Post deleted due to extreme douchebaggery by fanboys. There's nothing to see here....move along....
Post deleted due to extreme douchebaggery by fanboys. There's nothing to see here....move along....
For those of you who will ask, the full files are found here:
50D: http://www.ithinksmall.com/IMG_4589.jpg
1D Mk II: http://www.ithinksmall.com/IT6Q0523.jpg
That seems pretty close, if you were to compare the resolution at high ISO's such as 1600-3200 that would be an interesting comparison indeed. If there's not that much difference mabye I should consider the 1D IIas a cheaper alternative to the 7D.
John.
Interesting. I never really considered the depth of field difference between crops.
Funny, Rob. You spent the weekend doing this, and I spent the weekend taping up all the Canon logos on my gear with black gaff.
After reviewing your images, I'm not at all surprised. The 50D overpromised and underdelivered, especially compared to the (IMO) superior 40D. For anyone reading this who doesn't know, Canon introduced the50D while it was still competing in the megapixel war with Nikon and the other camera companies, and this is the natural result of that war (if memory serves me right, Nikon was offering cameras with slightly higher resolutions and Canon [foolishly] must have felt likeit needed to overdose on the MPs to make a statement or show dominance or something). There's no reason to have 15 MPs for most people.
<span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]One thing you didn't mention was the significant noise in your 50D images (compare the white space in the background of the images). That, of course, can result from a lot of factors, but probably results from trying to cram too many pixels onto a sensor that's just too small (gapless pixels and microlenses and better pixel pitch blah blah blah aside).Hmm, now that I'm looking at the images on a different monitor, the noise seems to have disappeared. Interesting. . . .
Fortunately, the major camera companiesseem to beeasing up on the megapixels. Canon (especially after the release of the G10) recently released the G11 with fewer MPs than its predecessor, although the mark 4 has 16-ish MPs (compared to the Nikon D3 or new D3s, both of which have 12.1). Still, it's reviews like this that embarrass me and make me cringe as a Canon-shooter.
In a way, I feel like discussing theneed for more MPs is a bit like kicking a dead pig. By now, people should know that more MPs doesn't always equal better images. What's important is that these companies listen to their consumers and put out products that we can be proud of. And mind the quality control, lest we all jump ship to Sony! I'm tired of making my frequent trips to the Canon repair center because my brand new $1000+ L lens is backfocusing or focusing unevenly across the frame from left to right, or because my 5D mk II's sensor is dying or because its outermost focal points can't focus worth a damn in low light. Am I being unreasonable? Cuz it's kind of upsetting when I know that I could probably produce sharper images at an indoor wedding with a Canon G11, a non-TTL sync cord, and a Metz or Nikon SB-900 flash.
P.S. DOF differences are most likely related to the different sensor sizes. As you know, bigger sensors = greater DOF. That's why certain videos shot with DSLRs are so impressive, compared to dedicated camcorders and video cameras.
and by "greater" DOF, I really meant "more shallow."
Originally Posted by Conway Yen
You are wrong. The 50D has more resolution than the 40D, yet the same noise level for any given resolution.
If by "most people" you mean people who never print larger than 5x7, then I agree. But for 8x10 or larger prints, or for wildlife, macro, and many other types of photography, 15 MP and more is very useful.
The softness of the 7D is caused by bad demosaic algorithms forced by green channel imbalances due to poor manufacturing. Hopefully they wont make the same mistake when they put the 7D sensor into the 60D and 550D (if they do).
I disagree. I need and want more MP. I could use at least 200 MP on a 1.6X (and more on full frame) to get the most from my very expensive lenses. I can't fathom why anyone would want their lenses to be limited by what is ideally the cheapest component in the system: the camera.
Please read this thread:
http://community.the-digital-picture...ms/t/2025.aspx
Agreed.
Ever since I saw this thread, I was waiting for Daniel to chime in... :-)
Yes, its always entertaining to hear from people who don't have practical experience of a situation tell us we're wrong.
Rob,
1) How was the 50D calibrated? It appears to me that the body/lens is back focusing badly.
2) At f11, DLA(table in the MkIII review)has a negative effect on the IQ of the 50D. Because of the pixel density of that sensor diffraction begins to effect IQ at f7.6 ABC (According to Bryans Calculations). Diffractionblur is not noticable on the 1D MKII until f12.7 ABC. Bryan illustrates effects of diffraction on the 50D here.
I would really like to see a comparison using a focus chart. Try this one at larger apertures like f4-f8. Tim Jackons D70 Focus Chart Follow his setup as closely as possible. This reveals quite a bit about a len's performance.
When you post your results, try posting 100% crops 240-300 pixels wide in a side by side format. It's much easier for people to compare. It's a shame we don't have a way to do overlays like Bryan does.
Thanks for sharing your test data and thoughts. I hope you will continue to test your equipment to find it's strengths and weaknesses. It is a noble endeavor.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote