Reading mode: Light Dark

DPR Screwed-up the Review of the 50D!

Go to last post
Nikon fans were saying the same thing when Canon was basically unchallenged in the market. The simple fact here is that they use ACR because it is the only standardized RAW converter that they can use. ACR pretty much sucks for reading RAW files from any maker in the same ways. The proprietary software will always be the best, but then they rarely produce an "uncooked" file to look at.

The honest truth of all of this is that ACR really is the best converter for viewing these files. All it is able to do is read the TIFF-E (base file format for RAW if I remember correctly) file, then apply what ever WB was assigned by the body and then go with standard corrections that it would apply to all other files it is able to open.

This is not a matter of ACR being "optimized". ACR is not optimized for any particular file or another. It can either open the RAW file or it can't. Nothing more, nothing less. All the other changes that it makes to the file, it will apply to any other RAW file from what ever manufacturer you present to it.

I know it hurts when you buy something and then people don't jump out and tell you that you bought the absolutely best thing out there. I'm sure you will find some reviewer that will tell you that, and the lot of you will start jumping up and down and saying that that proves DPR was wrong...but it probably won't. Not many people have the standardization of testing that DPR has when providing the lab photos. Those are what you should be looking at.

If anything, I usually recommend ignoring the words. If you have questions about build quality and such, then ok, but any other words on the reviews are usually wasted. Just look at the photos. Stop trying to invent reasons as to why DPR is wrong. If they did something like artificially upping or downing the exposure, then I would understand, but using the same program, that opens all RAW files the same, and shooting them in the same way that they shoot the photos with every other camera is not a reason to disprove this site's validity.

Yes, you can get "better" results from proprietary software, but that wouldn't showing what the base camera is capable of. ACR makes it easier to set a baseline.

I'm going to end this here, as I am sure I will just be told that I don't know what I am talking about and that I should shut up, but come on guys. Pick up your toys and go play. One Lincoln Log is as good as the next one.
--
Wow...that's a pretty killer camera! Are you any good?

-Jake-
 
Jake Loves Good Glass said:
Nikon fans were saying the same thing when Canon was basically
unchallenged in the market. The simple fact here is that they use ACR
because it is the only standardized RAW converter that they can use.
ACR pretty much sucks for reading RAW files from any maker in the
same ways. The proprietary software will always be the best, but then
they rarely produce an "uncooked" file to look at.

The honest truth of all of this is that ACR really is the best
converter for viewing these files. All it is able to do is read the
TIFF-E (base file format for RAW if I remember correctly) file, then
apply what ever WB was assigned by the body and then go with standard
corrections that it would apply to all other files it is able to open.

This is not a matter of ACR being "optimized". ACR is not optimized
for any particular file or another. It can either open the RAW file
or it can't. Nothing more, nothing less. All the other changes that
it makes to the file, it will apply to any other RAW file from what
ever manufacturer you present to it.

I know it hurts when you buy something and then people don't jump out
and tell you that you bought the absolutely best thing out there. I'm
sure you will find some reviewer that will tell you that, and the lot
of you will start jumping up and down and saying that that proves DPR
was wrong...but it probably won't. Not many people have the
standardization of testing that DPR has when providing the lab
photos. Those are what you should be looking at.

If anything, I usually recommend ignoring the words. If you have
questions about build quality and such, then ok, but any other words
on the reviews are usually wasted. Just look at the photos. Stop
trying to invent reasons as to why DPR is wrong. If they did
something like artificially upping or downing the exposure, then I
would understand, but using the same program, that opens all RAW
files the same, and shooting them in the same way that they shoot the
photos with every other camera is not a reason to disprove this
site's validity.

Yes, you can get "better" results from proprietary software, but that
wouldn't showing what the base camera is capable of. ACR makes it
easier to set a baseline.

I'm going to end this here, as I am sure I will just be told that I
don't know what I am talking about and that I should shut up, but
come on guys. Pick up your toys and go play. One Lincoln Log is as
good as the next one.
--
Wow...that's a pretty killer camera! Are you any good?

-Jake-
Click to expand...
Thanks for the "fatherly" advice. But I haven't bought yet. I'm still trying to decide. Based on the Adobe 50D profile being just out and not optimized I'm thinking I should just disregard anything DPR had to say about pq. That's all. Would have been nice if I could have seen the 50D's true potential. I'll just get that information from another review site. DPR really didn't say much about the other new features either. I'll just get information from another review there too.
--
Fred

 
Tony Mah said:
Fred,

There you go again, you say that ACR is faulty, without defining what
is faulty. By what you have written it would seem that only the
manufacturer's own software is not "faulty". To me it like going to a
person's house and getting a free meal and complaining that it was
terrible not because it was no good but because one part of the meal
was not that way you would cook it.

