50D or 40D? (1 Viewer)

Saphire · Nov 26, 2008

avan said:
Very good, but the noise reduction are just a bit too strong. With mine I shut off the NR, the result are much better and the noise are very fine. At least you can select to remove only the chroma noise in DPP. Naturaly the 50D meter to the right (overexpose) wich help greatly with noise management. Compared to the 40D noise, the one of the 50D are very very fine, in print it is invisible.

avan, I have all noise reduction disabled in camera and only applied a little chroma noise in cs with define 2 before a selectively sharpened. I don't like using the lumin slider it smears any detail so never us it on bird photos.
The photo of the fieldfare was taken at an acute angle about 45 deg through a double glazed window so any detail lost is probably due to that. Its very rare during the winter I get any taken outside they are always through the window, opening and closing doors usually scares them of.

Roy C · Nov 26, 2008

avan said:
Naturaly the 50D meter to the right (overexpose) wich help greatly with noise management.

I agree with this - 'exposing to the right' without actually blowing any important highlights is the key to getting relatively noise free images at high(ish) ISO with any modern camera , if you underexpose and then push the exposure in PP you will increase noise no end (especially in the shadow area's), if you then run a noise reduction prog to reduce that noise you will lose detail. On the other hand if you need to pull the exposure a bit in PP no harm is done, you may even reduce the noise slightly.

avan · Nov 26, 2008

I Christine, Do you shoot in raw or jpg? My first batch of picture was shoot in jpg and realize the camera make a hard NR process that wash the small detail and texture. I realize that I don't really need any kind of NR, unless it is too much noise, but at this point i'm not sure I will keep the picture. This an other sample, (not a bird unfortunatly) a family snapshot at 1600 ISO, except a 50% crop,no PP, also any sort of NR from DPP or other. For sure, if you look at very high magnification you see some noise, but in a 8"X10" (A3) print you doesn't see noise at all except a very slight grainy apparence. (50D/17-55 f2.8 iS USM at f2.8, 1600 ISO)

Saphire · Nov 26, 2008

avan, I only ever shoot in manual mode and set to raw I like to be in control of all the settings. I recently did my grandsons Christening and wasn't allowed to use flash so had to use ISO 3200 to get a hand holdable speed. A couple of the results are on my flickr site for those two photos. I did use define 2 with chroma and lumin reduction because extra fine detail is not a problem
with portraits the same as it is for feather detail.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3063/3045888500_da2bc21c9a_o.jpg

avan · Nov 27, 2008

Very nice picture and mood Christine. My last picture was to illustrate that we don't need to use the NR with the 50D, the noise and grain being very fine.

Saphire · Nov 29, 2008

Ample 40D-50D

I thought this maybe of interest to those that would like to see what the two cameras produce side by side.
We had a Sparrow Hawk sitting in a tree just outside, the inside shots were very oof because of the fog. So we both took a chance and went out to try and get some clear photo's the light was awfull but we managed to get within 15yds.
When checking the photos I noticed that we both had our cameras on exactly the same settings except the 40D was set to a 1/3rd compensation because it underexposes.

Both images clean up nicely for our files.

The exposer on both cameras were ISO 3200, f5.6, 1/400s
40D Canon 100-400 L IS set at 400mm
50D Canon 400 f5.6
Forgot to mention the 50d file was downsized to match the 40D
This one the conversions were done with bridge and ACR

Saphire · Nov 29, 2008

I made a Boo Boo on the last ones I posted. They were opened and converted in Bridge and ACR not DPP. What is interesting is it shows how two different programs see the RAW file.

These new samples were done in DPP and transferred to CS only for resizing and saving the 50D downsized to match 40D.
The second two samples are to show the difference in size between the 10mp and the 15mp. I used exactly the same crop size on both.

JohnZ · Nov 30, 2008

Easily explained Christine you had the better lens on the 50D......lol

Roy C · Nov 30, 2008

Saphire said:
The second two samples are to show the difference in size between the 10mp and the 15mp. I used exactly the same crop size on both.

