First 50D review!!

In2Photos wrote in post #6181146
So the 5D was a 5D slayer huh?

hey it's early for me (i meant 40d was 5d slayer) .

ed rader

Sample gallery is here http://web.canon.jp …s50d/eos50d_sam​ple-e.html

I don't care about ISO1600 samples; I want to see ISO3200, ISO6400, ISO12800 samples. I want to know what to expect.

Patience is a virtue...

lungdoc wrote in post #6181545
Sample gallery is here http://web.canon.jp …s50d/eos50d_sam​ple-e.html

Not bad. But I feel it is beginning to tax the limits of what lenses can do - take a close look at the details in the images. Noticing that they used L's, and two of them L primes for the other images and f/8, is something.. and already I can see some details aren't that clear.

So if we were to stick lesser lenses on it I bet the flaws would show up real quick.

form wrote in post #6181563
I don't care about ISO1600 samples; I want to see ISO3200, ISO6400, ISO12800 samples. I want to know what to expect.

ISO 1600 is the only thing you can use to compare to as it's showing actual chip noise and not pushed noise. I suppose ISO 3200 might be good as well as the 50D does ISO3200 on chip and it would be interesting to compare it to the 40Ds pushed ISO3200.

Lightstream wrote in post #6180976
You know you can't say that here. No matter how many sources you have, they will never believe their 'holy grail' 1D can entertain the thought of being inferior in any way concievable.


Me? IF this turns out to avoid the 1DM3 debacle, it's the upgrade I've been waiting for. Of course having (practically just) bought the 40D less than a year ago, it's a real pain having to upgrade again so soon.

i don't know what you are talking about Yoda, most people here have no problem admitting that the AF on their 1DmkIII is junk

you have to admit though, that ISO1600 image looks a lot like ISO400. no shadow noise, detail is intact (you can tell that the side-mirrors are CF).

gjl711 wrote in post #6181596
ISO 1600 is the only thing you can use to compare to as it's showing actual chip noise and not pushed noise. I suppose ISO 3200 might be good as well as the 50D does ISO3200 on chip and it would be interesting to compare it to the 40Ds pushed ISO3200.

ISO 12800 would still be useful from an absolute perspective.. still keen to see if noise grain the size of footballs shows up

blonde wrote in post #6181600
i don't know what you are talking about Yoda, most people here have no problem admitting that the AF on their 1DmkIII is junk

I must have been away too long. When I last raised it, I was burned at the stake. Took a while to get out of the asbestos suit.

i need to see noise handling in high iso picturesfor the 50d, thats the only flaw in the 40d imo. other than that, meh i think im happy with my 40d i have yet to outgrow it.

Lightstream wrote in post #6181607
ISO 12800 would still be useful from an absolute perspective.. still keen to see if noise grain the size of footballs shows up

I agree, ISO 6400 and 12800 samples would be nice if for no other reason than it gives us something to compare to the Nikons. I am real interested in the native ISO3200 though as I have been shooting quite a bit lately at higher ISOs.

Hmm, I knew something was up when I bought my 40D a few months back with they knock 200 bucks off... I didn't expect the mega pixels to jump to 15 though.. And they seem to have kept the noise in check.... Nice! Going from my XT to my 40D I noticed a huge difference in AF, and I'm very happy with my 40D... I was wondering how long it would take for Canon to bump the mega pixels to be either on par or exceed the Rebel line.

possible a backup body type...

Now If I can just get my hands on it.