Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Canon 50D review out  (Read 36255 times)

Tony Beach

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/twelveimages
Canon 50D review out
« Reply #40 on: October 31, 2008, 11:00:58 pm »

Quote from: GLuijk
great, then I got the best possible result right after getting three out of the three  

Yep, I had thought of that too; but you could have gotten any one of the three right or none of them too -- obviously, if you had gotten two than you would have gotten the third by default.

I'll help you out here, you got the first one right.
Logged

DarkPenguin

  • Guest
Canon 50D review out
« Reply #41 on: October 31, 2008, 11:25:48 pm »

Quote from: ZoltanZZZ
A couple issues if most people use ACR why are there so many other RAW software converters out there?  ACR is written by a company whose bread and butter is doing post processing if they converted RAW files that required very little or no post processing they would be in a world of hurt.  I prefer a company that doses nothing but RAW processing and if it is done correctly very little or no post processing is required.  I do very little post processing and in many instances there is no improvement in doing it, that is good RAW conversion.  I believe the major issue with the 50D besides the testing procedures used is software related and it will be resolved.

What?!?
Logged

Daniel Browning

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 142
Canon 50D review out
« Reply #42 on: November 01, 2008, 04:00:29 am »

Quote from: Ray
One can argue till the cows come home about which converter is better, but such discussions are quite meaningless without comparison images.

There are many raw converters. Each raw converter uses different conversion behind the scenes for different camera models. Each converter has many, many options that may be changed, none of which correspond with other raw converters. Noise reduction: off in one converter is noise reduction: medium in another. New  versions are released. It leads to an infinite combination of possibilities for comparison.

Thankfully, there is a very simple and straightforward method for measuring camera performance: look at the RAW data itself using dcraw or IRIS, where every camera is on a level playing field.
Logged
--Daniel

fike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1391
  • Hiker Photographer
    • trailpixie.net
Canon 50D review out
« Reply #43 on: November 01, 2008, 07:38:57 am »

Quote
Edit: Just for the record, the 50D shot has more noise because I used ISO 400. The 40D shot is at ISO 100. I intended to equalize shutter speed, but made an error, thinking the 40D shots, taken first, were at ISO 200.

I'm afraid that kind of negates the ability to compare them.  At first I looked at the middle two images without looking at the title bar, and I couldn't decide which was which until I saw the noise in the roof and knew that was ISO 400.  I would be least concerned with shutter speed differences, particularly if it was on a tripod.
Logged
Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer

Guillermo Luijk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1829
    • http://www.guillermoluijk.com
Canon 50D review out
« Reply #44 on: November 01, 2008, 08:41:18 am »

Quote from: Tony Beach
Yep, I had thought of that too; but you could have gotten any one of the three right or none of them too -- obviously, if you had gotten two than you would have gotten the third by default.

I'll help you out here, you got the first one right.
hey, that means I didn't manage to distinguish which camera had the highest pixel resolution (50D), but I managed to distinguish which one had the lowest resolution (i.e. worst result the 40D), and managed to distinguish which camera of the same brand (Canon) provided the highest detail and it happened to be the one with higher resolution.

Anyway, I think it was not a fair test to the 40D and D300 (even if it won) since they were rescaled and that means detail loss. The only right test I can think of would be using a good enough lens in all cameras so the resolution limit is set only by the sensor, and then shoot over a specific chart to measure lpm at 100% crop each camera provides.

As you mention, a stronger AA filter could make a better sensor in principle capture less detail than a worse sensor in favour of the AA capabilities, rarely needed. I wish the AA filter was a choice of the user or could be removed easily. I have a feeling camera makers are conservative on this, and prefer to reduce sharpness in the RAW data than risking to have a bunch of users complaining because one day they made one shot over a particular subject with a particular high spatial frequency and developing the RAW file with a particular RAW developer they got strange artifacts, and showing this all around Internet.

BR
« Last Edit: November 01, 2008, 08:51:28 am by GLuijk »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10054
Canon 50D review out
« Reply #45 on: November 01, 2008, 09:13:32 am »

Quote from: fike
I'm afraid that kind of negates the ability to compare them.  At first I looked at the middle two images without looking at the title bar, and I couldn't decide which was which until I saw the noise in the roof and knew that was ISO 400.  I would be least concerned with shutter speed differences, particularly if it was on a tripod.

I wasn't addressing noise issues in that test. The lens was on a tripod, but just to be sure, I thought it would be better to use the same shutteer speed.

I have no reason to suppose the 50D has more noise than the 40D at any ISO. I'm a firm believer in comparing equal size images.

Comparing the 50D using a good prime at F11, with the 40D at F5.6, I was surprised to find that the 50D is better. In the crops below, any detail you see in the 40D crop that isn't present in the 50D crop is pure aliasing artifact. The lens is the Canon 50/1.4, both shots were at ISO 100 and the converter was ACR 4.6, default sharpening.

From left to right: (1) the uncropped image, (2) 200% crops, (3) a close-up of the banknote showing the full detail.

[attachment=9371:full_scene.jpg]  [attachment=9370:non_beta...1___F5_6.jpg]  [attachment=9372:0923_full_detail.jpg]
« Last Edit: November 04, 2008, 04:39:36 am by Ray »
Logged

Tony Beach

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/twelveimages
Canon 50D review out
« Reply #46 on: November 01, 2008, 01:00:53 pm »

Quote from: GLuijk
hey, that means I didn't manage to distinguish which camera had the highest pixel resolution (50D), but I managed to distinguish which one had the lowest resolution (i.e. worst result the 40D), and managed to distinguish which camera of the same brand (Canon) provided the highest detail and it happened to be the one with higher resolution.

No doubt the 50D does better than the 40D, but it should do better than the D300 and it doesn't.  If Canon had stuck with 12 MP they could have gained fps (6 fps could have become 7.5 fps) and they could have improved the noise performance.  We all know that Canon chose more megapixels because it looks better to an unsavvy consumer sitting on the shelf next to a camera with fewer megapixels.

Quote
Anyway, I think it was not a fair test to the 40D and D300 (even if it won) since they were rescaled and that means detail loss.

No loss of detail; just less detail available to be enlarged.

Quote
The only right test I can think of would be using a good enough lens in all cameras so the resolution limit is set only by the sensor, and then shoot over a specific chart to measure lpm at 100% crop each camera provides.

In terms of resolution, I've been arguing that APS-C and DX formats top out 10-12 megapixels, beyond that additional resolution is just not nearly as useful as improving other image quality characteristics would be.
Logged

robertjm

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Canon 50D review out
« Reply #47 on: November 01, 2008, 03:59:43 pm »

You're turning things around. A software maker tries to make its converter optimized for the cameras served, not the other way around.
It has been argued that the camera maker knows their own product better than third party SW makers. But OTOH one might argue that a specialized SW developer is better at this game than a hardware maker. At least for workflow and UI Adobe is better. They are the reasons 'many' don't use DPP. For image quality there are so many variables that comparisons are difficult.


Quote from: The View
Now, which RAW converter would a manufacturer try to optimize his camera for? For his own RAW converter or a third party product?

Hard guess.


Logged

Slough

  • Guest
Canon 50D review out
« Reply #48 on: November 01, 2008, 04:53:00 pm »

Quote from: Ray
I have no reason to suppose the 50D has more noise than the 40D at any ISO. I'm a firm believer in comparing equal size images.

Comparing the 50D using a good prime at F11, with the 40D at F5.6, I was surprised to find that the 50D is better. In the crops below, any detail you see in the 40D crop that isn't present in the 50D crop is pure aliasing artifact. The lens is the Canon 50/1.4, both shots were at ISO 100 and the converter was ACR 4.6.

I can see merit in your idea of comparing at the same size, but your two images from the 40D and 50D cannot be compared due to not using the same F stop.
Logged

Tony Beach

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/twelveimages
Canon 50D review out
« Reply #49 on: November 01, 2008, 06:07:18 pm »

Quote from: robertjm
A software maker tries to make its converter optimized for the cameras served, not the other way around.

More specifically, the software maker makes a profile -- or profiles -- that are (ideally) optimized for the converter to use on a camera's files.

Quote
It has been argued that the camera maker knows their own product better than third party SW makers. But OTOH one might argue that a specialized SW developer is better at this game than a hardware maker. At least for workflow and UI Adobe is better. They are the reasons 'many' don't use DPP. For image quality there are so many variables that comparisons are difficult.

I don't think the specialty of the company is as critical as the competence and number of people assigned to the task.  For Adobe the problem is that they are seeing new cameras from many companies coming out that they have to profile and update ACR for ASAP; whereas the camera companies (theoretically) know the spectral characteristics of their latest cameras and have had adequate time to prepare profiles using their own software to get the maximum quality from those files, and they have fewer cameras to profile for.  My problem with ACR has to do with this image quality gap, and with very costly upgrades to the entire software package to handle the latest cameras -- otherwise you can get the DNG converter, but that does not facilitate a seamless workflow.
Logged

The View

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1254
Canon 50D review out
« Reply #50 on: November 01, 2008, 06:51:41 pm »

Quote from: Ray
Some people might prefer one converter over another for a whole range of reasons that have little to do with fundamental image quality in respect of DR. It might simply be that one particular converter produces an effect which is easier to get, or another converter has better noise reduction algorithms, yet another converter produces a more accurate 'as shot' white balance. I used to prefer Raw Shooter Premium mainly because of its 'vibrancy' and 'detail enhancement' controls which ACR lacked at the time but now has.

One can argue till the cows come home about which converter is better, but such discussions are quite meaningless without comparison images.

If you want to make a point that a particular converter is better than ACR with respect to a particular model of camera, then please show some comparison images so we can all benefit. I'm sure all of us want to get the best out of our RAW images.

The last time I saw a comparison between a DPP conversion and an ACR conversion on this site (apart from my own comparison) the poster had clearly used a lot of noise reduction with the DPP software and very little or no noise reduction with ACR. Now clearly that's not a fair comparison.

Why don't YOU show us some tests?

I see you talking about it a lot, but if you were able to prove ACR's superiority over any other RAW converter, you'd have long done it.

There are many who prefer Nikon Capture and Canon DPP to ACR and they don't need to do any heavy testing to see the difference.

It's pointless to argue on this level, no matter where they cows are, if they stay home, go out, or come home.

Logged
The View of deserts, forests, mountains. Not the TV show that I have never watched.

The View

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1254
Canon 50D review out
« Reply #51 on: November 01, 2008, 06:54:08 pm »

Quote from: Daniel Browning
There are many raw converters. Each raw converter uses different conversion behind the scenes for different camera models. Each converter has many, many options that may be changed, none of which correspond with other raw converters. Noise reduction: off in one converter is noise reduction: medium in another. New  versions are released. It leads to an infinite combination of possibilities for comparison.

Thankfully, there is a very simple and straightforward method for measuring camera performance: look at the RAW data itself using dcraw or IRIS, where every camera is on a level playing field.

Good point.

As photographers, we should stay away from brand fidelity and fanboy-ism.

Until good testing is in place, we have to rely to real photographers and their reports on how cameras perform and under what conditions, and how the images are processed.
Logged
The View of deserts, forests, mountains. Not the TV show that I have never watched.

The View

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1254
Canon 50D review out
« Reply #52 on: November 01, 2008, 06:57:13 pm »

Quote from: Tony Beach
I don't think the specialty of the company is as critical as the competence and number of people assigned to the task.  For Adobe the problem is that they are seeing new cameras from many companies coming out that they have to profile and update ACR for ASAP; whereas the camera companies (theoretically) know the spectral characteristics of their latest cameras and have had adequate time to prepare profiles using their own software to get the maximum quality from those files, and they have fewer cameras to profile for.  My problem with ACR has to do with this image quality gap, and with very costly upgrades to the entire software package to handle the latest cameras -- otherwise you can get the DNG converter, but that does not facilitate a seamless workflow.

Good point. It should be easier to specialize a RAW conversion software to one particular kind of files form one company than to have to serve all cameras.

Also, Canon and Nikon do not fully disclose their files, so it's a bit of a guessing game for third party manufacturers.


Logged
The View of deserts, forests, mountains. Not the TV show that I have never watched.

The View

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1254
Canon 50D review out
« Reply #53 on: November 01, 2008, 07:02:40 pm »

What we all want is testing that doesn't as much show the preference of the tester, but data: how a particular camera performs a particular task.

Daniel Browning has mentioned that it is possible to get unobstructed data from the sensors.

Or, as mentioned, use at least the original RAW converter for the testing, too, for Canon, Nikon, Leaf, Hasselblad.

Because we are interested how the camera is doing, not what a third party RAW converter is doing with it.


Other than that: a real, flesh and blood photographer who takes a new camera through his own way of working and reports his findings will always be important for judging if a certain camera is be right for you.

Isn't this forum based on exactly this: that we need to get other people's personal opinions?


Logged
The View of deserts, forests, mountains. Not the TV show that I have never watched.

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
Canon 50D review out
« Reply #54 on: November 01, 2008, 07:52:52 pm »

Quote from: The View
What we all want is testing that doesn't as much show the preference of the tester, but data: how a particular camera performs a particular task
Well, the "particular task" is a nonsense. A DSLR camera's only task is to deliver pixels; the rest is called post processing. If you don't understand this, then buy a P&S, the task of which is to shoot, print and frame a picture and hang it on the wall, no matter what you were doing while pressing the button.

As to dealing with the data, i.e. with the unadultered raw data, as far as it is possible: I have been dealing with the measurement of measurable. I compiled a serie of noise measurements, which show that the 50D has the same noise characteristics as the 40D. Not bad, regarding the 50% higher pixel count:

Layered TIFF with captures

I find the concept of "image noise" a nonsensical excercise and do not engage in such speculations.
Logged
Gabor

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10054
Canon 50D review out
« Reply #55 on: November 01, 2008, 09:39:56 pm »

Quote from: The View
Why don't YOU show us some tests?

I see you talking about it a lot, but if you were able to prove ACR's superiority over any other RAW converter, you'd have long done it.

There are many who prefer Nikon Capture and Canon DPP to ACR and they don't need to do any heavy testing to see the difference.

It's pointless to argue on this level, no matter where they cows are, if they stay home, go out, or come home.

I do show tests. Haven't you noticed? Whenever I make a point and am able to demonstrate that point with tests, because I have the equipment, I usually do so. When I tried RSP a few years ago and found it produced sharper results than the then current version of ACR, I demonstrated the fact with test images on this forum.

Isn't this the whole point of the forum? Seeing is believing. As I mentioned before, there might be many reaosns why someone prefers a particular converter. It might simply be a quicker and easier way of getting the same results, or the controls might be more intuitive for one particular user, but not necessarily another.

Of course, I don't need to do this. I sometimes wonder why I bother. But the fact is, the very process of organising my own test results into a demonstration format, tests which are initially made for my own edification, clarifies the issues in my mind and helps me discover flaws in my methodology. I learn from the process. If I didn't, I would no longer bother.

There's no reason for me to prove ACR's superiority. I'm not making any claims for ACR other than it's probably, on balance, as good as any other converter on the market but has the advantage of being more of an industry standard than any other converter. If someone wishes to make the claim that another converter does a better job than ACR, then let them demonstrate it so we can all benefit. You don't go through life believing everything that everyone says, do you?
Logged

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
Canon 50D review out
« Reply #56 on: November 01, 2008, 09:54:47 pm »

Quote from: Ray
has the advantage of being more of an industry standard than any other converter

ACR is my preferred raw converter at the moment, but I do not find any single factor supporting this argument.
Logged
Gabor

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10054
Canon 50D review out
« Reply #57 on: November 01, 2008, 10:04:48 pm »

Quote from: Slough
I can see merit in your idea of comparing at the same size, but your two images from the 40D and 50D cannot be compared due to not using the same F stop.

We should all know by now that the resolution differences between the 50D and 40D are very slight. My test results in this thread are an exploration of how such slight differences might be of practical value to me.

It has been suggested many times that such high-pixel-density cameras have no benefit at small apertures and that any resolution advantage will only be apparent with exceptionally good lenses at their sharpest apertures.

My own tests are suggesting, some of which I'm sharing with you, that the real benefit of this very slight resolution advantage of the 50D, is that one can confidently stop down an additional stop without sacrificing any resolution (compared with the 40D at the plane of focus), yet gain the more significant advantage of the greater DoF that stopping down affords.


Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10054
Canon 50D review out
« Reply #58 on: November 01, 2008, 10:12:34 pm »

Quote from: Panopeeper
ACR is my preferred raw converter at the moment, but I do not find any single factor supporting this argument.

Of course not. It's a conglomeration of factors which might support this argument. As I mentioned, on balance, taking all factors into consideration. There might also be quite a few amateurs who shoot in RAW mode and who don't use ACR because they simply can't afford to buy Photoshop, but would nevertheless like to use ACR.
Logged

The View

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1254
Canon 50D review out
« Reply #59 on: November 01, 2008, 10:55:06 pm »

Quote from: Panopeeper
Well, the "particular task" is a nonsense. A DSLR camera's only task is to deliver pixels; the rest is called post processing. If you don't understand this, then buy a P&S, the task of which is to shoot, print and frame a picture and hang it on the wall, no matter what you were doing while pressing the button.

As to dealing with the data, i.e. with the unadultered raw data, as far as it is possible: I have been dealing with the measurement of measurable. I compiled a serie of noise measurements, which show that the 50D has the same noise characteristics as the 40D. Not bad, regarding the 50% higher pixel count:

Layered TIFF with captures

I find the concept of "image noise" a nonsensical excercise and do not engage in such speculations.

A DSLR is a device to deliver pixels?

And the rest is post processing?

I'd say, the rest is silence.

Are you actually a photographer, or just a pixel peeper?




The task of an DSLR you could use for would be night photography, low light photography, portrait photography. And you can test for he quality of file that you get from a night shot, a portrait shot, etc.

And then you use different RAW converters to see where you get the best file.




Regarding your posting style:

Anybody could use the formula "you don't understand".

An intelligent person just would not use it. Not only because it's so easy and unreasonable. But because it would be much more worthwhile to deliver an argument, show connections and correlations, give a great image of understanding himself.

Not just tap a disconnected comment into a keyboard.
Logged
The View of deserts, forests, mountains. Not the TV show that I have never watched.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Up