Canon 50D v/s 40D

[saleeltambe]

I had been a happy user of Canon 40D alongwith Canon 500 F4 , 100-400 and few other Canon lenses. This combination has been with me for little more than a year.

Recently I added my second body purchasing a Canon 50D and tried both the bodies together on a field trip.

But my honest feedback is that I didn't find performance of newly bought Canon 50D ...even at par with that of my old 40D. I was surprised and disappointed to see the output of Canon 50D and was hoping it to be much superior to Canon 40D.

In fact I felt that instead of adding this new Canon 50D , it was better if I had purchased another 40D body !

I am not seeing that "juice" in the images from Canon 50D which I get from my 40D. I tried all possible settings / combinations including RAW / JPEG comparisons...comparison of the same shot with 40D and 50D.

Any feedback / inputs / Anyone with similar experiences ?

[Alfred Forns]

Wouldn't judge by looking at the raw image I would process images and then compare.

I'm not on the Canon side but the images I have personally have see from the 50D look mighty fine !!!

[Axel Hildebrandt]

Could you be more specific? I'm not sure what you mean by 'juice'. Saturation, contrast? If you can adjust it in your RAW converter, I wouldn't worry about it. The noise might be higher because of the higher pixel pitch.

[Michael Eckstein]

I have both cameras and I find the 50D images have more detail in them when enlarged and printed. I see very little difference else wise. The A/F also seems to be slightly quicker in acquisition and better in dim light. That coupled with the added features, better LCD, etc. makes me happy with my purchase.

[Arthur Morris]

I did not use a 40D very much but I love my 50D images. I do try to stay away from the higher ISO settings and use my MIII bodies when I am working in low light. AI Servo AF for flight photography on the 50D is the best I have encountered. Ever.

[Malcolm Benn]

I did not use a 40D very much but I love my 50D images. I do try to stay away from the higher ISO settings and use my MIII bodies when I am working in low light. AI Servo AF for flight photography on the 50D is the best I have encountered. Ever.

Just curious what you would normally consider your ISO threshold for the 50D? I've had the 50D for about 5 weeks and I've been generally reluctant to push above ISO 800.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Malcolm, I have not done too much with ISOs above 400 with the 50D as I love the MIII for that stuff. I have had to run NR on the BKGRs for lots of 50D images. Never so with the MIII. I have even gone back to ISO 250 wit the 50D in full sun, something I rarely if ever do with the MIII.

I should have mentioned above to Saleel that the images right out of my 50D look fantastic. At times I do not think that they need to be optimized....

[Malcolm Benn]

Thanks Artie, that's good to know and one less variable in the equation.

[Phil Liew]

Saleel, I have a 50D that I use occasionally and found it to be brilliant in bright sunlight and using ISO of not more than 400. A mate of mine sold his 40D to upgrade to a 50D and he too has expressed disappointment especially when pushing the ISO and found lots more noise than the 40D. Perhaps you could use the 50D on brighter situations (and I know the results are simply brilliant) and keep the 40D for the darker scenarios.

[Don Lacy]

Once you down sample a 50D file to the same resolution as a 40D file they are virtually equal when it comes to noise or you could up sample the 40D file then compare them. You need to compare the files at the same resolution to get a good ideal of how they really compare to each other.

[Dug Threewitt]

If comparing processed raw files, ACR doesn't seem to handle the noise in the 50D at all.

[Jonathan Michael Ashton]

I was very pleased with my 50D images until the camera packed up today. I have been setting the camera to standard setting, setting the sharpness to zero and leaving the colour and contrast etc at mid point.
I have just started using DPP and I find that in many cases there is little adjustment required especially when I look at the RGB Histogram as opposed to the RAW Histogram. I have noticed I get superb colours in dark dull days when I set the DPP to cloudy and then faithful. Does anyone else use similar settings? By the way Neat Image cures any noise issues at High ISO - I resize the Tiff to 1024pixels , apply Neat Image then make any required adjustments in Photoshop.

