How would you change Canon's EOS 50D?
By Darren Murph 
posted November 14th 2008 7:30PM
posted November 14th 2008 7:30PM
posted November 14th 2008 7:30PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I have been playing with mine for a month; and would change 3 things.
1.Slightly lower resolution for lower noise and less diffraction softness with slower lenses.
2. Auto ISO
Here's how I'd change the 50D:
1) Ability to accumulate frames in live-view so we can compose and focus darker scenes. For example, cut update rate in half and add each pair of frames - 2x as bright. Cut by 3, 3x as bright. etc. Or to put it another way, if the sensor can see it in 2 seconds, then we should be able to see it on the LCD in 2 seconds, as well.
2) Control illumination time of sub-LCD
3) Control shutter delay time (not just 2 or 10 seconds.. let me set some values)
4) Longer timed exposures than 30 seconds - this is really a PITA.
5) Higher ISO - even higher. No, higher than that. Plus more! (you can use stacking to reduce noise... there's no downside to the camera pushing the ISO higher... if you don't like it, just don't use it.)
6) Make DOF preview an operating mode, not just an extra button to press.
7) Microfocus: Allow us to manually focus at 1/10th normal rate. Sometimes speed isn't your friend.
8) Disable screen turn-on for dust-off; complete waste of energy and LCD lifespan. Every time you power up that back-light, the lifespan drops, "on" is the max-stress event for the LCD.
9) Keep a reference image for noise reduction. Save us some time per shot.
10) In-camera stabilizaation; why? Because many lenses DON'T HAVE IT!
11) Focus bracketing -- a feature that would save a million lost photos
12) Be nice to flip the IR filter out of the way...
13) Infrared remote for shutter trigger
14) Let us disable that bloody yellow LED! It scares my fish.
15) tilt sensor / artificial horizon like Nikon's - that's so sweet
16) GPS built-in
17) wifi built-in
18) Lower, slower, quieter ISO. 50. 25! 12.5!!!!
19) black mode knob (I hate that silver thing)
20) More buttons - direct selection of ISO, AF points, EV, drive, WB, exposure metering
21) deeper zoom on review and live view - give me more than 1:1 pixel
22) "Shoot when stable" motion detect to augment delayed shooting. When camera is still, fire immediately.
23) external power jack so we could use it in cold environments w/remote power w/o battery dying
24) Move the bloody LCD so it doesn't noseprint every time I use the optical viewfinder
25) Let me setup photographer name, etc, in camera with PASSWORD for theft protection and copyright. Use flash memory. Forget your password? Tough.
26) Enter notes for each image (wouldn't mind a standard KB jack, either, but any way is better than none)
27) More AF points at and near the center of the frame.
28) An option to buy the camera with a less dense sensor: Same camera, 10 mp would be great, and in this case, lower noise, higher ISOs.
18. Such low ISO settings might actually dip below the sensor's base sensitivity (which is considerable higher on APS sensors than compact ones). It could still be done, but at the cost of dynamic range.
23. You can technically do that. It just requires a cumbersome battery slot adapter.
Just lower the noise and make it full frame!
(I agree with the more AF points though!)
You can disable the yellow Bloody LED.
All you people hoping for a drastic price drop can forget it. The american economy is wallowing in their own shit and the japanese yen has appreciated.
I've been shooting with mine for a month, and for the most part I love it. Perhaps the only thing I would change or improve on is the high noise when shooting at high ISO. If it can somehow be fixed in firmware, great. Otherwise I just wish all camera manufacturers would just stop with the megapixel race. 12MP is plenty, just give us razor sharp images with no noise.
I didn't go with the kit lens, I went and bought a 24-70mm f2.8L USM with my 50D, and I am blown away by the shots I can get in the 100-800 ISO range, the few images I've taken at 1250 ISO are ok, but it starts getting noisy at 1600. Like I said, if they can fix this in the firmware this would be the best bang for the buck camera.
I love the coating on the LCD on the back, it makes wiping nose smudges off a real cinch. If it were possible to somehow move the eye piece to a different position as to reduce nose smudges it would have made it perfect.
