Chris59wrote:I will again make the point that I am NOT saying that the 50D is necessarily worth the money to upgrade.agreee - but This was Phil's pointWhat I AM saying is that the50D has better IQ than the 40D which is excelent and also has a few extra useful features.In a theoretical world...maybe, but in practical application with the system - body, lenses, Lightroom, high volume...the 50d is worse for practical high volume applications in my opinionWhether this is enough for anyone to upgradedepends on what they are upgrading from and the state of their bank account (or credit rating).how one applies the tools is the key...the 40d is better for my high volume appliccation...i can't see spending more and then see worse dynamic range and the noise I've seen at high ISO from the 50d

excellent points...I would be an owner of a 12 mpxl 50d with better IQ if they had done things right...but then again, doing things right, might attract 5dII buyers away from that more expensive camera...They are playing the mpxl game ...and running their estimates on profits and canabalization...but, hopefully folks will wise up and not buy more of this artificial upgrade nonsenseGeorgeMLwrote: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 thesame testing 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.

tarjei99wrote:Does this mean that nobody knows how to automate things in DPP ?greetings,DPP can't do presets ...in a few clickshttp://www.presetopia.com/

Jesus was not trustworthy? -- Fred

Jim - a voice of engineering reason. I too was getting somewhat concerned at the pseudo science going on. Comparing sharpness or resolution at the pixel level at 100% is entirely an unfair comparison. Comparing at the image level is what is important. I hope more people read your very accurate analysis above. -- See profile for my credit card legacy...

Simon Watkinswrote:Comparing sharpness or resolution at the pixel level at 100% is entirely an unfair comparison.Actually it is. For most people:more megapixels = larger prints more megapixels = room to cropBUT, to have the same quality in a cropped image or in a larger print, you need the same pixel-level sharpnessandnoise.Comparing at the image level is what is important. I hope more people read your very accurate analysis above.Agree - if you print the same size or if you do not crop.However, why buy more megapixels if you are not going to crop and/or not going to print larger.

GeorgeMLwrote:Simon Watkinswrote:Comparing sharpness or resolution at the pixel level at 100% is entirely an unfair comparison.Actually it is. For most people:more megapixels = larger prints more megapixels = room to cropBUT, to have the same quality in a cropped image or in a larger print, you need the same pixel-level sharpnessandnoise.Comparing at the image level is what is important. I hope more people read your very accurate analysis above.Agree - if you print the same size or if you do not crop. However, why buy more megapixels if you are not going to crop and/or not going to print larger.Actually, I don't buy more Mp to enable me to crop. I buy them to enable me to resolve the potential of my lens system. I buy longer lenses to remove my need to crop, or move closer, or frame in camera better. In the film days you wouldn't ordinarily use a finer grained film to enable you to zoom in on an image capture that was too small, you would you buy a longer lens, or move closer, or frame better.Assuming I did wish to crop more - lets say I took a bird pic and view it on screen at 100%, I'll see less of the bird from the 50D than I will from the 40D at 100%. Effectively I've magnified all my defects on screen. Consequently to be fair at pixel level, if I make the 50D bird the same size as from the 40D, I'll be looking at exactly the same lens aberrations, but with a higher number of pixels.If I print both images at the same output size, then the 50D image will give me greater available resolution (assuming the lens was up to par), and thus a more detailed image.I'm not entirely sure we are disagreeing -- See profile for my credit card legacy...

bingo!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.

This whole thread convinces me that I did indeed make the right decision when I added a 5D to my equipment to go along with my 40D. 13 meg. on a larger sensor. Tried & true IQ. & my 40D when I want more reach or a faster shutter. I paid more than I would have for a 50D but I know that it is a camera that will bring me years of value. This was & is a decision that is right for me but everyone has different needs & should take the time to decide what is right for them. Then go for it & enjoy. That's what I'm doing. -- One day I'll learn how to post photos. I am 61 & technically challenged.

a meeting of the Wedding Photographers of America. Perhaps the 50D is not the ideal camera for that market segment. But there are plenty of folks (myself included) who are not wedding photographers and find great value in this camera for our own uses. And I find that the 50D has excellent AF indoors in low light, which I find of great benefit in museums and other places that do not permit flash. Is there any camera that is ideal for every type of photography?

