50D Has Canon Got It Right (1 Viewer)

[CANONROB]

These were shot at Oare Creek today, the light was still not good, and the Water Rail shot was only 160 second f5.6 iso 400 with 100 400 at 400mm so again a little motion blur, and it would not stay still at all, I am sure with good light and someone with good PP skills that the 50D would give great results

 

[Tectortony]

Roy, now I understand, Thanks
Tony

 

[Roy C]

Roy. I forgot to add that picture of mallards is amazing.

Thanks for that Phil - Appreciated

 

[Neil Grubb]

Dust reduction

Anyone with a 50D able to comment on how effective dust reduction is on the camera ? I currently use a 20D and find dust is a major pain in the posterior!

Neil

 

[tdodd]

I would think it's a bit early to comment on dust with the 50D. FWIW I've had my 40D for 13 months and have yet to perform a wet clean. That gets regular use with my 100-400 dust trombone. I've had my 30D for 28 months and only had to wet clean once. I occasionally use a Rocket blower on the 30D/40D and that does just fine.

I've only had my 50D for 10 days and have yet to notice any dust, but then I don't stop down much and have certainly not bothered to look for any signs of dust. I'm sure the 50D anti-dust technology will be at least equal to the 40D if not better.

 

[Roy C]

Anyone with a 50D able to comment on how effective dust reduction is on the camera ? I currently use a 20D and find dust is a major pain in the posterior!

Neil

Should be at least as good if not better than the 40D and I have not had any dust in the year I have had the 40D.

 

[Gary Clark]

Anyone with a 50D able to comment on how effective dust reduction is on the camera ? I currently use a 20D and find dust is a major pain in the posterior!

Neil

I had a 20D, then a 40D, now a 50D. The dust reduction was one of the major improvements with the 40D/50D, as it was a chronic problem with the 20D. The improvements I find on the 50D, which noone here has noted yet, are the ability to catch a quick autofocus while in liveview (via a dedicated button), the pixel count obviously, and the dedicated button for Liveview, leaving the Set button for user programming. My best shots are taken on a tripod in Liveview, to eliminate mirror flap. The 50D seems to have been designed for that mode, whereas it was inconvenient with the 40D. Either camera is a MAJOR improvement over the 20D.

 

[snowyowl]

Anyone with a 50D able to comment on how effective dust reduction is on the camera ? I currently use a 20D and find dust is a major pain in the posterior!

Neil

And I thought that I was the only one with that experience. It has been a constant battle.

 

[Hirundapus]

I'm just comparing my new 50D with my 40D and I'm disappointed. Here (attached three pictures) I've taken comparison shots, based on a distant bird: in this case a stuffed kingfisher, so it definitely hasn't moved!
Both comparative shots were taken raw, with identical camera settings at 800 ISO (using the same tripod-mounted 400DO lens). The first shows the bird full frame. The comparative shots are the raws converted and tweeked to the best of my ability in Photoshop CS3.
To my eyes, the 50D just wins (at least at this 800 ISO setting), but only just, and not to the tune of £800.

 

[Roy C]

I'm just comparing my new 50D with my 40D and I'm disappointed. Here (attached three pictures) I've taken comparison shots, based on a distant bird: in this case a stuffed kingfisher, so it definitely hasn't moved!
Both comparative shots were taken raw, with identical camera settings at 800 ISO (using the same tripod-mounted 400DO lens). The first shows the bird full frame. The comparative shots are the raws converted and tweeked to the best of my ability in Photoshop CS3.
To my eyes, the 50D just wins (at least at this 800 ISO setting), but only just, and not to the tune of £800.

How did you get them both the same size? A similar size crop would have resulted in the bird being bigger in the frame from the 50D shot wouldn't it?

 

[Hirundapus]

The 40D I made to 100% and then I resized the 50D image to the same number of pixels.

 

[Tim Taylor]

Thanks for posting the comparison images Hirundapus. I have a little unease at the methodology though. I think that one of the potential advantages of the 50D in this example is that you'd have got more pixels in the KF with the 50D compared with the 40D with a smoother result and more potential for processing and printing.

 

[Roy C]

The 40D I made to 100% and then I resized the 50D image to the same number of pixels.

