to 50d or not to 50d?

I have an xti (400d) I do not need more fps. What I would like are two improvements. 1- good iso higher than 1600, since this doesn't really cut it with the xti. If post processing renders decent results - no problem.(I sometimes take shots at concerts or other events in less than ideal light, but #2 is more important) and 2., the more important one, the ability to print up to 13x19 as sharp as possible (I have a canon i9900). Taking into consideration that it seems I need to shoot what I do - mostly flowers, at f 25 (under very controlled conditions with good lenses)- because I try to get interesting angles, other than flat on - which is why I've decided that the 90tse lens is not what I'm looking for-. So is the 50d a significant improvement over the 400d in this instance. My instinct hints that it should be because of the higher pixels (15mp compared to 10mp sensor) which should make a larger image which can then be down sized to print. I know the 400d was an improvement over the 300d, which I still have. I don't like adding new equipment and accumulating old ones unless there is a real advantage to it.

I hope I've made my query clear. What I'm looking for is for someone to tell me yes, I've tried this and there is a significant difference or no, there really is not that much difference. I know there are other nice features with the 50d - but I need to know the end results.

Hope this is not asking too much.

Also, while you're here--I am currently using CS with a canon xti, canon 100mm macro, Shoot in faithful or raw, and get pretty good results sharpening in usm. But, could be better. Would there be a significant difference in cs4 (or cs3 for that matter) in sharpening capabilities? Thanks

See the discussion on this in the thread in the General Discussion forum--LJP

http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=36290&CGISESSID=112922eedfc8e2cf324ed6458cd7dda7&u=8856

thanks Larry - good info, but doesn't make comparison with xti. Anybody know about this?

One of the photo sites mentioned in the thread did compare the 50D to either the 400D or the 450, can't remember which. You basically need to read them all anyway. Also the comparison site at http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras allows you to compare various cameras--LJP

I haven't tried either camera, but given the subject matter is macro closeups of flowers, I would assume that there would be little visual difference in a 13x19. There might be more noticeable difference in a landscape photo that has a lot of small details like gazillions of different blades of grass.

I currently have the 50D, and have had the XT.
The biggest things I have found is the high ISO is much better, and Focusing is much better in low lighting. I think you will notice a large improvement. I have gone from the 30D to the 50D and I have noticed the high ISO is MUCH better. I have found ISO 1600 about the same as the 30D ISO 800. To me that is a big deal, and is the main reason I upgraded. Hope this helps.

Tracy, which in-camera noise reduction setting did you use in the 50D to arrive at that comparison with the 30D? I've shot the 30D for quite awhile, and have also borrowed a 50D a number of times and shot a lot with the in-camera NR on "strong" with great results.

Steve, how high did you go with the ISO settings when doing your tests? Also did you use the strong NR setting all the time or just at high ISO? Did you try various combinations of NR and ISO? Are there any negatives to using the NR on anything other than standard? Thanks--Larry

Larry, I've only borrowed the 50D a couple of times, and ran in-camera NR on "strong" for all iso settings. I also only ran them up to iso 6400. As for negatives to in-camera NR, I can't answer that question. In pixel peeping, they looked very good compared with the 30D and 5D, but pixel peeping really doesn't matter much, and is a bad way to compare IQ. It's the prints that matter the most, and what you see when pixel peeping often doesn't translate to prints.

I haven't experimented with large comparison prints yet, and probably won't bother before deciding whether to pick up a 50D or a used 5D. So many of these differences are small differences magnified in our own minds (photographers must be the pickiest people in the universe), and I have no doubt at all the the 50D will make wonderful prints. I have a friend who is a sports shooter, and he's printed large posters from the 50D at iso3200 and 6400 with NR on "strong" and says they look excellent.

Sorry, Greg. While this may seem a bit off topic from your OP, I think it has some bearing.

I made the upgrade from the xti to the 50d, and I'm very happy I did.

Overall the camera is just a much nicer piece of equipment, and I love the liveview feature with the 50d.

I don't do much high ISO shooting, but I did play around with it a little bit. Seems quite a bit better with the settings on strong over the xti. For me I didn't like to have the xti any higher than iso100 or I started noticing noise...

To me the upgrade was well worth it.

From what I've read, the 50D is a step backwards with high ISO because it crammed more pixels onto the sensor. The problem with using NR set to high is you quickly begin to lose detail in your shots. You are wise to research before buying. I usualy wait about six months before buying a new model to make sure there aren't any bugs, and to get a better price.


Kent in SD

Kent--I've been reading every test/review I can find and I think the general opinion is the opposite--Canon did get more pixels in but they managed to do it without degrading IQ. This was partially accomplished by going to no-gap microlenses over each sensor receptor thus increasing the amount of light going to each one. So even though the amount of light exposed on the full sensor is about the same since the sensor size remained about the same, more light is captured than in the past when it fell in the gaps between sensor element microlenses. Also the NR algorithms at low to moderate ISO do a very good job and the high setting at the upper ISO settings can make an otherwise impossible shot possible. Some photographers report even printing acceptable poster sized images shot at high ISO.

In reading all these tests/reviews you have to really dig in there since they often try for an "even playing field" between cameras and don't use the full strength NR or the best quality lenses, etc. which actually ends up favoring the lower Megapixel camera over the 50D. When I first started looking at this last week I was firmly in the buy the 5D camp but now have switched to the 50D. However I do agree that waiting will get you a better price and maybe a firmware upgrade. My problem is that I need the tax deduction this year to offset book royalties, so hopefully they'll drop prices a little more in the next month--Larry

Hi Steve Foss,
I used the "standard" setting and it worked quite well, if you give me your email address I can send you a few photos I took.

Hi Steve Foss,
I used the "standard" setting and it worked quite well, if you give me your email address I can send you a few photos I took.
My email address is: thope3@hotmail.com

I would post a photo on this site, but I am not sure how to do it.

Hi all and thanks
This has been a fascinating discussion and I want to thank all who have contributed. I think after ll this that the 50 d will be the next upgrade - just not quite yet. Had to upgrade computer and will get cs4 so will see how that affects end products with the xti, but will probably wait awhile anyway for the inevitable price drop. (right before canon introduces something else to drool over..)
I think this post on a different thread finally answers my query definitively.
I think David gave the perfect answer to the question. Before deciding to upgrade from the 400D to the 50D, I was a bit worried about the noise level of that incredibly dense sensor. I was quite happy with the image quality of the 400D at 100 Iso, where this camera is virtually visible noise free thanks to the reduced density. Fortunately I had the opportunity to get the camera in my hands before buy it, and decided to make some print just to compare the two IQs. I did a very simple test, I shot the same picture with the same lens with the two cameras. Then I reduced the size of the 50D file to match the size of the 400D, and finally I printed exactly the same 100% crop of the images on a A4 inkjet printer. Just after the test, I had clear in my mind that the 50D was an amazing photo tool, and decided to buy it right away.
The point is really very simple: if you investigate at 100% an image made with a 50D and one made with a 400D (or 40D, 30D, etc.) you will probably notice more noise and/or soften edges by diffraction, if that's the case. But that's an unfair comparison, as it is just as you were checking two prints, one with a 10x loupe, and the other with a 15x loupe.
Put the two pictures on a par, and you'll clearly see who wins.


Paolo
Paolo De Faveri
Turin, Italy
http://www.paolodefaveri.com

Cheers,
Greg

Greg - Given that you're trying to shoot at f/25, even with your 400D you may be seeing diffraction effects. You could try testing that to see how much effect their is, by shooting a flat, highly detailed target of some kind (well lit dollar bills work well). Shoot at, say, f/8, f/16, f/22, f/25, and compare.

If diffraction is hurting, one thing that might give you better results than a new camera is to try focus stacking. I'm not sure if you're familiar, and I don't have much experience myself. But it would let you take multiple photos at optimum aperture with different focal points and combine them for more DOF. CS4 can do this built-in, and there are third party programs too (Helicon Focus is the primary one).