ThomasMillerwrote: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.Well- analyzed and written!

Searchingwrote:People who are execting each model to come out with significant major improvements are not living in reality. The image quality of all the cameras has been increasing incrementally but relative to the technical improvements that can be implemented. The pictures from the 300D to the 50D have all been excellent. The operational functions have gone up in leaps and bounds. Lets leave the research to the experts. If you don't like certain models, just wait until you see one you like. I agree with the first post, the 50D is an excellent camera, one of the best out there, now priced lower than my previous G3. --it is not about the camera, it is about the system...the 50d can't resolve to 15 mpxls key lenses like the 50 f.4 and 17 -55

ThomasMillerwrote:MACwrote:2) Canon 40D owners who don't want the 40D to suddenly be 2nd place in the Canon DX universe.We 40d users wanted canon to significantly improve our favorite model instead of craming consumer mpxls into the newer version that makes our lenses bleedWith good glass the new 50D has clearly more resolution than the 40D and my D300. I've seen the results. On top of that the 50D has the ability to correct back/front focus issues on lenses. That second feature is why I chose a D300 over the 40D as a 2nd body last year (and then added a D700). The 50D is a sweet upgrade from the 40D and it's priced great to boot. The 50D is what the 40D should have been from the start.hate to burst your bubble, but read this-- http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=29861905 -- MAC

The 50D can outresolve any 10 megapixel DSLR on the market today - period. If you look at the 100% crops posted on this website to "defend" its position about "sharpness" there are just two things to say.First, the test used a wider aperture than was used for the 40D and therefore had shallower DOF which is easily visible when you download the whole image.Second, there is MORE detail visible in the in focus parts of the50D image than the 40D image but the 50D is less "sharp" because a 100% crop represents a smaller percentage of the whole image. This will be true for any camera which has a higher resolution sensor when tested with the same lens and is a fact that seems to have been misinterpreted as a fault or "con" by someone who doesn't understand this.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/50d.shtmlChris59wrote:The 50D can outresolve any 10 megapixel DSLR on the market today - period. If you look at the 100% crops posted on this website to "defend" its position about "sharpness" there are just two things to say.First, the test used a wider aperture than was used for the 40D and therefore had shallower DOF which is easily visible when you download the whole image.Second, there is MORE detail visible in the in focus parts of the50D image than the 40D image but the 50D is less "sharp" because a 100% crop represents a smaller percentage of the whole image. This will be true for any camera which has a higher resolution sensor when tested with the same lens and is a fact that seems to have been misinterpreted as a fault or "con" by someone who doesn't understand this.

I don't have any experience with the lenses quoted in the article and my previous camera was (and is) the 400D.The higher the resolution of a camera (the greater the pixel density) the more you will get out of every lens even if it means more astigmatism, CA and other aberrations (distortion will not change). The best lenses will yield the greatest improvements of course but all lenses will gain from higher resolution sensors.I don't subscribe to the "diffraction limited" theory either. The reason is that the digital image is a creation of sensor PLUS lens. This means that if you improve either lens or sensor, overall image will improve. Certainly once you get to the limitations of diffraction, nothing will provide more detail in the image, but in reality we can only approach these limits and the better the lens and the denser the sensor, the closer to the "ideal" of diffraction limits we can approach.The other benefits of having a high resoltuion sensor even WELL above diffraction limits is that there is less pixellation of the image, less jaggies and smaller less noticeable haloes. Also, more sharpening can be added without appearing over done, and more noise reduction can ba applied without detriment to the image. There are also benefits to be had from the need for a weaker AA filter (or none at all at VERY high pixel densities) and false colours from debayering are minimised.

jrsclswrote:The 50D is a sweet upgrade from the 40D and it's priced great to boot. The 50D is what the 40D should have been from the start.It doesn't end, and this is exactly what Canon wants you to believe so they can spoon feed you minor upgrades a little at a time. And guess what, the 60D will be exactly what the 50D should have been from the start in about 12-18 months.Are you suggesting that Canon should not offer cameras with only "minor" improvements, but should wait until they can offer something with what you would consider a "major" improvement, even if it takes 2-3 years to do so?

HelloI think the main reason for preferring a 40D ($800) over a 50D ($1100) and even a D300 ($1500) is money. At the moment, you don't get that much camera for the money anywhere else.CheersAndreas

We tried the 50D with the following lenses:70-20085mm 1.2Sorry to burst ANYONE's bubble, but there was a VISIBLE advantage in resolution, especially with the 85mm stopped down. At lower ISO my D700 could not match it, though it was very close.She already owns the 40D and shoots city scapes, so it's easy to compare.The 50D is a BETTER camera. Oh...and her 85mm and 50mm had slight focus errors on the 40D, but they've been made perfect aboard the 50D via lens tuning.

