Canon 50D Review @ DPReview

[jpeyton]

Text

As much as I wanted to believe Canon's engineers had done the impossible, they didn't. Moving up to 15MP produced a few very noticeable and damaging side effects:

1) Noticeably more chroma and luminance noise than it's chief competition (D300) and its predecessor (40D)

2) Per pixel detail is lower than than of the D300/40D

3) Reduced dynamic range in shadow areas

Such a shame. I think people would have been quite happy with a 12MP XSi sensor in a 50D body.

This part of the review sums it up best:

Let's have a look at the really important stuff then: Image quality. Below ISO 1600 image output is clean with well balanced contrast and colors and as you would expect from a DSLR with a 15 megapixel sensor the 50D delivers a fair amount of detail. Having said that, in terms of per-pixel sharpness the 50D cannot quite keep up with the better 10 or 12 megapixel APS-C DSLRs in the market. At higher sensitivities the smaller photosites are clearly producing more noise (as shown from our RAW comparisons) and so Canon is having to apply more noise reduction to keep to acceptable noise levels, this of course means a loss of detail from ISO 1600 upwards.

It appears that Canon has reached the limit of what is sensible, in terms of megapixels on an APS-C sensor. At a pixel density of 4.5 MP/cm² (40D: 3.1 MP/cm², 1Ds MkIII: 2.4 MP/cm²) the lens becomes the limiting factor. Even the sharpest primes at optimal apertures cannot (at least away from the center of the frame) satisfy the 15.1 megapixel sensors hunger for resolution. Considering the disadvantages that come with higher pixel densities such as diffraction issues, increased sensitivity towards camera shake, reduced dynamic range, reduced high ISO performance and the need to store, move and process larger amounts of data, one could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that at this point the megapixel race should probably stop. One consequence of this is that the 50% increase in pixel count over the 40D results in only a marginal amount of extra detail.

We're by no means saying the 50Ds image quality is bad but it's simply not significantly better than the ten megapixel 40D. In some areas such as dynamic range and high ISO performance it's actually worse and that simply makes you wonder if the EOS 50D could have been an (even) better camera if its sensor had a slightly more moderate resolution.

For now, the D300 is still the top dog in the semi-pro APS-C market.

 

[rudder]

ah well, I guess I will just keep the 40D a while longer... or maybe just pick up a cheap 5D.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Text

As much as I wanted to believe Canon's engineers had done the impossible, they didn't. Moving up to 15MP produced a few very noticeable and damaging side effects:

1) Noticeably more chroma and luminance noise than it's chief competition (D300) and its predecessor (40D)

2) Per pixel detail is lower than than of the D300/40D

3) Reduced dynamic range in shadow areas

Such a shame. I think people would have been quite happy with a 12MP XSi sensor in a 50D body.

This part of the review sums it up best:

Let's have a look at the really important stuff then: Image quality. Below ISO 1600 image output is clean with well balanced contrast and colors and as you would expect from a DSLR with a 15 megapixel sensor the 50D delivers a fair amount of detail. Having said that, in terms of per-pixel sharpness the 50D cannot quite keep up with the better 10 or 12 megapixel APS-C DSLRs in the market. At higher sensitivities the smaller photosites are clearly producing more noise (as shown from our RAW comparisons) and so Canon is having to apply more noise reduction to keep to acceptable noise levels, this of course means a loss of detail from ISO 1600 upwards.

It appears that Canon has reached the limit of what is sensible, in terms of megapixels on an APS-C sensor. At a pixel density of 4.5 MP/cm² (40D: 3.1 MP/cm², 1Ds MkIII: 2.4 MP/cm²) the lens becomes the limiting factor. Even the sharpest primes at optimal apertures cannot (at least away from the center of the frame) satisfy the 15.1 megapixel sensors hunger for resolution. Considering the disadvantages that come with higher pixel densities such as diffraction issues, increased sensitivity towards camera shake, reduced dynamic range, reduced high ISO performance and the need to store, move and process larger amounts of data, one could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that at this point the megapixel race should probably stop. One consequence of this is that the 50% increase in pixel count over the 40D results in only a marginal amount of extra detail.

We're by no means saying the 50Ds image quality is bad but it's simply not significantly better than the ten megapixel 40D. In some areas such as dynamic range and high ISO performance it's actually worse and that simply makes you wonder if the EOS 50D could have been an (even) better camera if its sensor had a slightly more moderate resolution.

For now, the D300 is still the top dog in the semi-pro APS-C market.

You should probably look at the pics uploaded on FM and POTN before you make up your mind. And the whole sensor "out resolving primes" is a big, huge pile of FUD. That is one of those myths that has to come about every two MP.
I think if you were to see two large prints side by side, you would see a noticeable difference in sharpness. I know I did.
If DPreview wants to continue doing the pixel peeping with crappy sample photography, in camera processed lab tests, by all means let them. There are plenty of gadget geeks that will circle jerk over specs rather than comparing real world results that can be had when just seeing it for yourself.

 

[ElFenix]

camera labs comes to the conclusion that any noise difference is not perceptible.

Kicking-off with resolution, the EOS 50D packs more pixels into its cropped sensor than any model to date, so there?s obviously concerns over noise levels. But Canon?s bold claims of matching the noise levels of the earlier EOS 40D were confirmed in our High ISO tests. From 100 to 1600 ISO, the EOS 50D?s output really is very similar to that from the EOS 40D when viewed at 100% on a pixel level. At 3200 ISO, the 50D applies greater noise reduction, but tone it down a notch and again it looks similar to the 40D. Admittedly the 50D?s 6400 and 12800 ISO modes are a step too far, but it?s an impressive achievement to boost the total pixels by 50% without any perceptible compromise in noise levels over its 10 Megapixel predecessor at the same sensitivities.

It?s also important to remember these comparisons were made at 100%, viewing each pixel at 1:1 on a computer monitor. If you print images from the 40D and 50D at the same size, the 50D?s higher pixel count means any artefacts would appear smaller, so in this respect it has the advantage.

 

[ElFenix]

as it turns out DPReview used a pre-release version of ACR with known problems converting 50D files. DPP provides MUCH better results.

 

[andylawcc]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
as it turns out DPReview used a pre-release version of ACR with known problems converting 50D files. DPP provides MUCH better results.

DPP?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: andylawcc

Originally posted by: ElFenix
as it turns out DPReview used a pre-release version of ACR with known problems converting 50D files. DPP provides MUCH better results.

DPP?

digital photo pro, canon's own raw converter.

though canon may be doing some processing it shouldn't be.

hmmm

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: andylawcc

Originally posted by: ElFenix
as it turns out DPReview used a pre-release version of ACR with known problems converting 50D files. DPP provides MUCH better results.

DPP?

digital photo pro, canon's own raw converter.

though canon may be doing some processing it shouldn't be.

hmmm

NR aside, DPP is so much better and sharpening than anything PS can do. If I can get similar results with PS, it can take a while, and it's different for almost every pic. DPP can sharpen almost as far as the slider goes, and it doesn't have a nasty look unless it's maxed out.
WB is a ton easier as well.
So if you are shooting with really high ISO, it would make sense that DPP is better.