[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jordanross /img/forum/go_quote.gif I found someone who wanted to do a straight trade for a MINT 5D MkI He wanted a cropped sensor for some of his EF-S lenses. So it worked out for both of us. I am very excited to have this camera, the high ISO on this camera is amazing at iso 3200 it looks like natural film grain

Congrats on moving to full frame. BTW 3200 is not real on the 5D. It's 1600 pushed. Nevertheless, exposed well, it's useable with a little noise reduction.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by beerguy0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The new 70-200/4 L IS is far better optically than the 70-200/2.8 L IS. Edit: If you want a 50/1.4 you can shoot wide open, take a look at the Sigma. It costs more, but it's significantly better than the Canon.

Yes agreed the f4 L IS variant is better. I have that one.

Some people have had issues with the Sigma focusing. As with any purchase, I recommend really checking out it's performance within the allotted return period.

 

[jordanross]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Congrats on moving to full frame. BTW 3200 is not real on the 5D. It's 1600 pushed. Nevertheless, exposed well, it's useable with a little noise reduction.

Man once you go to full frame you can never go back

Oh I know. Just proving a point the high ISO of my xti was better than the 50D it made me really sad...

 

[lan]

The XTi better than 50D in high ISO? That's insane. Maybe you had a dud.

 

[beerguy0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jordanross /img/forum/go_quote.gif Man once you go to full frame you can never go back Oh I know. Just proving a point the high ISO of my xti was better than the 50D it made me really sad...

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif The XTi better than 50D in high ISO? That's insane. Maybe you had a dud.

x2. Samples or it didn't happen.

From DPReview:

400D, ISO 1600

50D, ISO 1600

The 50D is clearly better at ISO 1600 than the 400D. At ISO 3200, it's more or less a tie, but the 400D doesn't do 3200.

50D, ISO 3200

 

[PerformanceFirst]

The 50D's disappointing performance is probably due to them packing the pixels on.

EXCLUSIVE: Canon engineers held back by marketing department's "megapixel race" : Tech Digest

Edit: I don't know about that, actually. The article actually mentions they were hoping to apply 50D tech to the 5DII.

 

[h.rav]

The number of pixels on the 50D outresolves every lens on the market.
The diffraction limit is also smaller than the 40D. They should have made it 12mps...

 

[OverlordXenu]

It's not about the megapixels...

Stop looking at 100% crops guys, seriously. It does nothing to improve your craft.

 

[jordanross]

This was my test... Object if you will.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jordanross/3605901289/

 

[archosman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OverlordXenu /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's not about the megapixels... Stop looking at 100% crops guys, seriously. It does nothing to improve your craft.

True. Read a pretty good explanation about this a while back. Essentially what the camera companies are doing is creating a higher megapixel on the exact same size sensor. Unfortunately the drawback to this is you're making smaller pixels that in turn get less light which then creates more noise, ect. Seems like the expensive full-frame sensor cameras are the way to go. Higher megapixel counts don't necessarily make a better picture. Then again it's really who's behind the camera that makes the difference too.

The 40D is better than the 50D in IQ.

 

[beerguy0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PerformanceFirst /img/forum/go_quote.gif The 50D's disappointing performance is probably due to them packing the pixels on. EXCLUSIVE: Canon engineers held back by marketing department's "megapixel race" : Tech Digest Edit: I don't know about that, actually. The article actually mentions they were hoping to apply 50D tech to the 5DII.

This, I totally agree with. The fact that the 50D is as good as it is, with the pixel density of the sensor, is a tribute to how far the technology has progressed. That being said, I would have liked the 50D much better if they had held it to 12MP or so. Consumers being generally clueless, they just keep packing them in. (Pixels, that is.) It's not that the 50D sucks, just that it could have been a lot better.

I want to upgrade from my 20D, but the newer cameras aren't much better as far as image quality. Hopefully Canon pulls their head from their butts one of these days and stops with the MP wars.

 

[beerguy0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jordanross /img/forum/go_quote.gif This was my test... Object if you will. 50D vs Xti High ISO comparison on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I don't see a lot of difference, but I will just mention that at high ISO, correct exposure is critical. Those images look very dark to me, so I really wouldn't consider that a valid test.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by beerguy0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I want to upgrade from my 20D, but the newer cameras aren't much better as far as image quality. Hopefully Canon pulls their head from their butts one of these days and stops with the MP wars.

Funny thing, I ceased buying the XXD cameras since my 10D. They just weren't worth it IMO, until the 50D. I would've gotten a 50D but I already have a D300. I think the better AF, AF adjustment, 14bit, and more resolution are worthy upgrades for me.

 

[beerguy0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Funny thing, I ceased buying the XXD cameras since my 10D. They just weren't worth it IMO, until the 50D. I would've gotten a 50D but I already have a D300. I think the better AF, AF adjustment, 14bit, and more resolution are worthy upgrades for me.

I'll probably wind up with a 50D, just because of the added features, like improved AF, self-cleaning sensor, bigger/higher res LCD, etc. It's just kind of annoying that Canon compromised the IQ to the degree that they did just so Marketing can claim more MP. I print 13x19 with my 20D, and it's easy to upres in PS if you need more pixels. The 50D has gone to the point that only the very best glass can make use of the sensor. Plus, they've degraded the diffraction limiting, so it makes it harder to get deep DOF without losing image sharpness.

Eventually I want to go FF, but that means I'll have to buy a 16-35 to replace my 17-40, since the corners of the 17-40 aren't that good on a FF body.

 

[wanderman]

Quick question canon guys. Would it be better to get 50mm 1.8 on a full frame sensor or a 30mm 1.4 on a crop sensor.