Canon EOS 50D samples from flickr

I posted this link in another thread but thought it might get overlooked. These are not my photos.

50D samples (C) Vidar Nordli-Mathisen

The iso 3200 results look quite impressive on my monitor.

Hey thanks for your fast work. I looked through most of the images in the original size and I'm noticing some noise even at ISO 200 like the background in this shot here.
http://www.flickr.com …in/set-72157607436380817/

I was hoping that there would be 1-1.5 stop less noise as Chuck Westfall, the PR guy for Canon USA has said, but the noise level looks about the same or maybe a touch more than my 30D.

What are your thoughts about the noise level compared to the 40D?
Oh BTW, since you have a 40D, can you post a same shot with a 40D and a 50D so we can compare?
Thanks a bunch.

looking at the sharpness , doesnt the photos look pretty soft to you? (for a 15MP sensor)?

IMHO the noise looks better than the 40D... not sure until I see 2 shots side by side of the same thing etc.

oassayag wrote in post #6362680
looking at the sharpness , doesnt the photos look pretty soft to you? (for a 15MP sensor)?

What do the megapixels have to do with softness?!

oassayag wrote in post #6362680
looking at the sharpness , doesnt the photos look pretty soft to you? (for a 15MP sensor)?

If shot in RAW with no processing, especially sharpening, I would expect it to be softer looking than a JPEG image from straight out of the camera.

Tee Why wrote in post #6362718
If shot in RAW with no processing, especially sharpening, I would expect it to be softer looking than a JPEG image from straight out of the camera.

It didn't actually say no sharpening. No NR.

"These pics are all converted from raw without any NR applied. Default Lightroom capture sharpening present. Some small exposure adjustments on some of the images."

But that would mean, very little sharpening. They look pretty sharp to me on the whole.

Still the MP wouldn't make it sharper or not. Lens and technique would (and also the PP done).

You're totally right though. RAW is usually less sharp than Jpeg because no sharpening has been done.

There is an optical resolution and digital resolution.
I guess canon didnt increase the resolution without a reason.
i guess they felt that the digital resolution was less than the optical.
So , the increase in digital sampling resolution will increase the overall sharpness.
if this was not the case , than going up to 15MP is so dumb , because i could do it in PP and dont need it in the camera.
Normal JPEG is ALWAYS softer than RAW!!!! you can see in many places examples , if you put sharpening on a jpg inside the jpg then its not a normal JPG , its a processed one.
For photos that are trying to show camera abilities , i dont think they enable the in-camera sharpening because it also add noise and less optimal than in photoshop tools.

I'm really liking those shots at 3200ISO. That's pretty noise free from what I can tell.

oassayag wrote in post #6362799
There is an optical resolution and digital resolution.
I guess canon didnt increase the resolution without a reason.
i guess they felt that the digital resolution was less than the optical.
So , the increase in digital sampling resolution will increase the overall sharpness.
if this was not the case , than going up to 15MP is so dumb , because i could do it in PP and dont need it in the camera.
Normal JPEG is ALWAYS softer than RAW!!!! you can see in many places examples , if you put sharpening on a jpg inside the jpg then its not a normal JPG , its a processed one.
For photos that are trying to show camera abilities , i dont think they enable the in-camera sharpening because it also add noise and less optimal than in photoshop tools.

You're getting resolution and sharpness mixed up here.

Resolution (pixel count) has very little to do with picture quality.

Even Ken Rockwell (bless him) got it right:
"Sharpness depends more on your photographic skill than the number of megapixels, because most people's sloppy technique or subject motion blurs the image more than the width of a microscopic pixel."

In some ways resolution effects sharpness. But it all depends on the SIZE of the final piece. An increase in megapixels is not to increase sharpness in the least.

More megapixels means the picture is bigger. You can print bigger. Not a sharpness thing unless you print beyond the size of the picture. You can also crop it down more, because it's bigger, and don't lose many pixels.

Megapixels have little to do with sharpness because usually you resize to the size you want THEN sharpen.

"Normal JPEG is ALWAYS softer than RAW!!!! you can see in many places examples , if you put sharpening on a jpg inside the jpg then its not a normal JPG , its a processed one."

