We brought in a Canon 50D when they were released to insure compatibility with our mounting and viewing systems.  Of course, I snagged it for a quick tryout to see how it stacks up.  The problem is I don’t use a 40d, so I really can’t offer much in the way of comparison.

I did manage to spend a few days with the camera and get some decent images.  Overall it is a great camera, with terrific image quality.  I had no problems navigating it’s various functions, since most things are where I would expect them to be after using a 1Ds Mark 3 for a while now.  Focusing action shots was a struggle (but I’m not very good at that anyway),  but other than that the camera seems very responsive and easy to handle.  The camera body is nearly identical to the 40d, but we were surprised to find there were some very minor changes requiring a slight modification to our mounting system.  I’m not sure if some very customized accessories, such as Really Right Stuff’s L bracket would be be compatible.

The 50D boasts a new 15.1 megapixel sensor, up from the 40D’s 10.1 mp sensor.  As far as detail threshold, the camera captures a 4752x3168  pixel image size, compared to the 40D’s 3888xx2592.  The result is the camera has a 22% better threshold for resolving micro detail ... in theory.  (Here’s my math ... (4752-3888)/3888 =0.22)  This means there are 22% more pixels in each direction to record the same amount of detail.  It’s not quite that simple, so it is unlikely the camera can achieve the full 22% increase, but I would suspect those shooting images that contain a lot of small edge frequencies or delicate textures, and wanting to print large prints will find the 50D will improve over the 40D, if using top quality lenses.

“Dinner Time”

Canon 50D, EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM at 70mm, 1/80th at f/8, ISO 200

There seems to be some consternation among some photographers these days about the tendency of camera makers to increase megapixels as models are upgraded instead of perhaps working on noise and dynamic range.  Some say the sensor sites are now so small they exceed the diffraction limits of the lens.  Be that as it may, that is a limit of the optics, and that doesn’t make the picture any worse.  All lenses are not created equal, so it is possible that the limit has not been reached with every lens out there.  The fact is once the sensor sites become that small, the image quality doesn’t get worse, it just may not be any better.  It seems a logical goal when designing cameras would be sensors that can out-resolve every lens, so the sensor is no longer a limit in recording detail.  I’m not an engineer, but it seems smaller and more numerous sites with improved noise performance may result in a higher signal to noise ratio, thus improving overall noise performance as well as dynamic range even further.  So those criticizing camera makers for this megapixel race, as it has been dubbed, may actually be surprised to find out they are increasing megapixel count to help deliver exactly what they want instead ... better noise and dynamic range.

(UPDATE:  I’ve suspected higher pixel counts were about more than just resolution for some time.  A recent project by DxO to quantify sensor technology seems to have confirmed that.  It’s a pretty technical read, but the article title says it pretty well ...

“Contrary to conventional wisdom, higher resolution actually compensates for noise”

 

After testing both the G10 and the 50D, image quality is outstanding, and noise performance appears to be better than their predecessors.  I won’t be doing any head to head comparisons, since in my work I rarely even shoot the 21mp Canon 1Ds Mark III, so all I can offer is my impressions.

The camera includes a new and improved Digic4 processing system, an improved 3.0” rear LCD screen ... and a bunch of other stuff.  There are plenty of places to read about that.

“Hidden Valley Lakes #7  •  Par 3  •  205 Yards”

Canon 50D, EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM at 24mm, 1/200th at f/8, ISO 100

DIGICAM CONVERGENCE

What has me intrigued is what I’ve discovered while playing around with Live View.

There has been quite a bit of discussion lately as how video and still photography are converging ... as evidenced by the new Nikon D90 and Canon 5D Mark II.  There appears to be another “convergence” ... dSLR’s and digicams.  The 50D can focus while in Live View in 2 ways (perhaps this was introduced with the 40D ... I’m not sure).  Using what is called “Fast Mode” , the mirror drops down and the camera focuses using the standard reflex system, then pops back up for Live View ... indeed it is pretty quick.  In the other mode the camera uses data from the sensor itself.  If you take pictures this way, the mirror never drops, so the camera is working ... dare I say almost like a digicam?  Focusing in this mode is quite a bit slower, but still pretty effective.

While in Live View there are also  2 “silent” modes. The difference is the second mode holds the shutter closed and the mirror down, and does not open to re-activate Live View until you quit holding the release button. I guess the theory is you can move the camera or wait until you feel the slight noise would be less intrusive in very quiet circumstances. As I experimented with this, including watching the shutter actually working, I suddenly realized that the 50D shutter no longer works like a traditional SLR shutter, with 2 curtains that move across together.  Instead it appears exposure is started when the camera decides to begin recording the data from the sensor, and end when the curtain cuts the light.  So the 50D using this focusing mode of Live View seems to differ from from a digicam only in the fact a mechanical shutter stops the exposure (or does it?).  I remember some discussion about the first curtain being “electronic” when the 40D was announced, but I never really bothered to research exactly what that meant.  So I grabbed a 40D, and sure enough it works exactly like the 50D.

At this point I have more questions that answers.  Are other dSLR makers doing this? (My 1DsMark 3 shutter works just like traditional 35mm shutters, with 2 curtains and I assume a slit moving across the sensor when using faster shutter speeds).  How can the curtain closing “end” the exposure?  Either this curtain drops really fast ... as fast as the cameras fastest exposure which is 1/8000th of a second, or the actual end of the exposure is electronic as well, and the “shutter” basically is there to protect the sensor.  If the curtain closing does end the exposure, then every image will have a longer exposure time on the top than the bottom.  How can you get 1/8000th of a second across the entire frame evenly when a curtain that takes 1/250th or maybe slightly shorter (x-sync with flash is still rated at 1/250th) has to move across the frame?

“Bridges at Rancho Santa Fe #10  •  Par 4  •  422 Yards”

Canon 50D, EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM at 140mm, 1/100th at f/8, ISO 100

So it appears the 50D is operating more like a digicam when it comes to capturing data, but offers the convenience of an SLR with reflex viewing, focusing and metering systems.  I’m not sure how I feel about that ... it certainly seems to capture great images, so perhaps we are actually approaching the end of the SLR shutter concept as we know it, and soon all dSLR’s will have fully electronic shutters.

I used Live View quite a bit while testing the camera.  My two favorite uses of Live View are for critical focusing and framing the image while holding the camera very high or very low, allowing angles difficult or impossible to obtain if having to look through the viewfinder.  Now that I understand how the camera works, it is obvious that using Live View mode is pretty much identical as mirror lockup when it comes to preventing camera movement. I wish my P45+ back supported Live View in non-tethered mode, so I could nail focusing even better.

As I mentioned, final image quality is outstanding.  I’ve printed several of the images on this page 16x20 and larger ... detail is very good with virtually no noise.  All in all, a great camera.

Well enough of a non-review.  Great camera.  If you have a 40D it might not be a significant enough upgrade, but I would judge it as a substantial step from a 20D or 30D.