MACwrote: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...> > >You could the same for a lot of pro features. Like it or not AF fine tune is a valuable feature for a professional. I use on two lenses and a few weeks ago with a borrowed Nocturn lens. My friend is already seeing the benefits with glass that seemed sharp and is now even sharper.I go back to d30, 10d, xt, 30d, 40d...and have sold lenses, returned them, etc because of focus...> > >Modern cameras, like the 50D, D300 and D700 have AF fine tune to make this a non issue except in very bad cases. My 85mm is an amazing hunk of glass, perhaps the best sample I've seen, yet it had a slight focus issue that I dialed out. I'm glad because I've never seen another 85 as good.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...> > >So you're saying that you worked with a 50D for 2500 shots and saw noise a lot of people, including my friend don't see. Okay, then I submit you have an issue elsewhere. BTW, I won't touch lightroom with a 10 foot pole because it makes my Nikon files look worse without fail.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 receiveWell, we got a inexpensive DSLR with pro features missing from the 40D, about the same ISO noise levels and more resolution at lower ISOs. Why would anyone pick a 40D over it except to save a few dollars?But if you honestly took 2500 shots with the 50D and didn't like it then you're entitled to your opinion. I had no trouble (nor does my less experienced friend) getting great images out of it and I'm seeing more and more samples online that look great.BTW, we also tested the 50D images against my D90. Below ISO 1600 or so the 50D outresolved the D90. It was easily visible using the stopped down 85mm 1.2 lens. Top drawer is certainly a factor. The D90 was tried with a Tamron 90 and a 85mm 1.4, also stopped down.

ThomasMiller wrote: BTW, I won't touch lightroom with a 10 foot pole because it makes my Nikon files look worse without fail.you've made my point when you diminish lightroom as a key part of a high volume system for pros...fast automation, great efficient developed imagery out of lightroom with presetshttp://www.presetopia.com/Well, we got a inexpensive DSLR with pro features missing from the40D, about the same ISO noise levels and more resolution at lower ISOs. Why would anyone pick a 40D over it except to save a few dollars?No, because the 40d works fantastic out of lightroomBTW, we also tested the 50D images against my D90.Testers of a few images will not understand lightroom output and workflow.You made a point about a good feature for AF -- but you missed the boat on the importance of lightroom in delivering great results for high volume work in less time.A 50d is not a system in and of itself -- efficient quality output is key - and 50 d produces less dynamic range, more shadow noise, and more high ISO noise than the 40d when lightroom --a key tool - is in the mix...albeit for low volume low ISO applications - it would be ok...For many pro needs, They dumbed it down with more mplxs instead of working on the noise. -- MAC

MACwrote:(snip)A 50d is not a system in and of itself -- efficient quality output is key - and 50 d produces less dynamic range, more shadow noise, and more high ISO noise than the 40d when lightroom --a key tool - is in the mix...albeit for low volume low ISO applications - it would be ok...For many pro needs, They dumbed it down with more mplxs instead of working on the noise. -- MACI didn't realize that the 50D was being marketed as THE camera for Pros, (especially wedding photographers). I thought that was the realm of full frame cameras.

NT

Since he won't use DPP he misses out on the noise removal which as far as I can see gives good results at least at ISO 6400.Judging by the various reviews, ACR seems to be deficient in noise removal. At least as far as the 50D is concerned.No wonder we see all sorts of noise removal add ons for Adobe products.greetings,

MACwrote:For many pro needs, They dumbed it down with more mplxs instead of working on the noise.I would think that it is more correct to say that they moved noise removal to a separate tool (DPP).greetings,

MACwrote:ThomasMiller wrote:BTW, I won't touch lightroom with a 10 foot pole because it makes my Nikon files look worse without fail.you've made my point when you diminish lightroom as a key part of a high volume system for pros...fast automation, great efficient developed imagery out of lightroom with presets> > >I'm hardly the only professional who won't work with lightroom after testing it. Everyone uses what they want and takes their lumps, but LR is not the best as it's notorious for creating noise.Testers of a few images will not understand lightroom output and workflow.I had no idea Lightroom was the only processor for canon images. That's too bad. I suppose there is nothing better, like NX for Nikon which handles NEF files better than any third party software.You made a point about a good feature for AF -- but you missed the boat on the importance of lightroom in delivering great results for high volume work in less time.> >If lightroom was the only software around that would be the case. It's not.A 50d is not a system in and of itself -- efficient quality output is key - and 50 d produces less dynamic range, more shadow noise, and more high ISO noise than the 40d when lightroom --a key tool - is in the mix...Well I can agree there. Everytime I've used Lightroom I've had to work with more noise....using Nikon and Canon.albeit for low volume low ISO applications - it would be ok...> > >As I said, with better software we saw no difference in ISO 1600 between the two cameras. When did you test the 50D? I'm starting to get the impression that you didn't.For many pro needs, They dumbed it down with more mplxs instead of working on the noise.> > >The noise levels of the two cameras is far too close to be a major factor in choosing between them. Anyone who can expose properly can get excellent results at ISO 1600 and that's a fact. Beyond that ISO range is really the realm of cameras like my D700 if you are a professional who requires such range. The 50D and D300 are pretty much toys above ISO 2000.The AF tune is a pro feature missing from the 40D. Also, we've failed to mention the high resolution screen on the 50D. If you truly work high volume then you know how a VGA screen can save time and agony. The 40D rear LCD is awful.The 50D really only has one downside when compared to the 40D. It has larger files. Those with slower computers may need to upgrade to handle them.Could the 50D have been better? Perhaps. I could say the same for every camera I've owned. Only my D700 has come near to totally satisfying my needs. But anyone who's not a nutty pixel peeper knows that the D300, 40D, 50D and D90 all have IQ that is VERY close. There's just no way to distiguish between them in any way that applies in practical terms to professional work. The only difference is in the feature sets, where the 50D and D300 clearly lead the pack and present themselves as truly professional models.Mac, you're entitled to use what works best for you, but even if Lightroom is in the picture, most folks don't do work sessions of 2500 shots. So most people, who are willing to learn how to exploit what the 50D adds....better detail, lens tuning, amazing rear LCD....will be happier with a 50D over a 40D.After using both I can say that it's no contest. We shot portraits with the 85mm 1.2. The 50D allowed us to get the lens focus perfect. The rear LCD allowed us to check pinpoint focus as we shot. She's been shooting macro with it and the rear LCD alone is such a hit that the 40D will soon be sold.

MAC:Couple of questions. 2500 images at at wedding!!! A shot every 5 seconds for 3 hours continously. Even every 10 seconds that is over 6 hours. How long do you have to view each image to decide what PP is required for that image? Then how many shots require the same PP for batch processing? How many prints do you normal sell for a weding shoot? Or do you put everything on a CD? Or both? -- A bird in the viewfinder is worth...

You have to realize it is particularly bad this time because Canon released the 50D much ahead of the usual 18 months product cycle. Plus the fact it has very significant improvement in resolution and functionality over the previous model. It's really a hard fact to accept for many folks who have just bought their latest and greatest 40D.I understand 50D is not a perfect camera and it will not be the best xxD before long but it's really a terrific camera better than most people that are photographers. One example is people who think MF adjustment alone is not worth the upgrade are either so lucky that all of their lenses are always in perfect calibration or not up to the skill level to know or appreciate it.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.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.

Guys you don't really need to use DPP if LR/CS work flow is what you preferred. Using the latest Adobe camera profile for color and Dfine 2 for NR I could get nice and clean ISO1600 50D files almost indistinguishable from ones converted with DPP. As op has said there is a learning curve to use the new camera. At end of the day it's always the photographer not the camera.

fwamplerwrote:Jesus was not trustworthy? -- Fred

I'm not a wedding photographer but I can't imagine anyone shooting fast paced events don't find how easy 50D allows one to set up and change parameters on the go, in particular in low lights, to be so valuable.Fredrickwrote: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?

