Is my 50D alright or something I am missing?

I routinely shoot ISO 3200 (indoor sports) and prints look fine. Pixel peeping will drive you crazy. Double check settings as suggested above. Have you printed any of these? Underexposing then bringing it up in post can create noise issues. Try shooting raw to compare, make sure you aren't oversharpening.

If I get what you are seeing, I think it is due to NR software. You could turn in-camera NR to low/off, or realize that you won't see it on a normal monitor or print any more than the noise before NR.

Or shoot raw and use more sophisticated NR algorithms.

samsen wrote in post #14106976
Thanks a lot.

Any 50D owner, can you share with me if this a usual 50D condition on JPG?

Looks normal to me.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #14108171
I shoot primarily with a 50D. I do not shoot at ISO 800 for this reason. Ever.

Tom,,, step out of your comfort zone. You'll surprised how well the 50D handles high ISO, especially if you nail the exposure and shoot in RAW.

yogestee wrote in post #14110929
Tom,,, step out of your comfort zone. You'll surprised how well the 50D handles high ISO, especially if you nail the exposure and shoot in RAW.

i agree i've shoot 1600 and 3200 and it handles it pretty well if exposure is correct

yogestee wrote in post #14110929
Tom,,, step out of your comfort zone. You'll surprised how well the 50D handles high ISO, especially if you nail the exposure and shoot in RAW.

kethnguy wrote in post #14111791
i agree i've shoot 1600 and 3200 and it handles it pretty well if exposure is correct

I have stepped out, many times. After repeated experiments at ISO 800 and higher, I decided the ugly grain simply wasn't worth it. Why take an image if I don't like the appearance of it?

More importantly, the 50D images taken at 800 ISO will always - repeat always - be rejected by the agencies I submit to.
If I just wanted a little 11x14 print of something like that, high ISOs would be fine, but I take images so that I can sell them, and grain is simply not acceptable to those who market my images. Using NR in post is not acceptable, either, as images will be rejected if NR has been applied.

Additionally, I really hate the look of grain, and even at 400 ISO my 50D images show some grain in the darkest, out of focus areas of an image. This is just ugly to me, and I do not like the way this looks when I view images on my monitor. If it is unappealing to me, it will be even more objectionable to my customers. For this reason, I try to shoot at the lowest possible ISO in any circumstance, and expose to the right to further eliminate grain in the dark OOF areas.

you can shoot at 1600 and still get good images...

That looks normal.
Almost any concert/stage show photographe will tell you that red concert/stage lighting is one of the worst colours to shoot.

...and stop pixel peeping.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #14112312
I have stepped out, many times. After repeated experiments at ISO 800 and higher, I decided the ugly grain simply wasn't worth it. Why take an image if I don't like the appearance of it?

More importantly, the 50D images taken at 800 ISO will always - repeat always - be rejected by the agencies I submit to.
If I just wanted a little 11x14 print of something like that, high ISOs would be fine, but I take images so that I can sell them, and grain is simply not acceptable to those who market my images. Using NR in post is not acceptable, either, as images will be rejected if NR has been applied.

Additionally, I really hate the look of grain, and even at 400 ISO my 50D images show some grain in the darkest, out of focus areas of an image. This is just ugly to me, and I do not like the way this looks when I view images on my monitor. If it is unappealing to me, it will be even more objectionable to my customers. For this reason, I try to shoot at the lowest possible ISO in any circumstance, and expose to the right to further eliminate grain in the dark OOF areas.

A good deal of professionals in sports/documentary/jou​rnalism/wedding+events don't mind the level of noise that the 50D makes at ISO 800... it is considered usable in most photo fields. Why don't you upgrade your camera? Obviously for your uses you need exceptional IQ, and you should have a body that delivers it to a higher ASA right?

Tom Reichner wrote in post #14112312
.....If I just wanted a little 11x14 print

I don't think the 50D is the right camera for your needs. Amazing wildlife photography though.

OP- I think the noise you are seeing is fine. Everyone keeps mentioning that you should not underexpose and then try to push the exposure in postprocessing. Make it a habit to learn to read your histogram so that you do not have to push your exposures.

I seem to have the same problem. Canon said I need to process it in their software which I find very difficult.

Photos look normal to me.
Try shooting RAW + jpgL and see if you still have the same problem like other have suggested.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #14112312
I take images so that I can sell them, and grain is simply not acceptable to those who market my images. Using NR in post is not acceptable, either, as images will be rejected if NR has been applied.

Just curious about the part I highlighted above ... even if shooting with a 5D III or 1DX, I would think there are going to be situations where high ISO is required and noise is unavoidable. Why would the judicious use of NR be unacceptable?

jrbdmb wrote in post #14121263
Just curious about the part I highlighted above ... even if shooting with a 5D III or 1DX, I would think there are going to be situations where high ISO is required and noise is unavoidable. Why would the judicious use of NR be unacceptable?

Not exactly sure why. Many publishers will only accept completely unedited files. They have software that enables them to see if the photo has been edited or manipulated in any way. Many of them have their own graphics personnel, and prefer completely unedited files so that they can do any editing themselves.

Some stock agencies simply reply,
"Image Not Accepted.
Reason: use of noise reduction has been detected".

For many of them, if you can't get it right in the camera, they don't want it. Period.

For uses like photojournalism (or editorial use in general), they are not picky at all (that's why you often see such poor quality images in newspapers and news magazines).
But for anything even approaching fine art, the submission guidelines are much, much more stringent and demanding.

are those crops greater than 100%? I think you're good as long as you weren't going for pics of fingers and chins.