Jon

[Kerry Perkins]

I routinely get images like this one with my 50D. Note that this scene has extreme black and white tones that require the entire dynamic range of the camera.

I too was concerned about the IQ when I first got it, but soon learned that it is indeed capable of making very good images. What works for me is to do the major part of the image processing outside of the camera. I use the "standard" picture style at all times, which gives you a bit of capture sharpening but doesn't do much else to the raw data. I turned noise reduction completely off in DPP (set it as default) and usually put the contrast at -2 in the raw section. I also turned off the Auto Lighting Optimizer (C.Fn II -4) in the camera and in DPP (it will enable it by default). I have made perfectly good images at ISO 1600 when using the NR in DPP to take out the noise, which I don't have to do a lower ISO settings.

Once I have the image looking "neutral" in DPP, I transfer it over to PS CS3. It will be a 16-bit TIF. From there, you can make a very nice image with your captures. Hope this helps.

[Kerry Perkins]

Sorry for the bandwidth, but I forgot to mention the issue of white balance. I am a fan of manual setting of the color temperature, and usually use 5100K. I find that this makes very nice and consistent white balance, and will bump that up or down in extreme light conditions like early morning or late evening, or in the mountains above the tree line, where all the light is blue. I come from a broadcast video and digital cinema background and this is one area where I work differently from most photographers, as I believe in minimizing variables in any kind of imaging, including capturing pictures. Auto white balance is not especially good on the 50D and the presets don't seem to be much better. Might be worth your time to try this.

[Jonathan Michael Ashton]

Kerry - this is the sort of information I was looking for - thanks very much - and that duck looks pretty darned good too!

Jon

[Arthur Morris]

Could you be more specific? I'm not sure what you mean by 'juice'. Saturation, contrast? If you can adjust it in your RAW converter, I wouldn't worry about it. The noise might be higher because of the higher pixel pitch.

Saleel, You missed Axel's question above.

[saleeltambe]

Thanks For the inflow of inputs and valuable information. As Arthur has pointed out, what I meant by "juice" is as follows -
When I download an image from my 40D (RAW or JPEG) ...and look straight onto the monitor....to the pixel level details..I can surely see some "potential " to work on the image and scope for further improvements...but when I download the images from my D50...they seem to be lacking that degree of detail and information and I feel there is not enough "information" available in the image...and the effect somewhat looks as if the pixels are "dried out" !
To say it in other words...The images from 40D look more " workable" whereas images from 50D show some kind of a "worn out" feel at pixel level.

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks Saleel, What you describe has not been my experience at all, though I do not spend much if any time looking at pixels.... I look at the whole image. When I do zoom in on 50D images, the detail is spectacular. The image here has only had a Levels adjustment (and some minor Patch Tool clean-up work).

[IvoZafirov]

Just few weeks ago I upgraded from 40D (exellent body) to 50D. Well, honestly I have been a bit dissapointed as it seems that 50D gives less small details than 40D before. Both cameras I am using with canon 400/5,6 L USM, excellent lense for action shooting. I am wondering whether 50D gives fantastic images with lenses of aperture 4 and 2,8? Generaly, the autofocus of 50D is fantastic dealing very well even in dim light. Also I find that even at ISO 1250 the image is barebable.
I would appreciate comments on the lense usage.

[Arthur Morris]

The image that I posted above was created with the 800 f/5.6 L IS lens.

[Rene A]

Just few weeks ago I upgraded from 40D (exellent body) to 50D. Well, honestly I have been a bit dissapointed as it seems that 50D gives less small details than 40D before. Both cameras I am using with canon 400/5,6 L USM, excellent lense for action shooting. I am wondering whether 50D gives fantastic images with lenses of aperture 4 and 2,8? Generaly, the autofocus of 50D is fantastic dealing very well even in dim light. Also I find that even at ISO 1250 the image is barebable.
I would appreciate comments on the lense usage.

