My X-girlfriend couldn't afford a D300 and I suggested the nearly as good 40D. She loved it and took a lot of great photos with it. Picking up a few lenses she decided to stick with Canon and (after graduating and finally making good money) she bought the new 50D, which I got to play with for a 2nd time yesterday.There are a LOT of people who don't understand a camera as refined as the 50D. They can't handle the learning curve or understand that the higher MP also requires care to see the benefits. Most people don't ever even learn to hold a camera so they can obtain sharp results on a consistent basis. I see people all the time with expensive rigs and they have no idea about shooting or basic technique. It's not something that comes in a 50D box and no matter how much you spend on your kit, real experience and technique takes a LOT of time to build. The 50D will not tolerate fools. And a fool is anyone who picks up a camera like the 50D and cries when it doesn't "make" award winning photos for them in the first week or month.Here are the facts from two people who know how to shoot and also have a 40D, D300 and D700 for comparison.The 50D is better than the 40D for two simple reasons.1) At ISO 1600 and below it's resolution benefit are visible on screen, and to a smaller degree on prints of 13X19. If you only print 8X10 you may not see much difference. So many pixels on the sensor mean that good holding technique is important since any motion causes blurring. This was a big issue for folks jumping from 6 MP to 10 or 12MP and we're seeing it again. Master the 50D and you will see the resolution benefit...period.2) The 50D has fine tuning for lenses. This is a 100% pro feature and a reason why so many folks prefer the D300 over 40D. It's HUGE to be able to tweak fast glass for even better sharper results. Most people don't even know that their glass is back/front focusing by small amounts. A 50D can correct for it.The 50D has other small improvements and features that make it more versatile than the 40D. The 40D may hold a small edge is ISO range, but the 50D is very impressive in it's own right and you score the extra resolution. At lower ISO settings that resolution is even visible against my powerhouse D700! The 50D is a killer camera.So...once again we have three groups of people here:1) Canon 50D owners who need more practice. A LOT more practice.2) Canon 40D owners who don't want the 40D to suddenly be 2nd place in the Canon DX universe.3) Nikon/Canon haters who just love to pile on when they see a problem with a camera. These poor clowns aren't happy unless they're bashing someone else and their purchase. But the last thing they want to admit is that a problem might be a user learning curve that is global. Those in the know realize that this is exactly what happens when a camera like the 50D is released.The 50D, in capable hands, is a stunning crop sensor camera. The facts are readily apparent, especially since experienced and talented owners have already posted results proving what it can do. But the untalented gear haters out there can't take a good photo and pile-on when they see a badly exposed sample or unmatched shots or anything that supports their hobby, which has little to do with actual photography.All hail the Canon 50D! I may prefer my D300, but the reality is that if I owned a 50D I'd be every bit as happy. Oh....and try as we might, we couldn't do anything to create black dots, or we weren't sure if we did because it took insane pixel peeping to look for them at all.We're insane for photography NOT for dot hunting.

1) Canon 50D owners who need more practice. A LOT more practice.I admit I am one of them, still haven't practiced much but should. The camera is way more demanding than my old 300D but that is to be expected I guess. Still haven't managed to adjust my primes, it is on the TO DO list for my days off from work.Oh....and try as we might, we couldn't do anything to create black dots, or we weren't sure if we did because it took insane pixel peeping to look for them at all.The dots were on the 5DII. I am not a pixel peeper in general, in fact, I wouldn't have noticed such artifacts or would have blamed them on the shooting conditions. On the other hand, I am not a pro so I am not so critical on such details, I judge the 'general' final output.

I just got a 50D for Christmas and am loving it.Do I have a lot to learn? You bet!!!I'm coming from the Rebel XT and it's a whole new ball game.SoLet's play ball

sparkey2wrote:Nope. I used to shoot with 30D, but I've been mainly Nikon for a long time. That doesn't mean I won't switch or I'm blindly loyal. I had the 30D because it was better than my D200 in many situations.I don't understand why some Canon owners are upset when a new model comes out. The D3x is out and Nikon owners are thrilled, even if few will actually buy one. I have a D700 and when it's "topped" it just means that I will eventually own a better camera, but that doesn't also mean my "old" gear suddenly doesn't work anymore! There are guys out there with 20D and D70 taking amazing shots.The excitement over a new DSLR ends quickly. The 40D's time has long passed. But if I owned a 40D I'd be enjoying it and taking pictures and improving rather than trying to stamp out a superior camera just released. The 50D is new and it's exciting and those who take the time to master it will benefit the most...just as with any other camera. Those who sit around and compare poor shots from those who never learned to shoot won't get anywhere.We made a couple of 13X19 prints from the 50D and were very impressed by the detail level and visual depth achieved. Canon should be proud.

ThomasMillerwrote:sparkey2wrote:Nope. I used to shoot with 30D, but I've been mainly Nikon for a long time. That doesn't mean I won't switch or I'm blindly loyal. I had the 30D because it was better than my D200 in many situations.I don't understand why some Canon owners are upset when a new model comes out. The D3x is out and Nikon owners are thrilled, even if few will actually buy one. I have a D700 and when it's "topped" it just means that I will eventually own a better camera, but that doesn't also mean my "old" gear suddenly doesn't work anymore! There are guys out there with 20D and D70 taking amazing shots.I think many people are upset because of the DPR review. I guess many can't see the forest for the trees (pixel level).The excitement over a new DSLR ends quickly. The 40D's time has long passed. But if I owned a 40D I'd be enjoying it and taking pictures and improving rather than trying to stamp out a superior camera just released. The 50D is new and it's exciting and those who take the time to master it will benefit the most...just as with any other camera. Those who sit around and compare poor shots from those who never learned to shoot won't get anywhere.We made a couple of 13X19 prints from the 50D and were very impressed by the detail level and visual depth achieved. Canon should be proud.

I have heard similar comments from members of the local photography club who use the 50D, it tends not to be a beginner's camera but with good glass and good technique the results can be exceptional...John Q -- http://www.pbase.com/john_qThe Earth is our Mother... We must take care of her....

There is one small area of what you wrote that may still help to perpetuate the myth that a higher resolution camera can somehow be "more sensitive" to user error and lens quality than a lower resolution camera.This is a distinction that I really REALLY want people to understand because it seems to be the cause of a lot of the griping that we've seen on here since the 50D came out.Again, I'm not arguing with what you said, but just that a bit of how you said it could end up helping to perpetuate this myth IF people don't read your post carefully.You stated:ThomasMiller wrote: .... snip....1) At ISO 1600 and below it's resolution benefit are visible on screen, and to a smaller degree on prints of 13X19. If you only print 8X10 you may not see much difference. So many pixels on the sensor mean that good holding technique is important since any motion causes blurring. This was a big issue for folks jumping from 6 MP to 10 or 12MP and we're seeing it again. Master the 50D and you will see the resolution benefit...period.And I agree with that except that the way you stated itcouldlead a person to believe that somehow, they may get worse shots with a 50D than, say, a 30D when using the same exact technique.In fact, this is not the case.Shooting with the same sloppy technique with both cameras will still result in a better shot from the 50D.It's only because the 50D has thepotentialfor capturing better photos, and because it allows us to view the image at a higher effective magnification (when pixel peeping) that people may notice the effects of their poor technique (or lens issues, etc.).So while I completely agree with your point, I just want to make absolutely sure that nobody comes away from this thinking that because they've got a 50D, they now need to be a better photographer to get a shot with it than they'd need to be if they were using a lower resolution camera.It's only that to realize the full benefits of the upgrade from, say, a 30D to a 50D, they'll need to exercise very careful technique and use good lenses, etc.In no case will the 50D be "less forgiving" of bad technique or bad lenses. It'll create every bit as good of photos for the exact same circumstances.But because we can look at 100%, and see a more magnified view than we'd see if we viewed the 30D shot at 100%, people may notice problems more easily.But printed at the same size, the same shot taken by the same fool, with the same poor technique, will look every bit as good coming from the 50D as it would coming from the 30D.Sorry for the long, tedious, and very picky point, but I really do feel that it is precisely the misunderstanding of this point that is creating all of the fuss on this forum over the 50D.If nobody could look at their photos at 100% on their computers, but instead, could only compare all of their shots at, say, 13" X 19" prints, then NOBODY would be claiming that the 50D was somehow "more sensitive" to Lens diffraction, Camera shake, and Lens quality than, for example, a 30D.I agree with your post. I just wanted to make sure this point was very clear so that nobody comes away thinking that a 50D will somehow make worse photos than a 30D given the exact same conditions and technique. It's only that we expect more from the 50D, and to get that "more", we've now got to be more careful.It's always good to have a tool that's more capable. Even if we're not able to get the best that it can offer with every shot, at least the potential is there for us when we DO manage to do everything just rightThanks for your thoughtful post. It's good to hear someone talking reason here, and it's nice to see an assessment from someone who has used great cameras from both Nikon and Canon.

