DPReview thumbs down for 50D, so what?

Why should I care?

The camera gives me breathtaking detail, look here at this photograph taken hand-held:

full image resized

[img=http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/7190/3whole2yo4.jpg]'] http://imageshack.us][img=http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/7190/3whole2yo4.jpg][/url] [/URL]

100% detail crop:

[img=http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/9301/cropap1or0.jpg]'] http://imageshack.us][img=http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/9301/cropap1or0.jpg][/url] [/URL]

I really don't care if the reviewer speaks of lower image quality, because I KNOW the kind of images that this camera is giving to me.

Of course I used a top quality lens (Zeiss Planar 1.4/50). The fact that the camera requires best quality lenses to deliver all it's good can not be seen as a shortcoming. There are plenty of lower resolution cameras on the market for people who wants to stay with low quality lenses.

I only feel sorry for those people who will decide to not buy a 50D because of this review. I do because I also own the 5D, and I can tell you that the kind of image quality that you see in the sample published here, is very close to the image quality of the full frame 12Mp 5D.

I respect the result of the review and the person who did it. However I am of the impression that the reviewer did not take the necessary steps to exploit the camera's full potential. A top lens is needed. Also, it is needed to tace care to set the optimal exposure. It is obvious and logical that the noise performance can be the same or slightly lower than cameras with less MP. But you have the reward in terms of more resolution. Of course, if you test the camera with an average lens, you will see the negative sides but you will be unable to see the positive sides. The 50D is not a point and shoot camera, and neither it is an entry-level camera. It is a camera that requires some skills, mastering and competence. When the user does so, the camera delivers the expected good. The devotees of "fast and sloppy" (no derogation in the definition, sometimes I like to shoot that way myself) should look for a different camera, the 50D is not for them.

--
cheers
M.O.

I see pics are not embedded, I try again:

full image resized (hand-held):

'] http://imageshack.us] [/URL] [/URL]

100% detail crop:

'] http://imageshack.us][/URL] [/URL]

--
cheers
M.O.

OK I just give it up, here's the plain jane links:

full image resized (hand-held):
http://img384.imageshack.us/my.php?image=3whole2yo4.jpg

100% detail crop:
http://img152.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cropap1or0.jpg

--
cheers
M.O.

Not even the plain links seem to work, I give up.

--
cheers
M.O.

A plain jane link needs a semi-colon at the end, otherwise it embeds into the message, if your target site allows embedding.

DPR concluded "Highly Recommended - Just"; they did not say "thumbs down". There's a big difference in those two conclusions.

Olga

Did you actually read the review? The camera has scored high marks and is highly recommended. I would not call that a thumbs down.
--

• Michiel de Brieder -

In my mind, it IS real



See profile for equipment!
http://www.pbase.com/giel/portfolio

What settings did you use? I can't get any EXIF from those shots. They look nice and sharp so I'm curious about what lens you used, etc.

--
Jim H.

--
http://www.pbase.com/delbert
Delbert

--

Getting past the BS the 50D is a stellar camera, pushing its limits, I don't care what Nikon is doing better or not as i don't have one, and the 50D is giving me shots my 30D didn't. Just think of it this way its giving me photo's that i would have spent $7000. 5 years ago all for $1399. Richard

What I think is strange is that all cameras reviewed gests "highly recommended". Why not use e.g. “Not recommended, Good buy, Recommended, Highly Recommended” or something. Do they get paid by the company or get to keep the equipment?

Nice photos. My only suggestion would be to clean off the Apotar lens when retaking that photo. It's a bit distracting when evaluating resolution

Thanks for posting those images.

Henry

Demokid said:

What I think is strange is that all cameras reviewed gests "highly
recommended". Why not use e.g. “Not recommended, Good buy,
Recommended, Highly Recommended” or something. Do they get paid by
the company or get to keep the equipment?

Click to expand...

No, they do not get paid by any companies. As to what they do with the equipment, you would have to ask them because I do not know.

As to the ratings, not all cameras get "highly recommended." They offer the following classifications:

Highly recommended
Recommended
Above average
Average
Below average

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/default.asp?view=rating

Olga

Moire Onion said:

Of course I used a top quality lens (Zeiss Planar 1.4/50). The fact
that the camera requires best quality lenses to deliver all it's good
can not be seen as a shortcoming.

Click to expand...

Really? I would think it is a serious shortcoming if a camera can only deliver better results than its predecessor with the aid of expensive and exotic lenses, particularly for a camera occupying a mid-range consumer market niche.

Moire Onion said:

There are plenty of lower resolution cameras on the market for people who > wants to stay with low quality lenses.

Click to expand...

Tell me - which would be the cheaper and better solution overall for the consumer:

a) A 15MP APS-C camera requiring exotic glass to make use of its full resolution

or

b) A compact consumer oriented FF model with moderate (for FF) resolution of 15MP and which can fully realise its potential with the sort of relatively low cost lenses already used by many people.

Of course despite their earlier words to the contrary, b) seems unlikely to happen any time soon, as Canon still seem intent on reserving FF for relatively expensive mid to high end models. Maybe another manufacturer will fill the gap?

Fred

Thumbs down? It does not seems to. Since when not being overenthusiastic is thumbs down?

Roberto

Fred Briggs said:

Moire Onion said:

Of course I used a top quality lens (Zeiss Planar 1.4/50). The fact
that the camera requires best quality lenses to deliver all it's good
can not be seen as a shortcoming.

Click to expand...

Really? I would think it is a serious shortcoming if a camera can
only deliver better results than its predecessor with the aid of
expensive and exotic lenses, particularly for a camera occupying a
mid-range consumer market niche.

Click to expand...

How would you build a 15MP APS-C camera that does stunningly
detailed images also with cheap lenses? You know you can't
cheat with physics, do you? The good thing is, the camera DOES
deliver a bit more detail than the 40D anyway, and for those that
can afford those expensive top notch lenses, there's a relatively
cheap body they can use with them...

Roberto

Fred Briggs said:

Moire Onion said:

Of course I used a top quality lens (Zeiss Planar 1.4/50). The fact
that the camera requires best quality lenses to deliver all it's good
can not be seen as a shortcoming.

Click to expand...

Really? I would think it is a serious shortcoming if a camera can
only deliver better results than its predecessor with the aid of
expensive and exotic lenses, particularly for a camera occupying a
mid-range consumer market niche.

Fred Briggs said:

There are plenty of lower resolution cameras on the market for people who > wants to stay with low quality lenses.

Click to expand...

Tell me - which would be the cheaper and better solution overall for
the consumer:

a) A 15MP APS-C camera requiring exotic glass to make use of its full
resolution

or

b) A compact consumer oriented FF model with moderate (for FF)
resolution of 15MP and which can fully realise its potential with the
sort of relatively low cost lenses already used by many people.

Of course despite their earlier words to the contrary, b) seems
unlikely to happen any time soon, as Canon still seem intent on
reserving FF for relatively expensive mid to high end models. Maybe
another manufacturer will fill the gap?

Fred

Click to expand...

What you don't seem to comprehend is that the professionals want a full frame camera and the pro-sumers want a 1.6 crop. That is why no manufacturer makes a full frame pro-sumer camera. There may be a few gear heads here who are too cheap to spring for a 5d but they are in the vast minority. Believe me, if there were lots of people who wanted a camera like that then they would be being produced right now.

Olga Johnson said:

A plain jane link needs a semi-colon at the end, otherwise it embeds
into the message, if your target site allows embedding.

Click to expand...

thanks

Olga Johnson said:

DPR concluded "Highly Recommended - Just"; they did not say "thumbs
down". There's a big difference in those two conclusions.

Click to expand...

In the conclusions, the author clearly states that the camera delivers an inferior performance in key areas such as noise and dynamic range compared to the previous model the 40D.

Would you "recommend" a camera that does worse than it's predecessor?
I don't think so.

Therefore, even a "recommended" rating would be a poor description of the review's content. Let alone a "high recommended".

To me, the content of the review fits best to an "above average" rating.

In other words, the "highly recommended" might have been put there in order not to displease the manufacturer too much, but the content of the review is another story and sounds much like a "thumbs down", even if not in absolute terms, at least in the terms of the Canon's reputation.

It is my personal opinion of course-

Thank you!
Could you please tell me the correct syntax to embed images like you did?

--
cheers
M.O.

Condor99 said:

Fred Briggs said:

Moire Onion said:

Of course I used a top quality lens (Zeiss Planar 1.4/50). The fact
that the camera requires best quality lenses to deliver all it's good
can not be seen as a shortcoming.

Click to expand...

Really? I would think it is a serious shortcoming if a camera can
only deliver better results than its predecessor with the aid of
expensive and exotic lenses, particularly for a camera occupying a
mid-range consumer market niche.

Condor99 said:

There are plenty of lower resolution cameras on the market for people who > wants to stay with low quality lenses.

Click to expand...

Tell me - which would be the cheaper and better solution overall for
the consumer:

a) A 15MP APS-C camera requiring exotic glass to make use of its full
resolution

or

b) A compact consumer oriented FF model with moderate (for FF)
resolution of 15MP and which can fully realise its potential with the
sort of relatively low cost lenses already used by many people.

Of course despite their earlier words to the contrary, b) seems
unlikely to happen any time soon, as Canon still seem intent on
reserving FF for relatively expensive mid to high end models. Maybe
another manufacturer will fill the gap?

Fred

Click to expand...

What you don't seem to comprehend is that the professionals want a
full frame camera and the pro-sumers want a 1.6 crop. That is why no
manufacturer makes a full frame pro-sumer camera. There may be a few
gear heads here who are too cheap to spring for a 5d but they are in
the vast minority. Believe me, if there were lots of people who
wanted a camera like that then they would be being produced right now.

Click to expand...

It's a good point. To require professional L-lens to get the best out of a relatively low cost prosumer camera doesn't make sense. I'm sure that wasn't the intent of Canon. This requirement conpletely negates any competitive advantage when compared with other prosumer cameras in the same price range that don't require exotic glass to produce comparable images.

If one can read into a "Highly Recommended (just)" rating = Thumbs Down
Where does that put "Recommended, Average and Below Average?"
--
Kevin Barrett
Lowell, MI
http://www.kbfoto.com