Weird experience with 50D

[zvia_shever]

<p>Recently, I was considering upgrading from my 30D to a 50D, especially after all the raves about the HD LCD screen. I went to my local photo store to take comparison test shots before buying the 50D. I shot at low and mid ISO, both indoors and outdoors using both my camera and lens combo and then the 50D with my lens....so the only difference was the body. When I got home I uploaded the photos to Photoshop Elements to see if there was any difference in quality. The first thing I noticed was that I couldn't open the 50D's raw photos....Not worried here as I'm sure there's a quick fix for that. However, when I compared the JPEGS, the outdoor photos taken with the 50D looked very dull and definitely not as sharp as the photos taken on my 30D...weird. As for the indoor shots with mid-ISO (I think 640), the 50D blew out the highlights. Needless to say, I haven't upgraded yet. <br>

I'm trying to figure out why all the photos on my 30D looked better than on the 50D. I used my 17-55 on both bodies, the settings were exactly the same etc... Perhaps the store's sample 50D was a bad copy? The only other reason I could think of was that last week I sent my camera and 17-55 back to Canon to clean and recalibrate the lens to the camera....could that have really made such a difference?<br>

The feature set on the 50D compared to the 30D is impressive, but I don't want to give up quality for flashy features I really don't NEED. I rarely print anything larger than 12X18, so I don't really need the 15 megapixels (personally, I think Canon should not have gone higher than 12 on a crop...but, hey I'm no expert). Maybe I should wait for the 60D? Any thoughts?<br>

Zvia</p>

[saskphotog]

<p>A couple. First, why are you upgrading for a screen? After I read your last paragraph, I get the impression the screen is the only reason. Your 30D still does everything it did when you thought it was a good camera and bought it. If you don't need any of the "flashy features" or the extra megapixels, you are looking at a very expensive new screen.</p>

<p>Second, post some pictures and maybe we can tell you something. What were the parameters for the Jpegs you got from the 50D? Are you sure they were all the same?</p>

[zvia_shever]

<p>Hi Larry,<br>

My husband said the same thing....but I needed a neutral party to tell me I don't need the flashy features, not just the guy who really doesn't want to shell out $1,200 for a new camera:) <br>

Unfortunately, I ditched the pictures after I compared them.....and stupidly before I thought to post on photo.net!</p>

[naturetrek]

<p>I upgraded from the Rebel series (XT/XTi) to 50D. I don't see much difference in image quality at low ISO. At higher ISO however there is a difference. ISO 400 on my XTi is much like ISO 800 on the 50D. As far as I know the 30D is very much like the XTi.</p>

<p>The only bad thing about the 50D I see is the noise banding which is really annoying to say the least. But other than that, nothing from what you have described.</p>

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>I used my 17-55 on both bodies, the settings were exactly the same etc...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What about the custom parameters?</p>

[peter_mckone]

<p>Check the settings for the exposure compensation, and in-camera sharpening, and color saturation on the D30.</p>

[harold_motte]

<p>I have the 40d and compared photos from it to the ones from a friends new 50d.<br>

Same result as yours.<br>

Stick with the 30d or go to the 40d and skip the 50d is MHO. The screen sure is better, BUT not worth<br>

all the extra money. The photo quality is a tad dull and softer. This is all other things being tested the same.<br>

Same lens, same settings, etc....<br>

Best wishes</p>

[zvia_shever]

<p>Thanks Harold....at least I'm not the only one. Peter....Will check my setting regarding in-camera sharpening and color saturation etc.....on my 30D, I hadn't thought of that!</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>You're not, Zvia.</p>

<p>I've still got the 30D as a back-up (excellent camera), use the 40D all the time since purchase in September 2007, and have <em>zero</em> interest in the 50D because - in terms of IQ improvement - it does <em>nothing</em> to improve on what I've got now.</p>

<p>I tested a 50D pretty thoroughly when it was released because I was certainly prepared to buy a <em>clearly better</em> camera than my 40D - and it just isn't...</p>

<p>Yes, the 50D's gadgets are nice, and something like AF microadjust might be of value to some, but <em>as a device for creating images that I can be proud of</em> , it offers nothing over the 40D.</p>

[zvia_shever]

<p>Hi Keith,<br>

After the last few posts, I've decided to definitely wait. I get excellent performance from my 30D. The key to shelling out the $'s for the 50D was improved IQ performance.....and from my tests, I just don't see it. I may look online for a 40D or simply wait for the 60D to come out and hopefully Canon will have addressed some of the issues I (and others) have experienced with the 50. Maybe by the time the 60D comes out, I'll have enough money to keep the 30D as a backup.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I've owned the 10D, 20D, 40D & 50D. Each one is set up with differently and produces different images at default. Some shooters prefer a more neutral rendering of colors and contrast while others like it pumped up and vivid. Personally I like things on the neutral & unsharpened side and prefer to optimize those aspects in post according to target size and subject matter. No matter what defaults CAnon sets for a camera, somebody is unhappy. That's why you can change the friggen parameters to taste. In other words, you can't post-process different cameras the same and expect the same results. You have to actually learn and apply new tweaks for each body. If you're unwilling to do so, you're better off sticking with "old faithful."</p>