Very good comments.I do agree that expectation is a big part of the problem.However, and please correct me if this is not correct, I was under the impression that higher MP sensors can take on a softer look (created by shaky camera work) due to the effect of more pixels being smeared and processed with in-camera software.Perhaps this is not the case.No matter. My review of the 50D stands based on my seeing this terrific results.As for the DPreview, I believe that in THIS CASE it is flawed. FYI, we shot and processed RAW files before printing. Anything less with a camera as good as the 50D would have been a waste. After months of shooting the 40D, my friend readily agreed that the 50D was rendering better results. And the 50D does quite well up to ISO 3200 if you expose properly and do some cleanup. That's pretty much the case with my old D300 and current D90. My D700 is another matter as it's FX and shoots well at 6400.

ThomasMiller wrote: .....However, and please correct me if this is not correct, I was under the impression that higher MP sensors can take on a softer look (created by shaky camera work) due to the effect of more pixels being smeared and processed with in-camera software.This should not be the case.Oversampling of a the image projected by the lens should only help, no matter whether that projected image is sharp or not. In no case should the image be worse.But we all love to view images at 100%. And since viewing at 100% will show that same blur as being "larger", people are fooled into thinking that their 50D shots are less sharp or have lower contrast than, say, a 30D shot taken under the identical conditions.But this is an unfair comparison because viewing a 50D shot at 100% means that you're magnifying the image by 1.37X compared to viewing a 30D shot at 100%. So while the 100% view from the 50D might look softer than the 100% view from the 30D, in fact, the software should be able to do a better job when starting with the higher resolution "capture" even if the image presented to the sensor was not sharp.I liken this to scanning a print.Let's say that someone gives you a 4 X 6 print that's kind of blurry. They want you to make a copy of it.So you put it on your flatbed scanner and scan it in. But you decide to do an experiment. You make one scan at 150 PPI and another at 300 PPI. The copies you end up making from the 300PPI scan will NOT look worse than those you made from your 150PPI scan.In fact, the 300PPI scan will result in a better final image. Oversampling is a good thing even if we present the sensor with a less-than-perfect image.And because you might want to apply some sharpening or contrast enhancement, and you'll almost certainly end up resampling the image, the higher resolution scan (or camera capture) will provide even more benefits during the processing that will make the final image better.So it's good for people to understand that the 50D will NOT be less "forgiving" than a lower density camera. The higher resolution will actually help in all cases.And I agree. The DPR review is bad in this respect. They, too, imply that going to a higher pixel density makes the camera "more sensitive" to camera shake or poor lenses. That's not true.As for ISO performance, I cannot comment because I don't have both cameras. I think what disappointed people was that Canon boldly claimed a 2 stop improvement in noise, but didn't say that this was due to in-camera noise reduction, which is NOT fair. The RAW files may or may not be worse or better than the 40D, but they're certainly NOT 2 stops betterFor me, though, it'd be enough if the noise was about the same as the 40D, but with an improvement in resolution. That alone would be an accomplishment.

