• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

A strange move by Canon (1 Viewer)

yes but only at 20fps whilst its 780 is 30fps.
For a guide people see at around 24fps so slower than that and motion appears jerky - thus the 1080 mode on the 500D is not really any good - but for a consumer upgrading from point and shoot it looks like its far better than the current Nikon offering which only dose the 780version (at I think around 30fps as well).
 
Last edited:
20fps 1080p mode is good for grabbing frames out of a sequence. Basically, you can shoot at 20fps at 2MP resolution. There was a 1080p frame grab in one of the online previews of the 50D an it looked really good...
 
What I mean by strange is that it comes so soon after the 450D and so close in spec to the 50D (it got 15M and even the cross type 9 point focus) that it will drag down the 50D sale

Not remotely strange: the Canon entry-level new models have always been pushed through pretty quickly, generally once a year. The 500D is a year newer than the 450D which was a year newer than the 400D. Totally standard release schedule.

Nor is it at all strange to see the latest xxxD come close to the existing xxD. That too is 100% normal for Canon. The 20D and 350D had essentially the same 8MP sensor; the 400D was the first one with 10MP (it was out before the 10MP 40D), the 450D had a higher resolution than the 40D, and now the 500D is the same res as the 50D. Again, completely normal. Anytime they release a new camera, Canon use the best sensor technology they have available and ready for production, and they never worry if that is going to equal or even exceed the next model up in the range. The 5D II is another example: it has a sensor possibly even better than that in the much more expensive 1Ds III.

50D sales will slow a bit, just as 30D sales slowed when the 400D came out. Apparently, Canon aren't worried about that. Presumably, they don't care too much which Canon camera you buy, so long as you don't buy one of the other brands.

And of course, as Macshark points out, the 50D nevertheless retains a strong set of features that, to many people, will make it worth the extra money.

Why market it as a DSLR when its not its a hybrid camera that takes video footage,one package can`t do both things well their must be a compromise somewhere along the line.

Because it is a DSLR. It's designed from the ground up to be a DSLR, and the video function is (a) something all the other DSLRs are starting to offer (Nikon D90, Canon 5D II, all the others will follow one by one), and (b) something that is very cheap and easy to graft onto your existing DSLR design. If the camera can already do Live View (as everything can these days), then all you need to do is figure out a way to send the senor output to the flash card in movie format, which is a simple matter of tweaking the signal processing electronics. ("Simple" is a relative term here, obviously - but it's simple by camera design standards, much easier than (say) designing a new autofocus system or a new lens.)

Being a grafted-on feature in a tool that was primarily designed to be an SLR, it is feature poor: no autofocus for example, and the video frame rate is poor (which it has to be, because a single Digic 4 chip couldn't go much faster, and they aren't going to put twin SP chips in a cheap little entry-level camera the way they do with the 1 Series monsters. What do you expect for nothing? And nothing, let us remember, is pretty close to what it cost Canon to put the video feature into the 500D - a bit of chip reprogramming, that's all. If it does what you want in movie mode, that's great. If it doesn't, buy a proper movie camera in the first place. (For myself, my old 20D does everything I have ever wanted in a movie camera, which is to say nothing at all.)

I think this is really showing what many felt at the time of the 50D release - that it was more of a stopgap camera released to keep face and competition with Nikon more than anything else.

Stopgap how? I honestly can't see what Canon could have done with the 50D that they didn't do already. It's a superb camera that ticks all the boxes and as a package, is a much stronger offering than the no-change 30D or the lack-lustre 40D ever were.

that is what is stealing the market from canon at the moment - so many people have shifted to nikon to get that improved ISO performance

Nonsense. Nikon have zero ISO advantage over Canon in the APS-C market. 50D vs D300 vs D90 vs 450D vs 40D ... pick 'em with a pin, they are so close to one-another in the high ISO stakes that you can't sensibly claim any of them is the winner. (But the previous generation Nikons - D200 and D80 - were very poor high ISO performers, so Nikon have at least drawn level now.)

The only place where Nikon have the ISO advantage is the same place that they have the reach disadvantage - in the pro sport market (1D III, D3 and D700) - and the advantage is small and the two factors, of course, are directly related to one another. Use bigger pixels and you get better high ISO at the cost of pixel density (which equals reach). Build in more reach and you get lesser high ISO performance. Pick whichever one is the lesser of two evils for your own particular needs. But this has zero relevance to the 500D. Or indeed the 50D, the D90, or any other APS-C camera.
 
