50D and NOISE?

lets see:
1. Noise is a wash between 40D vs 50D. I give ......
2. Micro-adjust on 50D trumps 40D, 30D, 20D - end of story.
3. Shooting full RAW lets you crop w/out losing anything.
4. I have shot past f11 and printed that same shot to 24" x 16" (custom size),
ops... i should have added some diffraction - i can't see it.
Its on the wall now.....
......and it was PP w/ LightRoom 2.1

If the 50D is not for you - don't get it. Save some money and go 40D.
Between 40D and 50D; Are images night and day different in IQ - no.

I think some people need to get their expectations re-aligned.

If you have the funds ($$) and feel the feature set on the 50D body are worth it - cool. shop away.
Otherwise go get yourself a 40D and Be-Happy.

Personally - if i see shots from someone shooting from a 40D (or what ever older model) I don't think they are losers or inferior photographers......

Its their body of work that is the final word.

Just my $.02s
Later,
_Mark

dannylim wrote in post #7128834
slightly offtopic, but does anyone have noise comparisons between the 30d, 40d and 50d?

Dpreview

50D and 40D are on par.
you need to look at the noise. The 50D is cropped in closer because it has more pixels. If you were to bring the 40D into photoshop and crop it to the same area, everything would look identical.

jwcdds wrote in post #7128629
It already appears that the OP does quite well w/ what equipment she had. Looking through her gallery, she's done very well with just the 28-135 lens, much better than some of us with thousands of dollars more in glass.

Quite true, I just had a look at her gallery. I really like the 28-135 lens.

jwcdds wrote in post #7128629
I don't see how the LCD would be a selling point to the OP at all when she never once mentioned that she felt her 40D was deficient.

I don't know if this is in reference to my post but I was simply listing the differences I noticed between the two bodies. For some the LCD is a big deal.

I just want to know how the AF is faster. It's the same AF setup! It's not like you're taking the 1D series AF and putting it in the 50D.

The answer you'll get is "Because it's Digic IV."

Sure, the AF may be a hair faster if Digic IV truly mattered that much in AF performance over Digic III, but if I'm missing shots with my 40D, I'm pretty sure I'll miss those same shots with the 50D. Not because of camera issue... but mostly because of operator error. (As in me, the idiot, behind the camera.)

I used to own both. When I got my 5D I fell so much in love with the micro AF adjustment that I sold my 40D to get the 50D. After a couple of weeks of using it I discovered that at high ISOs the RAW images were noisier than on my 40D. I shoot at high ISOs a lot (at weddings). There was only one lens that I needed to micro adjust on the 40D, and even that lens never got much use on the 40D. So, I returned the 50D and repurchased the 40D. The JPGs on the 50D are on par with the 40D though. I don't shoot in JPG mode though.

Medic85 wrote in post #7160325
I just want to know how the AF is faster. It's the same AF setup! It's not like you're taking the 1D series AF and putting it in the 50D.

People are saying it has to do with the new processor somehow.
Couldn't tell you as I don't own the 40D...but those who do, say that it is.

braidkid wrote in post #7127532
4) The diffraction at lower f-stop was another reason....f7 for 50D vs f9 for 40D. I know this difference is insignificant in the real world, but better IQ peace of mind is more important to me than added features.

Myth.

I dont own either but I have owned a 10D, 30D, and a pair of 1D classics. I dont own any of them right now primarily because I could not afford to buy the latest and greatest L lenses. I had to settle for the oldest L lenses and some primes and a couple Sigma lenses. Maybe one or two out of the bunch left me satisfied with IQ. I think if I had the ability to make all of those lenses give acceptable quality photos I would have kept my last 1D classic. So I dont think I could possibly consider another DSLR without microlense adjustment. But if you can afford all the best and newest lenses and can afford to send them in for calibration go for whatever you believe will give marginally better performance.

Ziffle wrote in post #7128848
Personally - if i see shots from someone shooting from a 40D (or what ever older model) I don't think they are losers or inferior photographers......

