Ever since I saw this thread, I was waiting for Daniel to chime in... :-)
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.
Originally Posted by Rob Gardner
Did you follow the link I posted? It was to a focus chart. It is to test the focus accuracy and sharpness of a body/lens. It is not a "2-D" wall poster ISO test chart. It is common courtesy to at least look at the links supplied by a post responder.
You post "The resolution question" when I think actually you are struggling with an "AF accuracy question" There is no way that any XXD model camera, or 5D, or 5DII, is going to be as "real-world" shot after shot accurate as the 1D series. That is why the 1D series is so blame expensive. Your working harder because the AF in your 50D is wack! Have you tried another body? Have you sent it to Canon for repair under warranty? What do you have in a similar body to compare it to?
Whendid anyone, anytime, anywhere, insinuate that the 50D would be an upgrade from a 1DMkII? I think you are spoiled. It's funny, The guys at dpreview didn't seem to have a very hard time shooting lots of very useable/professional looking photos with the 50D. And for some really strange reason it doesn't appear that Bryan had any problem either. If I kept looking, I could very easily find dozens of pros using this camera making a living with this tool.
At this point I just scratch my head in wonder at what this post set out to accomplish.
Oh an BTW, the MKIV is 16.1MP. Jeff Ascough Likes
Damn, that 1D Mark IV looks like an INCREDIBLE camera! Ascough's review is very insightful. Not being an experienced photographer, I don't really understand how some of those shots look like they do. Some of the shots he said were at night look to be taken in broad daylight. How does one do that?
I was not responding to you or anyone elsewhen I made the test chart comment. In fact, I wrote that post sitting in a cigar bar with no internet access, not having read your post. Why you would take it to refer to you personally is beyond me. I apologize for offending your sensitivities.
I haven't done anything other that what was stated. On a tripod, in controlled lighting, from a motionless inanimate object, I EXPECT TO GET AN ACCURATE SHOT. Otherwise I may as well give up the business. I tried to focus 20 different shots, both manually and with AF. The shot shown is the best manual focus shot I could take. I have 20/20 uncorrected vision. I spent an hour screwing with the AF Microadjustment. I got the shot right the first time with the 1D Mk II, and took five subsequent shots, with exactly the same result. I have never had this problem with any other camera. Here's what I've owned before (quantities): 10D (3), 20D (1), 40D (2), 5D (3), 1D (3), 1D Mk II (2), 1Ds (3), 1Ds Mk II (1). I still have an old 10D that gets a sharper picture straight out of the gate. As far as AF is concerned, I wasn't using it, so your point is irrelevant. That being said, even if it were, there should be SOME area on this image that is sharp, should it not? The object I chose has multiple surfaces (leaves) at multiple depths, so SOMETHING should be in crisp focus, but its not. The sharpest area is too soft, IMO. And I'm not the only one to make this observation about the 50D, so I know I'm not crazy. My old 10D at 6MP can take a crisper shot straight out of the box, without the need for AF Microadjustment or such shenanigans. Also, I expect a camera to produce a decent result at f/11. This is not an unreasonable expectation. I don't care if I get a better result at f/5.6 if I need to shoot at f/11 for depth control.
The guys at DPREVIEW also commented on its image softness, and justly criticized the 50D for it. Read the review before you call them to your defense. I never said you couldn't make a living with this body. In my experience, however, I have to work too hard to get the results I need. I found it surprising that a four-year-newer body with twice the MP and significantly better ISO performance can't deliver a crisp shot in controlled conditions, and that my four-year-old 8MP camera could produce a similar image when up-rezzed (sp?) to 15MP. I chose to compare them based upon time, technology, and price.
If you had read my reasoning and conclusions, you would understand.
I was referencing the MP of the Mk III - I never referenced the Mk IV in terms of MP. I stated "The 1D Mk III was criticized for being "only" 10mp when lower cameras in the Canon lineup were of equal or greater MP." You seem to be quick to correct, without taking the time to read.
Interesting answers.
I won't repeat any of the previous dialogue, but I will mention a few things I notice. I too own a 1D MKII and a 50D (plus 3 other bodies). I do a lot of shooting where I pair up bodies and lenses for an event and then have pictures from many bodies to work with I'm compiling proofs for a client. Some days, this means I'm looking at8MP images from the 1D MKII and XT, whilealsoworking with 22MP images from my 5D MKII. There's too many variables to analyze, but sometimes one body just handles white balance, focus or some other variable better than the others.
My1D MKII never focuseswell with the 2X converter, butmy XTi willwork perfectlyin the same lighting. My 50D needs moresaturation in post processing than anyof my other bodies. My 1D MKIItakes sharpeningbetter in the RAW files than any of my other bodies...and the differences go on and on.
Ithink there are a lot of small variables with lenses and bodies than impact image quality. Anyone out there who hastwo copies of the same lenshas noticeddifferences...
That's what's so funny! The DPR editors are so indoctrinated by their own war on pixel density propaganda that they did indeed say that the 50D "per-pixel detail" (a misleading a useless metric to begin with) is not as good as 10 MP cameras, but even this is wrong.
Not only is the 50D sharper than the 40D at any given absolute spatial frequency, but also relative to Nyquist. Their own measurements prove it. Siemens Star tests with the 40D and 50D prove that the 50D has even higher "per pixel sharpness" with the right lens and technique.
And if only people would pay for pictures of test charts, I'd be a happy man.....
But over here, in reality.....
I have made lots of money with my XTi. Know your equipment, its strength and weaknesses. The most important tool is the photographer. Deliver good quality and they will pay no matter what canon tool you are using.
Mark
Mark
Your "reality" is predicated on the inability to achieve accurate focus even in the easiest and most controlled circumstances. Live view makes it so easy (especially at f/11), that it should not take any photographer more than a few seconds. That's separate from autofocus or miscalibration, of course.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
