50D and my own ISO Tests

It is interesting to note that the most severe critics of the 50D do not own one

Larry Weinman wrote in post #6804132
It is interesting to note that the most severe critics of the 50D do not own one

Hence why they don't own one...

1600iso, this is a 50% crop, no NR at all in PP, camera NR off. with ef-s 17-55 f2.8 and 50D

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Hermeto wrote in post #6803455
These pictures are worthless for judging high ISO noise.
Try again with low key scene, with lots of shadows and you’ll see the difference.

Why dont you try with low key scene, with lots of shadows and maybe you will see the difference with your 50D.
But then again you can't because you have not got one.
One of the many that go on about this camera but dont actually have one

By themself, the 50D meter to the right, so help for an accurate metering of the scene close to free of noise. Anyway the noise are so fine compared to the one of the 40D, in a print you don't see it. People tend to make a mind from review where you doesn't see any real life picture except crop at 100-200%, sure you can see noise and it's like looking at a wall size artistic painting with a loupe, only seing a small portion of it, for sure you gonna see the texture of the canvas.

jenufa wrote in post #6805972

Hermeto wrote in post #6803455
These pictures are worthless for judging high ISO noise.
Try again with low key scene, with lots of shadows and you’ll see the difference.

Why dont you try with low key scene, with lots of shadows and maybe you will see the difference with your 50D.
But then again you can't because you have not got one.
One of the many that go on about this camera but dont actually have one

Hmm..
If you read my post carefully, you’ll probably notice that I never mentioned neither 50D nor any other camera model, for that matter.
When you’re done with that, try to find the particular part of my post that made you believe that I do have, or that I don’t have 50D.

C’mon jenufa, give it a try!
The post is short and reading with comprehension is not such a difficult skill to master: kids do that in grade 3.

A lot of people discredit this image.

"Try again in an underexposed region"

Okay, but ...what normally would've happened with a 20D and this shot? The quality of the subject would be absolutely crappy quality. Distorted, diffused, crumpled pixels.

3200 ISO clean??

6400 sitll stable?

Possibilities at 12800??

Look at the picture. The important thing is not the amount of light - light can be reclaimed after, but the INTEGRITY of the image. It's still intact at 12800! If you know techniques of how pro-printing companies eliminate red pixels - you can use this image perfectly

6400 and 12800 are pretty rare, nobody is going to want to shoot these and expect clean images. 3200 is extremely high, even still, and the fact that the image is still intact...phenomenal.

Let's remember that the lens and the light (quality thereof) has a lot to do with how ISO reproduces itself in the way of noise and grain.
One only has to think back to how shooting at 1600 was considered high, and above 400 nearly impossible.

I think we're too spoilt, expecting ISO 90 000 to be pristine when it's a revolutionary leap as it is to have what we have in these new superbeasts.

I just got a 50D yesterday and did the high iso test tonight while the house was quiet. Just to get it out of my system. This was just me in a living room with no overhead light , just light from the open kitchen falling in.
This is 12800 shot sRaw1. Dfine NR in PS3. No sharpening or anything else.
I am sure you can get this and better with other cameras, etc but this is just another 50D real world example.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.