I've just watched the DPP tutorial athttp://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=1228&fromTips=1.One thing they explain is how to save and retrieve recipes to be used for batch processing.So it looks like you don't know what DPP can do.greetings,

We have gone from a praise of the 50D to a 40D love fest.We've read here that DPP don't do stored automation. And I just finished watching the DPP tutorial which shows how to save and retrieve recipes so that the settings can be re-used.Everybody talks about resolution, but none of the other qualities that make me love my 50D such as the AF.Apparantly the 50D must be used with the maximum resolution raw format.greetings,

I do know what DPP can do because I've mastered it - and it is limited --the feature you mention is just to sync the basic settings from one picture to the next...it is not to use more complex development and presets and features that Lightroom offers...so I use light room...watch this video on presets...DPP cannot do this level of processinghttp://www.presetopia.com/learntarjei99wrote:I've just watched the DPP tutorial athttp://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=1228&fromTips=1.One thing they explain is how to save and retrieve recipes to be used for batch processing.So it looks like you don't know what DPP can do.greetings,

I think that when wedding photographers want to blame a high resolution camera like the 50D for slowing down their process and somehow being no good for them because of this, they have indeed lost the plot.I had always thought that image quality is what mattered most, and why the best lenses are purchased for the purpose. My processes have been slowed down by the 50D compared with my 400D but that is the price of quality. In any case if I was seriously concerned about this I would use sRAW or something other than RAW rather than complain long and loud about the 50D.The 50D produces simply excellent images, especially at low(ish) ISO and with good lenses in my opinion, cannot be bettered by any other APSC DSLR. All the other features of the 50D body cannot be ignored of course, but at least there is NO argument about the benefits of those.I am not advocating that people who have the 40D rush out and buy the 50D by any means, the 40D is an excellent camera that also produces top quality images, (albeit not quite as good as the 50D). I think though that there has been a lot of misinformation propagated about this camera and the image quality it is capable of and a lot of it needs to be laid to rest.

Regardless, I see no reason why not DPP can be used to convert images for further processing in other programs like photoshop or lightroom.It is just a matter of upgrading the work flow.greetings,

All or most of the talk about the 50D being worse for worklfow is nonsense and usually from people who haven't spent time working with the 50D.So here are the FACTS:1) The 50D has higher resolution which is viewable on prints.2) The lens tuning eliminated focus errors and further refines focus accuracy, especially on serious glass like the 85mm 1.2.You can moan and groan all you want, but #2 is worth the price of upgrading alone. The success rate in hugely improved by it. Thus far, working with my kit and quite a few others, I can ALWAYS find a fast lens that will benefit from a fine tune.The 50D is a better camera. It adds the fine lens tuning which finally rounds it out as a true pro level body. The 40D lacks this feature and so you're stuck with the factory spec for AF on the lens...so good luck. Most people aren't even aware that their occasional DOF AF errors are due to this problem. As my lady friend said, the 50D made new glass out of her old glass.If you own a like your 40D, fine. But please don't be silly by expecting anyone with professional experience to except the idea that the 40D is better than a 50D. They are close, but no way would I ever buy a 40D for it's missing item #2....a MUST HAVE feature for anyone shooting a changing collection of fast glass.

the adjustment feature is a nice feature for newbies...though....I own 7 lenses --including 1-f1.4, 1-f1.8, 3 f2.8 - all are spot on...and new ones I buy are checked easily and returned if not correct...so the feature comes mostly in to play for those who don't know how to check when they buy...enjoy the 50 d -- ISO 1600 and above is too noisy though ... reminds me of the noise from my 350d.. the point we were making is that if they had improved this high ISO feature to be less noisy .. we'd have a much better camera than they ended up producing...but they will not do it because it will canabalize their 5diitoo bad for those of us who work in dark, noisy arenasThomasMillerwrote:All or most of the talk about the 50D being worse for worklfow is nonsense and usually from people who haven't spent time working with the 50D.So here are the FACTS:1) The 50D has higher resolution which is viewable on prints.2) The lens tuning eliminated focus errors and further refines focus accuracy, especially on serious glass like the 85mm 1.2.You can moan and groan all you want, but #2 is worth the price of upgrading alone. The success rate in hugely improved by it. Thus far, working with my kit and quite a few others, I can ALWAYS find a fast lens that will benefit from a fine tune.The 50D is a better camera. It adds the fine lens tuning which finally rounds it out as a true pro level body. The 40D lacks this feature and so you're stuck with the factory spec for AF on the lens...so good luck. Most people aren't even aware that their occasional DOF AF errors are due to this problem. As my lady friend said, the 50D made new glass out of her old glass.If you own a like your 40D, fine. But please don't be silly by expecting anyone with professional experience to except the idea that the 40D is better than a 50D. They are close, but no way would I ever buy a 40D for it's missing item #2....a MUST HAVE feature for anyone shooting a changing collection of fast glass.

MACwrote:the adjustment feature is a nice feature for newbies...though....I own 7 lenses --including 1-f1.4, 1-f1.8, 3 f2.8 - all are spot on...and new ones I buy are checked easily and returned if not correct...Mac, if you were a working pro you'd know that the fine focus adjustment is not for newbies. In fact it takes some knowledge to be able to use it correctly. Beyond that there are lenses for Nikon and Canon which TYPICALLY have focus errors on either the long or short end. Even if you don't own one of them, working professionals do RENT lenses and can't the AF fine tune means they can get good results every time.This is why it's a pro feature and why I and every working professional I know bought the better Canon and Nikon cameras that had it.Thus far I know three people who claimed their glass was "spot on" and I was able to show all of them that some of their glass could be improved with this feature. Most people don't really know how to even do the various range tests.As for your comments on ISO, I have no idea what you're talking about. The higher resolution sensor of the 50D means you need to pay a bit more attention to exposure, but done right the noise looked IDENTICAL to the 40D and D300. ISO 3200 looked great as well, though that's really territory for my D700 and other FX cameras, but 1600 is not an issue for the 50D when handled correctly and it will still show more detail.I'm wondering how long you worked with the 50D before you gave up on it? Too bad.

fine focus is a nice feature..but it isn't like those without it haven't been able to take a picture up until now...I go back to d30, 10d, xt, 30d, 40d...and have sold lenses, returned them, etc because of focus...I helped develop the testing method on this forum with the 10d years ago...which is Canon's calibration method...Be a fan of 50 d if you want, but I'm not buying one...because i know noise and high volume development of 2500 pictures through lightroom...the point to our posts in all of this...is 12 mpxl and 1 stop improvement in noise levels at high ISo would have been a killer camera...could have been achievable...the 1d forum would have been flocking over to buy them....but what folks got was more consumer mpxls...yuk...and likely with enthusiasm like yours in others...is what we're going to continue to receiveno thanksThomasMillerwrote:MACwrote:the adjustment feature is a nice feature for newbies...though....I own 7 lenses --including 1-f1.4, 1-f1.8, 3 f2.8 - all are spot on...and new ones I buy are checked easily and returned if not correct...Mac, if you were a working pro you'd know that the fine focus adjustment is not for newbies. In fact it takes some knowledge to be able to use it correctly. Beyond that there are lenses for Nikon and Canon which TYPICALLY have focus errors on either the long or short end. Even if you don't own one of them, working professionals do RENT lenses and can't the AF fine tune means they can get good results every time. This is why it's a pro feature and why I and every working professional I know bought the better Canon and Nikon cameras that had it. Thus far I know three people who claimed their glass was "spot on" and I was able to show all of them that some of their glass could be improved with this feature. Most people don't really know how to even do the various range tests.As for your comments on ISO, I have no idea what you're talking about. The higher resolution sensor of the 50D means you need to pay a bit more attention to exposure, but done right the noise looked IDENTICAL to the 40D and D300. ISO 3200 looked great as well, though that's really territory for my D700 and other FX cameras, but 1600 is not an issue for the 50D when handled correctly and it will still show more detail.I'm wondering how long you worked with the 50D before you gave up on it? Too bad.