Just pushing the 50D
Single 2 lamp 4 foot flourescent light using sp41 lamps and my cat relaxing in the garage. 1600 iso and minimal processing. Shot in RAW , I backed off the contrast from 0 to -3, color 0, sharp 3. Never went to noise reduction from the raw image in DPP. Just downsized converted jpeg in Picasa to 800X600. White balance was great considering the light source. I always had to correct using the Xti in my garage lights. Used 17-55 mm IS lens.
I really like this body combined with the 17-55 in traditionally bad light conditions. If you 40D guys are enjoying this clean iso, you have been holding back making that point across to me. It can take a while before some of this info sinks in :rolleyes:
come on ISO 1600? push it more!
it looks clean but its not very interesting, colours are a bit stale and while the cat looks nice, it isn't showing much character
it seems the 50D looks to be quite alright but I just can't see a major reason to jump from the 40D to the 50D.
Sorry for the bland picture, I was just trying to illustrate how well the 50D behaves in very poor lighting conditions compared to my Xti. If you are a 40D owner it's probably not worth the upgrade. I was just impressed that camera settings can be at minimum and still deliver a decent image to work with for post processing. Now I see why people love their 40D's or full frame models. Higher iso is worth the upgrade from entry level cameras.
The higher ISO is my biggest reason for wanting to upgrade from my XTI. I take many indoor sports pics as well as family get-togethers. It should greatly enhance my results. I am also interested with the levels of noise reduction, the better processor, higher megapicels.
I wish this economy would settle down. No big spending for me until I make sure I have a job.
If you get some outdoor shots with more color (leaves changing, etc), give us some examples. Good looking cat.
yeah, i'm not impressed with the results of the ISO either. I've seen clean 1600 ISO shots from the 40D-
ISO 1,600. shot with the nifty fifty @F2.2. Before i discovered my copy is crap before F2.8. and shot in JPEG, no processing other than cropping.
So clean ISO 1,600 shots don't really impress 40D users.
Lets see some ISO 3,200 shots to compare...
again, shot in JPEG. kit lens.
Or somethings the 40D can't do at all- lets see some 6,400 shots and some 12,800 shots! I've yet to see any shots at these ISOs where I was impressed enough to want to buy a 50D. so far, both these ISOs have looked pretty much like i wouldn't want to use them, but I do want to upgrade my body... i want a sharper LCD... So c'mon man, sell me! Really put that body through it's paces!
Pfff, my 20D does ISO 1600 well. (ya, I'm an amateur, I forgot to lower the ISO)
Thanks downtrodden for motivating me to at least shoot a 12,800 shot :eek: I figured it would suck bigtime, so I really never tried until tonight. I was indeed surprised at the result. Pixel peeping shows the flaws, but it is usable. This post was mainly geared toward older Rebel owners like myself who were looking to upgrade. I couldn't shoot above 400 iso with the Xti without using a noise removal tool.
I'll post a few direct from the 50D without any noise reduction and all settings were set to 0 except for sharpening set to 2. RAW to jpeg using DPP. Jpeg files were downsized with Picasa to 800X600
The first one is my base at 200 iso. Just took shots of my old Rebel using same light and rolling up the iso. All shot at f8. Inserted text with zoom browser. EXIF data should be intact.
I think that most people would have a lot less reason to be upset about noise in high ISO pictures if they would expose properly.
That and put their expectations on a realistic level.
Originally Posted by nqjudo
it does suck. thats just not a very good test.
Originally Posted by Spookonthe8ball