$1400us. New sensor - higher ISOs, Live view..not bad
Love the competion.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controll...9&modelid=17499

Interesting your choice of thread title: "Canon 50D @ 15MP". It suggests its the mp that matters above all. I suggest that is not the case. Having said that, are we closing in on the 20mp budget dslr before too long? Where does the high end dslr evolve to after that? Are we stuck with an unwanted megapixel race or is the dslr market sophisticated enough not to go down that path like the compact camera market has?

Quentin

It sure does look that way, doesn't it? The switch in the lower end dSLRs from CompactFlash to SD was/is a clear sign the compact market is saturated to the point the manufacturers are now trying to get them to "step up" to a dSLR.

15MP on an APS-C sensor? Isn't that overkill? Didn't Canon learn their lesson with the 1DSMK3?

My guess is as long as the manufacturers can convince the lemmings they need more megapixels, they'll continue down this silly path, while real improvements will trickle in slowly.

You bring up an interesting question regarding the high end, though.....just where does Canon (and Nikon and the others) go from here? If we're lucky, we'll start to see advances in lens design (at a price, of course) that will (hopefully) be able to resolve all that those sensors are capable of capturing.

For me, it is all about SQRT(MP/1.000.000)*SQ(DR*10). Meaning that MP is exponentially less important than DR.

Unfortunately, I think that most DSLR manufactuers will probably listen to their marketing dpt that will most probably convey the message that the average buyer having only 3 neurones, and needing 2 to use his credit card, can only look at one figure with the remaining neurone, and that figure is going to be MP... Funny that they would expect at the same time these customers to be able to use more and more complex features at every release... go figure.

What is the power of 12 stop DR vs 11 stop DR when you can do 15 MP vs 12 MP at a fraction of the developement cost? You are "3.000.000 something" better vs only "1 something" better.

This being said, the 50D might have excellent DR as well, these comments are not directed specifically at Canon.

Cheers,
Bernard

Lets wait to see some testing before we say it has less DR, technology changes, my P21 has no more DR than the P45 which has smaller photosites. Technology changes, by most peoples accounts the 1ds mark 3 has the highest image quality of all the canons, with the smallest photosites. Less of the uninformed armchair technological analysis posing as real technological understanding.

DR-enhancing sensor technology is not standing still. Take a look at the schematic of the new microlenses associated with the new sensor used on the 50D on the DPReview website.

Yes, but the point is that with a given technology larger photosites will basically always result in more DR. So if the DR of a 15MP is OK, you could have had an OK+ DR had they sticked to 12MP.

Cheers,
Bernard

I would not make those generalizations. The 5D's DR is not much wider then the DR of any of the other DSLR models up and down the ladder, regardless of MP, and sensor size.

MP does in fact matter, if one is going to enlarge. I take the other view in that I do beleive MP does in fact matter. I'd rather have my frame cut into 15 million "pieces" then just 10 million. Of course going from 10 to 15mp is not a big jump in resolution however.

Although I do agree that DR is more important then MP count, and DR is perhaps the last "frontier" for all the DSLR makers.

Funny, over the the last 8+ year, DR has not widen much.

I agree completely, Bernard. That is why I am very excited and anxious to see (and own) today's (50D?) technology spread across a FF sensor, hopefully soon in the 5D replacement.

When you print, pixels matter. When you crop, pixels matter. When you print big, pixels matter more. I like to print really big images.

In my mind dynamic range is of similar importance. In landscape photography, blown highlights are the bane of my existence--probably yours too.

I want both specs to improve.

Canon has yet to put out a next generation camera where the image quality wasn't equal or better than the previous. Their achievements in the XSI as compared to the 40D make me optimistic that the 50D will continue the trend.

The quality where canon has consistently outclassed most of the other manufacturers has been general image quality, especially high ISO performance. I hope they will be smart enough not to do something stupid like compromise image quality (clarity/smoothness/sharpness/color/DR/whatever) for more pixels.