Its their body of work that is the final word.

Finally a word of wisdom from the masses.

I think that people should take some time and look at the posts from people who love their camera. There are threads about the XTi that have some fantastic photographs in it. If you saw it on flickr and had to guess what camera shot it base purely on the photograph, I think you would have a difficult if not impossible time to get it right.

What is the old saying.. only the idiot blames his tools.

Matt.

jwcdds wrote in post #7128629
It already appears that the OP does quite well w/ what equipment she had. Looking through her gallery, she's done very well with just the 28-135 lens, much better than some of us with thousands of dollars more in glass.

She's got an eye for composition and capturing great photos. She can do just as well with a Rebel, or even a P&S (especially since she uses external flash).

Thank you

I did opt for the 40D again...its ordered, and on its way home to me I guess after reading through here today, I could have gone with the 50D and been happy. Oh well. I saved myself a couple hundred bucks anyway, and that's fine with me.

I was definitely happy with the 40D... odds are I would've been happy with the 50D as well. All I really want is a 5D but that's a few weddings away

Oddly enough, the majority of the shots in my gallery were with my 20D, and a good handful of them with a rented Canons 15mm Fish eye. (such a sharp lens!!) That 28-135 has served me well though. I re-purchased that as well.

Overall, my 40D was such a fantastic upgrade from my 20D that I can't complain !!!

int0xicatedxluv wrote in post #7162651
Oddly enough, the majority of the shots in my gallery were with my 20D, and a good handful of them with a rented Canons 15mm Fish eye. (such a sharp lens!!) That 28-135 has served me well though. I re-purchased that as well.

Overall, my 40D was such a fantastic upgrade from my 20D that I can't complain !!!

Some people have that talent for photography, and IMO, you have that. So don't ever lose sight of what's important: your creativity, your ability to capture the moment, and the final photo (subject/composition/s​tory). I, for one, can admit photography doesn't come naturally and if I only had to shoot with the 15 fisheye and the 28-135, I wouldn't know where to begin. (Which is why I don't ever plan on quitting my day job. :P) Whereas you made it work and work very well.

A lot of people (myself included at times) get too carried away with gear and technology. But every so often, I come across a beautiful gallery online and digging a little further, I find out the images are from a 3-4mp p&s. And all I can say is "Wow." :P

A lot of great info here. I'm stuck between the 40D and the 50D. I don't have any of the experiences that 40D users have I probably won't notice the differences between the two. The 30D is my stepping stone so I'm pretty sure the 50D would be a significant upgrade for me. I still need to do some research. Bah!

Well, pop photo gave it better noise levels then the D300 and 40D at higher ISO, at low ISO(100 to be exact) had slightly higher noise. I think it is a good upgrade, more pixels lets you reduce size more for prints so it looks better, far better screen and live view, faster processing, faster AF and AF micro adjustments. You also get about a full stop better high ISO performance. Besides, get a good noise plug in like noise ware or noise ninja and you can deal with those high ISO if they subconsciously look more noisy to you.

PS- Pop photos test was with the 50mm F1.4, and hot lights. RAW converted with the DPP to a 16 bit tif with NR or sharpening applied.
Nick

jwcdds wrote in post #7162813
Some people have that talent for photography, and IMO, you have that. So don't ever lose sight of what's important: your creativity, your ability to capture the moment, and the final photo (subject/composition/s​tory). I, for one, can admit photography doesn't come naturally and if I only had to shoot with the 15 fisheye and the 28-135, I wouldn't know where to begin. (Which is why I don't ever plan on quitting my day job. :P) Whereas you made it work and work very well.

A lot of people (myself included at times) get too carried away with gear and technology. But every so often, I come across a beautiful gallery online and digging a little further, I find out the images are from a 3-4mp p&s. And all I can say is "Wow." :P

Thank you for very much for your kind words
I'm hoping...someday...to be able to make this my full time career.
Until then, I have much work and learning to do still !!!
Good thing I love it!