60D Rumor Thread -

I was at a local camera store recently and a customer with a 40D was talking to a Canon rep about upgrading to a 50D. The rep stated that the difference between those two models was not all that significant and he would be much better off waiting a few more months for the 60D. Since that is all of the information that he volunteered, I suppose that it will be up to me to fill in the gaps with idle speculation. For starters, the performance specifications of the 1Ds III along with faster processors, wider ISO range, live view, and full HD video at the same price as the 50D would be good.

I'd say there is a significant difference between the 40 and the 50D. The 50 will do ISO 6400 and 12,800. It also allows for your microcalibrating it to your lenses. That may not be that big of a deal to some, but for me both these features are huge and are why I'll be paying more for the 50. I might wait till the 60 is released so that the price will go down.

Yeah, there is difference between the 40D and 50D. In my opinion the 40D is a better camera. Yes I own both.

Chris1le wrote in post #8157139
Yeah, there is difference between the 40D and 50D. In my opinion the 40D is a better camera. Yes I own both.

Why so? Tests have shown that 50D is better?

I currently use a Sony A-100 and have been saving up for a 40D. Not too long ago a friend of mine told me to just wait for the 60D as hopefully it will also have 1080P recording.

Would the 60D be coming out within the next 6 months or is everything still just speculation?

I think that his point was that the 60D will be a much more significant reason for upgrading from the 40D. The needs/wants of the 40D owner may also have been a part of the recommendation.

BTW, I was all but ready to buy a 50D within the next few days so I rented one for a day for a thorough check-out. It's image quality really threw cold water on my enthusiasm. While it has a number of great features that met my needs, my overall impression is that the 50D is one of the victims of the megapixel war. In order to one-up the competition on number of sensor megapixels, I think that all of the manufacturers (mainly Canon and Nikon) are trading off noise performance for more MP. Especially at high ISO, I felt that the images looked too much like P&S images WRT color and detail smearing regardless of the RAW converter used. Even at ISO 100, the dark areas of images looked grainy with a lot of chroma noise. My personal opinion is that my XTi produces cleaner and sharper images at low ISO and the high ISO noise cleaned up better with Neat Image than it does on the 50D which seems to maintain residual noise.

Bill Boehme wrote in post #8157247
I think that his point was that the 60D will be a much more significant reason for upgrading from the 40D. The needs/wants of the 40D owner may also have been a part of the recommendation.

BTW, I was all but ready to buy a 50D within the next few days so I rented one for a day for a thorough check-out. It's image quality really threw cold water on my enthusiasm. While it has a number of great features that met my needs, my overall impression is that the 50D is one of the victims of the megapixel war. In order to one-up the competition on number of sensor megapixels, I think that all of the manufacturers (mainly Canon and Nikon) are trading off noise performance for more MP. Especially at high ISO, I felt that the images looked too much like P&S images WRT color and detail smearing regardless of the RAW converter used. Even at ISO 100, the dark areas of images looked grainy with a lot of chroma noise. My personal opinion is that my XTi produces cleaner and sharper images at low ISO and the high ISO noise cleaned up better with Neat Image than it does on the 50D which seems to maintain residual noise.

Wow, that might quell my desire to get the 50D. Some of the comparisons I read showed that the 50D did fine with low noise at high ISO. I'm very interested in this because high ISO performance is of paramount importance to me. I've heard you can shoot RAW with the 50D at 7 megapixels. Did you try that? How was the noise?

I don't have to upgrade to the 50D. I could go with the 40. My other option is a used or refurb 5D.

ThomasOwenM wrote in post #8157358
Wow, that might quell my desire to get the 50D. Some of the comparisons I read showed that the 50D did fine with low noise at high ISO. I'm very interested in this because high ISO performance is of paramount importance to me. I've heard you can shoot RAW with the 50D at 7 megapixels. Did you try that? How was the noise?

I don't have to upgrade to the 50D. I could go with the 40. My other option is a used or refurb 5D.

I only used the standard RAW and did not try the smaller size RAW formats. If you have a local camera store that rents or loans cameras, I would encourage to make your own evaluation since your needs may be different than mine. I thought that the autofocus function was excellent with its nine cross type sensors and a "double-cross" at the center. I also liked the viewfinder screen and the exposure metering options. I downloaded the user manual and read through it the day before renting the camera so that I could hit the ground running. I found that the menu was reasonably easy to learn and I liked the dedicated buttons on the back of the body. For some reason, the unit that I rented seemed to use up the battery rather quickly -- I had to stop and recharge the battery twice (I shot just over 200 images). Rental cameras probably get a lot of use and abuse so the batteries may have been worn out -- I also used a lens with IS which makes a difference in battery life.

Bill Boehme wrote in post #8157247
I think that his point was that the 60D will be a much more significant reason for upgrading from the 40D. The needs/wants of the 40D owner may also have been a part of the recommendation.

BTW, I was all but ready to buy a 50D within the next few days so I rented one for a day for a thorough check-out. It's image quality really threw cold water on my enthusiasm. While it has a number of great features that met my needs, my overall impression is that the 50D is one of the victims of the megapixel war. In order to one-up the competition on number of sensor megapixels, I think that all of the manufacturers (mainly Canon and Nikon) are trading off noise performance for more MP. Especially at high ISO, I felt that the images looked too much like P&S images WRT color and detail smearing regardless of the RAW converter used. Even at ISO 100, the dark areas of images looked grainy with a lot of chroma noise. My personal opinion is that my XTi produces cleaner and sharper images at low ISO and the high ISO noise cleaned up better with Neat Image than it does on the 50D which seems to maintain residual noise.

Hi Bill,
When you rented the 50D, did it come with a lens? If you used your own lens then the Micro adjustment has to be re-calibrated, and that could be the reason you where not happy with the IQ.
My son has the 50D, and after doing the Micro adjustments he believes this is the best xxD he's owned regarding IQ.

Brian

Brianbar wrote in post #8159548
Hi Bill,
When you rented the 50D, did it come with a lens? If you used your own lens then the Micro adjustment has to be re-calibrated, and that could be the reason you where not happy with the IQ.
My son has the 50D, and after doing the Micro adjustments he believes this is the best xxD he's owned regarding IQ.

Brian

I used my own lenses with the camera and I didn't have any problem with sharpness -- they were all tack sharp except when I forgot to focus (I used the button on the back to focus). I didn't bother with the micro adjustments since I did not see any need to. My complaint about the images was strictly due to noise as far as I could determine. I had the highlight feature turned off since I believe that it can result in more noise when turned on.

EDIT: BTW, the noise was only a problem at 100% size except for ISO 1600 and ISO 3200. I did not bother with anything higher than that.

ISO 3200, 5000ec and beyond on 40D...

Chris1le wrote in post #8157139
Yeah, there is difference between the 40D and 50D. In my opinion the 40D is a better camera. Yes I own both.

...Here they are:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=713613

Enjoy,

PIX

Here are some 100% crops that show ISO noise at 100, 800, 1600, and 3200. The only image processing was done in ACR with the same amount of NR and capture sharpening for all images. After ACR processing, Photoshop was only used to crop, add shooting notes, and merge the four images into one. Although I did not use Neat Image to clean up noise on these four images, the results on other images was acceptable at lower ISO values, but not so good at 800 and higher. The best noise reduction tool seemed to be downsizing the image to 50% or less of the original.

The lens used was the EF 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS USM.

Here is a summary of most ACR adjustments which we common to all images.
White Balance = Custom
Temperature = 5200
Tint = +10
Exposure = 0.00
Shadows = 1
Brightness = +46
Contrast = +39
Saturation = 0
Sharpness = 48
Luminance Smoothing = 0
Color Noise Reduction = 15
Chromatic Aberration R: different for each image
Chromatic Aberration B: different for each image
FillLight = 22
Vibrance = +12
Highlight Recovery = 5
Clarity = +34
Sharpen Radius = +0.7
Sharpen Detail = 39
Sharpen Edge Masking = 27

Brianbar wrote in post #8159548
Hi Bill,
When you rented the 50D, did it come with a lens? If you used your own lens then the Micro adjustment has to be re-calibrated, and that could be the reason you where not happy with the IQ.
My son has the 50D, and after doing the Micro adjustments he believes this is the best xxD he's owned regarding IQ.

Brian

This is exactly why the 40D and all previous xxD cameras are better than the 50D. Micro adjust is BS. I put any of my lenses on the previous bodies and the images are sharp. I've had the 50D sent back to Canon twice to have it calibrated. Both times they agreed it was out of calibration and as far as I'm concerned the images are nowhere as sharp as previous bodies. This even after fiddling around with micro adjust.

In a real shooting environment, not shooting rulers, the IQ of the 50D just does not hold up well.

Bill Boehme wrote in post #8157247
I think that his point was that the 60D will be a much more significant reason for upgrading from the 40D. The needs/wants of the 40D owner may also have been a part of the recommendation.

BTW, I was all but ready to buy a 50D within the next few days so I rented one for a day for a thorough check-out. It's image quality really threw cold water on my enthusiasm. While it has a number of great features that met my needs, my overall impression is that the 50D is one of the victims of the megapixel war. In order to one-up the competition on number of sensor megapixels, I think that all of the manufacturers (mainly Canon and Nikon) are trading off noise performance for more MP. Especially at high ISO, I felt that the images looked too much like P&S images WRT color and detail smearing regardless of the RAW converter used. Even at ISO 100, the dark areas of images looked grainy with a lot of chroma noise. My personal opinion is that my XTi produces cleaner and sharper images at low ISO and the high ISO noise cleaned up better with Neat Image than it does on the 50D which seems to maintain residual noise.

If you think the 50D was a victim of the megapixels war what makes you think that the 60D will somehow avoid the same fate? I don't think there is any way the 60D will have any less megapixels than the 50D, in fact if its different it will probablly have more rather than less.

As far as the 50D producing P&S images compared to your XTi or any other XX body, I'm sorry but I have a hard time believing that. I have heard that the 50D does require some good glass to get the most out of its higher resolution, so unless someone uses crap lenses the images should be very similar.

Most negative reports about the 50D seem to focus on noise at high ISO's especially compared to the 40D which seems to be a touch better under some testing. If you were finding the 50D noisy at ISO 100 and your XTi could produce a clean shot under identical conditions then I suspect the 50D you tried was defective.

100% crop comparisons have been discussed to death; this thread has some very in-depth discussion (and I think debunking of that as a basis to disparage 50D); bottom line to me is the increased resolution didn't come at a cost of higher noise at equivalent sizes. https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=706255