Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: stewarthemley on November 27, 2008, 07:22:26 am
-
I was looking for a cheap (relatively!) backup camera and just tested the new Canon 50D. Couldn't believe how much noise there was, even at 400 ISO. And at 1600 and above the thing was hopeless. Much worse than my 1DSmk2 and 3. Sort of reminded me of my 1DS. So I tried another sample from a different dealer but the results were just the same. I processed in ACR and DPP but neither solved the noise problem. I only shoot raw so didn't bother testing in-camera processing of jpgs. I doubt if I'm losing it as I don't get that problem with other bodies! And yet the DPReview samples at 1600 and 3200 look fine. Any comments welcome. (By the way, don't see this as Canon bashing: I collect my 5Dmk2 tomorrow.)
-
I was looking for a cheap (relatively!) backup camera and just tested the new Canon 50D. Couldn't believe how much noise there was, even at 400 ISO. And at 1600 and above the thing was hopeless. Much worse than my 1DSmk2 and 3. Sort of reminded me of my 1DS. So I tried another sample from a different dealer but the results were just the same. I processed in ACR and DPP but neither solved the noise problem. I only shoot raw so didn't bother testing in-camera processing of jpgs. I doubt if I'm losing it as I don't get that problem with other bodies! And yet the DPReview samples at 1600 and 3200 look fine. Any comments welcome. (By the way, don't see this as Canon bashing: I collect my 5Dmk2 tomorrow.)
If you own a 1DS3, a 1DS2, and a 5DMK2, what is your definition of a "backup camera?" If you don't like the 1DS2 or the 5D2 as backup cameras, I suppose you could buy a 5D. The 5D is still a very low noise camera with excellent image quality. It has about the same noise as the 1ds3 and less than the 1DS2. I have a mint condition 5D, but I can't sell it right now since it is my ONLY backup. I will eventually sell it though. maybe in the next six month as we find out what's in the 2009 lineup.
-
Well, just to clarify, in DSLRs I don't currently own the 1DS2, just the 1DS3 and from tomorrow the 5D2.
And my idea of a backup camera is to have something as inexpensive as possible that will approach the quality of my main device closely enough for me to use it to the client's satisfaction if my main cam dies. The 50D is cheap enough but the gap in performance is wider than I expected. As I said, it's the noise that I find unacceptable - and surprising: we've been sort of trained to expect quantum leaps with each new release in each area of performance (AF, noise, DR, etc, etc.) That Canon take a backward step in an important area is not what I would have predicted and I'd really like to know if others agree.
-
just tested the new Canon 50D. Couldn't believe how much noise there was, even at 400 ISO
I wonder how well your ISO 400 test images were exposed. It is not surprising that the 1DsMkIII shows less noise than the 50D (the surprize would be if it was not so), but the "much noise at ISO 400" indicates too low exposure.
-
I wonder how well your ISO 400 test images were exposed. It is not surprising that the 1DsMkIII shows less noise than the 50D (the surprize would be if it was not so), but the "much noise at ISO 400" indicates too low exposure.
"As I posted, the difference in exposure is irrelevant. In fact, noise and DR comparison can be done (and I am often doing that) based on totally unrelated images, i.e. different sceneries, different illuminations, different exposures, etc."
Those are your words from another post where I pointed out the issue of exposure on noise.
-
Well, just to clarify, in DSLRs I don't currently own the 1DS2, just the 1DS3 and from tomorrow the 5D2.
And my idea of a backup camera is to have something as inexpensive as possible that will approach the quality of my main device closely enough for me to use it to the client's satisfaction if my main cam dies. The 50D is cheap enough but the gap in performance is wider than I expected.
The 40d is still available, at less cost. Sure, it's "only" ten megapixels, but it has less noise than the 50d in every test I've seen. I have one as a personal carry-around and backup camera to my 1-D series bodies. It's smaller, lighter, cheaper, and provides reasonable image quality. No, it's not as good at high ISO values, but the files are perfectly usable.
