New Canon 50D hits wall, becomes non-essential

Discussion in 'Canon' started by RichA, Oct 30, 2008.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    From Dpreview:

    It appears that Canon has reached the limit of what is sensible, in
    terms of megapixels on an APS-C sensor. At a pixel density of 4.5 MP/
    cm² (40D: 3.1 MP/cm², 1Ds MkIII: 2.4 MP/cm²) the lens becomes the
    limiting factor. Even the sharpest primes at optimal apertures cannot
    (at least away from the center of the frame) satisfy the 15.1
    megapixel sensors hunger for resolution. Considering the disadvantages
    that come with higher pixel densities such as diffraction issues,
    increased sensitivity towards camera shake, reduced dynamic range,
    reduced high ISO performance and the need to store, move and process
    larger amounts of data, one could be forgiven for coming to the
    conclusion that at this point the megapixel race should probably stop.
    One consequence of this is that the 50% increase in pixel count over
    the 40D results in only a marginal amount of extra detail.

    We're by no means saying the 50Ds image quality is bad but it's simply
    not significantly better than the ten megapixel 40D. In some areas
    such as dynamic range and high ISO performance it's actually worse and
    that simply makes you wonder if the EOS 50D could have been an (even)
    better camera if its sensor had a slightly more moderate resolution.

    The EOS 50D has to stand its ground in a highly competitive bracket of
    the DSLR market. It is currently almost $500 more expensive than the
    40D, almost $500 more expensive than the Nikon D90 and for an extra
    $100 you can bag yourself a Nikon D300.
     
    RichA, Oct 30, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    ransley Guest

    So 40d prices wont fall anytime soon, looks like a rebel and 40d is a
    better deal, I think they blew it on the 50d
     
    ransley, Oct 31, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. If the 50D noise performance is as good as the 40D when its images are
    downsized to 40D dimensions, then what the camera gives you is a
    useful extra freedom of choice. If you need D40 high ISO noise
    performance you could get it by downsizing to 10MP dimensions, and
    where you can use low ISO you could use the higher resolution.

    But DPReview doesn't let you see whether the D50 gives you that
    option, because it compares noise at the pixel level rather than at
    comparable image sizes. It also persists in its annoying practice of
    only comparing DLSR noise and resolution in ex-camera jpegs. While
    that's very useful information for the busy shooter with no time to
    fiddle with RAW and specialised noise reduction methods, the ability
    to sidestep the heavy proprietary in-camera jpeg processing and
    squeeze the very best from the unadulterated RAW output is a very
    important feature of DSLRs, and widely used by those who want to get
    the very best from their camera, such as to produce stock images or
    exhibition prints. Given that camera makers have noticeably different
    philosophies and degrees of expertise about noise reduction embodied
    in their in-camera jpeg processing, it would be rather useful to have
    the same kind of RAW noise comparisons as DPReview do for jpeg.

    However, their general observation that the 15MP APS-C sensor is close
    to the useful practical size limit in terms of noise, detail, and lens
    requirements looks reasonable. The interesting question is whether
    it's a bit too far, not quite far enough, or right on target. That
    will obviously depend on how well various other factors have been
    polished up. They comment that the D50 seems to have lost dynamic
    range compared to the D40. It's interesting to note that in Sony's two
    sister 10MP and 14MP DSLRs, the D300 and D350, Sony used a different
    sensor techology for the 14MP D350, and achieved a higher dynamic
    range.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Oct 31, 2008
    #3
  4. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    They have side-by-side comparison images of RAW noise on the 40D and
    50D about halfway down page 18
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page18.asp. Be nice to
    have the actual files to play with though.
     
    J. Clarke, Oct 31, 2008
    #4
  5. RichA

    * Guest

    *, Nov 1, 2008
    #5
  6. They compare in-camera jpeg noise in great detail with several
    competing cameras from other manufacturers. Given the importance of
    the RAW image feature of DSLRs, not least that it allows you to
    sidestep the not necessarily wonderful in-camera jpeg processing which
    is seriously limited by the in-camera processor power, it really
    surprises me that that instead of devoting even more care to comparing
    RAW noise performance, they just give a brief passing glance to it.

    That suggests that DPreview considers that the overwhelming majority
    of DSLR owners don't give a hoot about RAW performance.

    Even if that is the case, that seems to me to be like doing all their
    comparisons of DSLR image quality using only the standard kit zoom, on
    the grounds that although theoretically you can buy another lens for
    the camera, most DSLR owners don't. But they don't do that. They
    carefully assess the camera independently of the kit zoom.

    So why don't they take RAW noise performance seriously?
     
    Chris Malcolm, Nov 5, 2008
    #6
  7. RichA

    John Sheehy Guest

    .... which is nonsense. The 50D has slightly less DR at the pixel level,
    and slightly more at the image level.

    DPR's DR test is not a DR test of the camera at all. It is a test of
    visible DR in a single, basic RAW conversion or JPEG, at 100% pixel view.
     
    John Sheehy, Nov 8, 2008
    #7
  8. RichA

    John Sheehy Guest

    I don't think anyone at DPReview knows a damn thing about RAW files and
    data. All they know is how to pop them into the toaster (converter).
     
    John Sheehy, Nov 8, 2008
    #8
  9. RichA

    John Sheehy Guest

    That is not a very useful way of looking at things. It is simply a
    *coincidence* that higher pixel density and "crop-sensors" go hand in hand.
    It would make no sense to prefer a crop camera with 3MP and lower pixel
    density than a 21MP full-frame with much higher pixel density for "focal
    length gains". Pixel reach (angular resolution of the pixel) is the
    benefit, not "focal length equivalence". A 30D and a 1DS3 have the same
    "reach". The 1DS3 has more "breadth" though, and will capture the bird
    that took flight, where the 20D only caught its legs.
     
    John Sheehy, Nov 8, 2008
    #9
  10. RichA

    John Sheehy Guest

    Eventually, it will be accepted by the majority as fact, such as the same
    gravity for large and small rocks, the earth revolving around the sun, etc.

    Consider yourself a reluctant early adopter.
     
    John Sheehy, Nov 11, 2008
    #10
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.