Why do 50D images look soft

[arith]

I'm looking for a new camera possibly old and the current XXD looks the business until I saw some pics; do they look soft?

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/re...ples/slideshow

Compared with an EOS 1D MKII

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/re...ples/slideshow

I don't think the resolution of the 1D is actually more than my 10D, and I'm quite sure I can get sharper pics out of my 10D than the 50D. If it wasn't 2" too big I would go for the 1D MKII which is a lot cheaper than a 5D MKI if excellent ++ condition.

[Colin Southern]

Hi Steve,

Assuming accurate focus (which both cameras are more than capable of under normal situations) then image sharpness really comes down to lens quality and sharpening workflow ... nothing to do with camera model (assuming neither is faulty).

The Canon 1D2 is digic II @ 8MP - still a great camera, but getting a bit long in the tooth now. If you're thinking of going the 1D way, can you stretch to a 1D3? - fantastic camera (I used to have one), and should be a lot cheaper now that the 1D4 is out.

[arith]

I was a bit surprised by the price Colin; I suspect it is all down to market forces but the 1.3X crop really looks interesting. The only thing that deters me is the size although it is no bigger than an XXD with a battery pack. My backpack isn't big enough

[Colin Southern]

Hi Steve,

I'm a bit surprised by the price of a Bugatti Veyron, when it has the same number of tyres and engines as my Ford Telstar

Seriously, it's a different league to the xxD series - you get "knock out a charging elephant and then photograph the unconscious beast" build quality - lightning fast AF (2 CPUs - one for lens drive, one for AF calculations, total weather sealing, dual media capability, 63 exposure zones, 45 AF points, LOTS more firmware options (too numerous to mention), about 1700 shots out of a battery, up to 10 FPS, and a lot more. Once you've owned one all the others just feel like toys.

... and, you can always buy a bigger backpack

[arith]

It would be great if I had the money Colin; Diffraction and the 50D, is that why the images look soft? So what is better a 5D MK1 or 1D MKII since I should explain that the 1D is mint- and actually cheaper than exc 5D , technical details mint- is like new except with very careful examination.

I was thinking since the pixel pitch is the same for both cameras, they have the same diffraction limitation.

I would like to get this right and if I had 1.5 thousand I would go for something newer. cheers

[rpcrowe]

Are you shooting in RAW? What is your post processing procedure. I was having problems with most of my images from a recent China trip. The weather was extremely drab and dull and I tried to boost the "punch" by over-using the "clarity slider" after opening the raw image. This actually made my images softer and dull. I also did not sharpen and use noise reduction in the right order which resulted in muddy looking images.

Colin advised me to sharpen in two stages: first using the unsharp mask at 250% and .3 pixels and then finally 120% with 2-6 pixel range. My image quality increased 100%. I also now use noise reduction as my last step in ost processing which also seems to help quite a bit.

[Colin Southern]

It would be great if I had the money Colin; Diffraction and the 50D, is that why the images look soft? So what is better a 5D MK1 or 1D MKII since I should explain that the 1D is mint- and actually cheaper than exc 5D , technical details mint- is like new except with very careful examination.

I was thinking since the pixel pitch is the same for both cameras, they have the same diffraction limitation.

I would like to get this right and if I had 1.5 thousand I would go for something newer. cheers

Steve,

My advice is to just ignore diffraction - it's only going to be an issue if you need an image to be tack sharp when printed 2 feet high, and 3 feet wide (literally). Post-procesing will have 20 times more effect on sharpness over diffraction if you're only printing or displaying at a relatively small size and/or resolution.

[William W]

Diffraction and the 50D, is that why the images look soft?

Well the two sets of pictures are kind of like comparing Grapefruit with Seafood:

Tv is all over the shop – was a tripod used –were they hand held ? ? ?

FL is all over the shop most - are with zoom lenses, many of the 50D are with (relatively) longer lenses.

And the close-up of the swimmer (at 38mm), well if that is Full Frame Crop it has about 5” DoF . . . and if they are hot lights ("No Flash Fired" on EXIF) then, is there Subject Movement? ? ?

And how are they all post processed? and by whom – different people? ? ? different methods ? ? ?

And the lighting is all over the shop too.

***

The best A/B scenario I could come up with, are the two scenes (of London I believe).

I have no idea what the rules are (Colin? Dave?) but I have the sample A/B in my computer and I did not want to post it . . .

At pixel peeping at similarly lit areas, in similar parts of the frame the 50D actually looks a bit sharper – but that means nothing – the other shot could be ½ underexposed and not Post Processed using CSM.

My opinion is you should buy the camera you want for whatever aspects you want in it – but forget this Diffraction Stuff for choosing a Camera of those calibres . . . and if you want serious A/B comparisons then you need A/B comparisons, not a set of random samples of pretty pictures.

WW

[arith]

Your right William. The 5D will expand my photographic range as would the 1D but the 50D is just a newer version of what I've already got, nothing exciting or new in it apart from an RGB histogram, no more guessing, and better weather sealing. It is no doubt a much finer instrument than my 10D but I want low noise high ev span performance.

But the 50D has a usable ev span of 8.4 ev so it is not bad, so I still don't know cheers

[Dave Humphries]

I have no idea what the rules are (Colin? Dave?) but I have the sample A/B in my computer and I did not want to post it . . .

That's something we have been discussing behind the scenes recently and we're going to come up with some guidelines and put them on FAQ - in due course - days jobs, other CiC duties and ones own photography permitting

My thoughts are that as long as no one is making a commercial gain from it (that's pretty much a given here at CiC) and assuming they are here for instructional use; then any third party images used should (ideally) be photographer name credited and/or hyperlinked back to their source website.