(I know this sounds like I am "damning with faint praise," but I actually like the little camera.)
-
Those are your words from another post where I pointed out the issue of exposure on noise.
Tony,
obviously you have an interest in this subject. It is really a pitty that you are not prepared to deal with it in detail in order to get an thorough understanding of it.
-
Tony,
obviously you have an interest in this subject. It is really a pitty that you are not prepared to deal with it in detail in order to get an thorough understanding of it.
Your BS doesn't pass the sniff test.
-
Well, just to clarify, in DSLRs I don't currently own the 1DS2, just the 1DS3 and from tomorrow the 5D2.
And my idea of a backup camera is to have something as inexpensive as possible that will approach the quality of my main device closely enough for me to use it to the client's satisfaction if my main cam dies. The 50D is cheap enough but the gap in performance is wider than I expected. As I said, it's the noise that I find unacceptable - and surprising: we've been sort of trained to expect quantum leaps with each new release in each area of performance (AF, noise, DR, etc, etc.) That Canon take a backward step in an important area is not what I would have predicted and I'd really like to know if others agree.
I've never seen an image from the 40D which is less noisy than an image of the same scene taken with the 50D at the same ISO, when such images are compared at the same size.
The fact is, smaller pixels tend to be noisier than larger pixels. However, smaller pixels provide greater resolution. The disappointment with the 50D is that the technological improvement that's taken place during that timeframe between the 40D and 50D, has not been sufficient to ensure that individual 50D pixels are no noisier than 40D pixels, so there are some misleading signals for the consumer. This is compounded by the presence of higher ISO settings on the 50D, which create the expectation that noise at the pixel level will be either less or no greater than that of the 40D.
The choices are clear. If the lighting conditions are such that noise is a major concern, then you should not make prints or view images on the monitor at a greater size than you would if you had used a 40D for the shot. You might then find, in those circumstances, that 50D noise would be very slightly less, or at least equal.
If noise is not an issue because lighting is good, then you can avail yourself of the higher resolving capability of the 50D and make larger prints in proportion to the increased pixel count.
-
If noise is not an issue because lighting is good, then you can avail yourself of the higher resolving capability of the 50D and make larger prints in proportion to the increased pixel count.
EXACTLY. I would add: learn how to expose properly to get most of your camera's capability.
-
EXACTLY. I would add: learn how to expose properly to get most of your camera's capability.
It's also worth noting that, according to Bob Atkins tests at http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digit...D_review_3.html (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_eos_50D_review_3.html) , even at ISO 3200 the additional resolving power of the 50D sensor is sufficient to allow for additional noise reduction to be applied to the 50D image whilst still maintaining a resolution edge over the 40D.
The bottom line is, provided good exposure technique is used and appropriate processing, the 40D will never outperform the 50D.
-
Have you tried printing an image from the 50D?
I processed some files that were HORRIBLY noisy in the shadow areas and at 8x12 I saw NO noise in the printed images from the 1DS3. They were not landscape though. They were portraits.
Again, it sounds like a perfect camera for you would be the 5D2 that you ordered.
You'll have a 1DS3 and a 5D2. Do you want a third camera just for safety sake?
If so, get a used 5D. You can probably get them for under 1600.00 now that the 5D2 is out.
Since the 5D2 comes in at 2700 I would not be surprised if new 5Ds hold their price at around 1800-2000 until stock runs out.
-
Have you tried printing an image from the 50D?
I processed some files that were HORRIBLY noisy in the shadow areas and at 8x12 I saw NO noise in the printed images from the 1DS3. They were not landscape though. They were portraits.
Again, it sounds like a perfect camera for you would be the 5D2 that you ordered.
You'll have a 1DS3 and a 5D2. Do you want a third camera just for safety sake?
If so, get a used 5D. You can probably get them for under 1600.00 now that the 5D2 is out.