Phil used the 50 f1.4 and 17 -55 - see my link in post above - and found issues. He also found issues with Adobe Lightroom conversion...This, and the worse high ISO performanceIf you are a wedding shooter like I am, then this is all very bad news...if you shoot 2500 pictures in 10 hours, this is very bad news...guming up hard drives with more mpxl's is not the answer to better images for high volume work...lower noise and good lense matches with sensors areIMO -They did this on purpose because consumers don't know any better and they didn't want to canabalize their 2600 5dIImany of us long time shooters know better and are just keeping our 40d's and hoping they "improve" the 60d...my estimate is that they've reached a barrier and will continue to "consumerize" this line of camera versus truly improving IQ with lower noise at high ISO, and great matches with lenses...I hope I'm wrong because many of us will sell all our gear and move onChris59wrote:I don't have any experience with the lenses quoted in the article and my previous camera was (and is) the 400D.The higher the resolution of a camera (the greater the pixel density) the more you will get out of every lens even if it means more astigmatism, CA and other aberrations (distortion will not change). The best lenses will yield the greatest improvements of course but all lenses will gain from higher resolution sensors.I don't subscribe to the "diffraction limited" theory either. The reason is that the digital image is a creation of sensor PLUS lens. This means that if you improve either lens or sensor, overall image will improve. Certainly once you get to the limitations of diffraction, nothing will provide more detail in the image, but in reality we can only approach these limits and the better the lens and the denser the sensor, the closer to the "ideal" of diffraction limits we can approach.The other benefits of having a high resoltuion sensor even WELL above diffraction limits is that there is less pixellation of the image, less jaggies and smaller less noticeable haloes. Also, more sharpening can be added without appearing over done, and more noise reduction can ba applied without detriment to the image. There are also benefits to be had from the need for a weaker AA filter (or none at all at VERY high pixel densities) and false colours from debayering are minimised.

+1. Shooting weddings and indoor sports generates too many images to be forced to reckon with DPP. I'm back to 40D bodies and waiting to see where this line of XXD cameras is going.MACwrote:Phil used the 50 f1.4 and 17 -55 - see my link in post above - and found issues. He also found issues with Adobe Lightroom conversion...This, and the worse high ISO performanceIf you are a wedding shooter like I am, then this is all very bad news...if you shoot 2500 pictures in 10 hours, this is very bad news...guming up hard drives with more mpxl's is not the answer to better images for high volume work...lower noise and good lense matches with sensors areIMO -They did this on purpose because consumers don't know any better and they didn't want to canabalize their 2600 5dIImany of us long time shooters know better and are just keeping our 40d's and hoping they "improve" the 60d...my estimate is that they've reached a barrier and will continue to "consumerize" this line of camera versus truly improving IQ with lower noise at high ISO, and great matches with lenses...I hope I'm wrong because many of us will sell all our gear and move on

it is about the total system for high speed work - camera, lenses, software - all working well together...the 50d and dpp are not the answer for action and wedding work; I'm also amazed hearing the 1d forum talking about the hi res 5dII files guming up lightroom for wedding work ...and having to move down to an sRAW file to have acceptable performance in lightroom - again, wedding shooters who use lightroom preset automation can't get the efficiency out of dpp...I'm fine with my 40d and 30d fro now...MAC http://www.dpics.usjrsclswrote: +1. Shooting weddings and indoor sports generates too many images to be forced to reckon with DPP. I'm back to 40D bodies and waiting to see where this line of XXD cameras is going.MACwrote:Phil used the 50 f1.4 and 17 -55 - see my link in post above - and found issues. He also found issues with Adobe Lightroom conversion...This, and the worse high ISO performanceIf you are a wedding shooter like I am, then this is all very bad news...if you shoot 2500 pictures in 10 hours, this is very bad news...guming up hard drives with more mpxl's is not the answer to better images for high volume work...lower noise and good lense matches with sensors areIMO -They did this on purpose because consumers don't know any better and they didn't want to canabalize their 2600 5dIImany of us long time shooters know better and are just keeping our 40d's and hoping they "improve" the 60d...my estimate is that they've reached a barrier and will continue to "consumerize" this line of camera versus truly improving IQ with lower noise at high ISO, and great matches with lenses...I hope I'm wrong because many of us will sell all our gear and move on

I'm keeping my 50D. Adobe will hopefully improve Lightroom since it's their issue, not the 50D's.MACwrote: Phil used the 50 f1.4 and 17 -55 - see my link in post above - and found issues. He also found issues with Adobe Lightroom conversion...This, and the worse high ISO performanceIf you are a wedding shooter like I am, then this is all very bad news...if you shoot 2500 pictures in 10 hours, this is very bad news...guming up hard drives with more mpxl's is not the answer to better images for high volume work...lower noise and good lense matches with sensors areIMO -They did this on purpose because consumers don't know any better and they didn't want to canabalize their 2600 5dIImany of us long time shooters know better and are just keeping our 40d's and hoping they "improve" the 60d...my estimate is that they've reached a barrier and will continue to "consumerize" this line of camera versus truly improving IQ with lower noise at high ISO, and great matches with lenses...I hope I'm wrong because many of us will sell all our gear and move onChris59wrote:I don't have any experience with the lenses quoted in the article and my previous camera was (and is) the 400D.The higher the resolution of a camera (the greater the pixel density) the more you will get out of every lens even if it means more astigmatism, CA and other aberrations (distortion will not change). The best lenses will yield the greatest improvements of course but all lenses will gain from higher resolution sensors.I don't subscribe to the "diffraction limited" theory either. The reason is that the digital image is a creation of sensor PLUS lens. This means that if you improve either lens or sensor, overall image will improve. Certainly once you get to the limitations of diffraction, nothing will provide more detail in the image, but in reality we can only approach these limits and the better the lens and the denser the sensor, the closer to the "ideal" of diffraction limits we can approach.The other benefits of having a high resoltuion sensor even WELL above diffraction limits is that there is less pixellation of the image, less jaggies and smaller less noticeable haloes. Also, more sharpening can be added without appearing over done, and more noise reduction can ba applied without detriment to the image. There are also benefits to be had from the need for a weaker AA filter (or none at all at VERY high pixel densities) and false colours from debayering are minimised.

... while you shoot them, and after. Interesting observation on the 5D Mk II ... In considering tthat cam, I see the files size as a double edge sword.While the 21mp files gives you a lot more room to crop, you've got to work with all those huge files ... more cards, hard drive space, and even taxing computer RAM. I just uograded to CS4 (from CS3) on my MAC ... noticable slower, and that's with the same files from my 1D MkIII.

DavidMavenwrote:Nobody claims the 50D is bad. Only that it failed to meet Canon's (and in particular, Chuck Westfall's ) hype about improved noise and resolution.Take resolution off the table. The 50D is fully capable of utilizing its 15Mpixel sensor, with a weak AA filter that creates an even better potential pixel-to-pixel contrast than in the 40D. I say potential because the final result is a system-level result that includes lens and technique: photos that indicate that the 50D is performing below expectation of resolution are illustrating lens issues or poor attention to the need for stability when shooting at such a pixel count. I've had my 50D a month now and it, along with the 17-55mm, have been producing some stunningly-detailed images. I've owned a 300D, 20D and 40D over the past 5 years and so am judging in this context (owned the 20D the longest, for 3 years of that stretch).In terms of noise, I'm seeing similar performance to the 40D at the pixel level and slightly better at the image level. Maybe not 1-1.5 stops as Chuck claimed, but I'm processing using LR v2.2 rather than with Canon's in-camera or DPP algorithms. It's possible that Adobe will improve its 50D algorithms over the next few turns of the crank.Note that obtaining a low-noise final result demands some attention to sharpening. LR provides a masking feature to its sharpening function that must be utilized. Fortunately, it's very easy to find a masking level (typically around 40) that sharpens all the key edge detail very well yet avoids sharpening noise in the detail-free areas. For images with large textured rather than detail-free areas, this slider can be relaxed to allow sharpening of the texture (as noise is less visible in this context).David

