Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: JohnKoerner on November 01, 2008, 11:25:33 pm
-
I was reading the review of the 50D and, while I am still a novice, it struck me as almost a complete waste of time in the end.
First of all, when comparing images they put a bullship $325 mediocre lens on the 50D, as if that low-budget beauty is going to be able to fully reveal the advantages of the new ultra-sharp 15.1 sensor. In fact, even in their "conclusion," under Cons, they said, "High-end lenses required to get the most out of the camera," so my question is why in the world didn't these bozos use a high-end lens to conduct their bleeping test to begin with?
Even the camera-versus-camera tests were biased. Against the 50D and the D300, they said they "helped (the D300) by a little bit of extra sharpening." What kind of BS is that? Then the reviewer said, "Overall however there's not a huge amount (of difference) between these two cameras and certainly in print it would be very difficult to pick a clear winner."
Are these guys politicians, or are they serious reviewers? It seems to me that they are lying through omission. They deliberately aren't saying who the "little" advantage goes to. They are deliberately sharpening and altering the images produced by one camera to its favor. They are deliberately not using the absolute best in lenses, of each company, to show the absolute clearest and most definitive results in their testing.
That is my take on this latest "review" ...
Jack
PS: I read another review (on another site) of a Canon 180 Macro lens, at the end of which they admitted they tested this macro lens "at infinity," rather than as its intended purpose, macro. I mean, what is the point of such foolishness? What is the point of spending hours "testing" something, and not even testing it for its intended purpose? It is either unscrupulous, or retarded, take your pick. These people are either deliberately misleading their readers or they are simply educated imbeciles. What they are doing is tantamount to "testing a hammer at sawing wood," and concluding that hammers don't saw wood as well other brands of saw might saw wood. I don't know whether to be angry or to laugh
Am I missing something or are most of these "reviews" biased and therefore pretty much full of $#!^?
.
-
They used every lens they had in the 50mm range they test in. Hunt down Phil's comments on the subject. The only lens that was suggested that they didn't try was the 60mm f2.8 ef-s macro.
Sharpening doesn't change resolution. So if they sharpen to show the resolution differences who cares?
As to the 180 macro thing. Most lens testing sites use software of one type or another to test their lenses. Lens gets stuffed into the test setup. They photograph a chart and run it through some software. It tells you something about a lens but not everything. Definitely silly in the case of a macro lens but still wrong for any lens you aren't likely to be shooting at infinity.
People like Thom Hogan and, from what I understand, Sean Reid tend to characterize strengths and weaknesses of lenses and cameras a little more usefully if not to as many (any) decimal places.
I was reading the review of the 50D and, while I am still a novice, it struck me as almost a complete waste of time in the end.
First of all, when comparing images they put a bullship $325 mediocre lens on the 50D, as if that low-budget beauty is going to be able to fully reveal the advantages of the new ultra-sharp 15.1 sensor. In fact, even in their "conclusion," under Cons, they said, "High-end lenses required to get the most out of the camera," so my question is why in the world didn't these bozos use a high-end lens to conduct their bleeping test to begin with?
Even the camera-versus-camera tests were biased. Against the 50D and the D300, they said they "helped (the D300) by a little bit of extra sharpening." What kind of BS is that? Then the reviewer said, "Overall however there's not a huge amount (of difference) between these two cameras and certainly in print it would be very difficult to pick a clear winner."
Are these guys politicians, or are they serious reviewers? It seems to me that they are lying through omission. They deliberately aren't saying who the "little" advantage goes to. They are deliberately sharpening and altering the images produced by one camera to its favor. They are deliberately not using the absolute best in lenses, of each company, to show the absolute clearest and most definitive results in their testing.
That is my take on this latest "review" ...
Jack
PS: I read another review (on another site) of a Canon 180 Macro lens, at the end of which they admitted they tested this macro lens "at infinity," rather than as its intended purpose, macro. I mean, what is the point of such foolishness? What is the point of spending hours "testing" something, and not even testing it for its intended purpose? It is either unscrupulous, or retarded, take your pick. These people are either deliberately misleading their readers or they are simply educated imbeciles. What they are doing is tantamount to "testing a hammer at sawing wood," and concluding that hammers don't saw wood as well other brands of saw might saw wood. I don't know whether to be angry or to laugh
Am I missing something or are most of these "reviews" biased and therefore pretty much full of $#!^?
.
-
Even the camera-versus-camera tests were biased. Against the 50D and the D300, they said they "helped (the D300) by a little bit of extra sharpening." What kind of BS is that?
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page26.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page26.asp)
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page30.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page30.asp)
Note that the "Measurable Results" at page 30 show a negligible advantage over the D300. Why are you so exercised about a review? It appears to me that your fanboy mentality has been wounded by the "Highly Recommended (just)" given by DPR. You're basing your rant on the JPEG results, and if that's how you judge what a camera is capable of, then you're an idiot.
-
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page26.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page26.asp)
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page30.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page30.asp)
Note that the "Measurable Results" at page 30 show a negligible advantage over the D300. Why are you so exercised about a review? It appears to me that your fanboy mentality has been wounded by the "Highly Recommended (just)" given by DPR. You're basing your rant on the JPEG results, and if that's how you judge what a camera is capable of, then you're an idiot.
The OP has a point. To address the testing first, I do not put too much weight on tests based on MTF plots from Imatest software etc. My experience is that the data they produce is not sufficient to characterise a lens, beyond "might be good" or "poor". The truth is that the tests are not sufficient. In the field testing is required to really find out how lenses perform. The OP has put forward one good reason why they are poor for macro lenses.
As for the first point, reviews on DPREVIEW have a veneer of objectivity as they are full of measurements. But again, they focus on certain aspects to the detriment of others. Unless I am mistaken they do not perform extensive tests of the AF. And the dynamic range results are strange, when it hardly reduces as the ISO is set to 1600 and higher. They do not perform careful battery testing. Nor do they perform tests of the build quality. IMO they are the sort of test needed to have a rather vicious and personal argument that you see all too often in the forums on that site. I trust real world tests, and user comments.
Of course the vicious hordes that inhabit dpreview will discount real world tests as 'unscientific' and not 'objective'. Well, I can tell you the size of a camera and the weight, and those are scientific and objective measurements. But they are not much use when it comes to how it feels in the hand.
-
The vicious hordes that inhabit dpreview will discount real world tests as 'unscientific' and not 'objective' and they will not discount real world tests as 'unscientific' and not 'objective'. The hordes cover all sides.
The DR tests are as expected as they are pretty much just reporting the JPEG's tone curve.
-
The OP has a point.
"Am I missing something or are most of these "reviews" biased and therefore pretty much full of $#!^?"
While I don't put a lot of stock in DPR's reviews, I would not consider them biased. If he doesn't like the tests then he shouldn't read them. Ironically, Jack belongs at DPR where there are many who share his fanboyism and propensity to flame others; I'm pretty sure he will be just as vociferous towards anyone that dismisses the 50D or any other Canon DSLR regardless of how they arrived at that conclusion. It's unfortunate that he brings that mentality here.
-
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page26.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page26.asp)
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page30.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page30.asp)
Note that the "Measurable Results" at page 30 show a negligible advantage over the D300. Why are you so exercised about a review? It appears to me that your fanboy mentality has been wounded by the "Highly Recommended (just)" given by DPR. You're basing your rant on the JPEG results, and if that's how you judge what a camera is capable of, then you're an idiot.
Fanboy? Wounded?
I think it is rather amusing that "you" always bring-up the subject of fanboyism, when it is you who keeps waiving your Nikon pom-poms on every Canon thread I read on this forum. Perhaps a little self-awareness would do you wonders Tony
I am a fan of both camera systems, actually, and I am rubbing my chin over the D300 every bit as much as the 50D. But when all is said and done this test doesn't help clarify anything for me. I don't shoot in .jpg and I don't plan on buying a low-budget 50mm lens to use. I am looking to get the high-end macros and zooms on whichever system I decide to go with. However, I will say if there is a slight advantage to the 50D, and it's less expensive than the D300, this makes the $200 difference in price even more attractive. But that is not the way I read things. On p. 26 of the very link you posted the reviewer said, "but the improvement is more significant on the Nikon which now has a pretty obvious per pixel detail advantage over the 50D." It seems one of us doesn't know how to read correctly, as that appeared to be a RAW comparison also. Was that misleading also? I don't know.
I just feel is that the entire exercise was a waste of time. I do not know why you are insulting me, Tony, as I never mentioned you, but I would imagine it's only because you're at a safe distance to do so. You remind me of a yapping poodle, always barking behind a screen door safely on his porch. I was merely being candid about my frustration with the lack of any meaningful conclusions being able to be drawn from such a test, I was not slamming you, Nikon, nor any member of this forum.
I guess the bottom line to me is, if these "reviewers" are going to test the very latest in camera sensory output then they ought to do so by running these capabilities through the absolute best lenses each company has to offer, not their lowest-budget lens. It just seems absolutely ludicrous to run these test through mediocre lenses and then "make a comment" at the end that "in order to get the most out of the camera you need to get the best lenses." I am still scratching my head as to why they didn't think of that before their own testing and thereby have conducted their tests through the very best lenses.
I believe this is a valid point. No camera is a world unto itself, and so for an accurate comparison of systems to carry meaning, it ought to be conducted through the very best lenses of each respective brand, not through lenses that allow neither system to be seen in its best light.
This thread was not meant to slam either system, but to slam the "review" of these systems as a complete waste of time that ultimately seemed more biased and "political" than actually striving to provide us consumers with a true evaluation. Perhaps Michael's review will address these questions.
Jack
.
-
They used every lens they had in the 50mm range they test in. Hunt down Phil's comments on the subject. The only lens that was suggested that they didn't try was the 60mm f2.8 ef-s macro.
Sharpening doesn't change resolution. So if they sharpen to show the resolution differences who cares?
As to the 180 macro thing. Most lens testing sites use software of one type or another to test their lenses. Lens gets stuffed into the test setup. They photograph a chart and run it through some software. It tells you something about a lens but not everything. Definitely silly in the case of a macro lens but still wrong for any lens you aren't likely to be shooting at infinity.
People like Thom Hogan and, from what I understand, Sean Reid tend to characterize strengths and weaknesses of lenses and cameras a little more usefully if not to as many (any) decimal places.
Thanks for the comments.
I am sorry, but I don't know who Phil is. Do you have any links to these other folks you recommend? If so, I would be interested in reading them.
Thanks again.
-
I am sorry, but I don't know who Phil is. Do you have any links to these other folks you recommend? If so, I would be interested in reading them.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/postersp...ster=hjiuiiimhx (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/postersprofile.asp?poster=hjiuiiimhx)
http://www.bythom.com/ (http://www.bythom.com/)
What I wrote was that judging a camera's capabilities on it's out of camera JPEG performance is idiotic -- if the shoe fits then by all means put it on.
As for your contributions to the tenor of this forum:
...it is you who keeps waiving your Nikon pom-poms on every Canon thread I read on this forum.
I do not know why you are insulting me, Tony, as I never mentioned you, but I would imagine it's only because you're at a safe distance to do so. You remind me of a yapping poodle, always barking behind a screen door safely on his porch.
Enough said.
-
they put a bullship $325 mediocre lens on the 50D
Whose full of bull here? That 50mm outresolves every L zoom I own (17-40L, 24-70L, 24-105L, 70-200 f4L IS) by f4 nevermind f8. I don't suppose the 85mm or 100mm primes would be good enough for you either as they are cheap. The fact that the 50L is less sharp at pretty much every aperture than the f1.4 is irrelevant I assume. That you suppose the lens is rubbish just because it's cheap shows that you really are clueless.
-
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29861905 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=29861905)
-
Quote from Phil:
but just how much trouble do you think the average 50D buyer should have to go to to get their 15 megapixels?
Especially given that the camera is sold as kit with the 18-200 lens (!), should have a warning on the box, only provides decent results with L primes over and including 85mm....
It does put the price advantage over the D300 into perspective. It's only cheaper if you use lenses that provide you with a camera that has less resolution and is pretty inferior as a camera all round. It will only have superior IQ if you pay through the nose for the top L lenses by which time it's far more expensive.
I still think that if you want more resolution than a 40D, buy a 5D mkI. Very cheap these days, mindblowing IQ, FF and according to canon the AF is better than that in the 50D!
-
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/postersp...ster=hjiuiiimhx (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/postersprofile.asp?poster=hjiuiiimhx)
http://www.bythom.com/ (http://www.bythom.com/)
Thanks for the links.
What I wrote was that judging a camera's capabilities on it's out of camera JPEG performance is idiotic -- if the shoe fits then by all means put it on.
No, that's not what you wrote. You said, "You're basing your rant on the JPEG results, and if that's how you judge what a camera is capable of, then you're an idiot." You assumed that's what I did and then you insulted me directly. What is funny is that your very insult missed the entire point of my thread. The very fact that they used lesser methods acrossed the board (.jpgs, low-end lenses, etc.) was the entire point of my thread, which means that in truth you are the idiot in posting what you said to begin with.
As for your contributions to the tenor of this forum:
Enough said.
Sorry Tony, you are the person who has been rude here. Again, I wasn't trying to be insulting to you, nor anyone else. But I guess you just like to yap at people for no reason, accusing "them" of being the very things you are. Again, you remind me of the cowardly poodle yapping at everything that passes by, from the safety of your door step.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Whose full of bull here? That 50mm outresolves every L zoom I own (17-40L, 24-70L, 24-105L, 70-200 f4L IS) by f4 nevermind f8. I don't suppose the 85mm or 100mm primes would be good enough for you either as they are cheap. The fact that the 50L is less sharp at pretty much every aperture than the f1.4 is irrelevant I assume. That you suppose the lens is rubbish just because it's cheap shows that you really are clueless.
You are right, I really am clueless about how you interpret the abilities of your own personal lenses. This does not make "me" full of bull, as I have not intentionally misrepresented anything. But it does make me clueless about your own personal opinions about your own personal equipment. I am not sure what this has to do with the subject, but now that you have piped-up and given me your opinion of the 50mm lens you own, I am no longer clueless about your opinion of your equipment. Thank you for that.