Since the 5D2 comes in at 2700 I would not be surprised if new 5Ds hold their price at around 1800-2000 until stock runs out.
It's a fact of life that a full frame sensor will tend to produce less noise than a sensor which is less than half the area, whatever the pixel count. The main advantages of choosing a 50D in preference to a 5D as a back-up, would be the shutter speed advantage for a given DoF; the faster frame rate; the LiveView feature; the higher resolution LCD screen; the micro-adjustment of autofocus accuracy, and the higher potential resolution when your telephoto lens, when used with the 5D, is not long enough for the composition.
The shutter speed advantage in relation to a desired DoF, more or less cancels the noise advantage of the 5D. That is, to achieve both the same DoF and shutter speed with the 5D, it is necessary to increase the ISO and F stop number by at least one stop, depending on distance to subject. On average, it might be 1.6 stops, but at close distances it can be as much as 2 stops, according to my own tests.
Of course, if getting the shallowest of DoFs is your objective, then the 50D has a 'maximum aperture' disadvantage, as well as a lens quality disadvantage at those very wide apertures.
-
It's a fact of life that a full frame sensor will tend to produce less noise than a sensor which is less than half the area, whatever the pixel count. The main advantages of choosing a 50D in preference to a 5D as a back-up, would be the shutter speed advantage for a given DoF; the faster frame rate; the LiveView feature; the higher resolution LCD screen; the micro-adjustment of autofocus accuracy, and the higher potential resolution when your telephoto lens, when used with the 5D, is not long enough for the composition.
The shutter speed advantage in relation to a desired DoF, more or less cancels the noise advantage of the 5D. That is, to achieve both the same DoF and shutter speed with the 5D, it is necessary to increase the ISO and F stop number by at least one stop, depending on distance to subject. On average, it might be 1.6 stops, but at close distances it can be as much as 2 stops, according to my own tests.
Of course, if getting the shallowest of DoFs is your objective, then the 50D has a 'maximum aperture' disadvantage, as well as a lens quality disadvantage at those very wide apertures.
OK I see. Depending on what he is shooting, frame rate and DoF may be more important in relation to keeping shutter as high as possible. I was assuming since he has a 1DS3 and a 5D2 that he was backing up thrice for important client photo ops on a tight schedule.
-
OK I see. Depending on what he is shooting, frame rate and DoF may be more important in relation to keeping shutter as high as possible. I was assuming since he has a 1DS3 and a 5D2 that he was backing up thrice for important client photo ops on a tight schedule.
I agree, if the purpose is no more than 'back up', then it's best to stick with the same format. You can use the same lens with the camera on the same tripod; same apertures and same distance to subject. That would seem a lot less complicated than switching to a different format.
-
I agree, if the purpose is no more than 'back up', then it's best to stick with the same format. You can use the same lens with the camera on the same tripod; same apertures and same distance to subject. That would seem a lot less complicated than switching to a different format.
If I were shooting specifically in a studio, I'd probably keep the 5D until I buy a new camera to replace my 1DS3, unless I can't afford to upgrade next go around. But my point is that in a studio it's clean, you have a place to clean the sensor if you need to and change lenses, plus you don't really need to worry about DR too much. And it takes great images too. The 5D is a cult classic for sure.
-
I was looking for a cheap (relatively!) backup camera and just tested the new Canon 50D. Couldn't believe how much noise there was, even at 400 ISO. And at 1600 and above the thing was hopeless.
Both the french magazines Chasseur d'Image and Reponse photo concluded that the 50D had probably packed too many pixels in its sensor and overall recommend other options over it (stick to the 40D or get a D90/D300 if your are not invested in Canon lenses).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Guys, sorry to start the thread then appear to abandon it but I moved house last week and my internet hub broke at the same time! But up and running now.
Some good, helpful comments re DOF, type of use, etc and I think the best advice was (for me) to retain a FF camera as backup.
Re the possibility that I might have been underexposing/incorrectly exposing the 50D, well without being defensive and trying to remain humble, I think by now I'm able to get that bit right most times - but not all, I'll grant you! But even if I had a "getting my exposure right" type problem, it would apply to all my cameras and so I think that can be safely ruled out.
And I now have my backup dilemma sorted: I took delivery of and tested the 5D2, promptly sold the 1DS3 and have my "old" 5D as backup. The 1DS3 was a good camera but the extra little bits of th 5D2 made it the better choice for me. The live view and video facility is awesome. Thanks again all who replied.
-
Re the possibility that I might have been underexposing/incorrectly exposing the 50D, well without being defensive and trying to remain humble, I think by now I'm able to get that bit right most times - but not all, I'll grant you!
Before you get the knickers in a knot: not exposing perfectly, i.e. as good as possible is not a criminal act; I have not accused you with any horrendeous crime (well, except with exposing too low :-).
Anyway, the proof is in the pudding. Why don't you upload such a noise *raw* file for inspection?
But even if I had a "getting my exposure right" type problem, it would apply to all my cameras
Not necessarily. Exposing lower than possible is not the result of incorrectly measuring the light. It may be the result of the camera's metering not matching the scenery; it may be caused by misinterpreting the in-camera histogram (RGB) for exposure; it may be misunderstanding the histogram shown in DPP or ACR.
I took delivery of and tested the 5D2, promptly sold the 1DS3 and have my "old" 5D as backup
The 5D2 looks very good re image quality, you will be happy with it, if the ruggedness of the 1Ds3 is not important.
-
Both the french magazines Chasseur d'Image and Reponse photo concluded that the 50D had probably packed too many pixels in its sensor and overall recommend other options over it (stick to the 40D or get a D90/D300 if your are not invested in Canon lenses).
Do they offer any rational scientific basis, or just the usual misguided comparisons of per pixel noise and DR levels and 100% on-screen images, along with the currently fashionable dogma that more, smaller photosites on the same sensor size always gives worse image quality?
I ask because of the specific suggestion that staying with the 40D would be better, which is flatly contradicted by the observations in Bob Atkins' review of the 50D at http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digit...D_review_1.html (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_eos_50D_review_1.html)
After noting that the 50D has somewhat higher per pixel noise, he goes on to demonstrate that
"With some noise reduction applied, the 50D can show less noise then the 40D, but still maintain an edge in resolution" (page 3)
"The bottom line is that the EOS 50D resolves more image detail then the EOS 40D, and it does so with just about any lens at just about any aperture. You don't need expensive "L" series primes to realize the higher resolving ability." (page 4)
"Though I didn't do a scientific evaluation of dynamic range, the Dxomark.com website has ... Their measurements put the DR of the EOS 50D and EOS 40D within less than 1/10 stop of each other, at around 11 stops at the ISO 100 setting and 8.25 stops at the ISO 3200 setting." (page 3)
Given that, in what possible way can one claim that the 40D offers better IQ? All I can see is a bit less need to mess with NR!
And before someone says yet again that there is no point buying a higher resolution camera if you have to throw away resolution with NR or downsampling or such, I will say yet again that such processing is not always needed, not by a long shot:
The noise levels of the 50D are in many situations comfortably low enough that no NR or downsampling is needed, particularly in the low ISO situations where most if the highest resolution demands arise (landscape, architecture and other slow-moving subjects).
Thus extra NR, downsampling or simply printing at the same size as you could from a lower resolution camera are simply options for use in some lower light situations, leaving a clear resolution advantage in other, better lit, situations.
Of course, if one never has a use for more detail than a 10MP or 12MP sensor gives, the 50D is less attractive than an imagined new 10MP or 12MP Canon EF-S sensor using the same technical progress as went into the 50D sensor. I have no personal interest in sensors of over 20MP for that reason, but I sometimes crop away about half of the image area when struggling for adequate telephoto or macro reach or photographing erratically moving subjects with loose framing, and then 15MP/2=7.5MP does not sound so extravagant.
