I had not yet upgraded to 2.x or LR, so maybe I'll backup my catalogs and do the upgrade finally

I find in dark reception halls, even using flash I'm at ISO 800 and the noise on the 50D was an issue for me, especially in LR which is my default imaging program. DPP on the other hand seemed to loose more detail in order to mask the noise, and this program is just not suited to handling 2K of images at a clip, IMO.It seems that the bird photographers are the ones who benefit the most from the 50D since they are after ever bit of extra reach they can get. For weddings and sports, it just wasn't for me and not worth the hassle of processing larger files.

shooting with no flash in low light is every serious wedding shooters predicament...since flash cannot be used during many services...and candids with no flash are importantfor me it is my 50 f1.4 and 20 f 2.8 and 28-75 f 2.8 and my 70-200 f2.8go here, watch the video, look at the samples, and then you'll understand the importance of Lightroom....and Lightroom automation...for wedding workotherwise...messing with dpp and pscs4 with 2500 images is not prettyhttp://www.presetopia.com/learnBlue IIwrote: 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.

I use Lightroom, so I do know the importance of automation. Thanks for the link...will check it out.MACwrote: shooting with no flash in low light is every serious wedding shooters predicament...since flash cannot be used during many services...and candids with no flash are importantfor me it is my 50 f1.4 and 20 f 2.8 and 28-75 f 2.8 and my 70-200 f2.8go here, watch the video, look at the samples, and then you'll understand the importance of Lightroom....and Lightroom automation...for wedding workotherwise...messing with dpp and pscs4 with 2500 images is not prettyhttp://www.presetopia.com/learnBlue IIwrote: 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.

(nt)

First of all, let me put it bluntly, Phil is wrong. No matter what lens he is using, he will NEVER get a sharper 100% crop with a high resolution sensor than with a low resolution sensor. All things being equal, it is a physical impossiblility. Look at the WHOLE image and you will see greater detail and resolution with the 50D than with the 40D. Across the whole image noise is also reduced while dynamic range is roughly similar. But please, don't take my word for it - try it out in the shop. Take some images with your 40D and then take the same images with the same lens settings with the 50D and you will see the difference. Granted, the difference may not be enough to upgrade from your 40D, but the difference is there, it is not huge, but it is real.Think about it guys, how can you complain about the large file sizes but go on to say that they give you more room for cropping? Surely, there must be extra detail in the image and other benefits to the 50D image otherwise it would not be worth cropping any more than an image from the 40D!I also don't buy the argument that it it the camera's fault that the extra pixels somehow gum up the works on your computer. If it has slowed you down, I can understand this, it has slowed me down also, but the "fault" lies not with the camera but with the computer.I'm not saying that making a camera with even less noise at all ISOs and having more dynamic range among other things is not a good thing, but so is increasing resolution. I'm not apologising for the 50D, I am saying it creates a better image and it is well worth trying it if only to dispel some of the misinformation that has been spread about what is an excellent camera.

OK, if the extra 5 MP are really up to snuff, then try cropping a 50D file to 10MP and see if it holds up against a 40D native 10MP image. Sinse the per pixel sharpness is lower on the 50D, the cropped image won't hold up, which in essence is what Phil is complaining about. If the per pixel sharpness were as good, then you could truly crop and take full advantage of the extra resolution.

sigh, they'll never improve true IQ if folks continue believing what you've said...the point that Phil and Luminous Landscape make is that the 50d image is ...damaged goods ... right out of the cam at high ISO...to clean up the image flaws...you might as well have been using a right out the cam 40d RAW file...so what is the point of the extra hassle with 15 mpxl overkill that slows the machine and software downtry shooting 2500 images in a wedding and see how hard it is to get output...testers will not know, until they become practical application users...albeit, as previously stated, there will be some lower volume uses for the 50d at lower ISO's.Chris59wrote:First of all, let me put it bluntly, Phil is wrong. No matter what lens he is using, he will NEVER get a sharper 100% crop with a high resolution sensor than with a low resolution sensor. All things being equal, it is a physical impossiblility. Look at the WHOLE image and you will see greater detail and resolution with the 50D than with the 40D. Across the whole image noise is also reduced while dynamic range is roughly similar. But please, don't take my word for it - try it out in the shop. Take some images with your 40D and then take the same images with the same lens settings with the 50D and you will see the difference. Granted, the difference may not be enough to upgrade from your 40D, but the difference is there, it is not huge, but it is real.Think about it guys, how can you complain about the large file sizes but go on to say that they give you more room for cropping? Surely, there must be extra detail in the image and other benefits to the 50D image otherwise it would not be worth cropping any more than an image from the 40D!I also don't buy the argument that it it the camera's fault that the extra pixels somehow gum up the works on your computer. If it has slowed you down, I can understand this, it has slowed me down also, but the "fault" lies not with the camera but with the computer.I'm not saying that making a camera with even less noise at all ISOs and having more dynamic range among other things is not a good thing, but so is increasing resolution. I'm not apologising for the 50D, I am saying it creates a better image and it is well worth trying it if only to dispel some of the misinformation that has been spread about what is an excellent camera.