At any rate, I guess it is prime time for the peanut gallery today, who like to miss points and offer insults, but there is good news to all of this ... for (if it is true) one person on DP Review stated that Photozone is retesting all the Canon lenses with the 50D. Now, that's the kind of testing I would like to see, rather than the archaic results through old Digital Rebels XTis, etc.
Anyway, I didn't mean to ruffle anyone's feathers, but I just thought the tests were skewed. Judging from the provided links, it does not seem I was alone in this opinion. Someone else mentioned that these "studio" tests are inaccurate by default, as no one uses their 50Ds (etc.) in an artificial light studio, but rather out there in the real world with real lenses on real subjects, under natural lighting conditions. Judging by the few members of this forum who have actually used the 50D outside in the real world (Ray, Wayne) they have noticed an improvement overall it seems.
Thanks to those who tried to offer help and not insults.
Jack
.
-
a. the 50mm f1.4 is an excellent lens when you step away from f1.4. Its biggest issue is CA.
b. photozone is retesting lenses. The 17-85IS and 18-55IS so far.
-
The tone of your original post was in line with the answers you recieved. If you don't want to be insulted then don't be insulting about things you really do not understand. The line I quoted being a case in point. As a novice I wouldn't write a post showing my huge ignorance coloured with expletives, insults and accusations of lying, etc. When you own the lens and have done tests to show that it is an inferior lens within the canon lineup, when you have shown that cost is at all relative to sharpness (my 50mm Macro costs peanuts and is one of the sharpest canon lenses period), then possibly you can comment. Until then, especially with the manner you started this thread with, you've just made a laughing stock of yourself.
-
The tone of your original post was in line with the answers you recieved. If you don't want to be insulted then don't be insulting about things you really do not understand. The line I quoted being a case in point.
The line you quoted was but a vestige of all the things that have been said by that same writer. He also said, "High-end lenses required to get the most out of the camera," so I guess my real question is why didn't he try to get the most out of the camera by conducting this test with high-end lenses? I believe this remains a valid question.
As a novice I wouldn't write a post showing my huge ignorance coloured with expletives, insults and accusations of lying, etc.
Thank you for telling me what "you" wouldn't do. Since I have no wish to be you, to put it politely, I am not worried about showing my ignorance here, as I am not thin-skinned nor am I sensitive about being ignorant of a subject in which I have only recently become interested. That is why I plainly stated "or am I missing something?" at the end of my post, so as to have you experts point out the things I am missing. So again, thank you to those who have done so.
When you own the lens and have done tests to show that it is an inferior lens within the canon lineup, when you have shown that cost is at all relative to sharpness (my 50mm Macro costs peanuts and is one of the sharpest canon lenses period), then possibly you can comment.
Well, genius, I guess that's the point. You see, I don't want to "own" either camera system until I am reasonably sure of which system is worth the investment. And I was not sure if the 50D was really going to be an improvement over the 40D either. I wanted to see some solid results first before making my decision. Based upon the reasons already set forth here, I just do not feel the results are very solid. In fact, one poster on DP Review said, "did they drop their 50mm, diff samples here: (I have) hand-held snapshots not even carefully carried taken and they see better than their studio shots ... maybe 50D doesn't have quite the per pixel of a 20D or 40D but the details BLOW AWAY the 20D and is clearly better than the 40D, their tests seem really weird. also why do they rag the 50D for losing detail from NR but when it was nikon doing that they soley praised it for getting low noise??" So, again, I am not alone in a sense of dissatisfaction with their test ...
I was not commenting here as an expert at all, oh truly astute one, I was commenting precisely as someone wanting to read a definitive test result prior to making my purchase decision. I don't want to buy first, then find out later. I was interested in seeing some definitive results, but I do not feel these test results are that.
Until then, especially with the manner you started this thread with, you've just made a laughing stock of yourself.
It's good to laugh, so I don't mind being a laughing stock
To me, you trying to insult my intelligence while misspelling the word "receive," and while using the word "with" twice in the same sentence, is funny
But neither my ignorance on camera issues, nor your poor use of the English language, is relevant to the subject. I don't mind you laughing at me, but I do mind being insulted. Again, I do not seem to be the only one dissatisfied with the test results and the methods used to obtain them. Perhaps many were simply hoping for more and voicing our disappointment, and that is all that is happening. Or, just perhaps, the whole test was a half-baked effort that really did leave alot to be desired.
Jack
-
The line you quoted was but a vestige of all the things that have been said by that same writer. He also said, "High-end lenses required to get the most out of the camera," so I guess my real question is why didn't he try to get the most out of the camera by conducting this test with high-end lenses? I believe this remains a valid question.
He did.
-
He did.
Not so. He only did with a few lenses. Here is what a current owner had to say (named Jay Brookstone), which to me provided a more revealing picture of the truth than that entire 30+ page review. Mr. Brookstone said:
"The DPReview article on the 50D states that the prime lenses the test was conducted with may have limited resolution results due to pixel density of the sensor. After using a 50D for several weeks, I'm sure they did. Many of mine do.
...
"The one exception is the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro II, which can clearly handle even more pixels than the 50D serves up. Transition boundaries in images are razor sharp from f2.8-f8, usually one pixel to two pixels wide. This is a pretty good indicator that the sensor and not the lens is the limiting factor.
...
"In summary, the DP Review article may be indicating that their own testing is flawed due to lens limits. Not surprising at 15 Mp/APS-C pixel densities. They need to pick the right lenses, and it seems older primes may not fare well. In terms of noise at the picture level, the 50D appears better than the 40D (I have both) and comparable or slightly better than in the Nikon D300 low-light images I've taken. DP Review might be correct at the pixel-by-pixel noise level,but I found it hard to tell from their images."
So again, was this a good review, or was it a complete waste of time? To me, the review smacks of the latter. This is especially true since macro is what I enjoy most, and that is where the 50D really shined the most.
Jack
-
He also said, "High-end lenses required to get the most out of the camera," so I guess my real question is why didn't he try to get the most out of the camera by conducting this test with high-end lenses? I believe this remains a valid question.
There is nothing wrong with the lens they used. If you actually looked at the resolution chart images you would see that Nyquist frequency limited the resolved detail at the same place on the 50D as it did on the D300, that's a sensor issue and not a lens issue.
I am not worried about showing my ignorance here...
You got that right.
Well, genius...
...oh truly astute one
Mocking will get you nowhere.
I was commenting precisely as someone wanting to read a definitive test result prior to making my purchase decision. I don't want to buy first, then find out later. I was interested in seeing some definitive results, but I do not feel these test results are that.
The test results actually are quite revealing inasmuch as we can clearly see that Canon has overshot the megapixels they are cramming onto an APS-C sensor that is slightly smaller than DX format. The 50D has become the case study in the diffraction limitations that limit useful gains in resolution and define how much a given format can deliver.
But neither my ignorance on camera issues, nor your poor use of the English language, is relevant to the subject.
The former is entirely relevant while the latter is not.
Again, I do not seem to be the only one dissatisfied with the test results and the methods used to obtain them. Perhaps many were simply hoping for more and voicing our disappointment, and that is all that is happening. Or, just perhaps, the whole test was a half-baked effort that really did leave a lot to be desired.
No different than DPR tests have always been; they are actually very consistent in the manner in which they test cameras. Photographers who really understand their gear dismiss all the online reviews because they are all deficient. The most common complaint has been the use of ACR to determine noise characteristics of sensors, and that's only just now been discovered by many Canon users.
Here's the real point of the uproar over the 50D. Yes it has more resolution than the 40D, but it does not have more resolution than the D300, and that increased resolution has come at a cost (both inflated file sizes and more noise). Canon could have done better by backing off and sticking with 12 MP, then they could have matched the D300 on not only resolution but possibly exceeded it on noise, fps, etc; they didn't and now those that have bought 50D cameras are crying about how wrong DPR is to point this out and raising bloody hell at the DPR forum. Now you have brought the same screaming and crying over "it's not fair" over here -- how nice of you.
-
Let's cut to the chase, here, and avoid some of the personal insults.
DPReview has been angry with Canon since the flap a few years ago in which other online sites released info before Canon wanted them to, while DPR didn't, and Canon didn't 'punish' the early-releasers.
DPR unfairly/incompetantly compares all cameras at 100% zoom, handicapping higher-resolution cameras.
DPR rates noise strangely, judging cameras which blur the hell out of detail as better cameras.
DPR rates 'resolution' in a way which doesn't match the res chart images they actually show in the review.
DPR seldom notes which lenses are used in reviews. You and I know what this results in...
Seriously, if you want to read lots of forum posts, DPR is the place.
If you want competant reviews, Imaging Resources, hell, even Steve's Digicams, are far better. See also Camera Labs and DC Resource.
-
Let's cut to the chase, here, and avoid some of the personal insults.
DPReview has been angry with Canon since the flap a few years ago in which other online sites released info before Canon wanted them to, while DPR didn't, and Canon didn't 'punish' the early-releasers.
DPR unfairly/incompetantly compares all cameras at 100% zoom, handicapping higher-resolution cameras.
DPR rates noise strangely, judging cameras which blur the hell out of detail as better cameras.
DPR rates 'resolution' in a way which doesn't match the res chart images they actually show in the review.
DPR seldom notes which lenses are used in reviews. You and I know what this results in...
Seriously, if you want to read lots of forum posts, DPR is the place.
If you want competant reviews, Imaging Resources, hell, even Steve's Digicams, are far better. See also Camera Labs and DC Resource.
These are the kind of political behind-the-scenes shenanigans that this entire review smacked of to me. It just seemed that the entire review was a deliberate lie and slanting of the truth, by purposely judging the camera with inappropriate lenses to its sensor ... and then they covered their aperture by putting a small caveat at the end saying, "High-end lenses required to get the most out of the camera."
This is deliberate lying to me, lying through omission. As the fellow Jay Brookstone noted in his post: they need to pick the right lenses. In fact, prior to any of the new Canons coming out, it has been speculated to no end here that many of these older lenses are going to fall by the wayside as being antiquated, precisely when newer and higher-powered sensors emerge. The flaws in these older lenses themselves, it has been repeatedly argued, will become obvious when put on newer and newer cameras. And that is what it seems like is happening to me.
To this, Phil Askey said, "but just how much trouble do you think the average 50D buyer should have to go to to get their 15 megapixels?," which to me reeks of intentional fraud and dishonesty. I would think an outfit whose sole purpose was to put-out worldwide reviews of products ought to get off its lazy ass and go though "whatever trouble" is necessary in order to provide the best and most accurate account of the truth. Like I said, I found Mr. Brookstone's simple post to be pretty much the bottom line here: and that is the 15.1 mpx 50D is going to reveal which Canon lenses need to be put to pasture and which lenses are good enough to spend your money on for the future.
I am sure many of you remember the debates of last year that the older lenses weren't going to be able to keep up with these newer sensors, and that an entire facelift in lenses is going to have to be forthcoming in order to make these higher-end cameras capable of being useful. And to me, that is pretty much what is going on here. Newer lenses like the 100mm f2.8 macro, 10-22mm, and the 70-200 f2.8 ISL were all very sharp on the 50D, according to Mr. Brookstone.
Anyway, thanks for your post and the links to those other sites. I also noticed that the Photozone testing on some of the older lenses revealed lousy results, but I will be interested to see their results on some of Canon's very best lenses, particularly their macros and fixed telephotos.
Jack
-
lol!
-
The test results actually are quite revealing inasmuch as we can clearly see that Canon has overshot the megapixels they are cramming onto an APS-C sensor that is slightly smaller than DX format. The 50D has become the case study in the diffraction limitations that limit useful gains in resolution and define how much a given format can deliver.
That's what DPReview's tests appear to show.
However, other testers don't seem to agree.
See e.g. akam.no's test (http://www.akam.no/artikler/canon_eos_50d/57516/4), which also is based on using "standard settings" in ACR, and they both use the 50mm f/1.4.
For testing image quality in terms of noise and detail, it appears that DPReview's and akam.no's methods are disconcertingly similar, yet show completely different results.
By the by, I also think that you need to tone down your ad hominems, Tony.
-
"Am I missing something or are most of these "reviews" biased and therefore pretty much full of $#!^?"
While I don't put a lot of stock in DPR's reviews, I would not consider them biased. If he doesn't like the tests then he shouldn't read them. Ironically, Jack belongs at DPR where there are many who share his fanboyism and propensity to flame others; I'm pretty sure he will be just as vociferous towards anyone that dismisses the 50D or any other Canon DSLR regardless of how they arrived at that conclusion. It's unfortunate that he brings that mentality here.
Oh come on, don't distort my views by quoting one small part of the original post followed by my comment on the entire post. That is cheap. Maybe you should return to the dpreview forums if you want to play like that?
-
See e.g. akam.no's test (http://www.akam.no/artikler/canon_eos_50d/57516/4), which also is based on using "standard settings" in ACR, and they both use the 50mm f/1.4.
For testing image quality in terms of noise and detail, it appears that DPReview's and akam.no's methods are disconcertingly similar, yet show completely different results.
I don't read German, but I see no appreciable increase in resolution between the D300 and 50D in the charts or sample images presented there.
-
The vicious hordes that inhabit dpreview will discount real world tests as 'unscientific' and not 'objective' and they will not discount real world tests as 'unscientific' and not 'objective'. The hordes cover all sides.
In other words, they argue whatever one says. Fair point. That is the purpose of dpreview it would seem.
And this thread does seem to be very dpreview like, with lots of personal abuse. IMO Canon should have concentrated on improving the output at 10-12 MP along with the other improvements. And that 100% viewfinder on the D300 is appealing. I'm getting sick of not being able to get an accurate composition.
-
Oh come on, don't distort my views by quoting one small part of the original post followed by my comment on the entire post. That is cheap. Maybe you should return to the dpreview forums if you want to play like that?
You are arguing that I should discount or even ignore Jack's title and summation, and that somewhere in the middle of his rant is his true intention. Your post dealt with two things that are not really in Jack's OP -- evaluating lenses and cameras on intangibles versus numbers -- I took issue with the part of your post defending Jack to argue that he is wrong about a bias in DPR's tests against one camera or the other, it's that simple and it's not unfair.
-
You are arguing that I should discount or even ignore Jack's title and summation, and that somewhere in the middle of his rant is his true intention. Your post dealt with two things that are not really in Jack's OP -- evaluating lenses and cameras on intangibles versus numbers -- I took issue with the part of your post defending Jack to argue that he is wrong about a bias in DPR's tests against one camera or the other, it's that simple and it's not unfair.
Whatever. I'll not engage in fights. Bye.
-
And this thread does seem to be very dpreview like, with lots of personal abuse.
People always say that about DPReview, but it seems like most of the abuse can be found over here. While yappy poodles like Tony growl on their porches, and whilst Dark Penguins "lol" over here, I have to click over to DP Review to find any meaningful posts about this subject. For instance, here is a very interesting post by the same individual, JB, in response to Phil's (the reviewer's) defensiveness:
"Sorry to hit a nerve, Phil. I was not trying to be critical of your review. In my casual examination I was surprised that the primes, with the exception of the 100mm, were outperformed by the zooms in my inventory. It became clear just how important lens performance is to any 50D test. Sometimes test methods have to evolve to meet the performance bounds of new technology, and as you have pointed out, the pixel density of the 50D is into new territory for a DSLR. No surprise many lenses can't deal with it.
"And it became equally clear that it is possible to design and build lenses that CAN deal with 15 Mpix/APS-C. Maybe the manufacturers just need to step up to the challenge and do it consistently, if they are going to build bodies with this pixel density. What a thought.
"Regarding lens resolution... I have had issues with lens performance on digital bodies going back to the 6.3 Mpix Canon D60. Edge performance has always been an issue. But now, center performance is a broad issue as well. Many lenses have become low-pass filters with respect to 50D sensor resolution. So the sensor is effectively oversampling a frequency (resolution) limited input. And oversampling improves system performance, though incrementally. In the 50D case, this improvement will likely be a small dynamic range/noise improvement that can be realized by integrating over adjacent pixels when reducing the image size to the equivalent of a smaller sensor. Nobody will really care.
"But on the few lenses that can exploit the 50D sensor, everyone will benefit. For example... This week, I shot a corporate event with, well over 120 persons in the group shot. The venue was changed at the last moment, the company vastly underestimated the persons to be in the shot, and I had to shoot from a ladder, with the group lined up only 4 deep on a broad but narrow walk, surrounded by wet grass. I could not even curve the group around me to maintain focal distance. My only option was to shoot with the Canon 10-22, at f8/22mm (I did use AC strobes). The result was a narrow band of people occupying 25% of the image height and nearly 100% of its width, throwing away 75% of the image (sensor resolution). The print will be 30 inches wide and will hang in the lobby of corp. HQ for one year, where I have learned that every person likes to critically examine themselves. I was very worried. But the 50D and 10-22 really delivered a good image. Maybe only 15-20% or so better than the 40D in resolution, but I needed that 15-20%. As I stated in my earlier post, my copy of the 10-22 seems well matched to the 50D sensor, has little chromatic aberration and easily correctable field distortion.
"Regarding the average user - what IS the average user. I see L lenses popping up in snap shooters hands daily. Maybe this only happens in Southern California, but I doubt it. So the challenge today is to use proven lenses for resolution critical shoots, and maybe reduce image size with other lenses on non-critical shoots. And I have that choice with the 50D, which is good."
The way I see things Slough, the abuse is going on over here, while the thoughtful, meaningful posts on the actual subject matter are in fact going on over there. This not a slam on you, just my honest observation as someone seeking answers to my questions.
Jack
.
-
Don't know what all the fuss is about. The incremental pixel count increase in the 50D is in line with previous upgrades in the APS-C cropped format that Canon have given us. The only exception was the very first upgrade from the 3mp D30 to the 6mp D60, which was a 100% increase. The 10D to the 20D was a 33% increase; the 20D to the 40D a 25% increase; the 40D to the 450D a 20% increase and the 450D to the 50D a 25% increase.
I don't recall getting excited about any resolution increase when I upgraded from the D60 to the 20D. It seemed fairly irrelevant to me. The exciting feature of the 20D was its remarkably low noise at high ISO. ISO 1600 on the 20D was at least as good as ISO 400 on the D60.
I've always been of the view that anything less than a 50% increase in pixel count was irrelevant. The doubling in pixel count from the 3mp of the D30 to the 6mp of the D60 caused Michael to comment in his review that the D60 would be good for A3+ size prints whereas the D30 only good for A3, by the same critical viewing standards.
The 50D represents a 50% increase in pixel count over the 40D, so one might conclude that such an increase gets into the category of being significant. However, when the increase is from such a high base, it becomes less relevant. An increase from 3mp to 4.5mp, or an increase from 6mp to 9mp would be worthwhile... just. But an increase from 10mp to 15mp is hardly worthwhile. The best I can say is that it's better than no increase at all, provided there are no downsides such as increased noise.
For me, the 50D should have been my upgrade from the 20D. But someone in Bangkok made me an irresistable offer when I was out shopping for the EF-S 17-55/2.8, and my resolve weakened and i bought the 40D. I knew already I could expect no increase in resolution or reduction in noise that would be significant. The fast frame rates and the LiveView feature were the main drawcard for me, just as with the 50D the main drawcard was the 'autofocus micro adjustment' and the high resolution LiveView screen which facilitates amazingly accurate manual focussing. The additional pixel count I consider as a small bonus.
-
Jay Turberville has done some nice imatest stuff with the DPR 50D resolution tests.
-
I don't read German, but I see no appreciable increase in resolution between the D300 and 50D in the charts or sample images presented there.
You would need to read Scandiwegian to understand the text.
What's completely different between DPReview and akam.no, is the results for the 40D compared with the 50D.
From the D300 to the 50D, you can see that while there isn't an increase in per-pixel detail, the enlargement of the 50D is greater, which again implies a greater amount of detail, which in itself is noticeable enough. This is also visible in the charts, so perhaps you should study them again?
Also, you can see how e.g. the noise compares to the 5D, which is quite impressive, and again a bit contrary to what DPReview writes.
-
You would need to read Scandiwegian to understand the text.
What's completely different between DPReview and akam.no, is the results for the 40D compared with the 50D.
From the D300 to the 50D, you can see that while there isn't an increase in per-pixel detail, the enlargement of the 50D is greater, which again implies a greater amount of detail, which in itself is noticeable enough. This is also visible in the charts, so perhaps you should study them again?
Also, you can see how e.g. the noise compares to the 5D, which is quite impressive, and again a bit contrary to what DPReview writes.
I do not know how these files were handled as regards noise reduction. Anyway, I personally have not been concerned about noise on the 50D, and regardless of how it performs it could have performed better with fewer megapixels.
As to resolved detail:
(http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/mypicturesfolder/sharing//canon_eos_50d_raw_270x400%20copy.jpg)
I wouldn't get too excited one way or the other; they're pretty damn near equal. There are more important things to consider when buying into a camera system.
-
The way I see things Slough, the abuse is going on over here, while the thoughtful, meaningful posts on the actual subject matter are in fact going on over there. This not a slam on you, just my honest observation as someone seeking answers to my questions.
You might be right, as I stopped bothering with dpreview some while back due to the level of abuse. The signal to noise ratio was rather poor. Actually this forum is usually more civil. Heated debate yes, abuse, no. This thread is not typical.
Incidentally I don't think dpreview reviews are full of shit as you suggest in your original title. But they are very much for pixel peepers and spec. junkies. There is a tendency to not see the wood for the trees.
Leif
-
Ive read this forum for a while...but never posted.
Im always surprised that such an ass-hat like johnkoerner can have such a strong opinion on technical matters. I mean,last I checked, doesn't he just shoot bugs with a dinky camera?
He seems like a bitching troll with no actual worthwhile knowledge to add to any discussion.
I thought it was funny when someone said he looked like a rapist...lol..HE DOES!
What a delightful way to introduce yourself to the forum!
Looking forward to more of your charm and wit. Don't forget to post some of your fine work too.
-
Not sure why we still need to get excited about these DSLRs comparisons. It should be clear by now that 12-15 MP is pretty much the real world resolution limit for APS sensors just like 20-25MP is the limit for FF sensors.
The game is over folks, there really isn't any significant reason to upgrade or even consider upgrading if you already own a DSLR with a similar resolution.
That's the main message of the DPreview review, we are entering the era of draws, also called area of sharply decreasing returns.
This is great news IMHO, think about the money we will be saving in the coming years with our renewed ability to take photogaphs without being afraid that the next guy will over-spec us with more MPs...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This is great news IMHO, think about the money we will be saving in the coming years with our renewed ability to take photogaphs without being afraid that the next guy will over-spec us with more MPs...
Now we can worry about being outdone by someone with a higher DR DSLR. Seriously though, if you are pixel peeping the differences between a 12 and a 15 megapixel camera, and you think that's going to really make a difference in your photography -- well you've missed the boat completely because time spent shooting and processing will do much more to further the quality of your photographs.
-
Now we can worry about being outdone by someone with a higher DR DSLR. Seriously though, if you are pixel peeping the differences between a 12 and a 15 megapixel camera, and you think that's going to really make a difference in your photography -- well you've missed the boat completely because time spent shooting and processing will do much more to further the quality of your photographs.
True words for sure - this post and Bernards above it are about the only thing worth extracting from my drive-by of this thread.
Dpreview reviews are just one of many things one may look at when determining a camera. As I stated in another post, there's no single divine perfect review or reviewer out there, and for the life of me I don't get why people get so worked up about whether camera x or camera y has .001 more this or that on a review on dpreview, or for that matter, any other single site. Two years from now we won't care whether the 50D or 40D or D300 or Sony whatever is the best reviewed camera in its class because they'll have been long forgotten by those on the body-of-the-month train anyhow.
-m
-
Ive read this forum for a while...but never posted.
Im always surprised that such an ass-hat like johnkoerner can have such a strong opinion on technical matters. I mean,last I checked, doesn't he just shoot bugs with a dinky camera?
He seems like a bitching troll with no actual worthwhile knowledge to add to any discussion.
I thought it was funny when someone said he looked like a rapist...lol..HE DOES!
Lemme guess who this is ... Mr. Leonard with a new handle
I see your own contributions remain unchanged since Michael banned you. It's not my fault the extendable reach of your camera is the shortest in its class, but I still see your feelings remain hurt over the issue
Now we can worry about being outdone by someone with a higher DR DSLR. Seriously though, if you are pixel peeping the differences between a 12 and a 15 megapixel camera, and you think that's going to really make a difference in your photography -- well you've missed the boat completely because time spent shooting and processing will do much more to further the quality of your photographs.
That's a pretty good point Tony, but I still think you're missing one too.
If a person is about to make his first investment into equipment, and if he reads a review like that one, he might make a different choice. The review was very flawed and was in stark contrast to the other reviews (if not every other review). In asking the questions I did, and in raising the cain that I did, I actually shook from the bush the exact information I wanted. I was provided links that proved my point, really, and that while the 50D looks "worse" than the 40D on some lenses ... it in fact produces better results on others ... and it just so happens that 2 of the lenses it produces superior results with (the 100 macro and the 100-400 telephoto) are the very two lenses I am interested in buying.
So while the point you make is very valid, it doesn't change the point of my thread, and that is the DP Review analysis of this camera was poorly-done. And there are several thousand posts over on DP Review with other people who agree.
But still, if it is getting to the point we are splitting hairs, then all of these cameras are pretty much capable of satisfying anyone.
-
Wow...your sarcasm is so sharp and biting. Funny how you equate my 'charm and wit' to that of creative output.
So who's the dick HUH ,SMILEY SMILEY
Clearly you are someone whose soul purpose is to post abuse and you have no intention to engage in polite debate.
-
Not sure why we still need to get excited about these DSLRs comparisons. It should be clear by now that 12-15 MP is pretty much the real world resolution limit for APS sensors just like 20-25MP is the limit for FF sensors.
The game is over folks, there really isn't any significant reason to upgrade or even consider upgrading if you already own a DSLR with a similar resolution.
That's the main message of the DPreview review, we are entering the era of draws, also called area of sharply decreasing returns.
This is great news IMHO, think about the money we will be saving in the coming years with our renewed ability to take photogaphs without being afraid that the next guy will over-spec us with more MPs...
Cheers,
Bernard
The game of the near future, and where camera companies will find a good part of their business future: to provide all those high resolution bodies with high resolution lenses.
And how well they will be doing with that will determine the success of their higher end bodies.
-
But still, if it is getting to the point we are splitting hairs, then all of these cameras are pretty much capable of satisfying anyone.
Tell me about it. Also in hifi - fortunately I have reached a great system after years of messing around and trying to sort the hype from the reality. All I need to do now is really and genuinely convince myself that a better camera will not make me a better photographer
But maybe those shots of the red kites (the birds, not the toys) would have been better with a few more MPs to allow me to crop tighter.
Dammit. There I go again....
-
Tell me about it. Also in hifi - fortunately I have reached a great system after years of messing around and trying to sort the hype from the reality. All I need to do now is really and genuinely convince myself that a better camera will not make me a better photographer
A better camera might make you a better photographer but only if you have the skill to use it. But, that's an argument for another thread ... I think it's been done ad nauseum already.
-
Lemme guess who this is ... Mr. Leonard with a new handle
Was wondering when he would show up again.
So while the point you make is very valid, it doesn't change the point of my thread, and that is the DP Review analysis of this camera was poorly-done. And there are several thousand posts over on DP Review with other people who agree.
I don't think the glass mattered that much. From what I've been able to see the problem is in the analysis. The Jay Turberville stuff (in the dp forums) seems to indicate that the samples provided by dpreview show nearly the resolution increase one would expect from the increased pixel count. (Like around a 20% actual increase in resolution. 22% projected.) EDIT: This isn't what was reported, however. So the question becomes how did they judge resolution? By eyeballing it?
But still, if it is getting to the point we are splitting hairs, then all of these cameras are pretty much capable of satisfying anyone.
Thom Hogan has long said that if you can't get a decent 13x19 print from any available DSLR (6mp and up) then it isn't the camera. (Sports shooters and whatnot excluded.)
(As an aside my "lol" was in regards to the "behind-the-scenes shenanigans" comment. Just doesn't make sense for an Amazon company to rag on a camera that should sell as well as the 50D. EDIT: However, the oddness of the analysis does make me wonder a touch. I still do not think the lenses used mattered.)
EDIT: Added two points I thought I had typed. What I get for rushing off to vote.
-
No...not same,sorry.
I had forgotten his name,but ya, I agreed with Mr. Leonard's point of view. You just come off like such a turd.
Ah yes, "I" come off like such a turd while "you" come off like such a gentleman
I see
And you say you're not Mr. Leonard, but you claim to have been following Luminous Landscape's forums for years. Yet out of the nearly 218,000 posts that have been made here, on every subject under the sun, only my post prompted you to "officially join the forum" to post a comment ... which was to call me a rapist ... and which coincidentally was the exact same comment that got Mr. Leonard banned not even two weeks ago? Imagine the odds
I am sure anyone of even the more basic intellect realizes that the statistical probability of you being the very same person as Mr. Leonard is rather high
You share the same denseness as Mr. Leonard and you use the same words as he. In fact, of the more than 30,000 registered members here, I would be willing to bet that only Mr. Leonard has ever called another boardmember a "rapist" (and that person being me), and here you are two weeks after Mr. Leonard did so, "coincidentally" using the same word against the same person.
Mr. Leonard, I am sorry if my comment that the lens of your chosen camera had "the shortest extendable reach" of any product touched a nerve. My comment was just a joke, and I didn't realize there was a painful truth about selection that has clearly been an issue in your life. Please don't feel threatened by me. Please be assured that, simply because my equipment has much better reach, I would never force anyone to use it. I believe a person has the right to select whatever equipment they desire ... even (as in your case) it comes with only 60mm worth
In all seriousness, though, you are a very small man ... in more ways than one.
I don't think anyone here would descend to the level of common insult you have, well except you. So from this point forward I will ignore you, until your pending re-ban from the board.
Jack
.
-
Let's hope this thread gets closed soon!
Really, do we need all these personal remarks?
Back on topic, I agree with a poster earlier, the GAME is up...megapixel crusade has met it's match. Maybe we can now worry about more interesting stuff, like DR and tonal reproductions, or better still go take photos!
-
Was wondering when he would show up again.
Didn't take long
I don't think the glass mattered that much. From what I've been able to see the problem is in the analysis. The Jay Turberville stuff (in the dp forums) seems to indicate that the samples provided by dpreview show nearly the resolution increase one would expect from the increased pixel count. (Like around a 20% actual increase in resolution. 22% projected.)
This may be true, but I gathered the opposite impression. I gathered that the glass meant the world of difference, actually, as to whether the 50D was a curse or a blessing.
Thom Hogan has long said that if you can't get a decent 13x19 print from any available DSLR (6mp and up) then it isn't the camera. (Sports shooters and whatnot excluded.)
True, but then there is the additional world of difference between "decent" and "flawless" ...
(As an aside my "lol" was in regards to the "behind-the-scenes shenanigans" comment. Just doesn't make sense for an Amazon company to rag on a camera that should sell as well as the 50D.)
Well, and as I said in the beginning, it was either intentional or negligent. Every other reviewer seemed to immediately recognize that the 50D only shined on the very best lenses. They rightly pointed out that there was a reduction in quality on certain lenses, but they also balanced this truth with the camera's stellar quality when matched with the right lenses. They didn't just report the camera as "disappointing" ... densely omitting the distinctions as DPReview did ... the other reviewers said the camera was a nice improvement with the right lens selection. In fact, one review used the same lenses and still came out with far different results.
It is simply the difference between the truth and a lie ... or between a competent review and an incompetent one.
Jack
.
-
I was editing my post when you replied. I think everything still applies.
This may be true, but I gathered the opposite impression. I gathered that the glass meant the world of difference, actually, as to whether the 50D was a curse or a blessing.
I agree. I just think the lenses used were good enough for that purpose.
True, but then there is the additional world of difference between "decent" and "flawless" ...
What's even worse is that as this stuff improves "flawless" keeps getting better and better.
Well, and as I said in the beginning, it was either intentional or negligent. Every other reviewer seemed to immediately recognize that the 50D only shined on the very best lenses. They rightly pointed out that there was a reduction in quality on certain lenses, but they also balanced this truth with the camera's stellar quality when matched with the right lenses. They didn't just densely report the camera as "disappointing" ... they said the camera was a nice improvement with the right lens selection.
It is simply the difference between the truth and a lie ... or between a competent review and an incompetent one.
I'm beginning to wonder about their competency.
-
Someone seems to have been vaporized.
-
Wow...your sarcasm is so sharp and biting. Funny how you equate my 'charm and wit' to that of creative output.
So who's the dick HUH ,SMILEY SMILEY
I didn't equate your 'charm' to your output actually.
You were so very derisory of other's work, so I simply presumed yours must be truly fantastic.
I'm trembling with anticipation!
Alternatively, why not try posting an informed/useful comment rather than simply being abusive and unpleasant.
-
I was editing my post when you replied. I think everything still applies.
I agree. I just think the lenses used were good enough for that purpose.
We'll just have to disagree on this then. IMO, the whole point of a crop camera is to amplify either a macro or a telephoto, not a ho-hum 50mm, so these are the lenses that should have been used.
What's even worse is that as this stuff improves "flawless" keeps getting better and better.
LOL, this is true
I'm beginning to wonder about their competency.
Here is a much better, more balanced review:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E50D/E50DA.HTM (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E50D/E50DA.HTM)
This review notes the weaknesses, but also gives full credit to the strengths and benefits, thereby providing real information and not biased information. I think the Nikon D300 should be given credit for still holding very strong even though it is a year old.
Jack
.
-
Jack,
You could have had a civil discussion here by not starting the thread with thinly veiled expletives in your title in your OP. To paraphrase what you wrote more succinctly and less angrily, I interpreted your OP as:
DPR used a BS, mediocre, "low budget beauty" lens and they are bozos.
DPR is biased in favor of the D300.
DPR is lying by omission.
DPR is deliberately not using the absolute best lenses and sharpening files from one camera but not the other (true for the JPEG comparison to the D300 but thereby presumed for the RAW files as well).
That's the kind of post that's guaranteed to stir up an ugly discussion. While your tone has become more civil, you are still engaging in the same commentary of DPR's 50D review.
Well, and as I said in the beginning, it was either intentional or negligent. Every other reviewer seemed to immediately recognize that the 50D only shined on the very best lenses. They rightly pointed out that there was a reduction in quality on certain lenses, but they also balanced this truth with the camera's stellar quality when matched with the right lenses. They didn't just report the camera as "disappointing" ... densely omitting the distinctions as DPReview did ... the other reviewers said the camera was a nice improvement with the right lens selection. In fact, one review used the same lenses and still came out with far different results.
It is simply the difference between the truth and a lie ... or between a competent review and an incompetent one.
You are confusing your disappointment with the review with what DPR's review actually said, I cannot find anywhere in the review where they wrote that the 50D was "disappointing".
there is the additional world of difference between "decent" and "flawless" ...
There is no such thing as flawless. Thom's article on "How Big Can You Print?" (http://www.bythom.com/printsizes.htm) does not refer to "flawless:, he instead categorizes a DSLR file's enlargement potential as "Poor", "Good", and "Excellent". He writes that: "Well, once we get to 8mp we essentially get good results at everything a desktop inkjet printer is capable of printing (up to 13x19"). Yet even the 21mp camera doesn't have the pixels to get into good territory on that 24x36" print." What's more, not even an 18 MP DSLR attains "excellent" at or above 13x19 enlargements. You should read the article carefully, there are many weak points where an image can be degraded. Another good article to read is "Becoming a Better Photographer" (http://www.bythom.com/gettingbetter.htm).
Thom has written that acquiring more skills (such as spending on books, workshops and seminars, etc) will do more to improve your photography than acquiring new gear. Since DSLRs are getting less expensive all the time, overspending on cameras relative to the skills and peripherals that can take advantage of what they have to offer does not make sense -- especially if those advantages are marginal. DSLRs prices will continue to drop and when you find yourself consistently limited by a camera you bought one or two years ago, then you will be able to buy an even better one for less at that time than the more expensive one you passed on earlier.
Thom has also written (I believe somewhere buried in all of his DPR posts, so I have to paraphrase him here) that world class photographers have been taking great images and making money for years with DSLRs that everyone would dismiss as inadequate today. At DPR's forums and practically every other photography forum on the Internet there are endless debates about which is the best camera, and complaints about camera's inadequacies that "need" to be addressed; while these discussions are raging, real photographers are getting great photos and satisfying their clients with those "inadequate" DSLRs.
If a person is about to make his first investment into equipment, and if he reads a review like that one, he might make a different choice. The review was very flawed and was in stark contrast to the other reviews (if not every other review). In asking the questions I did, and in raising the cain that I did, I actually shook from the bush the exact information I wanted. I was provided links that proved my point, really, and that while the 50D looks "worse" than the 40D on some lenses ... it in fact produces better results on others ... and it just so happens that 2 of the lenses it produces superior results with (the 100 macro and the 100-400 telephoto) are the very two lenses I am interested in buying.
If you are trying to put together a system and you have a fixed budget to do so, the question becomes whether or not the extra $500 is best used on purchasing a 50D instead of a 40D. If you are skimping on your tripod/ballhead combo, on a lens, or software, then you probably are spending your money the wrong way.
So while the point you make is very valid, it doesn't change the point of my thread, and that is the DP Review analysis of this camera was poorly-done. And there are several thousand posts over on DP Review with other people who agree.
It's no worse than any test DPR has done. DPR has always tested using in-camera JPEGs at default settings and ACR; if that's how you use your camera then great, otherwise you should take all of DPR's test results with a grain of salt. I find it amusing all the cackles in the DPR 50D forum about ACR versus DPP for conversions, for years Nikon users have been saying that Nikon's software is superior to ACR and many Canon users have thumped their chests proclaiming that ACR was the "neutral" tool that "proved" Canons were better than Nikons; now that the 50D has been shortchanged by ACR many at the Canon forum over there are singing a new tune.
DPR did not tell anyone not to buy the 50D, they simply wrote that:
"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."
I would have been even more explicit, and said they have exceeded useful resolution for the APS-C format and should have stopped at 12 megapixels.
But still, if it is getting to the point we are splitting hairs, then all of these cameras are pretty much capable of satisfying anyone.
What's more, generally we can all get more out of our cameras than DPR does -- except for DR, those wedges have no corollary in real world shooting and printing.
-
To get back on topic.
I have often thought many reviews are deeply flawed as many reviewers bring their own preferences and quirks to the table. It rare to find unbiased comments, so what is a good thing to do is to find people whose biases agree with your own, at least that way, you get some useful information. Michael's reviews tend to be very useful for me as they are biased with a view to actually taking photographs - unusual I know for photo products, but hey I find it useful, being a photographer and all that.
For example I recently read a review of a media player and it completely dismissed one feature it had. That 'useless' feature was precisely why I bought it. Way too many reviews of stuff I read all too only illustrate how little the reviewer knows, not how knowledgable he thinks he is. And usually ignore the terrible flaws so as to keep the advertisers happy is my cynical view.
The cover of a recent sycophantic Mac magazine had the strapline something like 'Apple reinvents the laptop'. Nonsense, as I doubt making something far less useful for many of it's intended customers is what I would call a reinvention, as that's been done many times before and not just with laptops too.
I have a similar theory with many how-to books you can buy. They are all to often written by people who are not good enough to be paid to use the software professionally and so resort to telling others how to use it instead. Thankfully there are exceptions - Jeff Schewe and Martin Evening for example can actually take good photographs and made/make money from it too.
BTW I do realise teaching something is a separate skill from doing something and those that are are good are not always the best teachers. A hugely underated skill teaching.
-
Jack,
You could have had a civil discussion here by not starting the thread with thinly veiled expletives in your title in your OP. To paraphrase what you wrote more succinctly and less angrily, I interpreted your OP as:
DPR used a BS, mediocre, "low budget beauty" lens and they are bozos.
DPR is biased in favor of the D300.
DPR is lying by omission.
DPR is deliberately not using the absolute best lenses and sharpening files from one camera but not the other (true for the JPEG comparison to the D300 but thereby presumed for the RAW files as well).
That's the kind of post that's guaranteed to stir up an ugly discussion. While your tone has become more civil, you are still engaging in the same commentary of DPR's 50D review.
LOL, my tone was always civil Tony. And I don't need you to repeat-back to me what I said. I made those comments and I still believe those comments. I consider that review to be biased and incompetent, and I was angry at said review, and expressed that anger here.
But I don't see where that translated into me being uncivil to anyone here
You read my angry comments at DPReview, and for some reason chose to come on this thread and be uncivil towards me, repeatedly, when I did not even address you
But I do agree, this discussion is becoming more civil, and I hope it stays that way. I just thought I'd shake the bush a bit with the inflammatory title, but again this wasn't an insult to anyone here. I did the same thing on the nature thread on my own photo-posts: I posted The Beauty of Evil on an insect kill, as an inflammatory title to get people to look at the photo, but I wasn't trying to insult anyone there either. I likewise posted ROBBER FLY vs ROBBER FLY (No Honor Among Thieves) as a provocative title, yet here again I wasn't trying to bash fellow forum members
So likewise, I started the thread topic here a bit provocatively, but was not intending to bash anyone here
You are confusing your disappointment with the review with what DPR's review actually said, I cannot find anywhere in the review where they wrote that the 50D was "disappointing".
LOL, no, you are confusing your attempted projection of my feelings with what I truly felt. I truly feel that review was incompetent and did not address key issues adequately at all. I feel it was a "go through the motions" non-effort, without trying to pay particular attention to the key elements already discussed.
There is no such thing as flawless ...
I understand this.
Thom has written that acquiring more skills (such as spending on books, workshops and seminars, etc) will do more to improve your photography than acquiring new gear. Since DSLRs are getting less expensive all the time, overspending on cameras relative to the skills and peripherals that can take advantage of what they have to offer does not make sense -- especially if those advantages are marginal. DSLRs prices will continue to drop and when you find yourself consistently limited by a camera you bought one or two years ago, then you will be able to buy an even better one for less at that time than the more expensive one you passed on earlier.
Good point.
Thom has also written (I believe somewhere buried in all of his DPR posts, so I have to paraphrase him here) that world class photographers have been taking great images and making money for years with DSLRs that everyone would dismiss as inadequate today. At DPR's forums and practically every other photography forum on the Internet there are endless debates about which is the best camera, and complaints about camera's inadequacies that "need" to be addressed; while these discussions are raging, real photographers are getting great photos and satisfying their clients with those "inadequate" DSLRs.
Good point.
If you are trying to put together a system and you have a fixed budget to do so, the question becomes whether or not the extra $500 is best used on purchasing a 50D instead of a 40D. If you are skimping on your tripod/ballhead combo, on a lens, or software, then you probably are spending your money the wrong way.
Another good point. And yes, I have already purchased a good tripod and ballhead for the reasons you stated. I am just looking to purchase a system that I won't have to replace again for at least 3-5 years, and where I don't have to spend more than about $5000 for the camera and maybe 3-4 good lenses.
It's no worse than any test DPR has done. DPR has always tested using in-camera JPEGs at default settings and ACR; if that's how you use your camera then great, otherwise you should take all of DPR's test results with a grain of salt. I find it amusing all the cackles in the DPR 50D forum about ACR versus DPP for conversions, for years Nikon users have been saying that Nikon's software is superior to ACR and many Canon users have thumped their chests proclaiming that ACR was the "neutral" tool that "proved" Canons were better than Nikons; now that the 50D has been shortchanged by ACR many at the Canon forum over there are singing a new tune.
But yet this still admits the flaw. And there were still other flaws too, in the line of what JJJ said (to which I will respond in a moment).
If the very best reviews are those that can be described as "all encompassing," then the very worst reviews would be those which omit key elements.
DPR did not tell anyone not to buy the 50D, they simply wrote that:
"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."
I would have been even more explicit, and said they have exceeded useful resolution for the APS-C format and should have stopped at 12 megapixels.
What's more, generally we can all get more out of our cameras than DPR does -- except for DR, those wedges have no corollary in real world shooting and printing.
This is still incorrect IMO. The most accurate reviews stated the limitations, with certain lenses, but also noticed the improvements. With the right lenses, the 15 mpx put out better images and better prints, which constitutes an improvement not a cessation of usefulness. Plus, with the better viewer, microfocusing, etc. these are all enhancements to the 40D.
Phil could have ended his review by saying such advantages must be married to the right lenses to obtain, rather than say (as an afterthought in a post) "how much trouble should an owner have to go to to get the 15 mpx."
This is plainly and simply biased BS to me.
As stated previously, the 50D is simply separating the high-res lenses from the fold ...
Jack
-
Someone seems to have been vaporized.
Well he certainly had a short fuse, in more ways than one apparently.
-
To get back on topic.
I have often thought many reviews are deeply flawed as many reviewers bring their own preferences and quirks to the table. It rare to find unbiased comments, so what is a good thing to do is to find people whose biases agree with your own, at least that way, you get some useful information. Michael's reviews tend to be very useful for me as they are biased with a view to actually taking photographs - unusual I know for photo products, but hey I find it useful, being a photographer and all that.
Very good point! My passion is macrophotography and I have an interest in trying bird (telephoto) photography, so what a 50mm lens does on the 50D has absolutely zero relevance to what I want to do. That some lenses perform differently on different cameras is relevant to any competent review. In fact, so true is this that many telephoto lenses and macros perform only so-so on full-frame cameras, but yet they perform much better on crop cameras. Therefore, it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure that the reverse might also be true (especially when talking about a brand new sensor in a brand new crop) to where an older, basic ff lens might not be the best window through which to gauge the capabilities of said brand new crop camera, with a brand new sensor, going into brand new pixel-density territories.
For example I recently read a review of a media player and it completely dismissed one feature it had. That 'useless' feature was precisely why I bought it. Way too many reviews of stuff I read all too only illustrate how little the reviewer knows, not how knowledgable he thinks he is. And usually ignore the terrible flaws so as to keep the advertisers happy is my cynical view. The cover of a recent sycophantic Mac magazine had the strapline something like 'Apple reinvents the laptop'. Nonsense, as I doubt making something far less useful for many of it's intended customers is what I would call a reinvention, as that's been done many times before and not just with laptops too.
Exactly the point of my post: a truly good reviewer is going to put in the time to give an all-encompassing review, which will at least address the concerns of many different kinds of consumer. In choosing the "base 50mm," the DPReviewer (Phil) was just going through the motions and not getting into any intricasies or possible differences in how different performance levels might obtain with different lenses used. He merely threw-in an ass-covering afterthought by saying, "You'll need to use the best lenses to get the most out of this camera." Well, the way I see it, that is tantamount to his saying, "In using an older, basic lens I purposely wasn't trying to get the best out of this camera," is it not?
I have a similar theory with many how-to books you can buy. They are all to often written by people who are not good enough to be paid to use the software professionally and so resort to telling others how to use it instead. Thankfully there are exceptions - Jeff Schewe and Martin Evening for example can actually take good photographs and made/make money from it too.BTW I do realise teaching something is a separate skill from doing something and those that are are good are not always the best teachers. A hugely underated skill teaching.
Good points. There are a lot of great boxers who can't train or communicate what they know to young boxers. And some of the greatest trainers in history were either not boxers at all, or only reached a very mediocre level themselves, athletically. Yet they were able to communicate superbly and thus were great teachers.
Anyway, I think the link that I posted above provides a more balanced view of things, and I too am waiting to read Michael's review. Hopefully, some of the subjects discussed here will be specifically addressed in his own presentation.
Jack
-
To get back on topic.
I have often thought many reviews are deeply flawed as many reviewers bring their own preferences and quirks to the table. It rare to find unbiased comments, so what is a good thing to do is to find people whose biases agree with your own, at least that way, you get some useful information. Michael's reviews tend to be very useful for me as they are biased with a view to actually taking photographs - unusual I know for photo products, but hey I find it useful, being a photographer and all that.
For example I recently read a review of a media player and it completely dismissed one feature it had. That 'useless' feature was precisely why I bought it. Way too many reviews of stuff I read all too only illustrate how little the reviewer knows, not how knowledgable he thinks he is. And usually ignore the terrible flaws so as to keep the advertisers happy is my cynical view.
The cover of a recent sycophantic Mac magazine had the strapline something like 'Apple reinvents the laptop'. Nonsense, as I doubt making something far less useful for many of it's intended customers is what I would call a reinvention, as that's been done many times before and not just with laptops too.
I have a similar theory with many how-to books you can buy. They are all to often written by people who are not good enough to be paid to use the software professionally and so resort to telling others how to use it instead. Thankfully there are exceptions - Jeff Schewe and Martin Evening for example can actually take good photographs and made/make money from it too.
BTW I do realise teaching something is a separate skill from doing something and those that are are good are not always the best teachers. A hugely underated skill teaching.
That is the nature of magazine reviews. They often write something to get attention, and make a mark. And of course they have to reach an assessment based on the features, rather than what best suits a given reader. So a camera with 9/10 might not be better than one with 7/10 for you, or me. A lot of people when buying something they are not familiar with tend to make a short list from reviews, and choose the most appealing. I plead guilty on that count m'lud. But it does save time for gadgets such as GPS units, running shoes etc.
Have you ever noticed how more than a few of the staff journalists with well known UK photo magazines are very opinionated, especially when assessing readers pictures, but they cannot take a decent picture to save their lives? I would argue that for all but the basics you need to be a good photographer and a decent writer.
-
Look, you freely admit that your OP was "inflammatory", so enough said about that.
The most accurate reviews stated the limitations, with certain lenses, but also noticed the improvements. With the right lenses, the 15 mpx put out better images and better prints, which constitutes an improvement not a cessation of usefulness. Plus, with the better viewer, microfocusing, etc. these are all enhancements to the 40D.
Phil could have ended his review by saying such advantages must be married to the right lenses to obtain, rather than say (as an afterthought in a post) "how much trouble should an owner have to go to to get the 15 mpx."
This is plainly and simply biased BS to me.
*Good viewfinder, optional focusing screens
*AF-Micro-Adjustment
There are 28 other "pros" listed in the conclusion of the review; whereas there are 7 "cons" listed:
* High ISO performance worse than 40D
* Reduced dynamic range in the shadow areas compared to EOS 40D
* Per-pixel detail not as good as on good 10 or 12 megapixel cameras
* High-end lenses required to get the most out of the camera
* Poor white balance performance under artificial light
* Flash must be up for AF assist lamp (although AF is good even in low light)
* Live view not as accurate as on 40D (framing very slightly off-center, in contrast detect AF mode not possible to magnify right out to the extreme corners)
-
Look, you freely admit that your OP was "inflammatory", so enough said about that.
Well, I ended by saying "provocative" ... but yes, I was trying to provoke responses to my thread regarding the legitimacy of some of these reviews; I was not trying to provoke "you" into calling me an idiot and a fanboy, nor was I trying to provoke Mr.Leonard (aka: RedHerring) into calling me a rapist
I was looking to get into a heated debate about photo reviews, I was not looking to be tarred and feathered myself
In truth though, Tony, I do believe it is your own Nikon fanboyism that makes you attack any Canon-slanted folks. I say this not to provoke another argument with you; I just think this is the truth. Yet I think you being an obvious fan of Nikon is a good thing, actually. Being a fan makes a person obsessed and therefore knowledgeable on the subject. Speaking of which ...
Do you have any direct experience using a Nikkor 80-400mm on the D300? If so, how you you rate this particular combination? I have not seen the same direct comparison for Nikon in this combo, as I have seen for the Canon 40D/50D + 100-400 combos.
I know that the Canon/100macro combos and the Nikon/105macro combos are both outstanding and both very close, but I have heard much less favorable results for the Nikkor 80-400mm vs. the Canon 100-400mm.
However, yet again, I have not read about a single review of the specific combination of a D300 + 80-400mm telephoto. What are your thoughts, if you don't mind sharing?
*Good viewfinder, optional focusing screens
*AF-Micro-Adjustment
There are 28 other "pros" listed in the conclusion of the review; whereas there are 7 "cons" listed:
* High ISO performance worse than 40D
* Reduced dynamic range in the shadow areas compared to EOS 40D
* Per-pixel detail not as good as on good 10 or 12 megapixel cameras
* High-end lenses required to get the most out of the camera
* Poor white balance performance under artificial light
* Flash must be up for AF assist lamp (although AF is good even in low light)
* Live view not as accurate as on 40D (framing very slightly off-center, in contrast detect AF mode not possible to magnify right out to the extreme corners)
You see what I mean? This is the kind of pure bias (abbreviated BS) I am talking about
There are 28 "pros" for the 50D (yet you only list 2), while there are only 7 "cons" (and of course you list all 7)
This is exactly the kind of deliberately-negative slant I am talking about. A 28-7 ratio is a 4:1 ratio. This means if you are only going to list 2 "pros," you then you shouldn't even mention 1 "con" yet. But you go ahead and omit 26 pros, while listing all 7 cons, which is nothing but anit-fanboyism, is it not?
Further (and again, this is the whole point of my thread topic), all but 2 of these 7 "cons" are BLATANT LIES!
Let's examine these 7 "cons" and re-define them:
1. The high ISO performance is actually better, with the right lens.
2. Again, DR is again better in low light, with the right lens.
3. Per-pixel data is again better, with the right lens.
4. THE BIG KEY HERE: WITH THE RIGHT LENS ALL OF THESE "NEGATIVES" BECOME POSITIVE!
5. Okay, here is a real negative.
6. Again, this could be re-stated as a positive: Autofocus is good, even in low light (Flash must be up for AF assist lamp).
7. Okay, Live view isn't as accurate, another negative.
So you see Tony, 5 out of 7 "negatives" are really the result of DP Review's own negligent (intentional?) choice of lenses ... which would leave the 50D ultimately with 32 positives and only 2 real negatives
Jack
.
-
OK folks. Enough name calling.
Please remove the personal digs or I'll bag this whole thread.
Michael
-
I don't think the glass mattered that much. From what I've been able to see the problem is in the analysis. The Jay Turberville stuff (in the dp forums) seems to indicate that the samples provided by dpreview show nearly the resolution increase one would expect from the increased pixel count. (Like around a 20% actual increase in resolution. 22% projected.) EDIT: This isn't what was reported, however. So the question becomes how did they judge resolution? By eyeballing it?
There seems to me to be great confusion as to the significance of the claimed higher resolution of expensive, high quality glass. The best and sharpest lens that Canon ever made, the 200/1.8, that's now discontinued and is very heavy and used to cost several thousands of dollar, is only marginally sharper than the humble 50/1.4 standard lens that costs just a few hundred dollars.
The reason such lenses (as the 200/1.8) are so expensive is that they are sharp at wide apertures. That's where the expense comes in. It's very difficult to make a lens that is as sharp at F2.8 as it is at F8. The 200/1.8 is sharpest at F4, but only marginally sharper at F4 than it is at F8, and only marginally sharper at F8 than the 50/1.4 at F8.
If we look at the potential increased resolving power of the 50D sensor (compared with the 40D) we find that it should be about 22%. (Twice the pixel count equates to a 1.4x increase in resolving power, and a 1.5x increase in pixel count equates to a 1.22x increase in resolving power, in terms of lp/mm.)
However, (and it's a big however), this potential 22% increase in resolution is only achievable if the lens used also has a 22% increase in resolving power. Resolution in the image is always a product of lens resolution and sensor resolution.
We don't seem to have much MTF information on lenses nowadays, but there is no lens that was ever tested by Photodo that had even nearly 22% more resolving power than a basic and inexpensive prime such as the Canon 50/1.4, comparing lenses at their sharpest aperture, whatever that may be. We might be looking at a 5% increase at best and typically a 2 or 3% increase.
The real advantage of a very sharp, expensive prime is that it allows you to use a faster shutter speed and get a shallow DoF without sacrificing the sharpness that can always be obtained at F5.6 and F8. The 200/1.8 is significantly sharper at F1.8 than the 50/1.4 at F1.8. That's what you pay for. Faster shutter speeds usually result in sharper images, and a shallow DoF tends to enhance the appearance of sharpness at the plane of focus, by contrast with what's out of focus.
There would be little point in buying expensive glass to use with the 50D unless you need or want the faster shutter speeds and shallow DoF that such lenses offer. Such lenses would be useful with any camera.
-
There would be little point in buying expensive glass to use with the 50D unless you need or want the faster shutter speeds and shallow DoF that such lenses offer. Such lenses would be useful with any camera.
Huh??? This is exactly bass-ackwards of every other recommendation.
So what you're essentially saying is ............. when you buy the very latest Canon cameras, don't bother getting "the best lenses" ... just buy low-end?
You're saying just go ahead and buy the EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6, and there will be "no difference" between this and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM?
Surely you jest? Or surely you just had a long day
Jack
-
Huh??? This is exactly bass-ackwards of every other recommendation.
So what you're essentially saying is ............. when you buy the very latest Canon cameras, don't bother getting "the best lenses" ... just buy low-end?
I never mentioned low-end. Some low-end zooms are sharpest only at F16. What I'm saying is that many reasonably priced lenses, such as the Canon 50/1.8 and 50/1.4, at their sharpest apertures of F5.6 and F8 are only marginally less sharp than the most expensive lenses at the same apertures of F5.6 and F8. The expensive lenses tend to be significantly sharper (than the 50/1.4 etc) only at wide apertures, therefore their primary benefit with a 50D would be in circumstances where you want a very shallow DoF without compromising resolution, just as with any other camera.
The 70-200/2.8 at its sharpest aperture and at it's sharpest focal length will not be as sharp as the 50/1.4 at it's sharpest aperture, and it's doubtful that even the very expensive 85/1.2 at its sharpest apertures of F5.6 and F8 will be more than very slightly sharper than the 50/1.4 at F5.6 and F8.
If you want to get the best out of a camera to test its sharpness, any good prime will do if it is used at its sharpest aperture, which is usually between F5.6 and F8.
-
Thanks, Ray.
-
The reason such lenses (as the 200/1.8) are so expensive is that they are sharp at wide apertures. That's where the expense comes in. It's very difficult to make a lens that is as sharp at F2.8 as it is at F8. The 200/1.8 is sharpest at F4, but only marginally sharper at F4 than it is at F8, and only marginally sharper at F8 than the 50/1.4 at F8.
Strictly speaking they are more expensive because the fast aperture requires larger glass elements, meaning more work to fabricate. In some cases it also means exotic elements - aspherics and low dispersion glasses (where glass is used in a loose manner) - in order to achieve the desired image quality, which further increases the cost. Many of the Nikon non pro grade lenses (e.g. non F2.8 zooms) are pretty sharp wide open, or stopped down a little.
-
Thanks, Ray.
DarkPenguin,
I don't recall ever being thanked before on this website. A new experience. Thanks for that .
-
Strictly speaking they are more expensive because the fast aperture requires larger glass elements, meaning more work to fabricate. In some cases it also means exotic elements - aspherics and low dispersion glasses (where glass is used in a loose manner) - in order to achieve the desired image quality, which further increases the cost. Many of the Nikon non pro grade lenses (e.g. non F2.8 zooms) are pretty sharp wide open, or stopped down a little.
True, but IME, the best lenses still are pretty much useless at the last stop or two. IME, this seems to hold true for most all lenses, which is why their specs should be taken with a large chunk of salt. Still, a F1.2 lens that's actually usable at say, F2.0 is a big gain over a typical F2.8 that maybe is okay at F4.0 or so.
Too bad most review sites don't compare lenses at their optimum settings but instead just drop any old lens on the camera and start taking pictures.
-
Just some general comments on reviews of all sorts, camera gear or other, could easily apply to cars, audio gear as well. The best reviews are not gospel, but are valuable to give some general insight in to what the model can do. There will be sample variation between bodies, lenses, etc. It may not be with a lens you particularly have or use, this is not a fault. Most photographers who have been in photography for more then 5 min. hobby or professional, have used or own a 50mm prime lens. It is a known quanitity, and as such serves as a guide, again not gospel, to the results of the review or test. It helps to know how research and testing is done. One can pick apart any review, both in gear or methodology. This too is irrelevant, as an intelligent person, one should look only for some insight into what the gear is capable of. In the end, only you can be the final judge as to whether this particular gear would suit your needs. I find I can only get the general idea from even the best reviews, whether they be done by Michael, Thom Hogan, or Sean Reid or Bjorn. Too much sample variation exists, let alone use variables to use any of these for more. No one should condemn a piece of gear for a review or the review itself. Even with gear that is generally accepted as excellent and well built, this is NO guarantee that if you buy the same gear, it will perform as reported. Caveat emptor.......
This seemed never to be such an issue with my old Hassy gear and 4x5 kit, but as soon as electronics have reared its massive head, and the gear is sold to many more users, many non professionals, equipment failure became a fact of life and "problems" have arisen. Both poorer quality in manufacture and less knowledgeable end users contribute to this ongoing situation....
-
There seems to me to be great confusion as to the significance of the claimed higher resolution of expensive, high quality glass. The best and sharpest lens that Canon ever made, the 200/1.8, that's now discontinued and is very heavy and used to cost several thousands of dollar, is only marginally sharper than the humble 50/1.4 standard lens that costs just a few hundred dollars.
The reason such lenses (as the 200/1.8) are so expensive is that they are sharp at wide apertures. That's where the expense comes in. It's very difficult to make a lens that is as sharp at F2.8 as it is at F8. The 200/1.8 is sharpest at F4, but only marginally sharper at F4 than it is at F8, and only marginally sharper at F8 than the 50/1.4 at F8.
If we look at the potential increased resolving power of the 50D sensor (compared with the 40D) we find that it should be about 22%. (Twice the pixel count equates to a 1.4x increase in resolving power, and a 1.5x increase in pixel count equates to a 1.22x increase in resolving power, in terms of lp/mm.)
However, (and it's a big however), this potential 22% increase in resolution is only achievable if the lens used also has a 22% increase in resolving power. Resolution in the image is always a product of lens resolution and sensor resolution.
We don't seem to have much MTF information on lenses nowadays, but there is no lens that was ever tested by Photodo that had even nearly 22% more resolving power than a basic and inexpensive prime such as the Canon 50/1.4, comparing lenses at their sharpest aperture, whatever that may be. We might be looking at a 5% increase at best and typically a 2 or 3% increase.
The real advantage of a very sharp, expensive prime is that it allows you to use a faster shutter speed and get a shallow DoF without sacrificing the sharpness that can always be obtained at F5.6 and F8. The 200/1.8 is significantly sharper at F1.8 than the 50/1.4 at F1.8. That's what you pay for. Faster shutter speeds usually result in sharper images, and a shallow DoF tends to enhance the appearance of sharpness at the plane of focus, by contrast with what's out of focus.
There would be little point in buying expensive glass to use with the 50D unless you need or want the faster shutter speeds and shallow DoF that such lenses offer. Such lenses would be useful with any camera.
Thanks Ray.
Question though: are "sharpness" and "resolution" the same thing? I honestly don't know.
The 50mm prime you speak of is considered "sharp" on the 40D but not so on the 50D ... and my (admittedly limited) understanding is because of resolution. Not sure what that means exactly, but that is the complaint I keep reading. Lenses like to 100 macro are "sharp" too, but provide better resolution, which the 50D maximizes. At least that is my layman (not really sure) interpretation of what I am reading.
On the flipside, though, the positive news I really do understand is that the 50D has already gone down in price by $200 within the last week, thanks to the bad review, so maybe I should thank DP Review rather than be angry
Jack
-
Question though: are "sharpness" and "resolution" the same thing? I honestly don't know.
John,
Not quite, but they are closely related. There are entire books devoted to sharpness and sharpening routines, but I won't pretend I've read them. I use the sharpening controls that are included in ACR; Smart Sharpen in Photoshop and/or a plug-in called Focus Magic. I like to keep it simple.
My basic understanding is that all lenses will cause a loss of contrast of the detail in a scene that is transmitted through the glass. The sharper the lens, the lower that loss of contrast. The sensor or film inevitably adds to that loss of contrast, so in a sense you have a double whammy.
A loss of contrast causes an appearance of softness in an image. Sharpening routines are an attempt to recover that loss of contrast. However, if the detail is particularly faint or fine in the real world scene being photographed, the combined loss of contrast from both the lens and the recording processes of the sensor, taking into account also the resolving limitation of the sensor in terms of the fineness of detail it can capture period, will result in such faint detail not being captured at all.
In such circumstances, no amount of sharpening can recover detail that simply hasn't been recorded.
My impression is, at any given aperture that is used with both cameras (including F16, but forget F32) the 50D will record slightly more detail than the 40D, provided there is such detail in the scene to be recorded. However, it's also true that the differences between the 40D and 50D will be more noticeable when the lens is used at its sharpest (least-loss-of-contrast) aperture. However, as I've previously mentioned, that least-loss-of-contrast aperture in 35mm lenses does not get much better in expensive lenses than it is already at F5.6-F8 in all 'good' lenses. The benefit of the expensive, top-notch lens tends to be, you get F5.6-F8 sharpness at F1.8 to F4, and sometimes a bit more, but not much more.
-
John,
Not quite, but they are closely related. There are entire books devoted to sharpness and sharpening routines, but I won't pretend I've read them. I use the sharpening controls that are included in ACR; Smart Sharpen in Photoshop and/or a plug-in called Focus Magic. I like to keep it simple.
My basic understanding is that all lenses will cause a loss of contrast of the detail in a scene that is transmitted through the glass. The sharper the lens, the lower that loss of contrast. The sensor or film inevitably adds to that loss of contrast, so in a sense you have a double whammy.
A loss of contrast causes an appearance of softness in an image. Sharpening routines are an attempt to recover that loss of contrast. However, if the detail is particularly faint or fine in the real world scene being photographed, the combined loss of contrast from both the lens and the recording processes of the sensor, taking into account also the resolving limitation of the sensor in terms of the fineness of detail it can capture period, will result in such faint detail not being captured at all.
In such circumstances, no amount of sharpening can recover detail that simply hasn't been recorded.
My impression is, at any given aperture that is used with both cameras (including F16, but forget F32) the 50D will record slightly more detail than the 40D, provided there is such detail in the scene to be recorded. However, it's also true that the differences between the 40D and 50D will be more noticeable when the lens is used at its sharpest (least-loss-of-contrast) aperture. However, as I've previously mentioned, that least-loss-of-contrast aperture in 35mm lenses does not get much better in expensive lenses than it is already at F5.6-F8 in all 'good' lenses. The benefit of the expensive, top-notch lens tends to be, you get F5.6-F8 sharpness at F1.8 to F4, and sometimes a bit more, but not much more.
Over the past year during which I have eased back into amateur photography from a 30-year plus hiatus, I have noticed that the resolution of my Canon lenses keeps changing for the better. These magic lenses get ever sharper as my focusing and aperature selection techniques improve.
-
Hi,
I would say sharpness is a visual thing. The eye/brain complex perceives something as sharp or not. Sharpness has probably more to do with acutance than with resolution. In a sense resolution and sharpness go hand in hand. I have seen examples of possible scenarios of lenses having low resolution but high sharpness, but they have all been contrieved.
Now, we need to keep in mind that the eye has a limited resolution itself, it is dependent mainly on the distance between the cones in the foeva and is normally considered to be about one minute of arc (1/60 degree). If we look at a picture at a certain distance the eye can resolve things which are certain distance apart, let's say 1/10 of a millimeter at 25 cm. Any resolution beyond that is wasted, the visual impression is dependent on how much of the contrast is transferred at that resolution. If you make a larger enlargement or change viewing distance the playing field is redefined.
The perceived contrast can be enhanced using different methods of sharpening. Sharpening does not necessarily increase resolution but increases the contrast on the edges. Because of all the factors involved like enlargement size, viewing distance and equipment, the needed amount of sharpening is subjective. There are a lot of other factors affecting image quality, flare and ghosting come to my mind.
Note that resolution can actually be improved in a sense using deconvolution. Deconvolution is only possible if the "point spread function" is known, that is if we know how a single point of light is converted to an image. This is normally not known, but if we assume that the primary cause of unsharpness is lack of focus we can predict a pretty good "PSF" for the circle of confusion. The effect of the antialiasing filter may also been taken into account.
Tools that use deconvolution known to me are:
FocusMagic (doesn't work with CS3 on Intel Macs unless under Rosetta)
FocusFixer
Smart Sharpening in Photoshop CS
RawDeveloper has Lucy-Richardson deconvolution
One observation I have made is that an image can look sharp event if it lacks detail, especially at a distance. I have made A2 enlargements from 6MP images which look good at some distance, but if I'm pixel peeping I can see that edge are poorly resolved. The essence is that because the edges have high contrast the brain thinks that "the details must be there". Similarly I have made an 70x100 cm enlargement from a 10 MPixel image, with "mucho sharpening". It's very nice if viewed from longer than about 80 cm distance.
You may check:
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/mtf/mtf1.html (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/mtf/mtf1.html)
A much deper presentation is here:
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html (http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html)
John,
Not quite, but they are closely related. There are entire books devoted to sharpness and sharpening routines, but I won't pretend I've read them. I use the sharpening controls that are included in ACR; Smart Sharpen in Photoshop and/or a plug-in called Focus Magic. I like to keep it simple.
My basic understanding is that all lenses will cause a loss of contrast of the detail in a scene that is transmitted through the glass. The sharper the lens, the lower that loss of contrast. The sensor or film inevitably adds to that loss of contrast, so in a sense you have a double whammy.
A loss of contrast causes an appearance of softness in an image. Sharpening routines are an attempt to recover that loss of contrast. However, if the detail is particularly faint or fine in the real world scene being photographed, the combined loss of contrast from both the lens and the recording processes of the sensor, taking into account also the resolving limitation of the sensor in terms of the fineness of detail it can capture period, will result in such faint detail not being captured at all.
In such circumstances, no amount of sharpening can recover detail that simply hasn't been recorded.
My impression is, at any given aperture that is used with both cameras (including F16, but forget F32) the 50D will record slightly more detail than the 40D, provided there is such detail in the scene to be recorded. However, it's also true that the differences between the 40D and 50D will be more noticeable when the lens is used at its sharpest (least-loss-of-contrast) aperture. However, as I've previously mentioned, that least-loss-of-contrast aperture in 35mm lenses does not get much better in expensive lenses than it is already at F5.6-F8 in all 'good' lenses. The benefit of the expensive, top-notch lens tends to be, you get F5.6-F8 sharpness at F1.8 to F4, and sometimes a bit more, but not much more.
-
Hi John,
I think that DPReview is slightly opportunistic. They probably decided that Canon 50D is going over the limit and are a bit positive regarding data showing into that direction. Keep in mind that a 50% increase in Megapixels is just 22% increase in resolution (because resolution is per inch and Mpixels per square inch). Most lenses were designed for film, very few lenses are as sharp as they could be, which is called "diffraction limited". Almost any lens will be diffraction limited if you stop down enough. The loss of sharpness is gradual.
Increasing "megapixels" gives diminishing returns and there is a price to pay for that, because DR (Dynamic Range) and noise get reduced when pixel size is reduced. I think that DPReview may make to much noise about noise, even if I think they may have a point.
If you are shooting low ISO megapixels are probably your friends. You can make larger enlargements with less interpolation and artifacts. The other side of the coin is that Canon had the 40D at 10 MPixels while the competition had 12.5 (Nikon/Sony) or even 15. It may have been the case that the 40D was rushed to the market. Canon may also have a small problem of not upsetting their price/megapixels relation. They cannot have a cheap 450D and an expensive 50D having 5 MPixels less resolution!
I think that DPReview actually has good reviews but they are quite subjective and also very much focused on JPEGs (which myself never shoot)
You may check the pages below which clearly indicate the advantage of 50D over 350D:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/404-cano...6is_50d?start=1 (http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/404-canon_1855_3556is_50d?start=1)
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/181-cano...-review?start=1 (http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/181-canon-ef-s-18-55mm-f35-56-is-test-report--review?start=1)
Best regards
Erik
Thanks Ray.
Question though: are "sharpness" and "resolution" the same thing? I honestly don't know.
The 50mm prime you speak of is considered "sharp" on the 40D but not so on the 50D ... and my (admittedly limited) understanding is because of resolution. Not sure what that means exactly, but that is the complaint I keep reading. Lenses like to 100 macro are "sharp" too, but provide better resolution, which the 50D maximizes. At least that is my layman (not really sure) interpretation of what I am reading.
On the flipside, though, the positive news I really do understand is that the 50D has already gone down in price by $200 within the last week, thanks to the bad review, so maybe I should thank DP Review rather than be angry
Jack
-
Ray,
It's more than just Mpixels. I was shooting with my old friend Pierre on Iceland, he was toting a Canon 20D and I Konica Minolta D7. In retrospect I can see that both mine and his images are quite soft on a pixel by pixel basis. Shortly after the Iceland trip I upgraded to the Sony Alpha 100 at 10 MPixel. The pixel by pixel image quality was much better on the Alpha 100, at least at low ISO. That said, it was not easy to tell apart A3+ (49 x 33 cm) prints I made from both. On the other hand it was actually easy to tell them apart once I have learned where to look. Now I have a Sony Alpha 700 and I feel quite comfortable doing A2 prints (42 by 59 cm). I can make A2s from the Iceland trip but they lack good detail.
I'd think that the 40D is similarly much better than the 20D, I would probably guess that this may be due to a weaker antialiasing filter.
William Castleman seems to have done a lot of good tests and he has some nice data on the 20D vs. 40D on this page:
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/40D/index.htm (http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/40D/index.htm)
Erik
Don't know what all the fuss is about. The incremental pixel count increase in the 50D is in line with previous upgrades in the APS-C cropped format that Canon have given us. The only exception was the very first upgrade from the 3mp D30 to the 6mp D60, which was a 100% increase. The 10D to the 20D was a 33% increase; the 20D to the 40D a 25% increase; the 40D to the 450D a 20% increase and the 450D to the 50D a 25% increase.
I don't recall getting excited about any resolution increase when I upgraded from the D60 to the 20D. It seemed fairly irrelevant to me. The exciting feature of the 20D was its remarkably low noise at high ISO. ISO 1600 on the 20D was at least as good as ISO 400 on the D60.
I've always been of the view that anything less than a 50% increase in pixel count was irrelevant. The doubling in pixel count from the 3mp of the D30 to the 6mp of the D60 caused Michael to comment in his review that the D60 would be good for A3+ size prints whereas the D30 only good for A3, by the same critical viewing standards.
The 50D represents a 50% increase in pixel count over the 40D, so one might conclude that such an increase gets into the category of being significant. However, when the increase is from such a high base, it becomes less relevant. An increase from 3mp to 4.5mp, or an increase from 6mp to 9mp would be worthwhile... just. But an increase from 10mp to 15mp is hardly worthwhile. The best I can say is that it's better than no increase at all, provided there are no downsides such as increased noise.
For me, the 50D should have been my upgrade from the 20D. But someone in Bangkok made me an irresistable offer when I was out shopping for the EF-S 17-55/2.8, and my resolve weakened and i bought the 40D. I knew already I could expect no increase in resolution or reduction in noise that would be significant. The fast frame rates and the LiveView feature were the main drawcard for me, just as with the 50D the main drawcard was the 'autofocus micro adjustment' and the high resolution LiveView screen which facilitates amazingly accurate manual focussing. The additional pixel count I consider as a small bonus.
-
Thanks Ray and Erik.
Ray, I gather your impression (as an owner of both) is that the 50D is ultimately better than the 40D.
I have seen favorable comparisons of the 50D on the 100-400, and the 100 macro, repeatedly obtain.
Have you personally tried a comparison of the two on a MP-E 65mm macro?
If so, what were your observations?
Thank you again.
-
One of the key things about camera comparisons is that not only are they NOT standardized, there's no way to standardize them. The best comparisons are done by experienced photographers who look at both cameras and then come back with a menu of differences, that the potential buyer chooses from. You may get better resolution from a 1DsIII than from a D3 (actually, you will) but there may be complicated arguments about color, about ISOs, about ergonomics, and about end-use, that make more difference to a specific photographer than ultimate resolution.
Sharpness and resolution are different, though tightly entangled, especially in landscape work. If you take a photograph of a mass of millions of leaves in a tree, the resolution is whatever it is; but post-processing sharpening will find the edges of those leaves, and emphasize them essentially by darkening that line. With detail that's large enough to handle the sharpening, but small enough to really need it, good sharpening will fool the eye into believing there is more resolution than in a non-sharpened photo...but there isn't. It's just that the edges have been artificially sharpened. Think of one of those old paintings by somebody like Fragonard, where he actually drew thousands of leaves -- you don't actually see a tree that way, from any distance at all (you see a dark mass of leaves), so what Fragonard's drawing each of each leaf does, actually, is artificial sharpening... 8-)
You also have to consider that DPR does its tests with .JPGs, and quite a large number of photographers have said that Nikon has made a deliberate series of design decisions that require its photographs to be sharpened to taste in post-processing, to get the best out of them. Whether or not that's BS, I couldn't say, but might explain why a tester might think that it's good to sharpen a D300 but not another camera, where the JPG is made through a different process. In other words, he may be trying to balance the different problems, by comparing best-to-best, rather than whatever comes out of the camera, to whatever comes out of the other camera, figuring that most people who buy that level of camera will be sophisticated enough to understand the problem...
JC
-
Hi,
Anything but very careful sharpening would introduce artifacts in the image. For that reason some or most photographic agencies are quite sensitive about sharpening. Cameras intended for professional use require more sharpening (on JPEGs) than amateur cameras probably for that reason. If you shoot raw you are always on your own.
I would suggest that many aspects are measurable but many are not. I also would suggest that cameras may work better or worse in certain situations. Look at Canon, they have the 1DIII and the 1DsIII. 1DIII has few but big pixels and high ISO, high speed and crop factor of 1.3 and is intended for photojournalists the 1DsIII is a studio/landcape camera. Smaller pixels, full frame, lower ISO.
Erik
One of the key things about camera comparisons is that not only are they NOT standardized, there's no way to standardize them. The best comparisons are done by experienced photographers who look at both cameras and then come back with a menu of differences, that the potential buyer chooses from. You may get better resolution from a 1DsIII than from a D3 (actually, you will) but there may be complicated arguments about color, about ISOs, about ergonomics, and about end-use, that make more difference to a specific photographer than ultimate resolution.
Sharpness and resolution are different, though tightly entangled, especially in landscape work. If you take a photograph of a mass of millions of leaves in a tree, the resolution is whatever it is; but post-processing sharpening will find the edges of those leaves, and emphasize them essentially by darkening that line. With detail that's large enough to handle the sharpening, but small enough to really need it, good sharpening will fool the eye into believing there is more resolution than in a non-sharpened photo...but there isn't. It's just that the edges have been artificially sharpened. Think of one of those old paintings by somebody like Fragonard, where he actually drew thousands of leaves -- you don't actually see a tree that way, from any distance at all (you see a dark mass of leaves), so what Fragonard's drawing each of each leaf does, actually, is artificial sharpening... 8-)
You also have to consider that DPR does its tests with .JPGs, and quite a large number of photographers have said that Nikon has made a deliberate series of design decisions that require its photographs to be sharpened to taste in post-processing, to get the best out of them. Whether or not that's BS, I couldn't say, but might explain why a tester might think that it's good to sharpen a D300 but not another camera, where the JPG is made through a different process. In other words, he may be trying to balance the different problems, by comparing best-to-best, rather than whatever comes out of the camera, to whatever comes out of the other camera, figuring that most people who buy that level of camera will be sophisticated enough to understand the problem...
JC
-
Question though: are "sharpness" and "resolution" the same thing? I honestly don't know.
To add to the replies, they are related. I agree with the person who suggested that sharpness is what we perceive, and of course resolution is the measured value. A lens with high contrast may produce prints that appear sharper than one with low contrast though the resolution may be similar. Higher contrast produces a snap to the image which we (or at least I) perceive as sharper. And of course sharpening in software increases contrast at edges thus increasing perceived sharpness without actually adding any more resolution.
-
Another question that comes up here is "How large is your printer?" The differences above 12 MP really don't show up on less than a 17 inch printer, and can't possibly show up on any monitor or projector while looking at the whole image. 17 inch printers are big, heavy beasts that are a major commitment to live with - they sit on a table, but barely. 24 inch printers are worse (on the order of figuring out where to put a small upright piano!). If you have a printer that size and print to its capability, the highest resolution cameras (including Hasselblads, Phase backs, etc...) might make sense. If it's all going to be printed 8x10 or shown on the web anyway, any camera works (with the exception of dynamic range where the 8x10 print (on a really good printer) is concerned - it IS possible to play "spot the Hasselblad" on an 8x10 print of certain images, but it'll be the 12 stops of dynamic range that gives it away, not the resolution). If you're doing anything exclusively for electronic display, whether monitors, projectors or whatever, they're all not only under four megapixels (and 4 MP is a 30 inch monitor, a more than slightly exotic beast), but also have only about five or six stops of dynamic range - a really good compact is plenty for even a 30 inch monitor.
-Dan
-
Thanks Ray and Erik.
Ray, I gather your impression (as an owner of both) is that the 50D is ultimately better than the 40D.
I have seen favorable comparisons of the 50D on the 100-400, and the 100 macro, repeatedly obtain.
Have you personally tried a comparison of the two on a MP-E 65mm macro?
If so, what were your observations?
Thank you again.
John,
I would not have bought the 50D purely for the increased number of pixels. The micro adjustment of autofocussing was paramount in my mind, and the high resolution LCD screen is just delicious. 10x magnification in LiveView mode with a 400mm lens is awesome, when you half press the shutter button to activate IS.
I don't have the MP-E 65mm macro, but shortly after receiving delivery of my 50D and checking it out, I bought the EF-S 60mm macro from the same internet company because their prices were so good and they were so responsive.
I've checked out the lens to make sure it was not a dud, but haven't done any critical comparisons comparing it with my 50/1.4. Macro lenses sometimes shine only at very close distances to subject. But some are excellent to infinity.
Such a comparison will have to wait till I've completed installation of my new Panasonic 50" Plasma which, interestingly, has an SD card slot from which it will display jpeg imagesat 1920x1080p. I don't have any SD cards, but already I'm planning getting one or two big ones and transferring some processed images in jpeg format, and having a slide show of 2mp images.
-
Another question that comes up here is "How large is your printer?" The differences above 12 MP really don't show up on less than a 17 inch printer, and can't possibly show up on any monitor or projector while looking at the whole image. 17 inch printers are big, heavy beasts that are a major commitment to live with - they sit on a table, but barely. 24 inch printers are worse (on the order of figuring out where to put a small upright piano!). If you have a printer that size and print to its capability, the highest resolution cameras (including Hasselblads, Phase backs, etc...) might make sense. If it's all going to be printed 8x10 or shown on the web anyway, any camera works (with the exception of dynamic range where the 8x10 print (on a really good printer) is concerned - it IS possible to play "spot the Hasselblad" on an 8x10 print of certain images, but it'll be the 12 stops of dynamic range that gives it away, not the resolution). If you're doing anything exclusively for electronic display, whether monitors, projectors or whatever, they're all not only under four megapixels (and 4 MP is a 30 inch monitor, a more than slightly exotic beast), but also have only about five or six stops of dynamic range - a really good compact is plenty for even a 30 inch monitor.
-Dan
That's a good point. I've got an Epson 7600 24" wide format printer, and that fact influences my comments. It seems a bit odd to me that any photo enthusiast would spend time watching relatively low resolution images on a 42" or 50" HD LCD or Plasma TV, but not have a printer that can even approach that size.
I like my prints large, like a painting.
-
Hi,
I'm not a Canon shooter, but I just got a pretty good test on the Canon 50D (from the Swedish monthly Foto). They have discussed the resolution at some length. They state that normally no advantage of resolution can be seen between the 40D and the 50D. They needed the best lenses and the best aperture to extract maximum resolution from the 50D. Their testing is based on Imatest. Of the three lenses they tested the 50/2.5 macro was the best, followed by the Sigma 18-50/2.8 and the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8IS. Even with this combo they needed A2 (40x59 cm) prints for the difference to be visible.
My interest is more with Sony, yesterday I downloaded a test image from Imaging Resource for both the Sony A700 (12.5 MPixel) and the Sony A900 (24.6 MPixel). On screen the A900 simply blows the A700 away. No comparison! But I also made one A2 (40x59cm) prints and they were pretty close. I can tell them apart from arms lengths distance, but there is not a lot of difference. In this comparison the A900 had a slight advantage because I could download a "raw" image but only a JPEG for the Alpha 700.
The way I normally do comparisons is that I scale up the images to a common size, in this case to about 46x70 cm at 240 PPI and look at actual pixels. I enclose a screen dump from that comparison. I'd suggest that the difference between the Canon 40D and the 5DII would be similar.
Best regards
Erik
[attachment=9588:A700_vs_A900.jpg]
Thanks Ray.
Question though: are "sharpness" and "resolution" the same thing? I honestly don't know.
The 50mm prime you speak of is considered "sharp" on the 40D but not so on the 50D ... and my (admittedly limited) understanding is because of resolution. Not sure what that means exactly, but that is the complaint I keep reading. Lenses like to 100 macro are "sharp" too, but provide better resolution, which the 50D maximizes. At least that is my layman (not really sure) interpretation of what I am reading.
On the flipside, though, the positive news I really do understand is that the 50D has already gone down in price by $200 within the last week, thanks to the bad review, so maybe I should thank DP Review rather than be angry
Jack
-
Thank you to everybody for your thoughtful responses
Jack
.
-
Ray,
All this are good points, but I would also add that a 200/1.8 is simply much more glass, and probably expensive glass, too. In long lenses chromatic aberration is one of the major obstacles and very expensive glass, like CaF2 is used to eliminate it. Normal and short tele lenses are relatively easy to build so they often have very good performance for a reasonable price.
As far as I understand it is hard to build large aperture lenses, especially with a wide angle of view.
Best regards
Erik
There seems to me to be great confusion as to the significance of the claimed higher resolution of expensive, high quality glass. The best and sharpest lens that Canon ever made, the 200/1.8, that's now discontinued and is very heavy and used to cost several thousands of dollar, is only marginally sharper than the humble 50/1.4 standard lens that costs just a few hundred dollars.
The reason such lenses (as the 200/1.8) are so expensive is that they are sharp at wide apertures. That's where the expense comes in. It's very difficult to make a lens that is as sharp at F2.8 as it is at F8. The 200/1.8 is sharpest at F4, but only marginally sharper at F4 than it is at F8, and only marginally sharper at F8 than the 50/1.4 at F8.
If we look at the potential increased resolving power of the 50D sensor (compared with the 40D) we find that it should be about 22%. (Twice the pixel count equates to a 1.4x increase in resolving power, and a 1.5x increase in pixel count equates to a 1.22x increase in resolving power, in terms of lp/mm.)
However, (and it's a big however), this potential 22% increase in resolution is only achievable if the lens used also has a 22% increase in resolving power. Resolution in the image is always a product of lens resolution and sensor resolution.
We don't seem to have much MTF information on lenses nowadays, but there is no lens that was ever tested by Photodo that had even nearly 22% more resolving power than a basic and inexpensive prime such as the Canon 50/1.4, comparing lenses at their sharpest aperture, whatever that may be. We might be looking at a 5% increase at best and typically a 2 or 3% increase.
The real advantage of a very sharp, expensive prime is that it allows you to use a faster shutter speed and get a shallow DoF without sacrificing the sharpness that can always be obtained at F5.6 and F8. The 200/1.8 is significantly sharper at F1.8 than the 50/1.4 at F1.8. That's what you pay for. Faster shutter speeds usually result in sharper images, and a shallow DoF tends to enhance the appearance of sharpness at the plane of focus, by contrast with what's out of focus.
There would be little point in buying expensive glass to use with the 50D unless you need or want the faster shutter speeds and shallow DoF that such lenses offer. Such lenses would be useful with any camera.
-
Ray,
All this are good points, but I would also add that a 200/1.8 is simply much more glass, and probably expensive glass, too. In long lenses chromatic aberration is one of the major obstacles and very expensive glass, like CaF2 is used to eliminate it. Normal and short tele lenses are relatively easy to build so they often have very good performance for a reasonable price.
As far as I understand it is hard to build large aperture lenses, especially with a wide angle of view.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
Lenses with wide apertures usually have more glass whatever the focal length, don't they? I mentioned the Canon 200/1.8 as an extreme example. It was considered by Photodo to be the finest lens they ever tested. However, the same principle applies to very expensive shorter telephotos, such as the Canon 85/1.2. Their advantage lies in the fact that such lenses produce sharp results at wide apertures. I imagine that at F1.2, that 85mm lens would not be particularly sharp. But at F2.8 it would be significantly sharper than the 50/1.4 at F2.8, but not significantly sharper than the 50/1.4 at its sharpest aperture of F8 (or F6.3 whatever).
-
Erik,
Lenses with wide apertures usually have more glass whatever the focal length, don't they? I mentioned the Canon 200/1.8 as an extreme example. It was considered by Photodo to be the finest lens they ever tested. However, the same principle applies to very expensive shorter telephotos, such as the Canon 85/1.2. Their advantage lies in the fact that such lenses produce sharp results at wide apertures. I imagine that at F1.2, that 85mm lens would not be particularly sharp. But at F2.8 it would be significantly sharper than the 50/1.4 at F2.8, but not significantly sharper than the 50/1.4 at its sharpest aperture of F8 (or F6.3 whatever).
You might be surprised Ray. I'm on the Nikon side of the fence so I can't speak for Canon glass in terms of their exotics, but in every test I've done with my 200/2G AFS lens, it's sharper even at F/5.6 and F/8 than any other lens I currently own (and that includes the 50), and in my opinion sharper than *any* other Nikon lens I've used in the past 30 years, and that includes any of their micro lenses, any normal 50, or any of their mid tele's. It's the one lens that I own that is limited by the resolution of the body behind it, and of course, by diffraction. As well it should be, given the cost of these things.
I do believe that when you purchase an exotic, what you are buying besides wide open performance is also a level of quality control and manufacture that exceeds that of most every other lens - being the exotics are typically built slowly and carefully, one by one, in small batches, with a lot less compromise in terms of the cost of components, so in the end it adds up to stellar optical performance.
I don't know if there are lens rental places out where you are like here in the states, but if so, try renting one for a bit and give it a go. Even if you never intend to get such a beast, they (the exotics) are eye opening in terms of what can be done in terms of lens design when cost/size/weight limitations are not present to constrain the designer.
-m
-
You might be surprised Ray.
Well, surprise me. I like being surprised. I can only speak from my own experience and deduce performance from the numerous MTF charts I've seen at Photodo if I don't own the lenses. I don't have the time to test every claim that seems contrary to what I'd expect. If you think I'm wrong, and you already own Nikkor lenses similar to, say, the Canon 85/1.2 and 50/1.4, then please show some 100% crop comparisons of a detailed target like a banknote or newspaper, taken at a suitable distance so all the fine detail is not revealed.
Below are the MTF charts at maximum aperture and F8, and weighted ratings at most apertures up to F8 for the Canon 85/1.2 and 50/1.4. As you can see, at F4 the 85/1.2 gets a rating of 86, compared with 84 for the 50/1.4, and at F8 gets a rating of 87, compared with 86 for the 50/1.4.
It's doubtful that such differences would mean much, even on a large print, but the performance differences at apertures from F1.2 to F2.8 probably would be quite noticeable, especially at the edges of the frame.
[attachment=9732:85mm_50m...mparison.jpg]
-
Hi Ray,
My point is mostly that the 200/1.8 is physically a very big lens. Aperture is something like 111, so I would expect front lens to be around 111 mm to. An 85/1.2 would have an aperture size of 71 mm. If we assume that the weight of a lens is proportional to the square of the diameter the front lens would be 2.5 times heavier on the 200/1.8 than on the 85/1.2. I also would expect the 200/1.8 to use more exotic glass.
Some lenses actually perform optimally or almost optimally at maximum aperture, but they are very few.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
Lenses with wide apertures usually have more glass whatever the focal length, don't they? I mentioned the Canon 200/1.8 as an extreme example. It was considered by Photodo to be the finest lens they ever tested. However, the same principle applies to very expensive shorter telephotos, such as the Canon 85/1.2. Their advantage lies in the fact that such lenses produce sharp results at wide apertures. I imagine that at F1.2, that 85mm lens would not be particularly sharp. But at F2.8 it would be significantly sharper than the 50/1.4 at F2.8, but not significantly sharper than the 50/1.4 at its sharpest aperture of F8 (or F6.3 whatever).
-
Well, surprise me. I like being surprised.
Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=506386)
-
Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=506386)
Now, that's a confused message, Jani. Are you trying to surprise me, or confirm my point?
The images of the new 200/F2 to which you refer, are all taken at, or close to, full aperture. The lens is desirable because it can produce sharper images at wider apertures than other cheaper lenses of similar focal length, not because it can produce sharper images at apertures between F5.6 and F8 and not because it might be sharper at F2 than it is at F8. If course, the lens might also be desirable because of factors such as 'nice bokeh'.
The point has been raised in this thread that the 50D needs the finest quality glass to produce any resolution advantage over the 40D and that, in view of this fact, perhaps Dpreview should have chosen a better lens than the humble 50/1.4 to test the camera.
In my opinion, they probably could have demonstrated a slightly greater resolution difference by using a 200/1.8 at F4 (and perhaps also the new 200/F2 at F4), but would this have been a sensible comparison to make? Anyone who can afford such lenses and who wants maximum resolution for large prints would likely use another lens with a FF DSLR such as the 1Ds2/3.
-
Some lenses actually perform optimally or almost optimally at maximum aperture, but they are very few.
Hi Erik,
There was at least one Canon lens tested by Photodo, which was sharpest at full aperture; the 400/2.8 non-IS version. However, although this lens is marginally sharper at F2.8 than it is at F8, it is marginally less sharp at F8 than the humble 50/1.4 at F8.
-
Now, that's a confused message, Jani. Are you trying to surprise me, or confirm my point?
The images of the new 200/F2 to which you refer, are all taken at, or close to, full aperture. The lens is desirable because it can produce sharper images at wider apertures than other cheaper lenses of similar focal length, not because it can produce sharper images at apertures between F5.6 and F8 and not because it might be sharper at F2 than it is at F8. If course, the lens might also be desirable because of factors such as 'nice bokeh'.
Now that you've restated your point, I see that your point was something else than what I thought it was, so, er, it was to surprise you, but evidently not.
-
Browsing through all of this, as I suppose one might do on a rainy afternoon in Spain, it doesn´t escape me that things were not ever so.
To those of you who are/were acquainted with the British Journal of Photography of some decade or so ago, the name of Geoffrey Crawley may be familiar. A good writer and an excellent reviewer of things photographic, his reviews on cameras and lenses were exemplary. Though a self-confessed Leica fan, particularly Leica M equipment, his reviews on Nikon were also very good and certainly reliable. He was a reviewer on whose word I bought several Nikkors without regret.
It seems to me that such writers do not write anymore, may not choose to make contributions to a digital world where reality seems to have ceased being part of many equations.
Alternatively, it might just be that the digital age has opened up a brand new hobby: theoretical photography. You know, the new skill which depends upon the discussion and intimate understanding of all factors other than the aesthetic.
It leaves me bewildered. Photography is a very simple skill which depends on four basic functions: focus; aperture; shutter speed; the additional skill of KWETG (knowing what exposure to give). Apart from those few things, the great magic of fine photograpy is in the visualisation, in the creating of an image that means something beyond I was there; I saw this; I shot it.
How we have strayed.
Rob C
-
Photography is a very simple skill which depends on four basic functions: ...
Rob, I've told this little story previously on this forum but it is one that I thoroughly enjoy. Someone once told me that a photographer needs only two things: a camera and an audience -- and the camera is optional!
-
Alternatively, it might just be that the digital age has opened up a brand new hobby: theoretical photography. You know, the new skill which depends upon the discussion and intimate understanding of all factors other than the aesthetic.
It leaves me bewildered. Photography is a very simple skill which depends on four basic functions: focus; aperture; shutter speed; the additional skill of KWETG (knowing what exposure to give). Apart from those few things, the great magic of fine photograpy is in the visualisation, in the creating of an image that means something beyond I was there; I saw this; I shot it.
How we have strayed.
Rob C
Rob,
At an elemental level, photography seems to have an appeal beyond esthetics. I remember as a very young kid being fascinated by the slowly emerging image on an exposed but initially blank piece of photographic paper in the developer dish, in the darkroom. (My father was an amateur photographer).
I never did get my own darkroom. It didn't fit in with my lifestyle and generally seemed too messy, but the idea of eventually building a darkroom remained with me for many years. When I realised one day that a digital darkroom (or lightroom) without messy chemicals was feasible and affordable, there was no stopping me.
The basic functions of focus, aperture and shutter speed remain, but the options, ease and flexibility of processing the results has increased enormously in the digital age, and remains a fascination it its own right.
-
Photography is a very simple skill which depends on four basic functions: focus; aperture; shutter speed; the additional skill of KWETG (knowing what exposure to give). Apart from those few things, the great magic of fine photograpy is in the visualisation, in the creating of an image that means something beyond I was there; I saw this; I shot it.
I don't think the basic skills can be separated from the visualization. Once learned, the basic skills can only be mastered when they become integral to the photographer's vision.
How we have strayed.
Very true and very regrettable. I stopped taking this thread seriously a long time ago, but I peek in as it grows and grows, and I found your post to be a pearl shining in the mud. I probably should find the forum on this website (or somewhere else) where more elevated discussions are engaged in and get away from these gear fixation discussions.