Tony
Click to expand...
Ok, non-optimized! Of course, that's just another word for faulty.
Tony Mah said:
fwampler said:
lizardmech said:
Adobe has been the weakest link for many DSLRs in raw mode in the DPR
reviews, both the a700 + a900 get slammed for poor high ISO
performance in raw despite it being a result of poor ACR performance.

I don't really know what a good solution would be, I do know I don't
really pay any attention to what DPR says about IQ in reviews these
days, though the rest of the review and lens reviews are decent.
Click to expand...
It seemed to me that almost no emphasis was put on the other
enhancements. Most all the emphasis was on their evaluations of noise
using a faulty converter!
--
Fred

Click to expand...
--
Click to expand...
--
Fred

 
Rockchan said:
and it shows that 40D is still better, will you guys start yelling
why dpreview doesn't use ACR as it is the most popular software? How
about if Nikon us Capture NX and shows a better image than 40D/50D
using DPP, will you guys start yelling that it is due to post
processing and dpreview should use ACR in the beginning?
Click to expand...
Well, of course a lo of fanboys would do exactly that.

But I would prefer to see such a test - at least you test the whole package offered by the manufacturer.

Then, if the Canon camera gets bashed, so be it.

Roberto
 
I'm amazed. Because your favourite camera didn't score tops, the testing methods are flawed? Fine, read another test then, or better: go out and take some photos.

--
Jorgen, my name is Jorgen
 
natureman said:
jrynash said:
natureman said:
Jim V. said:
There are many other testing sites more competent that DPR. No one
who really test equipment, without bias, would use beta software or
any software that hasn't been fine tuned for a period of time.

Maybe most of you forgot that it took about 6 months for Adobe to
optimize ACR for the 40D but its OK to use it for the 50D after about
a week out of Beta?
Click to expand...
natureman said:
DPP would have been the best converter for the comparison between the
40D and 50D. With NR turned off in DPP both Raw files from the 40D
and 50D convert with about the same amount of Noise at High ISO
levels up to 3200.
Click to expand...
Would you be kind enough to post pictures that verify that and all
the pertinent data and steps you took to arrive at that conclusion?
And are you absolutely certain tha DPP doesn't apply any NR when the
NR is turned off? Can you also describe exactly how you turned it off?
Click to expand...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=29878300

Those are my pictures. All NR was set to 0 in both ACR 4.6 and DPP
3.5.0.1. Some make the claim, but I don't see any evidence from
these samples that DPP is doing any additional NR over what ACR 4.6
does when NR sliders are all at 0. The DPP 50D conversion IQ looks
better than ACR 4.6 50D conversion to me.
Click to expand...
Well, I think there are points that could be debated about your
comparison crops regarding exposure and color balance differences,
but disregarding those for the time being, it seems to me you (and
everyone else) have two choices about what you think is going on
between ACR and DPP when it comes to NR. Either ACR is adding noise
or DPP is removing more noise even with NR turned off. I doubt that
ACR is adding noise.

Apparently, it takes more than setting the sliders in DPP to 0 to
turn off NR, and it also looks as though DPP still does some NR even
when the NR is turned off correctly.
Click to expand...
Isn't it the conventional wisdom that NR will cause some loss of detail? I don't see any noticeable loss of detail in my DPP 50D crop.
 
For obvious reasons, photographers, both professionals and amateurs, want to know whether 15 mp is beyond the optimal** limit for the APC-C sensor. It doesn't appear to me that the DPR review of the 50D settles this important question. I feel this question is relevant to any photographer who is considering an SLR purchase, and I hope and expect that further lab and real-life testing will eventually clarify the issue. And I also feel that it's more than appropriate for members of these forums to maintain a keen interest in this whole issue.

Thank you to many of you guys for clarifying important points and raising critical questions.

Best regards,
--
Conrad

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Emphasis on technique is justified only so far as it will simplify and clarify the statement of the photographer's concept. (Ansel Adams)
 
Who ever said DPP or proprietary software was the best? I remember trying RAW Therapee once and my images were loaded with noise. I'm not sure if it's telling the truth or just horrible with noise. Maybe ACR is the same?
 
Well Fred,

There is no point in having a discussion with you on these matters. You equating non-optimized to faulty, and optimized to using the manufacturers raw convertor, and you are immovable in your opinion.

Having a discussion about how dpreview can develop a better testing methodology without spending more time or additional cost does not interest you. Your reply's imply that you allow no room for negotiation and there is no gray areas open for discussion.

Tony
fwampler said:
Tony Mah said:
Fred,

There you go again, you say that ACR is faulty, without defining what
is faulty. By what you have written it would seem that only the
manufacturer's own software is not "faulty". To me it like going to a
person's house and getting a free meal and complaining that it was
terrible not because it was no good but because one part of the meal
was not that way you would cook it.

Tony
Click to expand...
Ok, non-optimized! Of course, that's just another word for faulty.
fwampler said:
fwampler said:
lizardmech said:
Adobe has been the weakest link for many DSLRs in raw mode in the DPR
reviews, both the a700 + a900 get slammed for poor high ISO
performance in raw despite it being a result of poor ACR performance.

I don't really know what a good solution would be, I do know I don't
really pay any attention to what DPR says about IQ in reviews these
days, though the rest of the review and lens reviews are decent.
Click to expand...
It seemed to me that almost no emphasis was put on the other
enhancements. Most all the emphasis was on their evaluations of noise
using a faulty converter!
--
Fred

Click to expand...
--
Click to expand...
--
Fred

Click to expand...
 
--
A picture a day, keep ageing away.
 
Michael Firstlight said:
My wife and I own both Nikon and Canon cameras (I have a Nikon D300
and my wife the Canon 40D) – both are fine cameras and I have used
both interchangeably and am one of the few users that can speak at
length about how these two camera compare. Just so no one thinks I’m
a troll or looking for flames, I prefer to be a voice of reason
living in a photographically integrated family. I began my SLR life
as a Canon fan; my 35mm camera was a Canon FTb (which I still have)
and I like many Canon offerings for their own strengths – so call me
a dual fan of both Canon and Nikon product lines for over three
decades now.
Click to expand...
That's a new one.

Brendan
=====
I am the last sane person on earth.
 
KALEL33 said:
zakk9 said:
I'm amazed. Because your favourite camera didn't score tops, the
testing methods are flawed? Fine, read another test then, or better:
go out and take some photos.
Click to expand...
They can read another professional test

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Canon-EOS-50D-Digital-Camera-Review-19359/Overall-Impressions.htm

Backs up what dpreview said.
Click to expand...
I.e.,

"And for a newcomer to SLRs, who's looking to pay about $1500 for a camera, the Nikon D300 is probably a better choice, as they are very close in features, and the Nikon performed better in our tests."
 
jrynash said:
natureman said:
jrynash said:
natureman said:
Jim V. said:
There are many other testing sites more competent that DPR. No one
who really test equipment, without bias, would use beta software or
any software that hasn't been fine tuned for a period of time.

Maybe most of you forgot that it took about 6 months for Adobe to
optimize ACR for the 40D but its OK to use it for the 50D after about
a week out of Beta?
Click to expand...
jrynash said:
DPP would have been the best converter for the comparison between the
40D and 50D. With NR turned off in DPP both Raw files from the 40D
and 50D convert with about the same amount of Noise at High ISO
levels up to 3200.
Click to expand...
Would you be kind enough to post pictures that verify that and all
the pertinent data and steps you took to arrive at that conclusion?
And are you absolutely certain tha DPP doesn't apply any NR when the
NR is turned off? Can you also describe exactly how you turned it off?
Click to expand...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=29878300

Those are my pictures. All NR was set to 0 in both ACR 4.6 and DPP
3.5.0.1. Some make the claim, but I don't see any evidence from
these samples that DPP is doing any additional NR over what ACR 4.6
does when NR sliders are all at 0. The DPP 50D conversion IQ looks
better than ACR 4.6 50D conversion to me.
Click to expand...
Well, I think there are points that could be debated about your
comparison crops regarding exposure and color balance differences,
but disregarding those for the time being, it seems to me you (and
everyone else) have two choices about what you think is going on
between ACR and DPP when it comes to NR. Either ACR is adding noise
or DPP is removing more noise even with NR turned off. I doubt that
ACR is adding noise.

Apparently, it takes more than setting the sliders in DPP to 0 to
turn off NR, and it also looks as though DPP still does some NR even
when the NR is turned off correctly.
Click to expand...
Isn't it the conventional wisdom that NR will cause some loss of
detail? I don't see any noticeable loss of detail in my DPP 50D crop.
Click to expand...
Any loss of detail through noise reduction would of course depend on how much NR is done, exactly how it's done (settings), and which program is used to do it. From what I've seen so far it appears that DPP applies a little more NR than ACR does, even when the NR is turned off correctly in both programs. Also, the 50D images look somewhat soft at 100% magnification, so detail is not all that great anyway.

I would venture (at this point) that if the NR is turmed off correctly in DPP, whatever amount of NR DPP is still applying is probably not enough to make any noticable difference in the detail in 50D images. It seems worth considering anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top