Canon EOS 50D announced
Tuesday, August 26th, 2008
Canon announced a new DSLR: Canon EOS 50D.
Those of us waiting for a new 5D can probably read the fine print of what’s new in the 50D for a hint on what might be coming in the new 5D. Some of it looks great, some of it looks scary to me, specifically packing too many pixels into a sensor creating images that are less clean than they might be otherwise.
Canon seems to be using their Digic processor to clean up the noise caused by too many pixels packed too tightly but in fact, the best way to handle this would be to put less pixels on the sensor and give up some resolution for the sake of image quality.
DP Review has a preliminary review: Canon EOS 50D Preview.
Interesting. Looks nice, but there are no deal breakers that make me wish I had waited to buy my 40D. I wish Canon would make their Live View implementation act more like point-and-shoots but that’s nitpicking.
Mike: I feel like a stick in the mud. I want all the great new features but with the current 5D or 30D sensor. Canon is going crazy with their mis-perceived pixel/resolution war with the rest of the world.
The problem is, Nikon is being smart about it, their cameras have lower resolution, less noise, more IQ. Nikon will continue to make inroads if Canon continues down this path.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I don’t know if it will be true in a year but with the 40D I have more resolution than I need right now. Maybe my next camera will let me crop out half of the image and still end up with 3888 x 2592. :-)
Canon 5D Mark II Coming November 2008?
Mike: Nothing wrong with more resolution as long as the sensor can handle that many pixels. I’m no physicist but I’ve been doing a lot of reading about all of this stuff and it’s meaningful to me that the D3 has 12 megapixels on a full frame sensor, just like our current 5D, and the Nikon D700 has the same 12 megapixels on a full frame sensor.
The fact that the Canon 450D/XSi has the same resolution on a APC sensor (cropped) and the new 50D has 15 megapixels on the same size sensor does not bode well for a 5D replacement.
If the new 5D goes down this path and the IQ suffers I may consider a sea change to Nikon as the D700 will be cheaper by then and I should be able to get decent money for my lenses.
Don’t get me wrong, I love my 5D but I don’t love the direction Canon seems to be taking.
Since Canon seems intent on providing more and more megapixels, to their discredit, could they add a larger sensor to the 5D successor without forcing people to change lenses and other equipment?
Mike: The 5D has a full frame sensor. As long as the camera remains a 35mm camera it will have the same size sensor, the biggest a 35mm can have.
One won’t have to change any lenses or other equipment for the new 5D, it will simply be a new model of the current camera.
My beef is only with the sensor and frankly, it’s speculation as we don’t know what it will be. But, if what they’ve done with the 50D is an example of what might come, we can assume the resolution will go up from it’s current 12 megapixels. This I’m not all that happy about if it negatively affects image quality.
I’m thinking about switching back to Nikon.
Gary: The D700 is a spectacular camera but frankly, I’m not seeing as robust a lens offering from Nikon as I do from Canon.
I was thinking of their 50mm f/1.4 and their 105mm f/2.8 macro to start if I switched. They also have their equivalent of the 24-70mm f/2.8 but I’d have to do a lot of research to find out what their “hot” lenses are.
I’d rather not do it. I’m pretty happy right where I am and the 5D makes pictures that are breathtaking (when I do my part).
If I ever did consider a sea change, I’d rent a D700 and a 50mm lens from lensrentals.com and see how it felt and worked first.
Actually, this lens looks quite nice: Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S IF ED.
Richard: I have an older Nikon 50 f/1.4 that worked great on the Nikon D70 I once had. And the Nikon 105mm f2.8 macro, another Nikon lens among several I saved after switching to Canon, is a stellar lens. Amazing sharpness and renders color beautifully.
I know it would be sea change to move over to Nikon, but if you’re investigating it, renting a D700 body and a couple of lenses is a good way to do that. The 17-35mm zoom is very tempting.
Gary, they don’t have the D700 yet at lensrentals.com but if/when they do I might try it out for a week. It can’t hurt and it would get it either further in or further out of my system.
Another route is to just buy another current 5D when the prices drop some more. That route appeals to me even more as I love my lens collection and don’t want to unload it.
Richard, thanks for sharing your interesting thoughts. The idea to switch to Nikon has occurred to me too. For instance Nikon released some interesting lenses in the last two years. I was never a fan of the 16/17-35mm lens as it overlaps too much with the 24-70 for my taste. Nikon’s 14-24 is a nice offering as it adds a few mms on the very wide-angle side. Zeiss also produces lenses for the Nikon mount. Thus doesn’t need to use adapters. I am also impressed by the brighter, larger viewfinders of Nikon’s crop sensor DSLRs in comparison to equivalent Canon offerings. Auto-focus performance is said to be better. Though I don’t rely on it much when I have a nice viewfinder that allows for easy manual focussing.
Renting cameras and lenses before buying them is recommended. I rented a few lenses before buying them, which was O.K. and fortunately my local camera shop took the rental fees in consideration when I bought the lenses. For example I was impressed by the focal range of the Canon 100-400 but handling it made me instantly aware that I would never like the push-pull design. I ended up buying a 70-200 instead, which I really like except for its weight. ;-)
Since Nikon introduced a D90 today, I am pondering whether I might buy one with a kit lens like the 16-85mm to test the waters with this walk-around combo. It might be a nice substitute for the G9 or LX3 that I intended to purchase as a camera for carrying with me on a daily basis. Besides I usually prefer to work with a camera longer to get a proper feeling for it. Only the video recording feature of the D90 puzzles me. It might produce good quality HD-images but the sound quality is likely very poor. I don’t think that I would enjoy watching videos with awful sound quality. It’s a gimmick that was bearable in P&S and mobile phones. Maybe we’ll see some sensible uses or it caters to Flickr users who can now upload videos.
Andreas: All good thinking on your part, thanks for sharing it.
While I would love to have a smaller DSLR to use as an alternative to the G9 for RAW shooting, I recently bought and returned a Canon XSi because I could not get the clarity of the 5D IQ out of my head in looking at the images I got from it. I may have gotten a lemon, I don’t know, but I do know that once you experience a clean image, it’s hard to settle for much less.
This is part of the reason I want a full frame sensor in a DSLR: it will have bigger and less noisy pixel sites. However, if Canon puts too many pixels on the next 5D sensor and relies on the processor to clean things up, images will have more of a processed look than I want. I’m really not an expert on any of this, but I do absolutely love the images my 5D makes and if or when I get another camera, I want the same or better IQ.
I’m reluctant to do a complete sea change because I’m in love with my Canon lenses. My inclination at this time is to wait a bit and then buy a second current generation 5D and hopefully that will last me for quite some time or until all of this settles out in a good way.
Richard, you’re stunningly quick in replying. ;-) I totally understand why you consider getting another 5D, if you’re not pleased with its successor. The images that you and some of my friends produce with 5Ds are incredible. I am really impressed by the low noise levels. This camera is an ideal example for a good sensor that does not necessitate post-processing trickery. Obviously a full frame sensor and its benefits like “shallower” depth of field, better viewfinder, larger pixels, etc. are in support of your decision. I doubt that it will be the wrong decision, especially when you get it for a good price. Besides you’re used to it by now. Moreover I read a really good statement on a German teenager’s blog. He wrote that cameras aren’t suddenly performing badly because a successor has been released. They still produce the same great photos as before. Only a few features have been improved, tweaked or added. One has to evaluate, if one really needs them or whether one’s photography benefits from them. A thought-provoking statement especially when it comes from a young person.
A 5D would be nice. Still they are fairly “expensive” here in Germany when considering that the might be replaced soon. Furthermore Canon’s rebate promotion ended in June. Maybe if the price drops significantly and it is not too large for my taste as a walk around camera, I could imagine purchasing a 24-70 5D kit. Maybe I have a bit more time to save some more money.
Actually I returned to your blog to update my post regarding the D90’s video feature. I had a look at Nikon’s D90 microsite where one can watch a few sample movies. Still not totally convinced about it, but I did like the cinematic shallow depth of field effect that can be achieved with the right lenses. I could imagine adding short video clips to a slide show to create a more dynamic feeling. Still I wouldn’t consider producing video films with it. Not sure if Nikon intended it to rival camcorders.
Andreas, trust me, I’m no expert on any of this stuff. The one thing that I know for sure is what I like. I liked the 5D the minute I got it and in time I figured out that it was for just the reasons you list: full frame, large, bright viewfinder, shallower depth of field with the same lenses (which appeals to me given my photographic style).
I’ve noticed that the 30D has not gone down much in price and can still be bought new for $800 at B&H while the 40D is now under $1000 and will drop fast now that the 50D is announced. That fact has great meaning to me. It means that the 30D and the 5D were sweet spots and people still like them to this day, even though they are older technology.
Hey, people still use early Leicas very successfully.
That said, there are features on the newer cameras that appeal to me, specifically the dust removal system and better auto focus which is a problem with the current 5D and is a problem with my photography in general as my eyes get older. Can I live without these new features for a while longer? Absolutely. As you quote, the 5D will continue to take great pictures (providing we do our part) no matter what replaces it.
I’m most concerned with Canon’s direction in general, less in the 5D in particular. If they are just going to add resolution and a lot of extra features that don’t interest me, I might consider a sea change in the future. But, that would be after my second or third current 5D wears out.
It’s sort of like pants for me: once I find a brand and size that fit me well and I like, I buy a few pairs and keep rotating them for years.
I’m always learning new things about photography and about the 5D and I could never outgrow this camera in 2 lifetimes.
If the price in Europe drops low enough, I recommend you at least try one out, it’s a fantastic camera.
Richard, the most important thing perhaps that is not discussed here is the pixel size on the new camera’s? I’m of course going purely based on the technical specs on the paper canon has given and not based on personal experience or any sort of expertise arising out of a study on Camera sensors/pixels etc., since im not professionally qualified enough for that. However being a gadget freak with a little bit of knowledge on DSLR’s and experience using them for about 2 years, i hope i don’t sound too stupid.
Here is the argument i’ve seen in favour of more pixels (most of it makes perfect sense to me)….
1. The new pixels are significantly smaller in size, thus allowing canon to safely pack more pixels into the sensor without compromising on image quality. The 50D sports a 4.7µm compared to the older 5.7µm for the 40D. In effect this is not about crowding the room with more fat guys. They are driving out the fat guys and bringing in more lean and mean guys to sit and work in the same work space.
2. Additionally have a look at this. Apparently the 50D’s sensor has what are effectively gap-less micro lenses, which significantly increases the efficiency of each pixel.
3. Finally the Digic 4, the top line of the processor technology lined up to deliver the performance and as you can see 6.3fps, they way i see it is some solid power to pack some punch.
However i do feel its quite premature to praise or curse the new line-ups and we would need to wait and watch for what users have to say about these bodies. I for one will wait for the new 5D replacement and sit it out for a year before i change both of my bodies to full frame. I would not mind the megapixel but if its going to be at the cost of image quality then i’m seeing myself heading towards nikon or olympus.
In fact many photographers would find the megapixels good because you can now sell high resolution images without having the need to interpolate you images (which may introduce interpolation artifacts)
Olympus seems to have a sensor based Image Stabilization technology which works great and of course they don’t confuse the crap out of your living hell like nikon with all the end number of lens types and mounts and compatibility issues. I’ve been spoilt too much with EF and EF-S and not worrying myself with all these mount stuff that nikon has a bible length of a manual to write about. :-)
One thing canon needs to learn from nikon though is that they beat the crap out of canon with their flash systems. Nikon Speedlites are much more diverse and wider in range of offering and are more powerful for strobist work compared to Canons 430EX and 580EX line up.
Richard, just a quick note about an issue that has been raised by members of the Luminous Landscape forum and which seemingly is overlooked by many photographers in their discussions of image quality relationg to noise and pixel size. Diffraction is another problem caused by smaller pixels. I am not an expert and just learning about it. Poster Tony Beach raises this issue by referring to the very well written tutorial on Cambridge in Colour: here (almost at the bottom of the page).
Dilip: All of that stuff is fine if the resulting image quality is good. Time will tell as we see reviews and sample photos. However, many people seem to think the 40D was a big improvement over the 30D and I don’t see it. So, it may come down to me being a stubborn old fart.
This is not about frames per second or image stabilization, just the IQ coming off the sensor.
One reason the 5D makes great images is because it has big pixels. Same with the 1D class cameras. It’s that simple. I don’t trust all this mumbo jumbo (yet) about making up for noise with the digic IV processor.
By the way, Canon also announced the G10 which has even more resolution than the G9. Sigh.
Andreas: the diffraction issue is one we know about (sort of) from stopping down too much with a lens and while I didn’t know it existed in the world of sensors I get how it might as they get smaller and smaller. Thanks for that link.