I have a 50D & 400 f5.6 L must agree exellent action combo. 50D & 70-200 f4 IS, 300 f2.8 IS & 500 F4 IS give fantastic images.. 100-400 f5.6 is a little too slow for action with 50D I find.

The noise (800 &) seems to clean up nicely with CS4 & Topaz Denoise, Adjustment & Simplify.

[Rick Baumhauer]

All right, who let Renate have the 500 2.8 IS?

[Rene A]

500 f2.8 wishing)

corrected to 300

[IvoZafirov]

I am wondering what the results will be with Sigma 800/5,6? Anyway, in a month I will know

Just bragging....

Artie, thanks for the clarification.

[Dave Taylor]

Just a question to those of you that are having issues with your perception of quality on your 50D's. Have you tried adjusting the autofocus micro adjustment? When I first got my copy, the 50D immediately jumped out at me over my 40D in image detail due to better AF performance. When I tried a quick micro adjustment to the sensor (just a couple of points of adjustment actually - took < 5 minutes), it really shines! Perhaps your lenses are not focusing to their full potential on your 50D & a small amount of micro adjustment to the sensor will help out? Just my 2 cents.

[saleeltambe]

Thanks Dave, That's a good input on my original quesry ....but could you please explain with more details regarding how do you do that micro adjustment to the sensor ..and how do you decide how much to do ? That would be very helpful.

[Dave Taylor]

To start off, I would point you to this link - it does a far better job at explaining the process. Now, granted, I didn't purchase the device. I have heard great things about it, but I just did it "manually" I set me camera on a tripod, autofocused on an object about 15 feet away, used a remote release and fired. Looked at my LCD at high mag, then tried adjusting the sensor (using the built in adjustment software of the 50D) in large swings either way. Then reshot and looked for a difference, then just kept fine tuning it until I achieved what I considered max. sharpness. I know my way was less scientific, but I still noticed a difference in apparent sharpness. Your milage may vary of course. Anyway, here's the link:
http://luminous-landscape.com/review...ensalign.shtml

[Jack Faller]

My initial reaction to the 50D over the 40D with a 500 lens was similar, but I found that some of the apparent problems were operator error and perceptions based on comparisons that were not legitimate. Using the correct focus microadjustments were essential for my 50D body. Values from +7 to +13 were needed depending on the lens/TC combination. Eyeballing the adjustment is not as good as using a grid on an angle as indicated in the link in a previous post (my thanks to R. Amoruso for helping with making the initial adjustments).


An initial source of confusion was that the noise observed in CS4 raw is worse than that found in Canon's raw processing software, DPP; hence there is a tendency to make comparisons with DPP. DPP however applies some noise reduction even if you think you have turned it completely off (my impression is that the amount that is automatically applied is different for the 40D and 50D). I no longer use DPP and now use CS4 + Dfine2 if noise reduction is required. I also think you would find slightly improved noise levels with the 50D vs 40D if you downsampled to the same resolution. Regardless, I often find that some NR is necessary for ISO 400 & 800 on the 50D, particularly on darker backgrounds. With adequate exposure, however, the 50D at ISO 400 & 800 often will produce images that do not need NR. For the most part I have found that ISO 1600 produces too high a percentage of images with unacceptable noise that I don't use this setting often.


The bottom line is that I now use the 50D almost exclusively. The image quality is high and the improved autofocus capability relative to the 40D is worth the switch.

[saleeltambe]

Thanks Jack...your inputs are certainly encouraging. I will try some microadjustments ..especially with my 500 f4 and 1.4 x combination.

[Cal Walters]

Saleel, it has been a few months since this string started and my 50D experience was the same with the RAW - except I have no 40D to compare to. Basically underwelmed althought I thought it was related to the new firmware. Wondering if you learned anything since these suggestions?

[Arthur Morris]

Here is a 50D/500 IS image from this morning pretty much right out of the box. No microadjustment.

And as most of you know, I love the 50D for flight photography....