I recommend the camera as a buy. Go 40D if you can't afford the 50D but the feature benefits of the 50D are worth the few hundred more in my opinion. Nikon D90 is gimmicky, if you really want video buy a video camera not a DSLR for shooting poor video.
Temple is correct I did mistakenly attribute the 51 point AF to the D90. It is in fact 11 point AF. My old brain is filled with too many facts that often get cross linked. I was thinking of the Nikon D300 thorugh D700 cameras. These Nikon's are in a different class by price and performance and should not be compared with the Nikon D90 & Canon D50. The Nikon I tried out was the Nikon D90.
The higher spec Nikon's, Canon's and L-Lenes come at a much higher price that can be justified if you are shooting professional sports, glossy national magazine covers, spreads or advertsing but not if you are shooting weddings and event photography on the weekends. In my humble opinion the a Canon 50D and few good non-L lenes are perfectly capable and acceptable for event photography where you might earn under six figures for your weekend efforts. If you're supporting yourself entirely with photography then the cost of the higher spec professional cameras might be warranted if you really need the full size sensor, speed and metering capabilities. However, unless you are making over six figures shooting I'd still question the investment in the pro gear.
Those of us that are old enough to have worked using analog cameras and hand held meters got along pretty well before all the whiz bang computer marvels that the current generation of DSLR offers. However, one cannot deny the benefits the computer processor has brought with its' ease of use, speed and accuracy of the new digital technology. It surely has allowed many individuals who don't possess the technical knowledge and skill to enter the field and attain a level of success that affords them the opportunity to make money with photography.
The main benefits for an old guy like me is that as my eyes have begun to lose their ability to focus quickly the autofocus of the DSLR has kept me in the game. Metering, multiple creative modes, and six frames a second are all nice but not necessary for someone who knows their craft and doesn't shoot sports. The single biggest advantage of digital cameras is capturing an image without film and being able to process images in Adobe Photoshop. In my practice Photoshop and autofocus are the single most important things that have come along and are truely useful to me. None of the other advancements in DSLR technology have made my images better or have increased my profits.
Most of us old guys never envisioned we'd ever have such highly computerized cameras and most of us don't use all the capabilities these cameras contain. Ultimately it's always the image that must have aesthetic value and not the camera and the over the top qualities that are offered in the $2000.00 + camera bodies. My advice is don't be seduced by the technical specifications of a camera. Buy the camera that does the job for you regardless if it's considered a "professional" camera, a prosumer or a consumer unit. Most photographers, and photo hobbiests over buy when they purchase a camera and lens. If your aren't using your L lenes every week then you've likely over bought. Just hoping to save some folks some money not trying to convert anyone here.
Just my opinion :-)
I'm not into photography and don't own a camera (the thing on my phone doesn't count)
However I just wanted to say that I really enjoy reading intelligent, well thought out comments such as the one made above by EyeSpyU.
Thanks for raising the level of comments around here.
That was probably the most well thought out comment I've seen in a long time, EyeSpy.
For me, I frequently shoot in Manual mode. The Rebels can do it, but it's easier to make adjustments with a thumb wheel. I struggled with their buttons for a few years, and now made the plunge. The peripheral illumination was another plus as the 17-40 f4 is on my camera about 40% of the time.
I didn't consider the 5D/5D II because:
- I am not a professional, just a woman with a hobby
- the cost
- no pop up flash (with a $5 diffuser it's a very useful tool)
- no Basic modes (sometimes you just want to snap)
Since I rarely shoot indoors, high ISO shouldn't be much of an issue, so when my local pro shop had a great deal on a 50D body, I jumped.
I do wish Canon had used those new light gathering microlenses on a 10 or 12 megapixel sensor. I wish it weighed a little less, that I could use a few of my Rebel gadgets, like the cabled trigger release, with it and the neck strap had a bit less messaging. It should also come in pretty colors, like pink (kidding!!!!).
Hopefully Santa will remember that I have been a good girl this year. I've been very very good, EF 24-70 f2.8 good.
I'd return it for a 450D XSi and save my money for good lenses.....wait I did that already.
This is the correct answer.
-More AF Points
-Fully Weather Sealed
-Lower Noise (resolution is definitely a factor in this)
-Lighter and perhaps more compact
-Larger Viewfinder (if that's even possible on a crop body)
-HD Movie Mode
- a better way to protect the screen (Nikon uses those screen protectors... but ideally it could even be a swivelling LCD)
- Better/Faster Live View AF
- Longer Shutter Life (More Actuations)
My assumption is that movie Mode and probably AF will be updated come the 50D's successor.. I can only hope they do the rest.
I don't understand the point of these expensive crop sensor DSLRs. If you want to take serious pictures, you're going to get a 5D or better because it has a superior sensor. Period. If you want to get a basic DSLR, you're going to get the Rebel or the equivalent from Nikon/Oly/Pentax, and spend the savings over the 50D on glass. It seems like the 50D is made for someone with more money than knowledge of photography.
I'd take the Rebel and some quality glass over the 50D and janky kit lens any day of the week.
BS. There are a lot of reasons why an APS-C sensor is nice.
1) Smaller, cheaper lenses and lighter bodies. What's a Sigma 10-20 cost, compared to a Canon 17-40? The Sigma is arguably sharper, too!
2) More reach for sports/wildlife photography. I see _plenty_ of pros shooting Big 10 football with XXD bodies.
3) Real controls as opposed to the crippled interface of the rebels. This is probably the biggest one.
4) Lower cost and faster product replacement cycles
5) Pro features like micro lens adjustments, replaceable focusing screens, etc.
Finally, several reviewers stated quite clearly that they preferred the 40D to the 5D Mk I back when it came out. A couple of wedding photogs I know gave up the 5D for the 40D when it landed. For 90% of photography, you're simply not going to be able to tell what sensor captured the image. Personally, I can't tell you when I'm looking at an image captured on an old 300D vs. a new 1DS Mk III, unless I'm able to view the files at 100% and it was shot above ISO 400.
No, THIS is the correct answer :)
I meant Barry is correct....not this Patrick Austin guy who talked his way into the making Barry's point. It's all about the glass.
This is in response to the comment about sticking with Canon/Nikon rather than Sony..... When I was shopping for my first entry level DSLR I too also though that it was either Nikon/Canon... I was dead wrong, the entry level Sony DSLR are as good if not better than the entry level Nikon/Canon's. I recently purchased a Sony A300 and cannot be happier, I upgraded the glass to a Sigam 17-70 2.8-4.5 and absolutely love it. Get out of the dark with that mentality that Canon/Nikon is the only game, Sony has come out with some incredible DSLR's. Now that Canon/Nikon have some better competition in the entry level arena maybe Canon/Nikon will step up their quality entry level DSLR's.
It just really worries me that Canon feels the pressure to keep upping the resolution when the sensor size never changes. I have a Rebel XTi and I love it, but have been eying the 40D because of its more robust design and newer image processor. I think that the 50D really was an unnecessary upgrade in Canon's line, especially in light of the 5D Mark I going for almost the same price, and Nikon's D90 going cheaper. Like the Rebel XS, I don't think the 50D really has a place in Canon's lineup so much as to try to keep the photo world on its toes between major innovations.
My friend also shoots with Canon and he commented that Canon has really dropped the ball in recent years marketing to the low end. They made history with the first sub $1000 DSLRs and they sold like hotcakes, but their glass, accessories, flashes, etc, continue to be more expensive than Nikon's. Even their Rebel XS kit which was supposed to be super low-end (in a few ways almost inferior to the XTi) costs MORE than a lot of XTi kits and certainly more than Nikon's entry level.
24P framerate and 9 stop auto bracketing for shooting HDRI. If the 5d had these options id buy one tomorrow.
So I have read all of these comments, If I have a 30D, is the 50D a good upgrade?
The low light, noise etc that you guys speak of, is it worse than the 30D or just worse than the 40D?
Anyone have a side by side comparison of 30D to 50D without opinions that involve silver knobs, lenses and such.
I'd like to see the 50D have a larger range for bracketed exposures. Right now it is +/- 2 stops, I'd like to see it up to four stops in either direction. I sometimes shoot HDR, or High Dynamic Range, images, which use special software to bring together multiple exposures of the same scene with remarkable results. HDR brings tremendous clarity and detail to what might normally be under- or over-exposed areas of an image.