well said and to OP tooJimHwrote: There is one small area of what you wrote that may still help to perpetuate the myth that a higher resolution camera can somehow be "more sensitive" to user error and lens quality than a lower resolution camera.This is a distinction that I really REALLY want people to understand because it seems to be the cause of a lot of the griping that we've seen on here since the 50D came out.Again, I'm not arguing with what you said, but just that a bit of how you said it could end up helping to perpetuate this myth IF people don't read your post carefully.You stated:ThomasMiller wrote: .... snip....1) At ISO 1600 and below it's resolution benefit are visible on screen, and to a smaller degree on prints of 13X19. If you only print 8X10 you may not see much difference. So many pixels on the sensor mean that good holding technique is important since any motion causes blurring. This was a big issue for folks jumping from 6 MP to 10 or 12MP and we're seeing it again. Master the 50D and you will see the resolution benefit...period.And I agree with that except that the way you stated itcouldlead a person to believe that somehow, they may get worse shots with a 50D than, say, a 30D when using the same exact technique.In fact, this is not the case.Shooting with the same sloppy technique with both cameras will still result in a better shot from the 50D.It's only because the 50D has thepotentialfor capturing better photos, and because it allows us to view the image at a higher effective magnification (when pixel peeping) that people may notice the effects of their poor technique (or lens issues, etc.).So while I completely agree with your point, I just want to make absolutely sure that nobody comes away from this thinking that because they've got a 50D, they now need to be a better photographer to get a shot with it than they'd need to be if they were using a lower resolution camera.It's only that to realize the full benefits of the upgrade from, say, a 30D to a 50D, they'll need to exercise very careful technique and use good lenses, etc.In no case will the 50D be "less forgiving" of bad technique or bad lenses. It'll create every bit as good of photos for the exact same circumstances.But because we can look at 100%, and see a more magnified view than we'd see if we viewed the 30D shot at 100%, people may notice problems more easily.But printed at the same size, the same shot taken by the same fool, with the same poor technique, will look every bit as good coming from the 50D as it would coming from the 30D.Sorry for the long, tedious, and very picky point, but I really do feel that it is precisely the misunderstanding of this point that is creating all of the fuss on this forum over the 50D.If nobody could look at their photos at 100% on their computers, but instead, could only compare all of their shots at, say, 13" X 19" prints, then NOBODY would be claiming that the 50D was somehow "more sensitive" to Lens diffraction, Camera shake, and Lens quality than, for example, a 30D.I agree with your post. I just wanted to make sure this point was very clear so that nobody comes away thinking that a 50D will somehow make worse photos than a 30D given the exact same conditions and technique. It's only that we expect more from the 50D, and to get that "more", we've now got to be more careful.It's always good to have a tool that's more capable. Even if we're not able to get the best that it can offer with every shot, at least the potential is there for us when we DO manage to do everything just rightThanks for your thoughtful post. It's good to hear someone talking reason here, and it's nice to see an assessment from someone who has used great cameras from both Nikon and Canon.