That is exactly why I was/am interested in the 50D Christine. I find on my 40D a lot of my web images are cropped to around 1000-1200 pixels on the longest side before re-sizing to 800-900 pixels (sometimes I even use a 800 pixel 100% crop) - the extra pixels of the 50D would show the bird larger in the frame when cropping to the same dimensions (thus giving a perceived longer focal length

)
I just need to be convinced that such heavy cropping of a bird which is small in the frame with the 50D is as good as the 40D per pixel.

p.s there is one minor inconsistency to the test in that the zoom at the so called 400 end is not reckoned to be as long as the prime at distances less than infinity - something like 380mm from what I have read.

Thanks for posting Christine.

Mr Saphire · Nov 30, 2008

Roy C said:
p.s there is one minor inconsistency to the test in that the zoom at the so called 400 end is not reckoned to be as long as the prime at distances less than infinity - something like 380mm from what I have read.

Thanks for posting Christine.

Thats interesting Roy I didn't know there was a diference. I will set the two camera's up at exactly the same distance and see what view I get and then do a test using both lens on both cameras.

Saphire · Nov 30, 2008

Roy, Sorry Mr Saphire was still signed in when I posted that last thread.
I have just run some tests but I will have to do them again as its difficult to keep the lines straight on both cameras, on the 50d I have the thirds focusing screen in so its much easier to keep things square, I keep disturbing the lens when removing the body.

Here is another view, the 40D copied and pasted onto the 50D photo, ignore the slight angle of the 40D photo.
[Edited and added]
The next two I used just the 50D, this shows the difference with the two lens on the one camera. I have overlayed the 100-400 file over the 400 f5.6 you can just make out the slightly smaller view with the 100-400.
The last photo is both side by side.

Roy C · Nov 30, 2008

Saphire said:
Roy, Sorry Mr Saphire was still signed in when I posted that last thread.
I have just run some tests but I will have to do them again as its difficult to keep the lines straight on both cameras, on the 50d I have the thirds focusing screen in so its much easier to keep things square, I keep disturbing the lens when removing the body.

Here is another view, the 40D copied and pasted onto the 50D photo, ignore the slight angle of the 40D photo.
[Edited and added]
The next two I used just the 50D, this shows the difference with the two lens on the one camera. I have overlayed the 100-400 file over the 400 f5.6 you can just make out the slightly smaller view with the 100-400.
The last photo is both side by side.

You can certainly see a slight difference Christine, especially in the second set.

I saw a post on another forum a while ago where a bigma user (50-500) was comparing a target size with the bigma set at 500mm and the 400mm prime and he could not believe how little there was in it. I have read the the bigma could well be in the region of 460 at the 500 end and maybe the 400 prime is actually a little over 400.
I think it is something to do with the design of zooms compared to the relativity simple design of the prime. Apparently zooms only reach their focal length at infinity.
Maybe there is an expert out there who could better explain it to us.

JSI · Dec 11, 2008

Update

Just a little update but I finally broke down and got the 40D.

$829.00 cdn, not a bad price.

Jeremy

Tannin · Dec 12, 2008

Roy C said:
An 100% crop is the best/only way of comparing the IQ of a particular camera or lens

Whooah there Roy!

Yes, by all means compare 100% crops between two different cameras with the same sensor size and the same pixel density. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It probably won't match the actual resize you do when you publish the image, but it does the same thing to both images, and thus provides a sensible basis for comparison. Call this Method A.

Where the sensor sizes are the same, but the pixel density is different, you need to you must match the resolutions. You could do this by up-resing the smaller image to the pixel dimensions of the higher-density image, which is potentially unfair to the smaller image, or by down-resing the larger image, which is potentialy unfair to the higher-density image - so you don't do either.

You up or down-res both images to a given size. Up is better, because by down-resing you throw away the very detail that you are going to need to make a judgement. Call this Method B.

Where the sensor sizes are different, you need to decide if you are focal length limited or not. If not, treat the same as above, applying Method A or Method B depending on whether the pixel count is the same (use method A) or different (use Method B).

If you are focal length limited, then you need Method C: take the same crop (i.e., just the area of interest, such as the bird itself, no matter how large or small it appears in the frame, and regardless of how many pixels it contains), and then continue as Method B.