-
I think it's fascinating that my now four year old 20D and my pal's 1D MkII hold up so well (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/178|0/(appareil2)/267|0/(appareil3)/187|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Canon/(brand3)/Canon) in DxOMark.
-
Resolution vs pixel level noise is always the tradeoff for a fixed size sensor, if one's criterion is noise at the pixel level. That is simply because noise power rises with increasing fineness of scale in the image. All other things being equal, decreasing the pixel size to increase resolution simply samples the scene at finer scales, and noise at those finer scales is necessarily higher due to the physics. But pixel level noise is a moving target as one changes the pixel size, because of the scale dependence of noise; noise at fixed scale remains surprising constant as pixel size is decreased.
For instance, here's a plot of noise power vs image scale (spatial frequency) for a 40D (red) and 50D (blue); test images from Imaging-Resource; ISO 1600, converted from RAW in DPP:
(http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/posts/tests/Noise/40d-50d_noisepower-norm.png)
The horizontal axis is scale in the image, the vertical axis is noise power; so each data point is a measure of the amount of noise at a particular scale. The somewhat arbitrary units for the horizontal axis put the Nyquist frequency (the limit of resolution) at 256 for the 50D, and at 209 for the 40D. The two cameras are more or less the same up to the point where the 40D stops resolving, while the 50D climbs a bit higher. So, the pixel-level noise in the 50D is higher than that of the 40D, simply because it resolves more. At comparable scales in the image, noise is identical for all practical purposes. The higher noise at higher scales is subsumed in a finer "grain pattern" of the 50D, which some find more pleasing. If on the other hand one is intent on comparing images at 100% view on a monitor, one will essentially be looking at the 50D noise power at 256 and the 40D noise power at 209, which is a biased comparison which will stack the deck against the smaller pixel camera.
If one were to downsample the 50D image to the 40D pixel dimensions, one gets the following
(http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/posts/tests/Noise/40d-50dresamp_noisepower-norm.png)
Original images as before; orange points are downsampling in PS using Bicubic, black points are downsampling with ImageMagick using the Lanczos filter. It may seem that the downsampled 50D is a bit worse than the 40D (though extremely little for Lanczos), but it also has more resolution since the 40D has to contend with its AA filter, while the 50D's AA filter cutoff is out of the picture in the downsampled image (also, downsampling mitigates some rather nasty interpolation artifacts in DPP).
So the noise and the resolution come hand in hand -- one simply has to decide what one wants (if you want the latter without the former, increase exposure, or get a bigger sensor). And as the above shows, one can always generate the lower resolution data from the higher resolution data, but one can't recover detail that wasn't recorded.
-
Before you get the knickers in a knot...
No problem there, Panopeeper - I don't wear them!
-
Removed.
-
Do they offer any rational scientific basis, or just the usual misguided comparisons of per pixel noise and DR levels and 100% on-screen images, along with the currently fashionable dogma that more, smaller photosites on the same sensor size always gives worse image quality?
I ask because of the specific suggestion that staying with the 40D would be better, which is flatly contradicted by the observations in Bob Atkins' review of the 50D at http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digit...D_review_1.html (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_eos_50D_review_1.html)
These guys are widely seen as being the best photo magazines in Europe. They combine both real world images, prints, and DxO analysis tools.
They are saying that there is more detail at low ISO with the 50D compared to the 40D, but that higher ISO image quality is roughly on par. All things considered they are saying that the 50D is a bit better, but not enough to justify an upgrade for existing 40D owners.
I feel that the 50D is undergoing a bit of an unfair treatement overall, partially because people keep sticking to ACR as a test raw converter, although it appears more and more that it is one of the worse offerings around. Also, there is globally a clear trend towards Nikon/Sony and away from Canon that contributes also to people doubting the ability of Canon to release valuable new releases.
My view is that as much as there used to be too much overlooking of Canon shortcoming 2 years ago, there is now too much criticism being cast.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
They are saying that there is more detail at low ISO with the 50D compared to the 40D, but that higher ISO image quality is roughly on par. All things considered they are saying that the 50D is a bit better, but not enough to justify an upgrade for existing 40D owners.
That sounds about right to me, Bernard. It's in accordance with my own tests. I would agree that image quality alone is not sufficient reason to upgrade. Or to be more precise, image quality directly related to the increased pixel count is not sufficient reason to upgrade from a 40D. But there are at least a couple of sweeteners that Canon have thrown into the mix, namely, a higher resolution LiveView LCD screen which is just amazing at 10x magnification with a 400mm lens attached (on tripod of course and preferably with IS enabled), and an autofocus micro-adjustment feature. Both of these additional features will potentially contribute to better image quality over and above what can be achieved merely with the increase in pixel count.
Edit: As BJL mentioned, Bob Atkins in his review of the 50D demonstrated that, even at ISO 3200, the 50D image lends itself to a degree of noise reduction which can lower noise to the 40D level, and even better, whilst still retaining the resolution edge over the 40D.
I haven't tested this myself and it looks like Chasseur D'Image haven't either, but there's a certain logic to the process. We know that noise reduction programs tend to destroy fine detail. We know also that sacrificing resolution by downsampling can reduce apparent noise, resulting in high-ISO 21mp 1Ds3 images having similarly low noise to a 12mp D3 image, for example, when downsampled.
It looks as though a similar process applies to high-ISO 50D images when some degree of resolution is sacrificed, not by downsampling, but by the application of a noise reduction routine. It looks as though this might be a more successful or more efficient way of equalising noise than downsampling.
This probably deserves more investigation because, if the effect is consistent, it means that the 1Ds3 and 5D2, with appropriate noise reduction, have lower noise than the D3 .
Of course, I'm aware of the counter argument. Any noise reduction that is applied to the 5D2 or 1Ds3 can also be applied to the D3 image to reduce its noise even further, but alas! not without also reducing D3 resolution. The resolution gap remains and the bottom line might well be, after all noise reduction options have been explored, that a 5D3 image at high ISO can have either lower noise than the D3 but equal resolution, or equal noise but marginally higher resolution.
Something to consider
-
They are saying that there is more detail at low ISO with the 50D compared to the 40D, but that higher ISO image quality is roughly on par. All things considered they are saying that the 50D is a bit better, but not enough to justify an upgrade for existing 40D owners.
Ah, that is a different and far more reasonable story than other options like the 40D being preferable to the 50D, or the 50D having "too much resolution": some IQ advantages, no disadvantages, not enough gain for most to replace their only one year old 40D!
I find strange this habit of judging a new camera by this standard of being worth upgrading from the previous model in the same product line, from only a year or two earlier. Surely the far more common likely customers are
1. those with a camera three or more years old, for whom the technological progress is quite significant.
2. those upgrading from a lower level camera: with the 50D, say an entry level DSLR, or even a digicam.
Or am in the minority for still using a four year old DSLR while I wait for the must-have upgrade?!
-
Or am in the minority for still using a four year old DSLR while I wait for the must-have upgrade?!
Are you saying four years old, like in "4" years old???
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Or am in the minority for still using a four year old DSLR while I wait for the must-have upgrade?!
I suspect you are, but then again, so am I.
The upgrades have been just short of worth it for the past few years, and it seems like I'll be sitting on this fence while the grass grows to my knees.
-
Are you saying four years old, like in "4" years old???
As in, I admit to still using my horrendously obsolete (so they say) Olympus E-1, purchased in early 2004! (The E-30 is at last tempting me.)
I am more comfortable about being in the majority when it comes to replacing my DSLR less often than every two years, meaning skipping at least one models in the sequence of updates of "amateur" SLR product lines like 10D->20D->30D->40D->50D.