I just hope that the MP-war stops right here - Please, no larger APS-C sensors!
Leaving the noise and lens resolution issues aside, diffraction starts to kick in around f8 with a 15MP APS-C sensor. Even if there are lenses that can out resolve a 15MP APS-C sensor, and future technology can deal with the increased noise (in the RAW picture - not just sophisticated JPG noise reduction), there is no way around the diffraction issue. So, as I see it, there is no point in larger sensors. And for some aspects of photography (i.e. macro) the 50D/500D have already pushed things to far.

Thomas
 
If what you have now works....it makes little difference what new product Canon or Nikon comes up with....enjoy your camera and what it can do. Purchase a lens that fits your needs and who cares what improvements Canon does.....

People get way too caught up in needing or thinking that the latest camera is actually the best w/o taking into account their true needs.... Canon oversells...as the case is in any tech related purchase or manufacturer. The manufacturer knows how to hock a product, but we as consumers need to know when the product we now have is simply good enough!
 
I for one can't wait for the 500D to be released... it may push the 50D down in price which should in turn shove the 40D down to a price close to my current budget for it.

As for a 50D replacement, the 40D was launched in Sept 07, the 50D (allegedly NOT a replacement for it) was launched in Sept 08, so given the rumours of Canon changing to a 12 monthly life cycle, the 40D could go EOL soon and the 50D could see itself getting replaced in Sept 09.

Or then again, maybe none of this will happen and my 20D will have to continue to serve full time rather than enjoying a quieter life!
 
diffraction starts to kick in around f8 with a 15MP APS-C sensor. Even if there are lenses that can out resolve a 15MP APS-C sensor, and future technology can deal with the increased noise (in the RAW picture - not just sophisticated JPG noise reduction), there is no way around the diffraction issue. So, as I see it, there is no point in larger sensors.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way diffraction applies to sensors. Diffraction has got nothing to do with sensors. It is purely and entirely a lens issue. 100%. The only difference is that higher resolution sensors are able to record the light coming through the lens more accurately. Diffraction is exactly the same/i] on a 10D or a 50D (assuming that we are using the same lens at the same aperture). Exactly the same.

At any given aperture, a higher resolution sensor records the image more accurately than a low resolution sensor. The only time when the two sensors record the same amount of detail is when diffraction is so extreme that there is not much detail in the picture anyway. (I'm not sure where this point is reached, probably around f/45 or so. Certainly way beyond any aperture that you would actually want to shoot at.) The high-resolution never records less detail than the low-res one.

Summary:
Normal shooting: high-res sensor records more detail
Stopped down a lot: both suffer from diffraction, but the high-res sensor still records more detail.
Stopped down to an extreme aperture: both sensors are the same.
 
At any given aperture, a higher resolution sensor records the image more accurately than a low resolution sensor. The only time when the two sensors record the same amount of detail is when diffraction is so extreme that there is not much detail in the picture anyway. (I'm not sure where this point is reached, probably around f/45 or so. Certainly way beyond any aperture that you would actually want to shoot at.)

The two different sensors will start recording a similar image once the fuzziness (lurve them technical terms) caused by diffraction effects gets to be larger than the pixel size of the lower-res sensor. From what I've read that's going to be around F22 for a 40D. I know for sure that a 20D photo taken at F32 is horribly fuzzy.

The high-resolution never records less detail than the low-res one.

And this is the really important point and it bears repeating - the higher resolution sensor will never be worse than the lower resolution sensor. Besides, anybody worried about diffraction effects can always re-size their 15MP image to 10MP and blur all that fuzziness away (along with all the detail).
 
Video vs Stills

I don't know why anyone would want to moan about having Video on a DSLR :egghead:.
If you don't like video, don't use it........ As long as it takes good photographs what's the problem:t:

Whilst I agree with your view I think some people are missing the limitation of video, it needs to have IMHO a decent directional sound recording system etc, not the tiny built in mic that captures the camera & photographers noise. For me the pleasure of photography is capturing the moment that needs no soundtrack. So video in this form is a toy not to be confused with the real thing.

Hope you have room in your bag for the microphone and boom to capture the moment!

Mind in a few years I am sure my comments will be redundant. In the mean time we could use musical dubbing using appropriate songs like "Flying without wings".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1LEISP6e9c

Enjoy

Jim
 
Whilst I agree with your view I think some people are missing the limitation of video, it needs to have IMHO a decent directional sound recording system etc, not the tiny built in mic that captures the camera & photographers noise. For me the pleasure of photography is capturing the moment that needs no soundtrack. So video in this form is a toy not to be confused with the real thing.

Hope you have room in your bag for the microphone and boom to capture the moment!

Jim

Yes the audio is a problem. The pickup on the camera has a horrible pickup of the slightest breeze. It also picks up the camera's noise, IS, clicks from changing exposure etc.

I use an inexpensive external mic that hooks into my hotshoe the Rode Videomic. Its a good improvement. Now I just get audio of people saying "What are you doing" or "take my picture"

As far as adding a boom... well have a look at this:

Full Rig


Cheers, Harold
 
First PC I got was supposed to be with a 10mb hard drive but they had run out of 10 mb so fitted a 20mb for the same price, I could not believe my luck :-O

My first PC came without a hard drive, there were two floppy drives of 360kb each, and that was it. Cost an arm and a leg second hand, and performed beautifully for several years. Of course, that was before digital imaging reached the consumer ;)

Niels
 
Stopgap how? I honestly can't see what Canon could have done with the 50D that they didn't do already. It's a superb camera that ticks all the boxes and as a package, is a much stronger offering than the no-change 30D or the lack-lustre 40D ever were.

40D - lacklustre?? Compared with what that had gone before it from Canon?

Agreed the 30D was anything but exciting as an upgrade compared with the 20D, but having used a 20D for 3+ years, I cannot wait for the 40D to go EOL and when it does I am definitely going to be in line for one.
 
40D - lacklustre?? Compared with what that had gone before it from Canon?

Agreed the 30D was anything but exciting as an upgrade compared with the 20D, but having used a 20D for 3+ years, I cannot wait for the 40D to go EOL and when it does I am definitely going to be in line for one.

Agreed, 40D was the first non-pro Canon DSLR to actually improve the image quality since 20D. At the time it was introduced, the 40D had much lower noise, much better dynamic range and colors and a better AF system and faster burst rate compared to any previous non-pro Canon camera. All of these were fundamental improvements IMHO.
 
At any given aperture, a higher resolution sensor records the image more accurately than a low resolution sensor.

Accurately recorded softness is still just softness, not more detail. More pixels & equal details = empty magnification.

Ilkka
 
Forgive me if this has been said somewhere but I'm too lazy to read through the thread. ;) I don't mind Canon releasing the 500D as a standalone camera or some future models with movies just so long as they still make DSLR's without it. I do not want movies in all future DSLR's, please god no!!!

Reason: DSLR's are expensive enough without adding a feature like that. Look at the latest offerings from both Canon and Nikon, price is nasty. We buy DSLR's to take photographs not movies. If movies are your thing then get a good video camera, it's really that simple. If the 60D comes out with a movie mode and it's SRP is something riduculous I think there will be many a :C face, only time and Canon will tell. I pray I'm wrong!
 
Forgive me if this has been said somewhere but I'm too lazy to read through the thread. ;) I don't mind Canon releasing the 500D as a standalone camera or some future models with movies just so long as they still make DSLR's without it. I do not want movies in all future DSLR's, please god no!!!

Reason: DSLR's are expensive enough without adding a feature like that. Look at the latest offerings from both Canon and Nikon, price is nasty. We buy DSLR's to take photographs not movies. If movies are your thing then get a good video camera, it's really that simple. If the 60D comes out with a movie mode and it's SRP is something riduculous I think there will be many a :C face, only time and Canon will tell. I pray I'm wrong!

The movie mode does not add much cost to the DSLR. In order to support live view, camera manufacturers had to build sensors capable of transferring image data at high rate. DSLRs also need to have a powerful image processing chip to do real time JPEG creation and noise processing at high frame rates for very high pixel density (e.g. 15 or 21MP) images. Writing firmware for the same processing chip to do video compression is incremental hardware and software development effort, especially for companies like Canon that already has both HW and SW for real time HD video compression.
 
I agree - remember the prices stated at launch (Especaily from Canon) are never what we end up paying on the highstreet - infact I know shop owners who really can't work out why Canon overprices the relaese price on almost every single release they do. Even if you check the website the suggested prices are often way above what you pay.
As for the more recent prices remember everything is in price rise because of the currently weak £. So things are generally looking more expensive all round.

As for video I would be sad to not see it in DSLRs which have liveview as a standard - simply as whilst not everyone will use it, its there if you want it -- just like AP, TV and M modes - or mirror lockup - its not really a case about using all the features of a DSLR as they are not specific tools - they are generalist used from the studio to the wilderness - thus the more we get in them the better it is for us all. I would far rather carry 1 DSLR setup and a good tripod with a fluid video head into the field than a DSLR and a video camera setup (as well as that tripod and head) because space carrying capacity will be even more taxed.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 15 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top