clk_walkerwrote:MAC: Couple of questions. 2500 images at at wedding!!! A shot every 5 seconds for 3 hours continously. Even every 10 seconds that is over 6 hours. How long do you have to view each image to decide what PP is required for that image?I shoot college sports as well, so there is best to be "farmed out of numbers", but by the same token, learn to throw out the rest.2 shooters - up to 10-11 hours, usually includes the engagement segment also; keep in mind these are frames to capture a special moment, not photographs yet. LR2.2 does a "great efficient job" weeding out the bad ones, and also selecting the best frame from a series of shots to capture the best moment -- eg 7 -10 taken for the kiss alone. DPP and PSCS4 don't come close to this efficient workflow, including applying development presets - see prior links. For the 100 selected, all go through lightroom, and some go through PSCS4 for artistic development on multiple layers. For the remaining 400 - 600 kept, all are medium processed through LR. The couple has options to purchase 100 highly developed photographs, and also option to buy the remaining medium processed 400 -600. Prints, albums are also option. Slideshows are an option.time is the precious feature that the OP doesn't understand for high volume work, far more valuable than his AF feature rant.but it is unfortunate that we are now searching the used 5d market for $1300 - $1500 instead of being thrilled about buying a 50d that holds its market value of $1500. many ceremonies do not allow flash, and they are dark places... you need to be able to shoot low light without flash to do a great job...noise kills pics.... -- MAC

So what camera body are your competitors using for these no flash, low light situtations? What body did you use two years ago? If the picture cannot be taken without flash and get acceptable noise performance it cannot be taken. -- A bird in the viewfinder is worth...

clk_walkerwrote:So what camera body are your competitors using for these no flash, low light situtations?5d and f2.8 zoomsWhat body did you use two years ago?30d and 50 f1.4 for low light...so i was focal length limited for low lightIf thepicture cannot be taken without flash and get acceptable noise performance it cannot be taken.it could be taken with 50 f1.4, but without being able to move my feet during ceremony, a camera with low noise able to handle high iso noise and a zoom at f2.8 is much more capable.

carlkwrote:You have to realize it is particularly bad this time because Canon released the 50D much ahead of the usual 18 months product cycle. Plus the fact it has very significant improvement in resolution and functionality over the previous model.'Significant' is obviously very subjective.It's really a hard fact to accept for many folks who have just bought their latest and greatest 40D.A lot of 40D owners (including myself) would have been very happy to upgrade - had the 50D been a clear step forward in IQ. But it is not.Resolution is indeed better but noise is worse than on the 40D - and that's a fact.If ISO/noise was the same or better (preferably better) than on the 40D, there would have little bashing. And resolution is not that much better anyway.

I trust that you don't use DPP then ?greetings,

Sorry, but we want nice ISO 6400 photos. That is where DPP seems to be a necessity.Frankly I'm getting fed up by people complaining about the 50D because they can't be bothered to use the supplied tool.If at least they could be honest enough and say that they know that DPP provide better results and that the problem is that ACR are not good enough on noise removal.greetings,

I was looking over this thread and the first few words of the post led me to wonder how is it you had a GF that liked photograhy, even made good pics, and you let here get away? Gosh, I hope it wasn't poor technique in low light situations that ruined it.

I wonder why there are still people that believe 50D has worse noise than 40D. You must have closed your eyes when those clean high ISO images were posted during the past two months.The more significant improvement is or course its functionality. You will get terrible IQ when your lenses F/B focus or you did not set the parameters right or even missed shots because you need to fumble with the controls in the dark.GeorgeMLwrote:carlkwrote:You have to realize it is particularly bad this time because Canon released the 50D much ahead of the usual 18 months product cycle. Plus the fact it has very significant improvement in resolution and functionality over the previous model.'Significant' is obviously very subjective.It's really a hard fact to accept for many folks who have just bought their latest and greatest 40D.A lot of 40D owners (including myself) would have been very happy to upgrade - had the 50D been a clear step forward in IQ. But it is not. Resolution is indeed better but noise is worse than on the 40D - and that's a fact. If ISO/noise was the same or better (preferably better) than on the 40D, there would have little bashing. And resolution is not that much better anyway.