 50d

CT said:
Threads like this are always frustrating, because unlike the many great images we see on the board taken with the 50D, the detractors never seem to publish examples of these terrible noisy images or link to raw files where the possible cause might be established. I'm the first to admit you can get a bad example of any camera, but that apart some of the views on the 50D are the polar opposite of my experiences using two of them very regularly.

This is a link to a full size 50D file - straight from the RAW with no processing whatsoever. Taken at 800 ISO which I used with the 50D by default a lot of the time.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4108/5083524377_d37895739c_o.jpg
Click to expand...

I as have others have found the 50D to be lacking, i am very happy you found the 50D to be a excellent camera and it must just be everybody else ho is at fault
.........
 
Paul there's no need for that sort of response mate - I'm just reporting my own experiences with evidence to back up what I'm saying. Your mileage may vary, but it would have a lot more credibility if you posted some of these bad results?
 
CT said:
Paul there's no need for that sort of response mate - I'm just reporting my own experiences with evidence to back up what I'm saying. Your mileage may vary, but it would have a lot more credibility if you posted some of these bad results?
Click to expand...

Sorry CT Friday afternoon stress - i cant post any examples because i binned them all !, i spent a year with the camera after moving from a D300 and it put a real downer on my photography- i stopped using the camera because i had no faith in it , it wasn't consistent and its difficult enough with the MP-e without having body issues - anyway shouldn't moan too much because in desperation i got a 5D2 and its ability to produce stunning images still amazes me.
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
Sorry CT Friday afternoon stress - i cant post any examples because i binned them all !, i spent a year with the camera after moving from a D300 and it put a real downer on my photography- i stopped using the camera because i had no faith in it , it wasn't consistent and its difficult enough with the MP-e without having body issues - anyway shouldn't moan too much because in desperation i got a 5D2 and its ability to produce stunning images still amazes me.
Click to expand...

LOL. No probs. ;)
 
I had a 50D for a while, until I fell in love with the 7D, and no noise problems with it what so ever. I used it for portrait, wildlife and landscape work at all different ISO settings and it handled them all perfectly.

I also had a 40D at the same time, which again is a great camera but it's high ISO handling is not as good, and the screen on the rear is poor in comparison.

Steve
 
I have just upgraded from a 400d to a 50d. I too read all the various threads and reports on the cameras and it seems to be split 50/50 between those who argue 40d is better and those who think 50d is better. I have yet to see conclusive evidence that either camera is better.

I went for the 50d as it is newer tech and had the higher ISO settings that I wanted for indoor work at horse shows. I don't know whether it is better or worse than the 40d....all I know is that it is better than the 400d for what I want at the moment.

The best post I saw was a chap saying stop thinking about it, just go and get one of them, start using it and be happy with it.

After all the price difference between a 40d and a 50d used is not that great.
 
All I'm going to say is beware of someone else's unsupported opinions. A camera can get a bad rep on a single poor review and once the old chinese whispers start the snowball effect does the rest of the damage.

There have been plenty of excellent shots right here on TP with the 50D with plenty of excellent photographers having nothing but praise for it.

I'm not discounting the possibilty that people can get a bad example of the 50D, but the fact is it does need setting up properly to get the best from it, and I wonder how much the reported noise issues are down to using 3rd party editing software. I think it's likely that you're going to get the best noise results using Canon software, and to that end - I use DPP raw software which came with the camera, and produces results I'm quite happy with.:shrug:
 
Think it must be me, but I can rarely see the noise that drives some people bonkers (admittedly my eyes are not so great anymore)

Haven't used a 50D, but I am happy with the results from my 40D and still not convinced that much above 12mp is a good idea on a crop sensor especially for fine detail such as trees

Like most things its what you are confident with, so don't think I will be changing before the 50D is no more
 
woof woof said:
DP Review list them both, with battery, as being 822g.
Click to expand...

Nope DP review list them as 822g with battery for the 50D and 836g for the 40D. Anyway its really academic as the point I was making was the 50D isn't heavier than the 40D.
 
Chaz Photos said:
:shrug:
Click to expand...

Have you used a 5D mkII, 5D or any of the 1-Ds series? Have you compared the output of 50D / 7D to them? Only then you could understand what low iso noise really means.

Now I must agree, that it is possible to get very acceptable results from 50D at ISO 100-200, IF the exposure is PERFECT or better slightly to the right. There is little lattitude for recovery though. Even then shadows are somewhat noisy, and can't be pushed very far.

From a landscape shooter perspective, ISO 400 becomes quite bad, and compared to 1DsII looks very tragic. It doesn't matter as much for wildlife due to textures and heavy background blur.

Very high ISOs are treated in camera specifically to clean up files as much as possible. It could do 3200 and 6400 and could be deemed aceptable for certain applications, but I much prefer to use 1DsII H1 setting (3200 equiv) instead of 50D 3200.

Do I expect too much? Yes. Does 50D deliver enough compared to some others? No.
 
Last edited:
A 50D is a very capable camera, if you search on flickr for the images taken with a 50D you will get a good idea of how well this camera perform even in the hands of complete novices.
 
daugirdas said:
Have you used a 5D mkII, 5D or any of the 1-Ds series? Have you compared the output of 50D / 7D to them? Only then you could understand what low iso noise really means.

Now I must agree, that it is possible to get very acceptable results from 50D at ISO 100-200, IF the exposure is PERFECT or better slightly to the right. There is little lattitude for recovery though. Even then shadows are somewhat noisy, and can't be pushed very far.

From a landscape shooter perspective, ISO 400 becomes quite bad, and compared to 1DsII looks very tragic. It doesn't matter as much for wildlife due to textures and heavy background blur.

Very high ISOs are treated in camera specifically to clean up files as much as possible. It could do 3200 and 6400 and could be deemed aceptable for certain applications, but I much prefer to use 1DsII H1 setting (3200 equiv) instead of 50D 3200.

Do I expect too much? Yes. Does 50D deliver enough compared to some others? No.
Click to expand...

Sorry, cant agree, I dont get any of that with my 50D, no noise in the shadows whatsover at low ISOs (and this is without tinkering with the in camera NR)...

Landscapes at 400 iso look absolutely perfect and can easily compare to fully 'Pro' bodies.

Maybe they made 2 versions of this camera? :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Jaycam said:
A 50D is a very capable camera, if you search on flickr for the images taken with a 50D you will get a good idea of how well this camera perform even in the hands of complete novices.
Click to expand...


There is not a lot to see about the IQ at the flickr size. And unfortunately I do get a feel that was somewhat aimed at the novices with deeper pockets, with intention to shift the more serious ones to 5DII or 1-series (and in all fairness Nikon got a huge share!)
 
50d is our advanced training camera but I do have to agree with earlier post about image noise, which is not good.
Infact the 550d which People often bring along produces a much better 1600 iso image than the 50d (based on casual observation).
But then again it's beautifully built....
 
odd jim said:
Landscapes at 400 iso look absolutely perfect and can easily compare to fully 'Pro' bodies.
Click to expand...

Again, have you compared it directly with 5D mkII or any of the 1Ds?

As a poor comparison I could suggest looking at some budget / value supermarket offerings (ie. chocolate, cookies), that may taste just fine, but compared to the finest range they are clearly not as good. Unless you try the top ones, the value offering seems to be as good as it gets.
 
daugirdas,

Nobody is doubting the ISO performance of the 5D or 5DII. The discussion here was a comparison of the 40D & 50D. Most would expect the %D series to be better, the FF sensor is a great help, and the MkII is probably the best ISO performing sensor Canon have made; but irrelevant in a discussion regarding these two bodies.....

Steve
 
daugirdas said:
Again, have you compared it directly with 5D mkII or any of the 1Ds?

As a poor comparison I could suggest looking at some budget / value supermarket offerings (ie. chocolate, cookies), that may taste just fine, but compared to the finest range they are clearly not as good. Unless you try the top ones, the value offering seems to be as good as it gets.
Click to expand...

Oh dear oh dear, this post is kit snobbery at its very best!!!!! I have seen plenty of landscapes taken with 5d's and 1Ds, as has everyone. I cant see any difference, if I'm brutally honest, but surely thats down to the 'tog not the kit? I've seen landscapes taken on a 10D that blow away a lot I've seen on FF bodies... Look through Flickr.

Your comparison, like you say, is very poor, and to say the Canon XXd is 'budget/value' is completely rediculous :nono:

I can see you subscribe to the "if it isnt full frame it rubbish" philosophy that sometimes pollutes these forums.

There were finalists in the Landscape Photographer of the year using 50D's, but I suppose this still isnt good enough???!
 
Last edited:
daugirdas said:
Have you used a 5D mkII, 5D or any of the 1-Ds series? Have you compared the output of 50D / 7D to them? Only then you could understand what low iso noise really means.

Now I must agree, that it is possible to get very acceptable results from 50D at ISO 100-200, IF the exposure is PERFECT or better slightly to the right. There is little lattitude for recovery though. Even then shadows are somewhat noisy, and can't be pushed very far.

From a landscape shooter perspective, ISO 400 becomes quite bad, and compared to 1DsII looks very tragic. It doesn't matter as much for wildlife due to textures and heavy background blur.

Very high ISOs are treated in camera specifically to clean up files as much as possible. It could do 3200 and 6400 and could be deemed aceptable for certain applications, but I much prefer to use 1DsII H1 setting (3200 equiv) instead of 50D 3200.

Do I expect too much? Yes. Does 50D deliver enough compared to some others? No.
Click to expand...
The question is not about any other camera apart from the 40d v 50D your comment have no point what so ever....
 
I picked a new one up three weeks ago (from HDEW cameras)
I enquired at several (internet) sources and found they had no stock (even though they were still advertising them !)
Guess they must be getting a bit thin on the ground by now.
Give any supplier a quick call before committing yourself just to be certain they've got one to sell you.

p.s. welcome to TP and I hope you enjoy your new camera (I am)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top