Hey, this image quality sucks!
Oh...
Oh. (It's ISO 3200.)
(Canon 50D samples at digitaldreams.com.)
______________________
Mike
Featured Comment by Mike Peters: "Pretty darn good when you consider that they were shot with a lens that is marginal at best, the 28–105 ƒ/3.4–4.5 zoom. If they had used a lens that actually could resolve a bit more detail it might even be more impressive."
What does that equate to in a full 24x36mm format? If my maths correct it's pretty spectacular and at a price point less than $1500 to boot..........
You want to see image quality that sucks (at 100%), check out my film scans and what's $1500 worth, 150 rolls of film ;-)
Nice job Canon!
Posted by: Chris Gibbs - Alaska | Monday, 15 September 2008 at 12:38 AM
And even at ISO 12800 after a quick run through Neat Image with default settings and then given a bit of advanced sharpening in picture window pro. What will the 5D MkII produce?
Posted by: Andrew | Monday, 15 September 2008 at 02:38 AM
Borrowed a second hand 5D for a wedding last Saturday- blown away by the quality compared to my trusty 20D and 30D using 24-105-seemed like the perfect wedding combo - I was just about to plonk a deposit down on it, and now you've thrown me completely! Will a new 50D last longer than a second-hand 5D with 30K shots on it???? Will live view be useful? will sensor dust supression be worth it? Is the Pope a Catholic? Darn you Mike J- you've thrown me into complete chaos!
Posted by: Bruce | Monday, 15 September 2008 at 02:53 AM
Wow! I have tried to stay away from the pixel peeping crowd and this example gives a great visual as to why. Best lesson of the day in two images. Thanks
Posted by: Brian | Monday, 15 September 2008 at 06:24 AM
The 50D seems to be another winner from Canon. Regarding Mike Peters' backhanded comment about the EF28-135: I am never surprised to see people bash this lens while, at the same time, they display or point to an image that looks like it was taken with a very good lens. IMO, the 28-135 is not just good value for the money, it is a very capable optic.
Cheers! Jay
Posted by: Jay Frew | Monday, 15 September 2008 at 07:39 AM
Jay, I'm with you on the 28-135. It's great. Mike was dissing the 28-105, but I'd guess he feels the same toward the 28-135 given it's in the same price class. Like you, I find it to be a capable performer, and it's helped me make a lot of wonderful photos.
And man, that 50D looks nice...I still love the 40D, though.
Posted by: ZB | Monday, 15 September 2008 at 08:55 AM
Contrary to Mike Peters, that 28-105 is one of the few gems in Canons consumer line and also the cheapest ring-type USM lens Canon makes, it's the slower f4-5.6 version that is the dog.
Posted by: Adam Maas | Monday, 15 September 2008 at 09:01 AM
Silly rabbit, it's not the pixels that make this image suck, it's the composition! What lens would improve that? ;)
Posted by: Scott | Monday, 15 September 2008 at 09:16 AM
I'd rather have a full-frame 5D than any crop factor camera any day of the week.
Posted by: Stephen Scharf | Monday, 15 September 2008 at 02:08 PM
Obviously, I let my poor reading and comprehension skills come to the fore on that one. Wrong lens notwithstanding, the sentiment is the same.
;~))
Cheers! Jay
Posted by: Jay Frew | Monday, 15 September 2008 at 08:39 PM