Roy C · Dec 12, 2008

Tannin said:
Whooah there Roy!

Yes, by all means compare 100% crops between two different cameras with the same sensor size and the same pixel density. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It probably won't match the actual resize you do when you publish the image, but it does the same thing to both images, and thus provides a sensible basis for comparison. Call this Method A.

Where the sensor sizes are the same, but the pixel density is different, you need to you must match the resolutions. You could do this by up-resing the smaller image to the pixel dimensions of the higher-density image, which is potentially unfair to the smaller image, or by down-resing the larger image, which is potentialy unfair to the higher-density image - so you don't do either.

You up or down-res both images to a given size. Up is better, because by down-resing you throw away the very detail that you are going to need to make a judgement. Call this Method B.

Where the sensor sizes are different, you need to decide if you are focal length limited or not. If not, treat the same as above, applying Method A or Method B depending on whether the pixel count is the same (use method A) or different (use Method B).

If you are focal length limited, then you need Method C: take the same crop (i.e., just the area of interest, such as the bird itself, no matter how large or small it appears in the frame, and regardless of how many pixels it contains), and then continue as Method B.

You see pics posted of a bird that is full frame and taken from say 10 feet and others of the same bird that are very heavy crops taken from say 50 feet - trying to compare the merits from these two would be ridiculous irrelevant of pixel size and density .....

Yes I guess a 980 x 653 (640 kb) image from a 50D should technically be compared with a 800 x 533 (426 kb) from the 40D but this is small potatoes compared with trying to judge a 426 kb image with, say, a 10 mp image ( which is what happens a lot). Far better to compare a 100% crop from each IMO even though it might not be an absolutely spot-on correct method of doing it - besides most people would not even know (or even care) about considering pixel size and density ....

For the average person ( I am probably just below average o

)who is not among the technically elite I still reckon that a straight 100% crop is the best way to compare camera/lens performances.

tjsimonsen · Dec 14, 2008

JSI said:
Just a little update but I finally broke down and got the 40D.

$829.00 cdn, not a bad price.

Jeremy

Me too, though I paid 950 Can$ (incl. a 8gb 133x Lexar CF). I got it as bird/wildlife camera replacement for my tried and trusted 350D, which I will now use as my macro camera. I have only had the 40D for a few hours and not yet tested it in the field, but I know I'm gonna love it.

Thomas

cab1024 · Dec 14, 2008

Roy C said:
What reviews are this? I use the 40D almost exclusively in AI servo mode (even for perched birds) and find it superb - albeit that I do not use the shutter button to focus.
I certainly find the AI servo on the 40D better than the 30D or 350D.
From what I can gather the AF system on the 50D is similar to the 40D and I would fully expect the AI Servo mode to be just as good.

How do you focus?

Just wondering about new techniques.

Thanks

Roy C · Dec 14, 2008

cab1024 said:
How do you focus?

Just wondering about new techniques.

Thanks

I focus exclusively with the AF-ON button. This is done by enabling custom function C.Fn IV-1 I use option 2.

BenR · Dec 14, 2008

I was hoping to have enough beer tokens by the end of January, to upgrade from my 350D. I had heard and read of noise issues with the 50D, so was gonna go for the 40D, but having read this thread, I'm in two minds again !!

Mind the cost of the 50D was off putting too, so I figured I could go for the 40D & get the Canon 400mm f/5.6 prime lens for roughly the same amount.

Decisions, decisions. :h?:

kim · Dec 19, 2008

I have just bought the 50d today, despite the noise issues. I started having focussing problems with my 40d, as experienced by quite a few bf members, and decided to swop before it became any worse!! The light has been poor since the change over but without a doubt the focussing issue is no more! Will comment later on the "noise." Glad you are enjoying yours Christine!! Did you have any problem with the 40 on focus?

50D or 40D? (1 Viewer)

Christine

Occasional bird snapper

avan

Attachments

Christine

avan

Christine

Attachments

Christine

Attachments

Well-known member

Occasional bird snapper

Mario Iwancz

Christine

Attachments

Occasional bird snapper

Active member

Common; sedentary.

Occasional bird snapper

Well-known member

Well-known member

Occasional bird snapper

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread