50D samples, including ISO 128000

[alan_green4]

http://www.digitaldreams.com.sg/eos50dsamples/index.html

[PuppyDigs]

ISO 3200 looks pretty darn good. I don't think anybody will want to use 12800 except in an emergency...

[danielleetaylor]

Actually, I was thinking 12,800 would be quite usable for 8x10 prints, especially after using something like Noise Ninja. Keep in mind we're talking about 15 MP. A lot of what you see in Photoshop looking at the pixels just won't be visible in an 8x10. You're at something like 400 ppi, after cropping, at that print size.

 

1600 and 3200 look great, and I wouldn't hesitate to use them for a second. I can't wait to get my hands on one of these!

[elliot1]

Without having some 'standard' to compare to, it is hard to tell how good the images really are. In-camera NR in the latest cameras does a great job but at some cost to detail. As ISO increases, detail and color saturation typically tends to decrease.

 

I would like to see a side-by-side comparison of ISO 1600 and 3200 images with the 50D and 5D - that would give you a better idea of what you are really getting. My guess is that the 5D will still provide superior detail. The 5D is pretty much on par with the D3 (with regards to IQ only) which is a pretty amazing feat considering when each camera was released.

[freelance]

I am with Elliot. I would like to see a comparison between 50D and 5D at 3200.

[david_lau3]

5D vs 50D is 12MP vs 39MP, which is the pixel no of 50D at Full Frame. Not a meaningful comparsion.

[petemillis]

Of course a meaningful comparison can be made - say you want to produce 10x8 prints and shoot at ISO3200, then you look at 10x8 image from the 5D and 10x8 image from the 50D, both shot at ISO3200 and see which offers the highest IQ. Pixel count/sensor size does not need to be considered on its own.

[j_smith6]

David - how did you count that EOS 50D would have 39MP if it was full frame? To me it seems that it would have "only" about 24MP not 39MP.

[phule]

[[i don't think anybody will want to use 12800 except in an emergency]]

 

I would use it every day. But, I don't print large images.

[Stock-Photos]

It makes little sense to create sample shots with such a low end lens (28-105)

[david_lau3]

Michael, the size of 40D sensor is 22.2 x 14.8mm and FF is 36 x 24mm. Therefore FF sensor is 2.63 times in area more than 40D, and it takes 15 X 2.63 = 39.45MP to fill the FF sensor.

[evphotography]

For a 15MP sensor I think the the IQ is very impressive, what noise you can see is lot more grain like then use to be. If the new 5D replacement is as impressive, I will be one happy camper to say the least. But like previously mentioned you would have to compare it side by side to see how it really stacks up against previous models.

[herve_barriere]

I agree with Elliot. A comparison with the same objective, light, aperture, speed, ISO and dimensions (e.g 8X10) between the 5D and 50D is necessary to discuss. Doesn't mean much to get 128000 or 1 million ISO if the scale is not comparable with the other standards. It is also useless to compare, multiply or divide the size of the sensor with the number of pixel and report to a FF. If it would have been the case the 50D would have been named 1D mark IV (40M pix). I think the 50D is a fair camera, with some interesting features that the 5D doesn't have (specially anti dust sensor protection). For the rest, I don't think that we can still expect the quality of the 5D, because of the cropped sensor that would never give the depth in aperture priority that the FF has, and it can be already observed in this nice picture set. I'm expecting more with the next 5D generation.... but of course it won't be at 1300$ as the 50D.... :(

[Spearhead]

<i>I don't think anybody will want to use 12800 except in an emergency...</i><P>What makes you think that? I shoot at maximum ISO regularly, not much choice. Higher ISO will help a lot. Please explain.

[jimstrutz]

Side by side comparisons with several other cameras and at several other ISO speeds would be good as well, but from what I see right now it looks pretty good. ISO 3200 appears to be cleaner than ISO 1600 on a 40D. And the detail looks good as well, especially since this is from an old 28-105 lens. I think I'll wait until we have a few more comparisons though.

 

This is a good sign for the soon to come 5D replacement. Time will tell more though.

[KenPapai]

1600 ISO on a 40D, hand held a 1/13, I took thhis a couple days ago, this crop is only 20% of the entire photo:<div></div>