First images with the 50D - Spoonbills, Egret, and Raccoons

[Canon_Bob]

So after a lot of thinking and reading and then even more thinking, I decided to sell my 40D, and the 5D (once it gets here), and then just use a 50D as my backup to the 1DsMII. I took it out for it's maiden shoot this weekend, and completely left the 1DsMII in the bag. I wanted to force myself to really push this new one, and not reach for old faithful once the good stuff started happening. Anyway, here are the images, and my review is below:











Review:

The 50D was appealing to me because of the 15mpx on a 1.6 crop factor camera that could fire 6.5 fps. I figured it would be a perfect compliment to the 1DsMII for wildlife photography (instead of a 5d or 5DMII - as I already have a FF CMOS Sensor in the 1Ds). While I liked the 40D, that 10 megapixels always bothered me after seeing what 17 megapixels IQ was like on the 1Ds. I was sure this would be a much closer IQ to the 1Ds than the 40D was. Hence, the move.

Pros: Focusing acquisition is lightning fast. Easily as fast as my 1Ds (maybe even faster). Focusing was accurate, and images were sharp. The body is nice and light, so carrying it as a second body does not weigh you down as much. Setup was easy, and controls are the same as the 40D. All the 40D accessories I had are the same ones used for this (battery grip, etc).

Cons: NOISE!!!! Even at ISO 200, this thing has a lot of noise in the images. I will be going back through my setup to see if I turned something on to have caused it, but it honestly has WAY more noise than my 40D did, and certainly more than my 1DsMII. The stuff I shot at ISO 400 looked like something I'd have shot at ISO 1600 on the 1DsMII. I had to clean the noise out of every image. Definitely a big negative in my book. Again, I'll reserve judgement on this until I have validated my setup, and tested again. The other big con was the IQ. Frankly, it's just no better than the 40D was....but it is bigger! It is still a far cry from the IQ of the 17 megapixel 1DsMII....and that was dissapointing as my hope was that technology over the past 2 years would have allowed for a lower priced camera to compete with the 3 year old top-of-the line ones.

Conclusion: IMO, this is maybe just a marginal upgrade over the 40D. And I mean it when I say "maybe". The focusing acquisition is stellar, but with noise and IQ being an issue....I'm not sure I can see it splitting time with my 1DsMII. If you're happy with you 40D, then I wouldn't bother on this one. Again - I really need to validate my setup, and ensure that the noise is not human error.

FYI - The three birds above were shot at ISO 400, and the Raccoons were at ISO 200. I also used a fill flash on the second Raccoon image.

[AgingEyes]

Hmmm...the last three shots don't seem to be up to your usual standard. I'm sure it has to do with the camera. My monitor could be the culprit, too.

[mjs1973]

Thanks for your initial thoughts Bob. I was really surprised that Canon packed that many pixels onto that small of a chip. I was really wondering how they would handle the noise. You're initial comments about the IQ not being much better than the 40D is pretty much the same as I have been hearing from others.

[Loupey]

Cons: NOISE!!!! Even at ISO 200, this thing has a lot of noise in the images. I will be going back through my setup to see if I turned something on to have caused it, but it honestly has WAY more noise than my 40D did, and certainly more than my 1DsMII.

Thanks for posting this. I think that the 50D and 40D have similar noise characteristics at the lower ISO's (<400) and I think the main improvement has been in the upper ISO range. Still quite noisy up there but I think the difference is enough for people who shoot sports and other dark venues and dark ambient street shooting.

Overall, I agree that the 50D isn't much of an improvement over the 40D. I think it does allow larger prints at the same discernable level of noise though. And I think it performs hightone priority mode better.

[Pink Dragonfly]

I can't really comment on the camera stuff, but I thoroughly enjoyed your images...as always.... Thanks for sharing!

Mette

[Ron Kruger]

Very good shots, Bob. I am curious which lenses you used?

[Canon_Bob]

Very good shots, Bob. I am curious which lenses you used?

600mm f/4L on the birds, and the 70-200 f/2.8L Zoom on the Raccoons.

[Eric D]

Love your shots!! I like that down to the water look!!!

[mn shutterbug]

I've read that the Noise Reduction on the 50D has to be set on high, and then noise isn't an issue even at 6,400.

[Canon_Bob]

UPDATE TO TESTING:

OK, I tried a few different variations here. This is what I have found so far:

1 - If you are going to shoot at lower ISO, then turn off "High ISO" noise reduction COMPLETELY! The noise is perfect then from ISO 100 all the way up to 400.

2. - Here's the REAL kicker! Setting "High ISO" noise reduction to "Strong"....Then shooting between ISO 800 and 1600 yeilds unbelievably lower noise results! If you shoot at ISO's below 800 with the "High ISO - Strong" NR on, then you will see MORE noise at the lower ISO shots than you will on the ISO shots between ISO 800 and 1600! Images at ISO 1250 and 1600 were particularly good at this setup, and only exhibited a little noise.

There was also lower noise with "Highlight Tone Priority" turned off during all testing, but noise levels were acceptable with this on. I think this is a "cost versus benefit" setting by situation.

All my testing was just done around my house tonight. I need to get this out in the field and prove it out the rest of the way.

[Loupey]

Bob - when I first tested this camera and the high ISO noise reduction settings, I was really excited by shots I took at ISO 3200. But I believe that there is a significant loss of fine detail and I also believe that the NR is irreversible even when shot in RAW.

So I've been using the camera with the High ISO Noise setting at "disabled" ever since. My thought is that it is better to reduce the noise in PP rather than in-camera.

I will be interested in what you think of this feature.

[Canon_Bob]

I hear you Loupey. It's all about the IQ. NR always comes with a cost. In PP, you can selectively reduce noise. In camera, you get what you get. I just need to get it out in the field for another good round of testing. I was pleased by the low ISO performance tonight with no NR on. I'm fine shooting between ISO 200 and 400 in most cases. I could see the high ISO stuff being great for BIF, though. I need to test more.

[paulnj]

Your newer post seems to clear up the noise issues ..thank goodness:mad2:

To be blunt.. these are not up to par with your current output.

[Canon_Bob]

Your newer post seems to clear up the noise issues ..thank goodness:mad2:

To be blunt.. these are not up to par with your current output.

Absolutely agree. I was definitely NOT pleased with these. The lesson for everyone here is that NR applied to an image (even if it's by the camera itself) has a significant cost in image quality. I have now turned off ALL in camera software on the 50D. There's no substitute for just being a good photographer. If you're not, then software can't help you. if you are, it will make you worse!

I could see those settings being useful for a reporter with a deadline (and image quality just had to be "adequate"), but not for a serious artist.