JimHwrote:ThomasMiller wrote: This should not be the case.Oversampling of a the image projected by the lens should only help, no matter whether that projected image is sharp or not. In no case should the image be worse.But we all love to view images at 100%. And since viewing at 100% will show that same blur as being "larger", people are fooled into thinking that their 50D shots are less sharp or have lower contrast than, say, a 30D shot taken under the identical conditions.But this is an unfair comparison because viewing a 50D shot at 100% means that you're magnifying the image by 1.37X compared to viewing a 30D shot at 100%. So while the 100% view from the 50D might look softer than the 100% view from the 30D, in fact, the software should be able to do a better job when starting with the higher resolution "capture" even if the image presented to the sensor was not sharp.Jim, You lost me here, I have had no problems with my 50D, But have noticed the same things you get with more mpixels shallower DOF shooting large subjects closeup wide open, etc..The reason the above caught my attention is that at times I have noticed that the projected rear lcd image can be sharper than @100 percent than on my monitor and I am using a S-IPS Apple Cinema Display. Its not much, but enough to make you notice.So I am trying to figure out what you mean by viewing 30D Images @ 100 perecnt your magnifying it 100 percent and with the 50D 1.37X ? are you saying that the 50D images are over magnified? on the rear display or on whatever you edit with ? I noticed you left the 40D out what is the situation with that body? Thanks...Marcus Armanihttp://www.armaniphotography.com/gallery http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31158.html

The on-camera displays are an entirely different and uncontrolled thing.The displays on the 30D, 40D, and 50D are all derived (somehow) from stored JPGs. And the way they're displayed as well as the displays themselves make things hard to compare. So I won't discuss what we see on the cameras themselves.But if you use a single computer display and view images from (for example) a 30D and a 50D, and you view both at "100%" on that same display, you're actually NOT viewing them at the same magnification with respect to the image that was projected onto the sensor.Because the 50D has 15 million photosensors crammed onto the same sized sensor IC as the 30D has packed with only 8 million, when you view at "100%" on your monitor, you're seeing a smaller portion of the 50D's sensor represented on your screen than you see of the 30D's sensor.Let's say that your monitor runs at 1920 X 1200 pixels.You take equivalent shots with a 30D and a 50D.Then you view both at "100%" on your monitor.You're only seeing a 1920 X 1200 "crop" out of each shot at any one time. To see more, you've got to pan around.But because the 30D has fewer pixels, at 100%, those 1920 X 1200 pixels represent MORE of the sensor's area than 1920 X 1200 pixels would represent of the 50D's image.You're actually seeing a more magnified view of what the 50D captured than what the 30D captured.You could switch back and forth between the two shots and clearly see that you're seeing "more of the scene" on your screen when viewing the 30D image than when viewing the 50D image.So that's not a fair comparison. We're viewing the 50D's image more critically, and seeing it larger when we view it at 100% than when we view the 30D image also at "100%".In fact, we're seeing the image from the 50D displayed 1.37 X as large on our screen as we're seeing the image from the 30D.100% simply means that one pixel from the image is shown by one pixel on our monitor. But since the 50D crams more pixels into the same sized image sensor as the 30D does, that means that each pixel from the 50D represents a smaller portion of the image than each pixel from the 30D.So while it's easy and fast to compare images at 100%, it's not a fair or valid comparison if the sensors don't have the same number of pixels.And when we view something more magnified, we of course can see the defects or faults in it more easily. But that doesn't mean that it's actually worse. We're just seeing it more critically.And so it goes with the 50D versus the 30D. The 50D's sensor captures a higher resolution rendition of what the lens projects onto the sensor than the 30D does.But that doesn't make that projected image any different. The higher resolution capture should always make the total photo better. But if we compare at 100%, we're not playing fair. We should not expect things to look as sharp when we zoom in deeper. And effectively, when we compare 100% crops from sensors with different resolutions, we ARE zooming in deeper on the higher density sensor's image.It's only fair to make comparisons at equal magnifications.And that means we cannot view both images at 100%.The 40D was left out only because the differences are greater between the 30D and the 50D, so it makes the comparisons more drastic.But if we compare shots between a 40D and 50D, viewing them both at 100% on our computer monitor, the 50D image will be presented with 1.22X as much magnification as the image from the 40D. Again, that's not fair.The magnification of the pixels is the same. But because the pixels on the 50D are smaller, we're seeing a smaller portion of its sensor displayed, thus, the image from the lens is shown with more magnification, and thus, the comparisons of what a lens, or our camera shake is doing to the shot are not fair.Imagine you've got a 2.45 megapixel camera that shoots at 1920 X 1280. And suppose it's sensor is the same size as that in the 20/30/40/50D. It's just got larger photosensors.If we view a shot from that camera at 100%, the entire width of the photo (1920 pixels) will fit onto the width of our 1920 X 1200 monitor. A bit of the top and/or bottom will have to be cut off, but we can almost see the entire frame from the camera all at once even though we're viewing at 100%Now take a shot from a 50D. That camera produces an image that's 4752 x 3168 pixels.If we view a shot from it at 100%, we'll still only be able to see 1920 X 1200 on the screen. But that 1920 X 1200 "crop" from the image will only represent a chunk that's 40 percent of the frame's width!So we're viewing the "frame" at a higher magnification. We'll have to pan around to see the whole frame.That's a more extreme example, but it shows the problem. Viewing at 100% yields different image magnification depending on the number of pixels composing that image.