I guess we won't have to speculate and pontificate for much longer. We should see some real-world samples by October.

I also wouldn't mind if they scaled back the AA filter too. Maybe I will get a 50D and send my 30D off to have its AA filter removed.

For landscape photography the increased MP will be useless. Stop down to f/11 and compare a 50D file to a 40D file; in terms of resolution there will be no difference.

How would microlenses contribute to the dynamic range? They do contribute to the "sensitivity" of the sensor, but not to the DR.

>SNR => <amplification for a given ISO => lower noise => >usable dynamic range

MP's are important, you can't scale a canon file up much at all before you get significant degradation. I don't need a lot, really around 15 is fine for most of my needs. DR has never been an issue to me with canon files, the big thing that upsets me is the lack of sharpness. If only they'd back off on the AA filter.

Why, exactly?

Every increase in resolution I've been given has been visible. I shoot a lot of prairie shots. Grass is a bitch. Pixels help.

Isn't that great. For years we've (canon users) have said we welcomed competition because it would drive canon. It finally looks like that might be true.

There is no connection to microlenses.

What raw processor are you using? I would not say there is a lack of sharpness with processing Canon files with Raw Developer.

Doyle

I guess Tony is referring to the detrimental effect difraction has on actual system resolution. It is reasonable to expect that difraction will raise its head earlier than on cameras with larger pixel pitch. We will just have to wait and see if the difference will be noticeable.

Your statement is exceedling far from the truth. For landscapes, MP matters. Lots.

Or perhaps you just print 4" x 6" prints?

What does F11 have to do with resolution and/or MP?

Nothing, unless a caca lense provides too early diffraction, yea? Usually that happens at F16 or down from there, lens depending.

For landscapes, one cannot get enough MP. Of course DR is more important, but lets not throw the MP out with the bathwater.

By the way at 16" x 20" prints, you will see a difference between 40D & 50D.

You may be an expert in caca issues, but you need to catch up a bit regarding diffraction.

Perhaps you need to catch up on how MP, and sensor size can benefit landscapes, and how they effect enlargements ;-)

In other words, MP does in fact matter.

I usually use DPP though I have used Raw developer and it is really very good, though DPP is only a hair away from it. I still find sharpness to be lacking though for the look I want. You should see a phase P21 file with Raw developer.

I did not mention MP at all. In fact, higher MP is making diffraction worse. Judged from the 40D, diffraction will be strongly noticable on the 50D already at f/11.

How about we wait for the thing to come out and we'll see some tests eh? These hypothetical pseudo-scientific discussions get a little tiresome.

You should simply ignore the subjects you don't understand.

I couldn't agree more! It is amazing how we can take the fun and excitement out of a new product announcement by speculating about how crappy it is going to be based upon "hypothetical pseudo-scientific" criteria. (Great term woof75)

There are lots of great features that we can discuss in a more deterministic way.

I am pleased to see a higher resolution LCD. I have always thought that great displays go a long way to improving usability of a product, whether it is a phone, laptop, TV, or a camera.

The micro-focus feature looks really cool too. The ability to calibrate my lenses to my body could improve focus results, particularly for things like macro or other very shallow depth of field applications.

I am using a 30D and perhaps the most desirable feature to me is the viewfinder display of the ISO. I can't tell you how many times I have accidentally shot at too high an ISO. ( I know that was in the 40D.)

Adjustable noise reduction sounds good, especially if I am shooting jpg candids that I don't intend to post-process.

It appears that with the custom menus the user will be able to move the mirror lockup function farther up out of the bowels of the menu-system....I guess that is progress.

I'm betting its main use will be by idiots who will screw with it for days and weeks before resetting it to 0.


You can do that on the 40D. But turning live view on serves much the same purpose as MLU with the added advantage that you can pick the opportune time to hit the shutter.

I do and you should too.

The optimism around here is positively infectious.

Another feature that I like the sound of is the ability to take smaller RAW images, particularly if it is part of a tradeoff with very high ISOs. If I am taking indoor, nighttime, available-light photos, I am very willing to lower the resolution to have an image with lower noise. Sounds like a trade I would take any day. I can see using this for family gatherings or events with my 50 f/1.4 when I am using my camera in a completely different modality than when I hike in the wilderness with a long lens and a tripod. This gives the camera a split-personality that I think increases flexibility.

Highlight tone priority is another one that has me curious. I can see looking at a snow-scene or a waterfall and thinking that I want to get the whites perfect and let everything else fall where it will. That might produce some decent results.

I will assume that this new camera will build upon the success of the 40D quality until we have image samples that prove it is inferior. Otherwise, all we have is a case of preemptive, premature pixel-peeping.

I'm not going to assume anything about it. I need to see reviews of this one.

While the 50D looks like a VERY nice camera, I can assure you that you'll be treading into diffraction limited waters once near or past F/8 and purely from a resolution standpoint, if you shot the 40D and 50D at F/11, you'd quite likely end up with about the same overall resolution simply because of the pixel pitch of the higher MP sensor in the same APS-C space. Has nothing to do with the lens at this point.

I shoot on the other side (Nikon) with the D2X and can absolutely tell you that F/11 is the limit (probably more like F/10 if you're really critical) before diffraction robs you of sharpness - and that's with some of the very best glass Nikon makes (200/2 VR, etc), so it's not the glass - it's the pixel pitch of the sensor. This is commonly known - I'm not just talking out of my head or making something up to slam a competing brand. If Nikon comes out with a 15mp DX framed camera I'd be saying the exact same thing - in the cropped sensor, 12mp is about the sweet spot for a landscape shooter IMO.

So that's the big problem - not just with Canon, but with anyone (Nikon, Pentax, whomever) who is trying to move beyond about 12mp on a DX/APS-C cropped sensor - the pixel pitch is getting too bloody small and diffraction rears it's ugly head.

And we won't get into the higher demands on the lenses (you think the less-than-spectacular Canon wide zooms are going to shine on a 50D?) and also focus accuracy and problems with subject/camera movement. High pixel density is nice *when* you get everything right, but it requires far more technical discipline out of the photographer and requires that everything in the "chain", from support system to aperture (that isn't in diffraction city) to focus to technique is optimized or you'll never realize the full megapixel capability fo the camera. And that's with any brand - again, I'm not just picking on Canon here.


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

Ultimately what I do hope is that Canon takes the sensor *technology* from the 50D and applies it in the 5D replacement. The thought of a FF camera that's affordable (relative to the 1ds-III) and maybe 18-20mp with a very nicely done sensor is somewhat of a holy grail amongst landscape folks, I think. Such a beast won't be so problematic in terms of pixel density/diffraction problems, yet it still will have decent resolution, and hopefully have nice DR. That's preferable (getting the combination correct) versus just playing marketing megapixels...

YMMV of course.

-m

You don't need to wait for any camera to achieve the same. Simply reduce the exposure by one stop, that is namely what HTP does.

Or better, you can reduce the expoxure by 1/3 or 2/3 stop and lose less of the dynamic range.

Even better, you can change to a setting, which makes the in-camera histograms resembling the raw histograms; thus you can expose "perfectly" (the technic does not guarantee a correct exposure, it only guarantees, that you can *see if* the exposure was correct).

Obviously I can manually manipulate the exposure to get a perfect histogram. I do that already. This feature may make it a bit quicker and easier.

If I understand the idea, this is like looking at your photo and picking out a pure white location and metering that instead of finding something 17% gray and metering on that. By using the white reference instead of the 17% gray, you guarantee a well exposed image that generally follows the expose to the right rule.



I think you are over-simplifying. In some cases it might reduce the exposure, in others, it might increase the exposure.

I was one of the first analyzing the effect of HTP with the 40D on the unadultered raw data. There is nothing special about that: it simply reduces the effective ISO by one stop (that's the reason it does not work with ISO 100). As the exposure remains unchanged, this is equivalent to underexposing the shot by one stop. Of course the intention is not underexposure but prevention of overexposure.

HTP is for JPEG, not for raw.

Wow. This camera is really getting noticed. Right on the front page of google news from cnet:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-10025886-39.html

I thought my 40D was killer deal... especially at f/8, on tripod, MLU and timer, bracket exposure, pan and stitch up to 6 shots together to create a monster 40" print of some 50-60 MP.

I guess with 12500 ISO I can tape shut the flash door.

15MP on an APS-C sensor? Isn't that overkill? Didn't Canon learn their lesson with the 1DSMK3?

My guess is as long as the manufacturers can convince the lemmings they need more megapixels, they'll continue down this silly path, while real improvements will trickle in slowly.

I'm one of the Lemmings, the 1DsmkIII is a cracking camera and yes I'd have more pixels if they were available. The 1DsmkIII 21mp work really well.

Kevin.

The highest real ISO of the 40D is 1600. The 50D may get 3200, but 6400 and 12800 will be faked, i.e. almost the same as to boosting the "exposure" in post processing (but the fake ISOs are reducing the DR). The Nikon D3 with much larger pixels goes up to 6400.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials...photography.htm

Read and learn, and then you can do what Thom Hogan and others (including myself) have done, and do comparisons between various pixel pitch DSLRs at various apertures and see for yourself.



As you can see, a 12 MP DSLR was reduced to no better than a 6 MP DSLR at f/16; I'm not sure why the 12 MP DSLR pulls ahead at f/22 (probably a smoother shutter), but since they both look like crap I hardly care.

As recently as today, Thom Hogan has posted at DPR on this very topic: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29080207



You must have done direct comparisons to make such a bold statement. Why do I think you are blowing smoke?

The issue will be at f/11, and I will bet you that at f/8 you will see an improvement but at f/11 the 40D will pull even with the 50D because the 50D will have become diffraction limited at f/8.

Tell Canon.

(From PDN interview with Chuck Westfall...)

Westfall said one of the keys about the 50D is its enhanced noise reduction which is "a stop to a stop and half better than the 40D."

"Despite the fact that the pixels are smaller and one camera has a 10.1MP sensor and the other has a 15.1MP sensor, you'd think you'd have more noise but you have less," he said. "The end result is better image quality all around which allows us to extend the ISO range to 12800.

The 50D is able to achieve this because of new "gapless microlenses" on the image sensor which capture more light and generate less noise.

"It's the further evolution of a concept we've already explored. It's gotten to the point where the microlenses are totally gapless and larger which produces the best efficency on a per pixel basis. Consequently the light senstiviy portion of the pixel has increased while the non-light sensitive protion of the pixel has been shrunk down," he said. "Another part of the reason you have a cleaner signal coming out is DIGIC 4 is considerable more powerful than the DIGIC 3 and offers better noise reduction."

This is all right, but it does not translate in higher dynamic range. Capturing more light in the same time causes a shift on the ISO scale: the number of photons required can be collected in shorter time - BUT the wells will become full sooner as well. In other words, not only the lower but the higher end of the dynamic range moves as well.

In order to increase the dynamic range, either the well capacity has to be increased or the required number of photons decreased; none of these has to do with microlenses. It is like with the aperture: a larger aperture allows capturing the required number of photons in shorter time, while at the same time saturation too will occur in shorter time.

Since there is more absolute DR than there is useful DR (in all the DSLRs I'm aware of), noise is a more limiting factor than well capacity.

All true, but we will be close to that soon with FX too.

The fact is that we are at levels of resolution on "small sensors" that is such that it now clearly impossible to get both a lot of DoF and very good sharpness.

The only 2 options are:

1. T/S lenses
2. Digital DoF stacking.

I have been using 2. for years and it works a treat for landscape work.

As far as the 50D goes, I personnally welcome Canon's willingness to keep pushing the DX enveloppe further. The need to use f8 to shoot at optimal sharpness is not a problem in itself. You will still always have a better sharpness/DoF compromise with DX than with FX.

As mentioned above though, my personnal feeling is that it would have been better to push the DX enveloppe towards more DR at same pixel count, but this opinion is not derived from the fact that more pixels mean more diffraction.

Cheers,
Bernard

The dynamic range, as its name suggests, has to "ends". Neither end is more limiting than the oder, for the range is the distance between these ends.

Anyway, if Canon in fact could enhance the noise characteristics of the sensor, that increases the dynamic range. However, that has nothing to do with the microlenses.

There should be no such things as "DR" and "useful DR". If DR is not useful then the definition of DR in terms of the level of noise in the shadows from which there is no detail is wrong.

DR is often confused with highlight rollout.

The recent sensors, at least from Nikon that I know better, are doing a much better job at having a smooth transition to blown out areas. This is not the result of more DR, but is the result of a better sensor design coupled with more bits to handle the very bright parts of the image.

DR shows mostly in the shadows of most DSLRs (the onlyt exception being the Fuji S5) in terms of how much you can lighten up the shadows without getting un-acceptable noise.

Cheers,
Bernard

There is no "smooth transition" to pixel saturation. The sensors of the Nikon cameras do not behave differently from any other: the recorded pixel values are linear (if one adjusts for a floating start), up to the saturation.

However, the camera's software or the raw conversion can cause such an effect; see HTP with Canons, and I think Active Daylight is doing something similar (though it does not seem to reduce the ISO as HTP does).


When I am stating, that I am not interested for the highlights when measuring the DR, only for the very deep shadows, some people think I am joking. I need only a very dark shot (with suitable subjects) to measure the DR.

I'll have to disagree with you on this one.

The sensor technology does clearly influence the way subtely different very bright illuminations level are translated into RGB values.

Cheers,
Bernard

Let's take it one more time, from the top, with the important portions of the Canon statement highlighed for emphasis:

Westfall said one of the keys about the 50D is its enhanced noise reduction which is "a stop to a stop and half better than the 40D."

"Despite the fact that the pixels are smaller and one camera has a 10.1MP sensor and the other has a 15.1MP sensor, you'd think you'd have more noise but you have less," he said. "The end result is better image quality all around which allows us to extend the ISO range to 12800.

The 50D is able to achieve this because of new "gapless microlenses" on the image sensor which capture more light and generate less noise.

"It's the further evolution of a concept we've already explored. It's gotten to the point where the microlenses are totally gapless and larger which produces the best efficency on a per pixel basis. Consequently the light sensitive portion of the pixel has increased while the non-light sensitive portion of the pixel has been shrunk down," he said.


Gapless microlense => larger pixel possible => bigger well + higher SNR;

Bigger well + higher SNR => greater dynamic range;

=> Canon's new "gapless microlense" sensor (presumably) has greater dynamic range.

(Let's play "connect the dots.")

Well, different photographers define the DR they are willing to use coming from the same camera differently. Ironically, they also define useful ISO differently -- that's because ISO and DR are essentially the same issue, which is how much noise is acceptable to you and that cannot be quantified whereas absolute DR can be quantified.

There is no such thing. The sensors' output is strictly linear (disturbed somewhat by the noise).

See the attached captures from a D3 shot of a Stouffer wedge. The strips are roughly 1/3 stop apart, this is visible on the histogram as well. The next captures show the average pixel values on a selected spot of adjacent strips. You only need to divide the pixel values to see the scheme.

Sidenote: the raw pixel values are not RGB. They could be characterized as Rgb, Grb, Brg.

I don't know why the captures do not appear in the sequence I uploaded them. The sequence of the numbered strips are 4, 5, 6, 7, starting from the brightest one.