Sigh! You will NEVER get 100% crops on a 15MP sensor to look as sharp or to provide as much detail as a 10MP sensor using the same lens at the same aperture. That is a physical impossiblity and my concern is that if Phil is complaining about this then he doesn't understand information theory at all.The point of the 50D or any high resolution sensor is NOT to look better at 100% (as I have pointed out, it can't) but to produce a better image across the whole sensor. In the same way, if you look at a 100% crop and decide the noise levels "per pixel" are same as the 40D, then this too is an improvement across the whole image. Of course, because total resolution is a combination of lens and sensor, a 50% increase in pixels will NOT equal a 50% increase in resolution (again an impossibility) but around a 20% increase across the whole image, which means that each pixel will not be as "sharp".Look at it this way... consider what a 100% crop means. It simply means that each pixel on the sensor equals a pixel on the monitor. Confusion arises because a 100% crop from a 40D is NOT equal to the same size 100% crop from a 50D and will therefore look less sharp if you use the same lens, but if you look at the images (provided they have been focussed correctly and taken at the same aperture - another problem with the DP Review of the 50D) there will be more detail visible in the 50D image.I do not agree with a review that slams a camera because it doesn't (can't) meet the impossible expectations of the reviewer.Anyway, that is my considered view and it comes from doing my own testing as well as reading reviews, the opinions of others and information theory. So I don't want you to simply take my word for any of this - as I said in my previous post, try it and see for yourself.

Read my reply to the previous poster. Please define what is "true IQ" if not extra resolution and detail, lower noise and higher dynamic range.You see, it doesn't matter what people believe, often it has no relation to the facts and in this case I urge you to read my reply to the previous poster and do some testing for yourself.You can lead a horse to water but...

But the so called advantage of the extra pixels is for cropping (at least to a large number of posts on these forums), and it seems we both agree that you aren't going to be able to simply crop down from 15 MP to 10 MP to get that extra reach with the same level of sharpness. Therefore, the extra resolution is somewhere between 10 and 15 MP and Canon should have just stuck with the 12MP sensor on the XSi which didn't get nearly as much debate as the 50D.

dynamic range on the 50d is worse also--read Phil's review... shoot 2500 in 10 hours for output...then we'll talkChris59wrote:Read my reply to the previous poster. Please define what is "true IQ" if not extra resolution and detail, lower noise and higher dynamic range.You see, it doesn't matter what people believe, often it has no relation to the facts and in this case I urge you to read my reply to the previous poster and do some testing for yourself.You can lead a horse to water but...

Chris59wrote:I do not agree with a review that slams a camera because it doesn't (can't) meet the impossible expectations of the reviewer.His expectations were that the 50 f1.4 and 17-55 f2.8 IS --great key lenses - would fully resolve to 15 mpxls...imagine his surprise when they didn'tHis expecation was that there would be improvement is low noise at high ISO...imagine his surprise when ISo 1600 was worse.His expectation was that Lightroom - the key high volume editing program - could be used to clean up images and have them turn out significantly better than the 40d...imagine his surprise when this didn't happen.Also good reviews are following around the net that follow Phil's review.

jrsclswrote:But the so called advantage of the extra pixels is for cropping (at least to a large number of posts on these forums), and it seems we both agree that you aren't going to be able to simply crop down from 15 MP to 10 MP to get that extra reach with the same level of sharpness. Therefore, the extra resolution is somewhere between 10 and 15 MP and Canon should have just stuck with the 12MP sensor on the XSi which didn't get nearly as much debate as the 50D.No, the point is that if there is an advantage in cropping (and there is) there has to be more detail in the image otherwise there is NO advantage to cropping at all. It is simply untrue (and contradictory) to say there is less detail in the image but I can crop it more.It seems you have NOT understood the reasons for having a high resolution sensor either. Pleasse go back and read my post again. Total resolution is a COMBINATION of sensor, lens and RAW converter. Assuming the same RAW converter and lens (and settings), you WILL get better resolution and detail but not to the same extent as the percentage increase in sensor density alone would suggest.I would rather that Canon go with the best sensor they can produce and to ignore the ill informed comments that pass for "debate" on this forum.

Chris59wrote:I would rather that Canon go with the best sensor they can produce and to ignore the ill informed comments that pass for "debate" on this forum.They aren't going to give us the best at this price point anymore in my estimation...because it would canabalize their higher priced 5dII and 1d3 markets...what they've given us with the 50 d is more of a consumerized, worse dynamic range, not significantly improved model...considering the G series migration that I've been following for years... expect more of the same for this line of 1.6 crop dslr's in the future.but some of us will bail to Nikon, Sony, Fuji down the road if they do not give us better IQ in their next models

MACwrote:Chris59wrote:I do not agree with a review that slams a camera because it doesn't (can't) meet the impossible expectations of the reviewer.His expectations were that the 50 f1.4 and 17-55 f2.8 IS --great key lenses - would fully resolve to 15 mpxls...imagine his surprise when they didn'tThey can't under ANY circumstance. It would be like putting a 50% higher resolution film in a camera and then complaining about the FILM because the lenses can't resolve the WHOLE extra 50%.His expecation was that there would be improvement is low noise at high ISO...imagine his surprise when ISo 1600 was worse....at 100% crop, across the whole image at 1600 ISO noise is (marginally) better.His expectation was that Lightroom - the key high volume editing program - could be used to clean up images and have them turn out significantly better than the 40d...imagine his surprise when this didn't happen.Okay, lets blame the 50D for Lightroom's deficiencies on a brand new body!Also good reviews are following around the net that follow Phil's review.Wrong is wrong no matter who says it or how often!I will again make the point that I am NOT saying that the 50D is necessarily worth the money to upgrade. What I AM saying is that the 50D has better IQ than the 40D which is excelent and also has a few extra useful features. Whether this is enough for anyone to upgrade depends on what they are upgrading from and the state of their bank account (or credit rating).

I DO understand, and I'm NOT going to read your posts again to satisfy you. I HAVE used BOTH cameras, and have came to MY own conclusions.

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 efficientlyDoes this mean that nobody knows how to automate things in DPP ?greetings,

No you haven't understood, and saying so doesn't make it so. I have made my points and it is for others to judge if what I am saying is correct.Good Day.

Chris59wrote:Sigh! You will NEVER get 100% crops on a 15MP sensor to look as sharp or to provide as much detail as a 10MP sensor using the same lens at the same aperture.Actually, up until 12mp, the increases in resolution have been linear.In other words, a 100% crop on a 12mp sensor looks equally sharp as a 100% crop on a 10mp sensor. So, up until 12mp we’ve mostly benefited from the increases in resolution.The 50D (15mp), together with Sony's A350 (14mp) and Pentax's K20D (14mp), are showing that after12mp, resolution increases are not linear anymore - and that 100% crops from these sensors indeed look softer that 100% crops from smaller resolution sensors.The problem, of course, is not in these sensors but in the current lenses.From the LL article - "we will need distinctly better lenses and finer focusing skills than we have needed thus far with digital SLR cameras": http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/50d.shtmlNote thedistinctly better lensespart.Until Canon (and the other manufacturers) change their lens lineups withdistinctly better lenses, 12mp seems to be the optimal resolution for 1.6x sensors.Especially considering that on the 50D Canon sacrificed ISO performance and DR in order to gain the bragging rights for the first 15mp crop sensor.The 50D wouldn’t have been so controversial if its ISO performance was better than the 40D.Consider also thedistinctly betterlens problem.With the current rate of lens updates, it is going to take 30+ years for Canon to make all their lensesdistinctly better- even if decide to do it.Until then, a 15mp sensor, with worse ISO and DR than it's predecessor, is totally unnecessary.A marketing gimmick to lure uninformed buyers - which, as it turns out, are not even willing to spend the premium for the extra megapixels (that Canon wanted to charge initially for the 50D).That is a physical impossiblity and my concern is that if Phil is complaining about this then he doesn't understand information theory at all.Phil is doing a great job of testing all cameras using thesametesting methods.If some cameras are failing thesesametests, maybe there's some problem with these cameras - like an unnecessarily large amount of noisy megapixels.The point of the 50D or any high resolution sensor is NOT to look better at 100% (as I have pointed out, it can't) but to produce a better image across the whole sensor.Consider the current lenses matter again.Do you need a noisy 20mp sensor which, with current lenses, produces the same detail as a 12mp sensor? Do you need a noisy 15mp sensor for that that matter?I do not agree with a review that slams a camera because it doesn't (can't) meet the impossible expectations of the reviewer.Actually, when a reviewer uses the same methodology for all cameras they test, the test results give a very good idea of how a camera ranks compared to other cameras tested with the same methodology.