"Reach" 1D3 vs 30D vs 40D vs 50D

I thought that as a change from the usual complaints about the noise problems with the 50D I'd like to illustrate an example of its strengths. As I've said before, its main strength lies in pulling out detail from a well illuminated subject with relatively little movement from subject or camera. As light levels drop or movement increases dramatically the 50D's advantages do disappear, either because noise does take its toll on IQ, thus harming fine details, or because blur/shake take their toll in absolute sharpness, thus negating the resolution advantage.

I shot the same subject in the same lighting with the same lens and settings and at the same distance with my 1D3, 30D, 40D and 50D. While we can all do the maths on which offers more "reach", I think these 100% crops make the advantages the 50D offers all the more tangible. While I love my 1D3 for shooting fast action and in poor light, given good light, a stable platform and a sedentary subject the 50D walks all over it.

The point about all this is that no one camera is best for everything. Each has its strengths and weaknesses.

50D - great for pulling out the maximum detail at low ISOs if you have good control of subject movement and camera shake. It has the strongest feature set to maximise sharpness and detail. If you need high ISO and low noise then shoot in sraw1 and you will still have slightly higher pixel density than the 1D3.
1D3 - great for tracking high speed action, capturing the perfect moment and keeping noise low at high ISOs. The larger pixels will help conceal effects of misfocus or shake/blur. The sacrifice is a significant loss of detail/reach.
40D - a very nice compromise between the two extremes above.

So, very simply, pick the camera that is best for your needs and pocket. I like shooting with the 1D3 and 50D as a combo. The 50D is great for the tripod and static shooting. The 1D3 is great for tracking BIF. Of course, the 50D can do BIF well, also, but it is best reserved for use in good light. I prefer to go no higher than 400 ISO for birds that are small in the frame. If I can fill the frame then higher ISOs are absolutely fine.

The sequence below is 1D3, 30D, 40D, 50D.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

did you post pics? if so i cant see them.

I did. There should be four of them. If they are not showing then you can see them in this online album - http://picasaweb.googl​e.com/EezyTiger/Reach

this dosnt show/prove/demonstrate anything! lol

but clearly you have taken considerable lengths and efforts to show this..so...thanks i guess...

i always felt that the 50d was very much rushed and shoved into the market for no apparent reason and offering offering no real improvements

In order to tighten the control of the conditions I ran the same test on a controlled target to eliminate any risk of lighting variations or subject position. This time I only shot with the 1D3, 40D and 50D. Here is a screen print of the test target, to show that the details are there, if the cameras can pick them up. The smallest fonts in the middle are at 8,9,10,11,12 point. The top row is at 14 point and the bottom row is at 72 point. I placed the smallest text in the centre of the subject to take advantage of what I imagine to be optimum lens sharpness....

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

bluefox9er wrote in post #8485600
this dosnt show/prove/demonstrate anything! lol

but clearly you have taken considerable lengths and efforts to show this..so...thanks i guess...

i always felt that the 50d was very much rushed and shoved into the market for no apparent reason and offering offering no real improvements

Well I think it clearly shows that if you are focal length limited, and need to rely on heavy cropping - perhaps even to 100% - then the 50D is capable of giving you a far larger, and more satisfying, image than one of the other cameras in this "test". Maybe for many people that is no big deal, but for wildlife photographers and birders especially the ability to crop in tight can be an attractive proposition compared to the expense, bulk and weight of a super-telephoto lens.

Of course, push your luck too hard, with high ISO and excessive cropping, and your luck will run out. I think for many people the weight, bulk and price of a 50D+400L might be a lot more attractive than a 1D3 and 600L, not to mention the reduced costs of a support system to keep it all steady.

With the right conditions I think the 50D does offer a clear advantage, in some respects. I was hoping my examples would illustrate that. Of course, with unfavourable conditions the advantage can disappear and possibly become a liabilty.

Bottom line - some people say the 50D is too noisey and the resolution "advantage" is all but non-existent. According to the results from my tests, I think they are wrong.

"this dosnt show/prove/demonstrate anything!"

What? Of course it does. It proves that we need larger and higher density sensors despite the critics who claim we don't.

Unless you are rich enough to be able to afford the EF800mm. I cannot, so I definitely fall into the "focal length limited" category.

Lowner wrote in post #8485769
"this dosnt show/prove/demonstrate anything!"

What? Of course it does. It proves that we need larger and higher density sensors despite the critics who claim we don't.

Unless you are rich enough to be able to afford the EF800mm. I cannot, so I definitely fall into the "focal length limited" category.

Thank you for your support

Just to be clear, this test does play to the strengths of the 50D, with these images shot at 100 ISO. I would be the first to admit that above 400 ISO the advantages begin to disappear, as fine detail starts to be consumed by pixel level noise. From 800 ISO onwards, if you need to pick out fine detail at high levels of crop, I think the 40D is the better choice. You will have smaller files, quicker and easier to process and saving storage space. If you are not cropping (much) then I think there is little to choose in terms of overall picture quality. It is only the hard cropping at high ISOs that exposes the limitations of the 50D's tiny pixels. Of course, if you don't need to pick out tiny details then you don't need the resolution of the 50D in any case.

Bottom line #2 - for shooting between 100-400 ISO the 50D probably offers the better package, if detail is important. If you aren't bothered about squeezing out every last drop of detail (e.g. you shoot big smooth things like cars rather than little furry/feathery creatures), or you mostly shoot above 400 ISO, or you want to save some money, the 40D should do you just fine. The 1D3 is the consummate performer when it comes to capturing fast action and shooting at (very) high ISOs, but if your lenses are too short it may not be the best choice for capturing maximum detail at low ISOs.

p.s. if you can't keep the camera still enough, or you can't freeze motion blur in your subject or pan perfectly to mitigate it, then the 50D won't help you much. All the extra resolution will do is more accurately record the blur/shake and it will just yield bigger files with no more useful information. For those reasons I'm inclined to think that the 40D will make a better BIF camera than the 50D for many people.

tdodd wrote in post #8485823
Thank you for your support

J.

As much as you like to draw a conclusion but the test proves nothing.
Here is a shot at ISO 2000. 700mm. F5.6. 1/80s. 1dmarkIII.

TooManyShots wrote in post #8486105
As much as you like to draw a conclusion but the test proves nothing.
Here is a shot at ISO 2000. 700mm. F5.6. 1/80s. 1dmarkIII.

I don't understand what this shot of a bird proves? I bet same shot can be taken with 50d and nobody able to tell the difference. Of course I will take 1 series for its awesome AF.

I don't think the OP or subsequent posts really prove that having more pixels results in more detail captured. More pixels can result in more detailed captured, but this isn't necessarily always true.

bacchanal wrote in post #8486401
I don't think the OP or subsequent posts really prove that having more pixels results in more detail captured. More pixels can result in more detailed captured, but this isn't necessarily always true.

Which is almost exactly what the OP clearly stated. He gave what I thought was a pretty balanced evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of the higher pixel count/density camera in different situations.

Bobbyz

On that note i think the only real difference that I tend to find between cameras is their ability to handle high iso. I personnally cannot tell the difference between a rebel or 1D when just looking at a picture. But i do believe that the better/more expensive camera you have the more your keeper rate increases.

bobbyz wrote in post #8486294
I don't understand what this shot of a bird proves? I bet same shot can be taken with 50d and nobody able to tell the difference. Of course I will take 1 series for its awesome AF.

Think about it. ISO2000. You think the 50D ISO2000 would look like that. If you need to shoot at ISO1600 and you have a 50D you may as well pack your rig and heading home. Second, 1/80s shutter speed. How can you capture a moving bird at 1/80s? Easy, capture it when not moving. That's when 10fps burst speed comes into play. I captured this shot when I was shooting in burst mode. Slower burst rate you may capture this American Redstar in-between standing still and moving around. The high ISO usable alone on the 1DmarkIII beats everything else.

TooManyShots wrote in post #8490274
Think about it. ISO2000. You think the 50D ISO2000 would look like that. If you need to shoot at ISO1600 and you have a 50D you may as well pack your rig and heading home. Second, 1/80s shutter speed. How can you capture a moving bird at 1/80s? Easy, capture it when not moving. That's when 10fps burst speed comes into play. I captured this shot when I was shooting in burst mode. Slower burst rate you may capture this American Redstar in-between standing still and moving around. The high ISO usable alone on the 1DmarkIII beats everything else.

Why?? You are about to get the shot of a lifetime but have to bump up your ISO to 1600 to get a properly exposed, sharp image..You have your 50D in your hand.. Would you "pack your rig and heading home"??

I reckon my new 50D handles high ISO as well or better than any Canon EOS I've used/owned in the past..