You don't understand RAW dude. RAW is (basically) an unprocessed jpeg (no sharpening). If you photograph using jpeg settings your CAMERA is doing the work your computer would do with the RAW file (so you should set sharpening in camera or just shoot RAW and do it later). If you sharpen a jpeg, your just making a different jpeg. If you sharpen a RAW you're making a sharpened jpeg (or TIF etc. when you output it). If you add no sharpening to your jpegs (using the camera settings) you're just making the RAW file convert to a jpeg without sharpening. Therefore you can not say it is "softer than RAW" because it is exactly the same as an unsharpened RAW.

Photos you see on the net are primarily jpegs. Not RAW. You can't display a RAW on the net.


Another thing, the bigger the sensor the more megapixels it can handle. That's why the smaller sensor on the 50D gets 16 while the full frame sensor on the 5Dmkii gets 21.

I could go on, but it's boring.

hate to tell you but you are the one who got things mixed up.
1) RAW is not any form of JPG. RAW is 16bit , jpg is always 8bit. Their format is completely different. RAW needs demosaicing in order to become a regular image format.
2) If you were right , then whats the point of doing the upsampling in the camera and not PP if the data itself is the same?
3) of course you cant see raw in web.

oassayag wrote in post #6363095
hate to tell you but you are the one who got things mixed up.
1) RAW is not any form of JPG. RAW is 16bit , jpg is always 8bit. Their format is completely different. RAW needs demosaicing in order to become a regular image format.
2) If you were right , then whats the point of doing the upsampling in the camera and not PP if the data itself is the same?
3) of course you cant see raw in web.

Dude... I SAID RAW is BASICALLY an unprocessed jpeg. Not a type of jpeg. Man.
To get a jpeg your camera takes the raw data and converts it to a jpeg.

Did you read what I wrote?

I wrote it because YOU said:
"Normal JPEG is ALWAYS softer than RAW!!!!"

Since RAW is what a computer or camera uses to MAKE a jpeg. They are essentially the same if you don't add any sharpness. You CAN NOT say normal jpeg is softer than RAW, it's just silly. It's like saying if I don't add sharpening to RAW and convert it to a jpeg, it is always softer than RAW. They are essentially the same thing. A RAW converter/viewer will show you an unsharpened RAW image. When you add sharpening, that is essentially telling it how you want your jpeg to look. Either in camera or not. So if you DON'T add sharpening, your telling the RAW, hey, just leave it like that. So it's basically going to look the same (unless, maybe, you pixel peep like crazy).

2) What are you talking about?

You cannot "upsample" in camera.

What i can tell from those pics:
1) The 70-200 f/4 IS L is one of Canon's sharpest lenses if not the sharpest yet it clearly struggles at f/5.6 and 4.5 MP/cm² pixel density, to the extent that the pictures look almost interpolated.
2) The ISO 1600/3200 look...bad. Obviously still below 5D performance, even down sampled. Still around 1 stop advantage to the 5D. Even ISO400 looks strangely grainy.

It's pretty obvious the 15MP was a purely marketing decision. And it's obvious Canon has done nothing more then lowering it's IQ standards. ISO6400/12800 are obviously only included because they look trendy on spec sheets, not because they are actually usable

according to past history when do you think we will see the first formal reviews of the 50d?

Dragos Jianu wrote in post #6363133
What i can tell from those pics:
1) The 70-200 f/4 IS L is one of Canon's sharpest lenses if not the sharpest yet it clearly struggles at f/5.6 and 4.5 MP/cm² pixel density, to the extent that the pictures look almost interpolated.
2) The ISO 1600/3200 look...bad. Obviously still below 5D performance, even down sampled. Still around 1 stop advantage to the 5D. Even ISO400 looks strangely grainy.

It's pretty obvious the 15MP was a purely marketing decision. And it's obvious Canon has done nothing more then lowering it's IQ standards. ISO6400/12800 are obviously only included because they look trendy on spec sheets, not because they are actually usable

Not sure what you mean by 1. Looks fine to me. Remember these are from RAW with little sharpening added.

1600 - 3200 don't look bad if you compare them to a 40D (I think, hard to tell) comparing them to a 5D is a little unfair.

They'll never match the 5D (in terms of noise) I guess with a crop sensor. The pixel density is just wrong. Unless they do some wizardry in the future.