-
My first digital camera was an Olympus E something or something E. It was the one that appeared about the same time as the Canon D30. Only went up to 400iso, had a fixed lens that you screwed a wide or tele bit on, had a silent (totally) shutter or you could tell it to make a noise like a shutter! And it took bloody brilliant images. I have a theatre client who still has some 20x16's on her wall and they look every bit as good as my 1DS3 and now 5D2 shots. Noisier of course but the noise was so film-like it added to the atmosphere. I think it was only about 4mp but it blew up a treat. So I suppose I shouldn't make too many disparaging remarks about the 50D. And now I'm sending my own thread off topic!
-
As in, I admit to still using my horrendously obsolete (so they say) Olympus E-1, purchased in early 2004! (The E-30 is at last tempting me.)
I am more comfortable about being in the majority when it comes to replacing my DSLR less often than every two years, meaning skipping at least one models in the sequence of updates of "amateur" SLR product lines like 10D->20D->30D->40D->50D.
BJL,
I feel I should offer you my 40D at a mate's price since I obviously no longer need it. But I probably would not be doing you a favour because, I presume, you have no Canon lenses.
I think I've mentioned before, I bought the 40D in unusual circumstances. It wasn't a sufficiently major upgrade from my 20D to get me interested. However, whilst shopping for an EF-S 17-55/2.8 lens in Bangkok, a beautiful Thai shop assistant offered me a very attractive price on a 40D body. The price was not only significantly less than the best internet price I'd seen in Australia, but the shop assitant was also very charming.
Unfortunately, that 17-55mm lens which has an excellent Photozone rating at F2.8, did not autofocus accurately on the 40D, and was therefore almost useless. I bought it because it was supposedly sharp at F2.8 and therefore an excellent walk-around lens in low-light conditions where flash would be an intrusion.
-
I did some shots yesterday on my mate's 40D and was very surprised at how very noisy they were. And I used to use a 20D some years back and the images look poor in comparison to that camera. Very surprised by that.
Could have been a poor lens though as well as I use L lens and the lens on 40D was a 70-300mm Canon, but it was the noise that surprised me most. The shots looked like a P+S camera!
-
I did some shots yesterday on my mate's 40D and was very surprised at how very noisy they were. And I used to use a 20D some years back and the images look poor in comparison to that camera. Very surprised by that.
Could have been a poor lens though as well as I use L lens and the lens on 40D was a 70-300mm Canon, but it was the noise that surprised me most. The shots looked like a P+S camera!
This is quite similar to the impression I had when looking at the sample photographs at DPReview and other places that offered them.
A small trial at an exposition in Oslo showed that while there might be other reasons for upgrading, there were no significant differences, at least for my uses. 2 megapixels extra, no improvement in noise (and seemingly lower sensitivity, removing 1/3 stop advantage in the first place).
I've been saving for a 1-series camera for a couple of years, and thought that the 1D MkIII would be the camera for me (the silent shooting mode is pretty good!), but alas, it's not. My money's still in the bank -- and the bank isn't broke!
I've actually considered purchasing a used Hasselblad 503, a couple of lenses and using chemical film instead.
-
I did some shots yesterday on my mate's 40D and was very surprised at how very noisy they were. And I used to use a 20D some years back and the images look poor in comparison to that camera. Very surprised by that.
Could have been a poor lens though as well as I use L lens and the lens on 40D was a 70-300mm Canon, but it was the noise that surprised me most. The shots looked like a P+S camera!
Perhaps we should request that Michael create a special section for silly comments .
Here's a 40D image which I would entitle, "The Four Fours" . Canon 40D, 4000mm lens, ISO 400, 1/4000th sec exposure.
[attachment=10305:The_four_fours.jpg]
-
Perhaps we should request that Michael create a special section for silly comments .
Like this response.
I also thought the screen quality on back was horrible, looked like something off a Hasselblad.
Maybe he has a lemon.