Excuse my ignorance but I am just trying to understand this - did you crop a 552 x 368 portion from the 40D image, if so what size did you crop the 50D image? I guess something like 700 x 466 and then you rezised the 50D image to 552 x 368, is this correct?

I am just trying to figure out how they are both 552 x 368 and look absolutely identical.

 

[Hirundapus]

Yes, I understand that the potential methodologies for this sort of comparison are complex. I think I have done it correctly to make a fair comparison, but I'll be very pleased to be corrected if there is a better way.
Let us say that my goal was to make the best 552 x 368 image I can of this distant kingfisher for my website. For the 40D image, I simply cropped it to 552 x 368 and tweeked a small amount of unsharp mask in Photoshop, and it was done.
For the comparative 50D image, I cropped exactly the same area, which works out to, yes, something like 700 x 466 (I forget the exact figues now) and tweeked a small amount of unsharp mask in Photoshop, and then finally resized it for my website to 552 x 368.

 

[Roy C]

Yes, I understand that the potential methodologies for this sort of comparison are complex. I think I have done it correctly to make a fair comparison, but I'll be very pleased to be corrected if there is a better way.
Let us say that my goal was to make the best 552 x 368 image I can of this distant kingfisher for my website. For the 40D image, I simply cropped it to 552 x 368 and tweeked a small amount of unsharp mask in Photoshop, and it was done.
For the comparative 50D image, I cropped exactly the same area, which works out to, yes, something like 700 x 466 (I forget the exact figues now) and tweeked a small amount of unsharp mask in Photoshop, and then finally resized it for my website to 552 x 368.

I guess the only other way would be to crop the 50D and up-res the 40D image - same difference I suppose.
I would be interested to see the 50D image without the re-sizing - I know it would be a bigger pic but it is the IQ that I am interested in, e,g at 100% is the 50D IQ good as the 40D

 

[websurfer]

I am sorry to say this. But I think this comparison is fake.
Those shots are identical. Its impossible to get the same pic with completely the same gab of the beak from same angle of a bird from two different cameras. Birds are moving all the time.

Such examples are devaluating Birdforum.net.

 

[Hirundapus]

I am sorry to say this. But I think this comparison is fake.
Those shots are identical. Its impossible to get the same pic with completely the same gab of the beak from same angle of a bird from two different cameras. Birds are moving all the time.

Such examples are devaluating Birdforum.net.

Best you read the thread properly before posting! This comparison is no fake. The bird was stuffed to make the comparison, as I stated!

 

[paul goode]

The bird was stuffed to make the comparison,

:eek!::eek!::eek!::eek!::eek!:

I think that needs rewording slightly

 

[websurfer]

Sorry, I did´t read the thread properly. I was a bit too hasty. Very sorry for that indeed.

But still those shots look totally identically to me. Fake or not fake! So if this is the difference between the 40D and the 50D - there is no difference.
I also think that´s what you want to tell us. I just can´t believe this result.

 

[CANONROB]

I'm just comparing my new 50D with my 40D and I'm disappointed. Here (attached three pictures) I've taken comparison shots, based on a distant bird: in this case a stuffed kingfisher, so it definitely hasn't moved!
Both comparative shots were taken raw, with identical camera settings at 800 ISO (using the same tripod-mounted 400DO lens). The first shows the bird full frame. The comparative shots are the raws converted and tweaked to the best of my ability in Photoshop CS3.
To my eyes, the 50D just wins (at least at this 800 ISO setting), but only just, and not to the tune of £800.

To be honest taking pictures of a stuffed bird on an overcast day at a great distance and then trying to compare them doesn't give either camera a good chance of getting a reasonable picture, but if there are people who think the 40D is a better camera, which would be there opinion, my friend has his 40D for sale with only 2300 clicks on it.
I use my 50D for all types of shots, and I find it does a very good job at all of them, especially for portraits, and landscapes, it must be good as my mate took a picture of me, and I looked "almost" human, it has transformed my 24 105 L IS which I found needed a few clicks of micro focus adjustment.
I will be going down to my local nature reserve in the morning, so I will take a little more time and effort to try and get some good shots to post, although to be honest I am not into heavy weight cropping, I try to get closer if possible....but as we no this is not always the case.