<p>Of all the XXD series bodies I've owned, the 50D is the best of the lot in terms of features and IQ. My 20D files required a lot more lot production effort compared to the 50D. I've not owned a 30D but I doubt it's the bee's knees. And, yes, I had trouble with 50D files for the first week or two until I learned it's RAW idiosyncrasies. Now they're the best of the tens of thousands of images from my many cameras.</p>

[zvia_shever]

<p>That's interesting. I agree that you can't please everyone all the time. I guess I'm just used to the 30D and I don't like to spend too much time in Photoshop. I'm at the point with the 30D that I pretty much know what to do post processing quickly to get the particular look <b>I want</b>...and I stress the words I want....so maybe that answers my own question and proves your point that "I'm better off sticking with old faithful." I'll have to keep that all in mind when looking at the 60D...whenever that comes out. Thanks for your take on it.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm at the point with the 30D that I pretty much know what to do post processing quickly to get the particular look <strong>I want</strong>...and I stress the words I want</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually you don't have to spend more time in PS tweaking 50D files. You merely have to learn to tweak differently for each particular camera. Both ACR and DPP allow you to save profiles. So once you've found the "look" you like, the profile can act as a starting point and save a lot of mouse clicks. I have a custom profile saved in my 50D, so it is opened as default in DPP.</p>

<p>My 5D, 40D and 50D are similar in terms of post tweaks. The 10D and 20D were from a different planet. I suspect 30D images are profiled very similarly to 20D files.</p>

[don_bryant2]

<p>Since no one mentioned printing the comparisons, I would infer from these, "I can't see a difference between a 20/30D and the 50D..." posts that perhaps your monitors/displays need to be replaced.<br>

There is an amazing difference between a sharp display and one that is not when compared side by side.<br>

Just a thought,<br>

Don Bryant</p>

[don_bryant2]

<p>Since no one mentioned printing the comparisons, I would infer from these, "I can't see a difference between a 20/30D and the 50D..." posts that perhaps your monitors/displays need to be replaced.<br>

There is an amazing difference between a sharp display and one that is not when compared side by side.<br>

Just a thought,<br>

Don Bryant</p>

[googoo_khodam_midoonam]

<p>I heard it from somebody who had both 20D and 50D that in ISO 3200 50D had much higher noise than 20D in low light.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>You don't say which version of Elements you are using but Elements 6 has a bug in its color management that can seriously muddle the way colors in your photos appear on screen and in print. Just a thought.</p>

 

[zvia_shever]

<p>I am using Elements 6...one more thing to worry about....thanks :) Was the bug in its color management only in the PC version? I'm on a mac.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>I can't say for macs, but it is in the PC version. The bug is weird. In some situations it applies the colour profile twice resulting in very saturated and contrasty colours. In other situations it interprets an SRGB profile as Adobe RGB resulting in very washed out colours.<br>

The work around is to remove the colour profile and reassign it in elements. The tick the box for colour management for SRGB. It seems to be something that afflicts RAW files and some RAW conversions.</p>

[zvia_shever]

<p>Geoff....I'm a little confused. Do I remove the color profile in the camera and then tick the box for color management for SRGB in Elements? I have found that sometimes if I check auto color enhancement, it ends up with a slight green tinge....so I rarely ever use the auto function.</p>

[samuel_galpin]

<p>I upgraded my 30D to a 50D in January. With the exception of chroma noise at really high ISO the 50D is significantly better than my 30D in every way. The camera handles faster, the controls are better, and the available IQ is at another level. It is, however, a more demanding camera to shoot with. It rewards good technique, but punishes sloppy technique. It will show you all the weaknesses of your lenses. It takes time to learn how to use it well. I am still refining both shooting and post processing techniques for best IQ. Everything counts.<br>

LR (or ACR) and DXO have problems with the 50D's raw file chroma noise at very high ISO. NR software (e.g. Nik Dfine) helps a lot. Canon's DPP handles the noise MUCH better. The in camera medium size JPEGs are perhaps the best on noise! (I have not yet tried SRAW). Overall, with careful exposure and post processing the end product at very high ISO is at least equal to the 30D. On screen comparison at 100% is deceptive. Make a print. Yes, at high ISO, IQ suffers. It will suffer more if the shutter speed is too low to stop motion or the image is underexposed. Will I use ISO 12800 to get a shot? You bet! (Doubly so if I think it will look good in BW)</p>