whether it is Adobe issue or not, the current state of affairs makes the 40d system--camera, lenses, Adobe Lightroom and preset automation, a better wedding system than anything the 50d and dpp can do efficientlyBlue IIwrote: I'm keeping my 50D. Adobe will hopefully improve Lightroom since it's their issue, not the 50D's.MACwrote: Phil used the 50 f1.4 and 17 -55 - see my link in post above - and found issues. He also found issues with Adobe Lightroom conversion...This, and the worse high ISO performanceIf you are a wedding shooter like I am, then this is all very bad news...if you shoot 2500 pictures in 10 hours, this is very bad news...guming up hard drives with more mpxl's is not the answer to better images for high volume work...lower noise and good lense matches with sensors areIMO -They did this on purpose because consumers don't know any better and they didn't want to canabalize their 2600 5dIImany of us long time shooters know better and are just keeping our 40d's and hoping they "improve" the 60d...my estimate is that they've reached a barrier and will continue to "consumerize" this line of camera versus truly improving IQ with lower noise at high ISO, and great matches with lenses...I hope I'm wrong because many of us will sell all our gear and move onChris59wrote:I don't have any experience with the lenses quoted in the article and my previous camera was (and is) the 400D.The higher the resolution of a camera (the greater the pixel density) the more you will get out of every lens even if it means more astigmatism, CA and other aberrations (distortion will not change). The best lenses will yield the greatest improvements of course but all lenses will gain from higher resolution sensors.I don't subscribe to the "diffraction limited" theory either. The reason is that the digital image is a creation of sensor PLUS lens. This means that if you improve either lens or sensor, overall image will improve. Certainly once you get to the limitations of diffraction, nothing will provide more detail in the image, but in reality we can only approach these limits and the better the lens and the denser the sensor, the closer to the "ideal" of diffraction limits we can approach.The other benefits of having a high resoltuion sensor even WELL above diffraction limits is that there is less pixellation of the image, less jaggies and smaller less noticeable haloes. Also, more sharpening can be added without appearing over done, and more noise reduction can ba applied without detriment to the image. There are also benefits to be had from the need for a weaker AA filter (or none at all at VERY high pixel densities) and false colours from debayering are minimised.

.... the point that you have to do efficient work with the files themselvesne beginnerwrote:... while you shoot them, and after. Interesting observation on the 5D Mk II ... In considering tthat cam, I see the files size as a double edge sword. While the 21mp files gives you a lot more room to crop, you've got to work with all those huge files ... more cards, hard drive space, and even taxing computer RAM. I just uograded to CS4 (from CS3) on my MAC ... noticable slower, and that's with the same files from my 1D MkIII.

perhaps not. The only issue I've had with Lightroom and the 50D is high ISO (3200 and up) RAW files (I use jpeg for my sports images at high ISO). I can't imagine that you would get enough details in Wedding photos at such high ISOs, can you? Seems you would use low ISO and lighting to get the best image and LR works fine with low ISO. If your weddings are at places that don't allow flash, then I can understand your predicament.MACwrote: whether it is Adobe issue or not, the current state of affairs makes the 40d system--camera, lenses, Adobe Lightroom and preset automation, a better wedding system than anything the 50d and dpp can do efficientlyBlue IIwrote: I'm keeping my 50D. Adobe will hopefully improve Lightroom since it's their issue, not the 50D's.MACwrote: Phil used the 50 f1.4 and 17 -55 - see my link in post above - and found issues. He also found issues with Adobe Lightroom conversion...This, and the worse high ISO performanceIf you are a wedding shooter like I am, then this is all very bad news...if you shoot 2500 pictures in 10 hours, this is very bad news...guming up hard drives with more mpxl's is not the answer to better images for high volume work...lower noise and good lense matches with sensors areIMO -They did this on purpose because consumers don't know any better and they didn't want to canabalize their 2600 5dIImany of us long time shooters know better and are just keeping our 40d's and hoping they "improve" the 60d...my estimate is that they've reached a barrier and will continue to "consumerize" this line of camera versus truly improving IQ with lower noise at high ISO, and great matches with lenses...I hope I'm wrong because many of us will sell all our gear and move onChris59wrote:I don't have any experience with the lenses quoted in the article and my previous camera was (and is) the 400D.The higher the resolution of a camera (the greater the pixel density) the more you will get out of every lens even if it means more astigmatism, CA and other aberrations (distortion will not change). The best lenses will yield the greatest improvements of course but all lenses will gain from higher resolution sensors.I don't subscribe to the "diffraction limited" theory either. The reason is that the digital image is a creation of sensor PLUS lens. This means that if you improve either lens or sensor, overall image will improve. Certainly once you get to the limitations of diffraction, nothing will provide more detail in the image, but in reality we can only approach these limits and the better the lens and the denser the sensor, the closer to the "ideal" of diffraction limits we can approach.The other benefits of having a high resoltuion sensor even WELL above diffraction limits is that there is less pixellation of the image, less jaggies and smaller less noticeable haloes. Also, more sharpening can be added without appearing over done, and more noise reduction can ba applied without detriment to the image. There are also benefits to be had from the need for a weaker AA filter (or none at all at VERY high pixel densities) and false colours from debayering are minimised.