Used sparingly, I don't think that's a problem, obviously if admin/mods see anything we think goes over the line, we'll act accordingly.

Cheers,

[Jim B.]

Hi Steve,
I own both a 50D and a 5DII.The 50D is not a forgiving camera if you underexpose shots,but does very well when you get it right.I shoot at and above 400 ISO alot.What noise I do get in images is easily dealt with through NR software.Noise Ninja and Neat image have camera profiles that work extremely well.

The 5DII is definitely a step up when it comes to noise.I wouldn't hesitate shooting above 800 ISO with the 5DII.

I agree with Colin,I think soft image examples more times than not are due to sharpening technique or the lack of sharpening.

[arith]

I've decided to go for 5D MK1 which has 2200 LW/PH the same as the 50D until this time next week, and if I don't get one at the right price I will go for a brand new 50D with the money back is actually cheaper. Cheers Jim

ps I did see a 1Ds Mark III brand new going for £1700, the seller reckons it is a replacement after a long legal wrangle with canon over a faulty AF, but no longer wants it. It is on a well known auction site but I haven't got that kind of dosh.

[Colin Southern]

But the 50D has a usable ev span of 8.4 ev so it is not bad, so I still don't know cheers

Not sure what you're meaning here Steve - if by EV span you're talking about Dynamic Range, then the 50D is 10.94 at lowest measured ISO, which is pretty typical of all modern DSLRs.

[Colin Southern]

I've decided to go for 5D MK1 which has 2200 LW/PH the same as the 50D until this time next week

Hi Steve,

To be honest mate, this just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The 5D was a great camera, but it's basically the full frame equivalent of a 20D (same technology - Digic II). I'd take a 50D over a 5D any day of the week, including weekends and public holidays.

[arith]

Cheers Colin I know. But I thought it would be nice to have a full frame since lenses need not be so wide and therefore suffer so much from distortion and CA. Both my prime lenses are above nyquist frequency of a 5D and I found out whilst the f1.4 50mm is crap for a 1.6 crop it is actually fantastic for a full frame. So I could get a !.5X or 2X thingy to go with a f1.4 and my 28mm is very wide.

But I might just end up with a 50D since I aint paying silly money for an old camera, and I have never won an auction since I object to paying over half new price except for lenses.

But I do think I'm going to end up with a 50D which means no full frame for a very long time, at least two years. Cheers, I won't feel so bad getting it.

[Colin Southern]

So I could get a !.5X or 2X thingy to go with a f1.4

Canon teleconverters are incompatible with the 50/1.4

Re: Full Frame ... it's usually not a big deal - it just means that you end up using, say, an 85mm lens whereas you would have had to use a 50mm lens on a 1.6x crop - and if you're a long shooter then you get to enjoy being further from the dangerous animal when you shoot it

[arith]

Canon teleconverters are incompatible with the 50/1.4

I didn't know that. Mmmm the most dangerous animal I shoot, take I mean is a duck with attitude and only because I don't want to carry a load of equipment and feel really lazy, I only do landscape and architecture.

Cheers Colin, I definitely have only a week to make my mind up since purchase tax is going up a lot soon.

ps I want my photo's to look professional in a short time and I thought that meant full format, since reading the wedding stuff I think I should as an amateur do just as good pics.

[Colin Southern]

ps I want my photo's to look professional in a short time and I thought that meant full format, since reading the wedding stuff I think I should as an amateur do just as good pics.

Hi Steve,

Full format can be a blessing or a curse, or make no difference. For landscape it doesn't make a lot of difference; for a given lens it reduces your field of view for a given lens but (a) even on a crop-factor camera your standard 16 or 17mm WA lens is still usually plenty wide enough and (b) you can get an EF-S lens that'll take you to the equivelent of a 16mm lens on a FF camera anyway.

In other situation FF can actually work against you ... because a FF camera has about a 1 stop narrower DoF you need to stop down around 1 more stop compared to a crop-factor camera to get the same DoF ... and that means you either need twice the light or you have to shoot at 1/2 the shutterspeed or twice the ISO.

I am a bit confused as to what you're planning on shooting though ... you mentioned "only landscape and architecture" but also referred to a "wedding thread and wanting professional results"; getting professional looking wedding shots is 85% understanding and controlling lighting, 13% lens quality, and about 2% camera selection.

[arith]

Cheers Colin

I couldn't do weddings anyway, it is just an example where FF is used. I want to progress to a point where it looks like my pics were taken by a professional, absolutely no difference and FF seems to have a smoother look about it. It just looks the business, and I was planning on keeping my 10D and using it for situations where FF might not be so good, such as telephoto stuff.

I've seen lots of wedding photo's while looking for a 5D or 1D and they are indeed impressive, but £200 and free prints, you must be jokin. I think more like £2000 and I wouldn't touch it without proper lighting, rules and an assistant who could use a spare camera.

You can hire medium format for only £5000 down and £300 per day, looks like a loser to me

[Colin Southern]

FF seems to have a smoother look about it. It just looks the business

Hi Steve,

It's not the camera. FF has a tighter DoF by about a stop (which isn't a big deal), but probably the biggest difference is that FF cameras are more expensive and on average, the people who own them probably demand a bigger return on their investment and are thus probably more experienced photographers. I don't want to sound negative and put you off - heck, I shoot FF myself - but I think you'll be disappointed if you're hoping for a dramatic increase in image quality; I've shot 1.6x crop - 1.3x crop - FF - and there's really no IQ difference.