In a nutshell, the final image produced by the 50D viewed at 100% will be 1.37 times larger than the final image produced on a 30D viewed at 100%; because of the extra resolution the 50D offers.Is this what you were saying, Jim?

I agree re holding technique.Many people who purchase dSLRs for the first time come from a P&S, so they are used to holding the camera at arms length, using one hand, or holding the camera with a hand each side of the camera (nothing to support the lens, especially heavy lenses). I see alot of dSLR users holding the camera like this.I always thought, and correct me if I am wrong, that the left hand should really be under the camera supporting the lens; the right hand used to control the shutter and adjusting other settings while looking through the viewfinder. Breathing technique can also be important, especially at lower shutter speeds without IS. Holding a camera sounds simple, but there is more to it than first time camera owners realise.

Menges88wrote:I agree re holding technique.Many people who purchase dSLRs for the first time come from a P&S, so they are used to holding the camera at arms length, using one hand, or holding the camera with a hand each side of the camera (nothing to support the lens, especially heavy lenses). I see alot of dSLR users holding the camera like this.I always thought, and correct me if I am wrong, that the left hand should really be under the camera supporting the lens; the right hand used to control the shutter and adjusting other settings while looking through the viewfinder. Breathing technique can also be important, especially at lower shutter speeds without IS. Holding a camera sounds simple, but there is more to it than first time camera owners realise.Well said. There are several good ways to hold a camera. I tend to brace my elbow (which supports the camera at lens/body) against my body. I'll usually hold my breath for a moment at slower shutter speeds. I have a defect in my shutter release technique at times, so I'll often seek out a wall or pole to lean against for even steadier control. Some people get good results with both hands on either side of the body, with arms folded tightly, but this will usually present problems with longer glass. There are a lot of variables, including how heavy the gear is and how naturally steady you can be.The bottom line is with practice you can generally improve and get very sharp results, even at slow shutter speeds.This is why professionals were happy with Nikon's decision to leave VR out of the 14-24 and 24-70 lenses. The extra weight/size would have been a poor trade-off for lenses that are already large due to a highly refined optical formula.I do like VR (IS) above 100mm and I have the 70-200 2.8 VR for that!Thomas (Lord Nikon!) http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/p422091682/slideshow#h1a762864

ThomasMillerwrote:1) At ISO 1600 and below it's resolution benefit are visible on screen, and to a smaller degree on prints of 13X19. If you only print 8X10 you may not see much difference. So many pixels on the sensor mean that good holding technique is important since any motion causes blurring. This was a big issue for folks jumping from 6 MP to 10 or 12MP and we're seeing it again. Master the 50D and you will see the resolution benefit...period.Funny how, in the days of film, no one ever suggested that finer grain would result in more (or more apparent) camera shake.So 'splain to me how higher resolution increases camera shake..?Or even apparent camera shake..?Camera shake blurs images at any resolution.